This unfortunate situation was largely the result of opposition, which its ships and factors had encountered from the Dutch West India Company on the coast of Guinea. For a long time this opposition bade fair to prevent the company from obtaining a share in the African trade. In view of this situation the king dispatched Sir Robert Holmes upon a second expedition to Africa in 1663 with orders to protect the company's rights. As a further means of encouragement Charles II ordered all gold imported from Africa by the Royal Company to be coined with an elephant on one side, as a mark of distinction from the coins then prevalent in England.151 These coins were called "Guineas"; they served to increase the reputation and prestige of the company. Moreover, the king with many of his courtiers made important additions to their stock in the third and fourth subscriptions.152
From September 4, 1663, to the following March there are no records of the company, but a petition of the adventurers to the king in March, 1664,153 shows that notwithstanding its financial difficulties the company had during the previous year sent to Africa forty ships and goods to the value of £160,000.154 To follow the company's financial history from this time on is a difficult task in view of inadequate sources. In the balance sheet of September 4, 1663, the company's stock was entered as £102,000 and its debts as about £21,000. When the news of Holmes' great success on the Gold Coast began to arrive in England, the company increased its preparations to open an extensive African trade. Therefore on May 10, 1664, an attempt was made to collect the unpaid stock subscriptions, and an invitation was extended to all members to lend one hundred pounds to the company for each share of four hundred pounds which they held. Notwithstanding the bright prospects which the company had at this time, its strenuous attempt to raise the loan produced only £15,650.155
In September, 1664, an attempt was made to increase the stock of the company by £30,000. Although the duke of York and many others added to their shares on this occasion,156 only £18,200 was subscribed.157 By this addition the stock of the Royal Adventurers amounted to £120,200 at about which sum it remained during the remainder of the company's history.158
Although the company had not obtained as much money as had been hoped for in the last subscription, it anticipated great success in its trade, until vague rumors began to circulate that Admiral DeRuyter had been sent to Africa to undo the conquest made by Captain Holmes. In the last part of December, 1664, these rumors were confirmed. In a petition to the king of January 2, 1665159, the company declared that its trade had already increased to such an extent that over one hundred ships were employed, and that a yearly return of from two to three hundred thousand pounds might reasonably be expected160.
On account of the injuries inflicted by DeRuyter on the African coast much of the anticipated loss of goods and vessels was realized. In all, the company lost the cargoes of eight ships; of the forts only Cape Corse remained. Under these ruinous circumstances it was not thought advisable to dispatch at once the goods which had been accumulated at Portsmouth161. Accordingly the company's vessels were unloaded and several of them were taken into the King's service.162 The duke of York used what little money was on hand to apply on the company's debt in order that the company's expenses from interest might be reduced.163 Because of the Anglo-Dutch war and the fact that the company had no money, it could do nothing but send an occasional ship to Africa loaded with some of the goods left at Portsmouth. From this time on the company's trading activity was confined to such scattered voyages.164
On January 11, 1666,165 the court of assistants discussed the proposition of granting trading licenses to private individuals. While no action seems to have been taken at that time, it ultimately became the practise of the company to grant such a freedom of trade. On April 9, 1667, a resolution was adopted empowering the committee of seven to issue trading licenses in return for a payment of three pounds per ton.166 These licenses were obtained by those who desired to carry on trade in their own ships, and also by officers of the company's ships who wished to engage in private adventures. During the course of the war one hears of many such grants to various individuals, among whom was Prince Rupert.167
The practise of issuing licenses was interrupted for a short time at the conclusion of the Anglo-Dutch war by a feeble attempt to revive the company's activities. An effort was made to collect arrears on the subscriptions,168 and on August 21, 1667, the general court ordered that an additional subscription should be opened, and that no more trading licenses should be granted.169 The only result of this effort was that the duke of York and several others accepted stock of the company in lieu of the bonds which they held.170 In view of this fact it was decided, January 20, 1668, to resume the policy of granting licenses.171
In comparison with the trade conducted by the private adventurers that of the company became quite insignificant. Since the company had much difficulty in supporting its agents on the African coast it ordered, August 28, 1668, that in the future those who received licenses should agree to carry one-tenth of their cargo for the company's account.172 It was difficult for the company to raise the small sum of money necessary to buy this quota of goods. No one was willing to invest money in the stock of a bankrupt company, and certainly few were desirous of making loans to it when there seemed practically no chance of repayment. In the latter part of 1668 and in the year 1669, several attempts were made to collect the early subscriptions which remained unpaid.173 This effort was attended with very little success, because the company had ceased to be of importance.174
