The Journal of Negro History, Volume 4, 1919

By this charter the Royal Adventurers received the land and the adjacent islands on the west coast of Africa from Cape Blanco to the Cape of Good Hope, for a period of one thousand years beginning with "the making of these our Letters Patents if the … grant (made to Crispe's company in 1631) be void and determined." If, however, the former charter was still regarded as in force, the grant to the Royal Adventurers was to be effective upon the surrender or the expiration of the former company's privileges.[121 - 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.] A committee of six men, the earl of Pembroke, Lord Craven, Sir George Carteret, William Coventry, Sir Ellis Leighton and Cornelius Vermuyden, was named to have charge of the company's affairs. No mention was made of the office of governor or of any court of directors. Apparently it was thought that the committee of six could direct all of the company's affairs. In Africa, this committee was empowered to appoint the necessary agents and officials and to raise and maintain whatever soldiers were necessary to execute martial law. The company had the right to admit new members if it desired. The king himself reserved the privilege of becoming an adventurer at any time and to invest an amount of money not exceeding one-sixteenth of the company's stock.

Furthermore, it was provided that the king "shall have, take and receive two third parts of all the gold mines which shall be seized possesed and wrought in the parts and places aforesaid, we … paying and bearing two third parts of all the charges incident to the working and transporting of the said gold." The company was to have the other third and bear the remainder of the expense. That this provision was not a matter of mere form, as in so many of the royal charters, is evident from the stimulus which had led to the formation of the company. Indeed in one part of the charter the purpose of the company is presented as "the setting forward and furthering of the trade intended (redwood, hides, elephants' teeth) in the parts aforesaid and the encouragement of the undertakers in discovering the golden mines and setting of plantations there." The trade in slaves was not mentioned in the charter.

Even before they had obtained this charter the organizers of the new company induced the king to lend them five of his Majesty's ships. These vessels, the "Henrietta," "Sophia," "Amity," "Griffin" and "Kingsale," were loaded with goods, tools and chemicals necessary for the working of the projected gold mines. Captain Robert Holmes, who had been with Prince Rupert in 1652, was given charge of the expedition; but the goods and necessities were consigned to William Usticke and two other factors of the company.[122 - 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.] In December, 1660, the five vessels set out on their voyage to the Gambia River, where they arrived in the following March. There Holmes seized the island of St. André, then occupied by a feeble number of the subjects of the duke of Courland. Since the latter place was protected by a small fort the English began preparations to make it the seat of their operations in that region. Not long after they arrived, however, a fire destroyed the fortification and a large part of the goods which had been brought from England. Under these circumstances they chose to abandon that island, and to settle on two others which were better situated for defense and trade. These they named Charles Island and James Island in honor of their royal patrons. The latter was by far the most advantageously situated, and became the main stronghold of the English in the northern part of Africa during all the history of the African companies. Holmes probably remained on the Gambia until about the first of May when he departed with one or two of the ships for England. In July as much of a cargo as possible was loaded on the "Amity" which finally arrived in England, after its crew had been depleted by disease.[123 - 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.]

Information regarding the success of the mining project of this expedition is almost totally lacking, but it seems certain that nothing was done to discover the hoped-for gold mines. The climate affected the men so adversely, that it is altogether unlikely that they even attempted to look for the mines. The small cargo carried back by the various ships, most of which seems to have been on the "Amity," probably represents the only tangible results of the expedition. These goods, consisting of elephants' teeth, wax and hides sold for £1,567.8s.,[124 - A. C. R., 1221, October 20, 1662.] whereas the outlay for the expedition was probably between £4,000 and £4,500.[125 - It is impossible to determine the exact amount which was invested in goods, etc.]

This sum does not include £2,640.8s.8d. expense which was incurred to send another of the king's ships, the "Blackamoor," to the Gold Coast, in June, 1661.[126 - A. C. R., 1221, June 20, 1661.] The "Blackamoor" was followed in April, 1662, by the "Swallow" which, together with its cargo, cost the Royal Adventurers £1,l01.2s.ld.[127 - Ibid., April 30, 1662.] Later in the year the three ships, "Charles," "James" and "Mary," were sent to the Gold Coast at an expense of about £5,000.[128 - Ibid., 309, September 26, 1662] By September, 1662, £17,400 had been subscribed by various persons to obtain the cargoes for the ships which had been dispatched to the coast of Guinea. Of this amount £800 had been promised by the king; £3,600 by the duke of York; £400 by the queen Mother; £400 by the duchess of Orleans; £800 by Prince Rupert; and £800 by the duke of Buckingham. Of the £17,400 subscribed all but about £1,000 had been paid by October 20, 1662. From this investment the company had received no returns except the £1,567.8s. from the first expedition, while the three last vessels, the "Charles," "James" and "Mary" had not yet arrived at the Gold Coast on their ill-fated voyage.[129 - 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.]

Up to this time there had been no uniformity about the amounts invested, and no definite times at which the several amounts subscribed, were due. It was assumed that money would be forthcoming from the members whenever it was needed to dispatch ships to the coast. About the middle of September, 1662, it was decided to pursue a more businesslike policy. A list of subscribers for shares at four hundred pounds each was opened, and by the 15th of January, 1663, the amount of this second subscription was £17,000.[130 - 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.] The stimulus for obtaining this added subscription was the fact that, at the same time, the company was agitating for a new charter, which was granted by the king, January 10, 1663.[131 - Carr, Select Charters of Trading Companies, pp. 178-181.]

Experience had shown that the previous charter was inadequate, not only respecting the means of raising funds to carry on the company's business, but also on account of the lack of any other officers to direct its affairs than the committee of six. By general consent of the patentees, and those who had later subscribed to the stock, it had been decided to surrender the charter of 1660 for one conferring more extensive privileges on the corporation. The charter obtained January 10, 1663, answered these requirements. The name was changed to "The Company of Royal Adventurers of England Trading into Africa." The territory included in the charter reached to the Cape of Good Hope as in the previous patent, but the northern limit was extended from Cape Blanco to Cape Sallee on the coast of Morocco.

The new charter contained the same provisions in regard to the discovery of gold mines as the charter of 1660. By this time, however, the adventurers had discovered that the Negro trade could be made very lucrative. In this charter, therefore, they obtained "the whole, entire and only trade for the buying and selling bartering and exchanging of for or with any Negroes, slaves, goods, wares and merchandises whatsoever to be vented or found at or within any of the Cities" on the west coast of Africa. The charter provided that there should be no trading on the African coast except by the company in its corporate capacity, and that any one guilty of transgressing these rules should be liable to forfeiture of his ship and goods.[132 - 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.]

The charter also required the shareholders to elect a governor, subgovernor, deputy governor and a court of assistants; but that the routine business of the company should be conducted by a smaller committee corresponding to the committee of six of the previous company. The duke of York was elected governor, in which capacity he continued to serve during the company's entire existence. Thirty-six men were chosen annually to compose the court of assistants. There was also an executive committee of seven which was responsible to the court of assistants.[133 - 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.]

While the company was endeavoring to obtain this new charter an unsuspected difficulty arose. It will be remembered that in 1631 Sir Nicholas Crispe and others had received a patent to a portion of the west coast of Africa for thirty-one years. The first charter of Charles II to the Royal Adventurers in December, 1660, had been granted a year and a half previous to the expiration of Crispe's patent. In recognition of this fact the charter of the Royal Adventurers provided that if the former patent was not void, the new charter was not to be effective until its surrender or expiration. At first Crispe made no complaint about the transgression of his rights, probably because the first expedition under Captain Holmes had gone to the Gambia region in which place Crispe had no interests. When it became apparent that the company intended to carry its activities further south, however, he appeared before the Privy Council on November 22, 1661, and asked to have his interest confirmed in the trade and settlements at Kormentine and in the region of the Sierra Leone and Sherbro rivers.[134 - P.C.R. (Register of the Privy Council), Charles II, 2: 451.] On December 20, 1661, his case was heard before the Privy Council, at which time the case was referred to the Lord High Treasurer.[135 - Ibid., 2: 502.] The matter was neglected and finally dropped.