One of the reasons why the company's business was practically neglected during these last years was because many of its members began to trade to Africa as private individuals. A number of men even went so far as to project an organization entirely separate from the company. Finally, in 1667, several members offered to raise a stock of £15,000 to carry on trade to the region of the Gambia River.175 This proposal was debated by the general court and finally referred to a committee with the stipulation that if adopted the company should be concerned in the stock of the new organization to the extent of £3,000.176 This arrangement could not be consummated in 1667,177 but on November 27, 1668, a similar proposition was adopted.178
An organization to be known as the Gambia Adventurers was to have the sole trade to northern Africa for a period of seven years, beginning with January 1, 1669. For this privilege they were to pay the Company of Royal Adventurers £1,000 annually, and to be responsible for the expense of the forts and settlements in that region. These places were to be kept in good repair by the Gambia Adventurers, who were to receive compensation from the Royal Company for any settlements.179 A suggestion for carrying on the trade to the Gold Coast in a similar way received no attention from the general court. The Gambia Adventurers occupied the same house in London with the company, and there seems little doubt but that its members consisted largely of those stockholders of the Royal Adventurers who belonged primarily to the merchant class.180 It is extremely difficult to estimate the success of the Gambia Adventurers, since their records, if any were kept, have not been preserved. In all probability their trade was largely confined to the important products of the Gambia region, namely elephants' teeth, hides and wax, although several of their ships are known to have gone to the West Indies with slaves.
Since many of the company's stockholders were interested in the Gambia venture the company's business on the Gold Coast was greatly neglected. During the year 1669 the company's trade became so insignificant that, at the suggestion of the king, Secretary Arlington asked the company if it intended to continue the African trade.181 In answer the company recounted the losses incurred in the Anglo-Dutch war which, it declared, had made it necessary to grant licenses to private traders in order to maintain the forts and factories in Africa. It asked the king to assist the company by paying his subscription, by helping to recover its debts in Barbados, and by granting royal vessels for the protection of the African coast. With such encouragement the company declared that it would endeavor to raise a new stock to carry on the African trade.182 Receiving no answer to their appeal the members of the company considered various expedients, one of which was to lease the right of trade on the Gold Coast;183 another was to endeavor to obtain new subscriptions to the company's stock, which seemed impossible because of the fear that the money would be used toward paying the company's debts, and not for the purpose of trade.184 In fact, it had been only too evident for several years that no additions could be made to the present worthless stock of the company. If the company desired to continue its activities, it would be necessary to have an entirely new stock unencumbered with the claims of old creditors. The main problem confronting the company therefor e was to make an agreement with its clamorous creditors.
On May 18, 1671, a general court of the adventurers approved of a proposition to form a new joint stock under the old charter.185 The stock of the shareholders, which at this time amounted to £120,200, was to be valued at ten per cent and so reduced to £12,020; this was to form the first item in the new stock. In regard to the company's debts, which amounted to about £57,000, rather severe measures were attempted. Two-thirds of the debts, or £38,000, was, as in the case of the stock, reduced to one-tenth, or £3,800, which was to form the second item in the new stock. The other one-third of the debts, or £19,000, was to be paid to the creditors in full out of the money subscribed by the new shareholders.186 Adding the cash payment of £19,000 and estimating at par the £3,800 which they were to have in the new stock, the creditors were to receive a little less than thirty-five per cent, of their debts. If they did not accept this arrangement it was proposed to turn over the company's effects to them, and to secure an entirely new charter from the king. As anticipated the plan was unsatisfactory to many of the creditors, because the company proposed to pay the £19,000 in six monthly installments after the subscription for the new joint stock was begun.187 On October 28, 1671, the preamble and articles under which the new subscription was to be made were approved by the general court, and notice was given to the refractory creditors that they must accept the arrangement within ten days or the king would revoke the company's patent.188 Although the trouble with the creditors had not been adjusted, subscriptions on the new stock began November 10, 1671. A few weeks later there was held a general court of the new subscribers, at which Sir Richard Ford, one of the most important members of the company and also of the new subscribers, declared that "they should not differ for small matters."189 Thereupon it was resolved to grant the creditors forty per cent on their debts and the shareholders, as in the previous plan, ten per cent, on their stock.190 This made a total payment of £34,000 divided as follows: £22,800, forty per cent of the company's debts, which amounted to £57,000; and £11,200, ten per cent of the paid subscriptions, which amounted to about £112,000.191 In lieu of this payment the stockholders were to cede to the new subscribers the forts and other property in Africa and all the payments due from the Gambia Adventurers during the four remaining years of their contract.