Crispe found it impossible to prevent the ships of the Royal Company from transgressing the regions mentioned in his charter. About the time at which his charter expired (June 25, 1662), he agreed to transfer all his interests in the fortifications at Kormentine and elsewhere to the Royal Adventurers. Although this agreement has not been found, there was apparently nothing in it which bound the company to remunerate Crispe and his associates, because later, August, 1662, he petitioned the king for compensation for the forts and lodges which had been transferred to the Royal Adventurers. At first the king was favorable to Crispe's request in view of the service which he had rendered in building up the Guinea trade.[136 - 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.] Later, neither the king nor the Royal Adventurers seem to have paid any attention to Crispe's plea for compensation.[137 - 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.]

In later years the report was persistently spread that at the time when the agreement was made with Crispe the Privy Council had ordered the Royal Adventurers to pay him £20,000 in lieu of all his interests on the coast, and that the company had "seemed to acquiesce" in the order.[138 - This charge was put forward in a pamphlet, probably published in 1709, called Sir 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.] It does not seem possible that this assertion can be true in view of the foregoing facts, and of the absolute lack of mention of any such thing in the books of the company. Over a year later, August 15, 1664, Crispe presented a paper of an unknown character to which the court of assistants refused to give any notice.[139 - A.C.R., 75, August, 15, 1664.] It seems likely that this paper had nothing to do with the African forts, but that it was submitted in connection with a controversy over some African goods, which were said to belong to the members of Crispe's company[140 - 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.]. The entire lack of any other evidence of trouble between Crispe and the company leads one to think that no contract for such compensation was ever made[141 - 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.]. Moreover, that he was not averse to the success of the Royal Adventurers is shown by the fact that he himself subscribed £2,000 in 1663 to the stock of the company[142 - A. C. R., 309, June 25, September 4, 1663. Upon the latter date it appears that only £1300 of his subscription was paid.].

It is unnecessary to follow in detail the number of ships which were fitted out for the company's trade after it received its second charter in January, 1663. Suffice it to say that very active measures were undertaken, especially by the duke of York, who faithfully attended the weekly meetings of the court of assistants which were held in his apartments at Whitehall. The earl of Clarendon voiced the sentiments of these enthusiastic courtier-merchants when he said that, providing all went well, the Company of Royal Adventurers would "be found a Model equally to advance the Trade of England with that of any other company, even that of the East-Indies[143 - Clarendon, History of the Reign of Charles II, p. 198.]."

If this prediction was to be realized it was necessary to have a greater stock than the first and second subscriptions had provided. Therefore a public declaration was issued inviting any of the king's subjects in England to subscribe for shares of not less than four hundred pounds each, one-half of each share to be paid by December 1, 1663, and the other one-half by March 1, following. The conditions of subscription provided that seven years after the first date, a committee from the adventurers should be chosen to make a fair valuation of the stock of the company. Each shareholder was then to be allowed to receive the value of his stock in money if he so desired. Thereafter this action was to be repeated every three years with the same privileges of withdrawal from the company.[144 - The Several Declarations of the Company of Royal Adventurers of England trading into Africa, January 12, 1662 (O. S.).] Later, as a means of inducing those with smaller means to subscribe for stock, the company permitted subscriptions as small as fifty pounds, providing they were paid within eight days. Whenever any person subscribed more than four hundred pounds, he was allowed to pay the excess in eight quarterly payments beginning with the 24th of June, 1663.[145 - Ibid.] By offering these inducements the third subscription amounted to £34,000 divided among about forty-five shareholders.[146 - A. C. R., 309, June 25, August 25, 1663.]

On the 25th of August of the same year, however, it was necessary to seek for a fourth subscription which amounted to £29,000,[147 - Ibid., 309, August 25, 1663.] payment of which could be made in eight quarterly sums if desired. For all those who would pay the third and fourth subscriptions promptly, a discount of ten per cent, was offered. By these four subscriptions the stock of the company appeared on September 4, 1663, to be £102,000.[148 - Ibid., 309, the balance of the company's books on September 4, 1663.] Of this amount it is probable that about £57,425 had been paid, which left unpaid subscriptions amounting to £44,775.[149 - 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.] In addition to the money obtained by the sale of shares the company had borrowed about £21,000. With the money obtained from these two sources approximately twenty-five ships were sent to the coast of Africa from December, 1662, to September, 1663.[150 - 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).] From these voyages there were very unsatisfactory returns, and the company again found itself in a critical financial condition.

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 - 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.] 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 - 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.]

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 - 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.] 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 - C. O. 1: 17, f. 255, petition of the Royal Adventurers to (the king, March, 1664).] 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 - A. C. R., 75: 7, 8, orders of the general court, May 10, 20, 1664.]

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 - C. S. P., Dom., 1664-1665, p. 7, Robert Lye to Williamson, September 13, 1664.] only £18,200 was subscribed.[157 - A. C. R., 75: 21, 22.] 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 - The total of the stock is shown by adding the five subscriptions:]

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, 1665[159 - S. P., Dom. (State Papers, Domestic), Charles II, 110, f. 18; C. O. 1: 19, ff. 7, 8.], 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 expected[160 - The financial status of the company at this time was as follows:].

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 Portsmouth[161 - A. C. R., 75: 37, John Berkley and others to –, November 4, 1665.]. Accordingly the company's vessels were unloaded and several of them were taken into the King's service.[162 - S. P., Dom., Charles II, 186: 1.] 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 - A. C. R., 75: 37, Berkley and others to –, November 4, 1665.] 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 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.]

On January 11, 1666,[165 - A. C. R., 75: 40.] 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 - Ibid., 75: 52.] 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 - 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.]

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 - 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.] 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 - A. C. R., 75: 58.] 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 - Ibid., 75: 59.] In view of this fact it was decided, January 20, 1668, to resume the policy of granting licenses.[171 - Ibid., 75: 70.]

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 - Ibid., 75: 77.] 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 - Ibid., 75: 85, 88.] This effort was attended with very little success, because the company had ceased to be of importance.[174 - 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.]

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 - A. C. R., 75: 61.] 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 - Ibid., 75: 62, 63.] This arrangement could not be consummated in 1667,[177 - 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.] but on November 27, 1668, a similar proposition was adopted.[178 - A. C. R., 75: 83.]

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 - Ibid., 75: 82.] 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 - As opposed to those who were from the king's court.] 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 - A. C. R., 75:90, 91.] 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 - O. S. P., Dom., 1668-1669, p. 459, August 25, 1669.] 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 - A. C. R., 75: 94.] 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 - C. O. 268: I, charter of the Royal African Company, September 27, 1672.] 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 - 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.] 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 - 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.] 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 - A. C. R., 75: 106, 107.] 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 - Ibid., 75: 108.] 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 - British Husbandry and Trade, II, 14.] 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 - A. C. R., 76: 52, the preamble under which the subscriptions were made as amended December 19, 1671, article 4; ibid., 75: 111.] 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 - 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.] 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 - Ibid., 100: 50.] 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 - C. O. 268: 1, charter of the Royal African Company, September 27, 1672.] 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 - Ibid.] 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 coast[195 - John II of Portugal had assumed the title of Lord of Guinea in 1485.]. 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[196 - Dumont, Corps Universel Diplomatique, VI, part 2, p. 367.]. 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[197 - As for instance, in 1659, the seizure of a Dutch ship called the Vrede by a French captain under the pretense of a Swedish commission. Lias, West Indien, 1658 tot 1665, Zeeland chamber to the Amsterdam chamber of W. I. C. (West India Company), March 1, 1660 (N. S.). Also, in the same year, the Dutch confiscated a Courland ship called the Pietas for trespassing on Dutch territory. Ibid., Amsterdam chamber of W. I. C. to S. G. (States General), June 23, 1661 (N. S.). Louis XIV also complained about the disturbance of French commerce on the Gambia by the Dutch. Lettres, Mémoires et Négociations de Monsieur le Compte d'Estrades, I, 185, Louis XIV to d'Estrades, August 13, 1661 (N. S.).] 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 river[198 - Diederichs, pp. 20, 21. (Diederichs, H., Herzog Jacobs von Kurland Kolonien an der Westkuste von Afrika.)]. 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[199 - The West India Company was subdivided into the chambers of Amsterdam, Gröningen, Zeeland, North Holland and Friesland, and the Maas. The Amsterdam chamber was much the most important; it was known therefore as the "presidiale" chamber.] 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[200 - C. O. 1: 16, f. 191, February 4, 1659 (N. S.). At the same time Momber advised Steele, the Courland commander at Fort St. André, to pay no attention to the contract if he was in a position to defend himself, but Steele was unable to resist. Diederichs, pp. 45, 46.]. 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 possession[201 - Diederichs, pp. 46-8; C. O. 1: 16, ff. 193, 195-7.].