As has been said the articles of subscription were adopted October 28, 1671. They provided for a stock of £100,000 under the old charter, which should be paid to the treasurer of the company in ten monthly payments ending September 25, 1672. As a matter of fact the subscription reached the sum of £110,100. It was also provided that every new subscriber should have one vote in the general court for each one hundred pound share, but that no one should be an officer of the company, unless he had subscribed for four hundred pounds in shares. The subgovernor and the deputy governor were to be aided by a court of assistants, reduced to twenty-four in number, and by a select committee of five instead of the committee of seven as formerly. On January 10, 1672, there was held a general court of the new subscribers, at which the duke of York was elected governor; Lord Ashley, subgovernor; and John Buckworth, deputy governor.192 The duke of York and Lord Ashley were well known for their interest in colonial affairs. According to the terms of the subscription the deputy governor was to be a merchant and a member of the committee of five, which provision indicated plainly that the company expected Buckworth to manage its business affairs.
Although the new subscription had been made to replace the stock of the old adventurers, there is little evidence that it was regarded as necessary to obtain a new charter. Since the creditors still refused to be satisfied with the concession of forty per cent on their debts, however, the new subscribers hesitated to pay their money which might be used to pay off the old debts.193 It therefore became necessary to carry out the previous threat against the creditors to induce the king to grant a new charter to the present subscribers, which was done September 27, 1672.194 This action finally convinced the creditors that they could obtain no better terms than had been offered, and therefore they agreed to accept them and also to surrender all their rights to the patentees of the new charter which was being issued. That the attitude of the creditors was not the only moving force toward a new charter is probable, because the old charter was not adequate to meet the needs of the Royal African Company which was to follow.
CHAPTER III
On the West Coast of Africa
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 coast195. 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 Guinea196. 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 quarrels197 to such 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 river198. 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 Company199 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 terms200. 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 displeasure of 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 possession201.
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 months202. 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 insult203, 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 level the fort to the ground. Steele realized that with so few men and supplies resistance was useless, and therefore he complied with Holmes' demands.204 The English assumed possession of the island, but after a fire had destroyed nearly all the fort and its magazine,205 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.206 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.207 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.208 After receiving this statement the States General requested their ambassadors in London to see that the company's forts and lodges in the Gambia River were not disturbed.209 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.210 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.211 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.212 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."213 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.214
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,215 the Dutch ambassadors in London reminded the king that on August 14, 1661, he had absolutely disclaimed the proceedings of Holmes.216 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.217 Holmes was ordered before the Privy Council to answer to the charges of the ambassadors,218 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.219 Having extricated himself from this trouble Holmes finally appeared before the Privy Council in January, 1662,220 where he offered "many reasons" in justification of his actions in Guinea.221 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.222 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.223
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,224 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 were unnecessary, 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.225
At the time when Hendrik Carloff seized Cape Corse the English had there226 a factory to which they traded from their main fort at Kormentine.227 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.228 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 well as 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,"229 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.230
In like manner the Dutch captured a Swedish ship and interfered with the trade of the Danes to their fort of Fredericksburg,231 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.232 The case was brought before the Admiralty Court, and judgment of condemnation was rendered in favor of the Danes.233
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."234 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."235
The Dutch ignored Downing's demands, even though on June 6, 1662, he reminded them of their unjust actions on the Gold Coast.236 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 General237 concerning the seizure of the English ship, "Content," off the Cape Verde Islands.238 Shortly thereafter, the States General declared with respect to 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.239