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[202 - Resolution of S. G., July 28, 1661 (N. S.); Aitzema, X, 76. (Aitzema, Lieuwe van, Historie of Verhael van Saken van Staet en Oorlogh.)]. 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[203 - See the oath taken by Holmes' men dated March 7, 1660/1, enclosed in the letter of Nassau and others to the estates of H. and W. F. (Holland and West Friesland), January 17/27, 1662.], 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 - C. O. 1: 16, f. 193, relation of Otto Steele; Diederichs, p. 49. Holmes afterward admitted that there were but two men and a boy in the fort when it was taken. C. O. 1: 30, f. 74, Holmes to Sir Edward Walker, May 20, 1673.] The English assumed possession of the island, but after a fire had destroyed nearly all the fort and its magazine,[205 - VanGogh and others to S. G., September 6/16, 1661.] 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 - Lias, West Indien, 1658 tot 1665, Amsterdam chamber of W. I. C. to S. G., January 10, 1661 (N. S.).] 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 - Resolution of S. G., January 13, 1661 (N. S.).] 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 - Lias, West Indien, 1658 tot 1665, Amsterdam chamber of W. I. C. to S. G., January 31, 1661 (N. S.).] 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 - Resolution of S. G., February 5, 1661 (N. S.).] 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 - Ibid., July 28, 1661 (N. S.).] 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 - Clar. St. Paps. (Clarendon State Papers), 104, f. 211, the Dutch ambassadors to Ruysch, August 5, 1661 (N. S.).] 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 - Ibid., 104, f. 217, Downing to S. G., August 8, 1661.] 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 - Aitzema, X, 78, Charles II to S. G., August 14, 1661.] 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 - Clar. St. Paps., 104: 237, Downing to Clarendon, August 19, 1661 (N. S.). In another letter Downing declared, "it would be very well to accept of the Duke his transferring his interest to his Matie, and for the Dutch ambrs you will do well to be 6 or 8 moneths in examining the matter and then let them know his Maties mind." Egerton MSS., 2538, f. 12, Downing to Nicholas, January 27, 1661/2.]

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 - He suffered this punishment only because he had taken to Guinea a number of extra men whose wages the king felt obliged to pay. Admiralty Papers, Navy Board, In-Letters, 5, James to the Navy Board, September 10, 1661.] the Dutch ambassadors in London reminded the king that on August 14, 1661, he had absolutely disclaimed the proceedings of Holmes.[216 - This seems to be a little too much to say of the king's letter.] 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 - C. O. 1: 15, f. 168, VanGogh and others to S. G., October 19/29, 1661.] Holmes was ordered before the Privy Council to answer to the charges of the ambassadors,[218 - P. C. R., Charles II, 2: 417, October 25, 1661.] 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 - Ibid., p. 459, November 27, 1661.] Having extricated himself from this trouble Holmes finally appeared before the Privy Council in January, 1662,[220 - Ibid., pp. 510, 514, January 8, 10, 1662. He may also have been before the Council in December, as an order was made on December 21, 1661, rescinding the former order to stop his pay. Admiralty Papers, Navy Board, In-Letters, 6, James to the Navy Board, December 21, 1661.] where he offered "many reasons" in justification of his actions in Guinea.[221 - Nassau and Hoorn to the estates of H. and W. F., January 17/27, 1662.] 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 - Egerton MSS., 2538, f. 12, Downing to Nicholas, January 27, 1661/2.] 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 - C. O. 1: 18, ff. 310, 311.]

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 - Papieren van Johan de Witt betreffende de Oost en West Indische compagnie, Carloff to Valckenburg, February 15, 16, 1658 (N. S.).] 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 - Loketkas, Staten Generaal, Sweden, no. 38.]

At the time when Hendrik Carloff seized Cape Corse the English had there[226 - Remonstrantie, aen de Ho. Mo. Heeren de Staten Generael der Veereenighde Nederlanden, p. 18.] a factory to which they traded from their main fort at Kormentine.[227 - Dammaert, Journal, September 19, 1652, May 18, 1653, December 7, 19, 1655, April 22, 1656 (N. S.).] 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 - S. P., Holland, 178, f. 123, undated paper dealing with the English title to Cape Corse.] 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 - Afterwards retaken by the English in the West Indies, toward the last of 1663. Brieven van de Ambassadors in Engeland aan de Staten Generaal, Downing to S. G., February 3, 1663/4. O. S.] 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 - Admiralty High Court, Libels, 114, no. 231.]

In like manner the Dutch captured a Swedish ship and interfered with the trade of the Danes to their fort of Fredericksburg,[231 - Aitzema, X, 277.] 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 - Admiralty High Court, Libels, 115, no. 124; ibid., Examinations, 74, deposition of Edward Paulstagge, March 7, 1662/3.] The case was brought before the Admiralty Court, and judgment of condemnation was rendered in favor of the Danes.[233 - Nassau and Hoorn to the estates of H. and W. F., January 24/February 3, 1662. In March, 1663, Bernard Sparke, owner of the Paragon which the Dutch had seized on the Gold Coast, arrested a West India Company ship at Ilfracombe. Sparke asked for the condemnation of the ship, but on account of a treaty entered into between the English and the Dutch in September, 1662, the Privy Council refused to detain the Dutch ship. Cunaeus to the estates of H. and W. F., March 27/April 6, 1663; P. C. R., Charles II, 3: 357, 380.]

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 - Egerton MSS., 2538, ff. 68, 69, Downing to S. G., May 3/13, 1662.] 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 - Clar. St. Paps., 76, ff. 217, 218, Downing to Clarendon, May 9, 1662. O. S.]

The Dutch ignored Downing's demands, even though on June 6, 1662, he reminded them of their unjust actions on the Gold Coast.[236 - Egerton MSS., 2538, f. 73, Downing to S. G., June 6/16, 1662.] 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[237 - Ibid., f. 106, Downing to S. G., August 6/16, 1662.] concerning the seizure of the English ship, "Content," off the Cape Verde Islands.[238 - Add. MSS. (Additional Manuscripts), 22,919, f. 270.] 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 - Resolution of S. G., August 28, 1662 (N. S.).]

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.[240 - Dumont, Corps Universel Diplomatique, VI, part 2, pp. 424, 425.] 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.[241 - Index op het Register en Accorden met de Naturellen, Wilree to Edmund Young, May 24, 1662 (N. S.).] The English, however, disregarded the Dutch protest and notwithstanding their opposition the factory was completed.[242 - S. P., Holland, 176, f. 119.] In less than a month from this time the natives drove the Dutch out of their factory in Comany.[243 - Add. MSS., 22,919, f. 262.] 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.[244 - Ibid., 22,920, f. 24, affidavit of William Crawford and others, before the Admiralty High Court, February 13, 1663/4.] 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.[245 - Ibid., 22,919, f. 262, Wilree to the officers of the ship James, November 9, 1662 (N. S.).] 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.[246 - Ibid., 22,920, f. 24, affidavit of Crawford and others, February 13, 1663/4.]

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 king as 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."[247 - S. P., Holland, 167, f. 251, Downing to Williamson, September 11, 1663. O.S.]

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.[248 - Add. MSS., 22,920, ff. 13, 14, Downing to S. G., September 17/27, 1663.] 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."[249 - Clar. St. Paps., 106, f. 192, Downing to Clarendon, September 18, 1663. O. S.; S. P., Holland, 167, ff. 271, 272, Downing to Bennet.] 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, and leave 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."[250 - Add. MSS., 22,920, f. 22, Royal Company to Downing, September 25, 1663.]

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.[251 - Clar. St. Paps., 106, f. 223, Downing to Clarendon, October 2, 1663 O. S.] 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.[252 - S. P., Holland, 168, ff. 41, 42.]