Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2009
The Netherlands was almost the only country in Western Europe which took no share of Africa in the course of Partition. This is at first sight surprising. For centuries the Dutch had had a presence on the Gold Coast, while at the Cape they had created the most important white colony in sub-Saharan Africa. True, the Netherlands had given up both possessions before the Partition, but by that time the Dutch were the chief traders on the Congo estuary, which after all was a major flash-point giving rise to the Partition. Curiously enough, no one has sought to examine this seeming paradox. It is therefore the aim of this article to consider the relationship between Dutch commercial expansion and the origins of Partition, and to place this question in the context of the Netherlands' principal imperial interests, in South-East Asia.
This article is to a large extent the result of a research seminar ḣeld at Leiden University. For notes on the principal sources studied in this seminar see the Appendix, P. 15.
1 The name Banana was given by the Dutch ‘who first christened it’: Johnston, H. H., The River Congo (London, 1884), 22.Google Scholar
2 See especially for this early history of the Dutch trade in the Congo area Schepel, A. F. (ed.), West-Ajrika 1857/1858, Reisjournaal van Lodewijk Kerdijk (Schiedam, 1978);Google Scholar Franssens, K., ‘De vestiging van “Kerdijk en Pincoffs” te Banana, 1857–1859’, Medede-lingen der zittingen van de Koninklijke Akademie voor Overzeese Wetenschappen, xxii (1976), 83–97 Google Scholar; Holman Bentley, W., Pioneering on the Congo (London, 1900);Google Scholar Anstey, R. T., Britain and the Congo in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford, 1962)Google Scholar; Jeannest, Chr., Quatre années au Congo (Paris, 1883);Google Scholar ? Aa, Robidé van der, Afrikaansche Studien. Koloniaal bezit en particuliere handel op Afrika's Westkust (The Hague, 1871).Google Scholar According to Franssens, (‘Vestiging’, 692)Google Scholar, the Dutch trader Albert Schut had been active in Loanda long before 1850. He later became the head of the Kerdijk & Pincoffs' factory at Ambriz. See also Oosterwijk, B., Vlucht na Victorie. Lodewijk Pincoffs, 1827–1911 (Rotterdam, 1979), 41 Google Scholar, who states that Schut had taken the Portuguese nationality and operated as ‘Oliveira & Schut’.
3 Stanley, H. M., The Congo and the Founding of its Free State (London, 1885), 1, 76, 83.Google Scholar
4 See Schepel, , West-Afrika, 8 ff.Google Scholar
5 Hofstra, Sj., ‘Eenige gegevens over het schip“Lodewijk” en over den handel van Rotterdam op West-Afrika in de negentiende eeuw”, Rotterdams Jaarboekje, 1938.Google Scholar
6 The first factory in Ambriz was probably bought from Samsom in late 1857. The second was founded at Quisembo, the third at Ponte da Lenha (autumn, 1858) the fourth at Banana (1858–9): see Oosterwijk, , Vlucht, 46–7.Google Scholar There is much difference of opinion about the exact number of factories Kerdijk & Pincoffs had altogether. Stanley counted almost eighty ( Stanley, , Congo, 73)Google Scholar; Hofstra, (Gegevens, 194)Google Scholar estimated thirty-five to forty; Blink, H. (Het Kongoland en zijne bewoners, Haarlem, 1891, 159)Google Scholar mentions seventy-five. Chavanne, J. (Reisen und Forschungen im alten und neuen Kongostaate in den fahren 1884 und 1885, Jena, 1887, 83)Google Scholar reported a total of 158 factories in the Congo at 83 locations, of which 55 were Dutch, 33 English or American, 20 French, 41 Portuguese, 6 German, 2 Spanish and one Brazilian. Onno Zwier van Sandick, who worked some time for the(N.) A.H.V. in the Congo, mentioned 41 factories (of which 13 were closed) as well as some branches. See van Sandick, O. Z., Herinneringen van de Zuid-Westkust van Afrika (Deventer, 1881), 117–118.Google Scholar According to Blink (Kongoland, 166) the Dutch firm in 1890 employed 103 Dutchmen, 64 Portuguese and about 2000 blacks. In 1878–1880 there were 50 or 60 employees in Banana, usually half Dutch, half Portuguese: Bentley, , Pioneering, 70.Google Scholar
7 Almost all observers considered the Dutch firm as the most important: see for instance Blink, , Kongoland, 156 Google Scholar; Chavanne, Reisen, 83; Veth, P. J., Daniël Veth≈s Reizen in Angola (Haarlem, 1887), 132 Google Scholar; Peschuël-Loesche, E., Kongo-Land (Jena 1887), 225 Google Scholar: Pinto, F. Latour da Veiga, Le Portugal et le Congo au XIXe Stècle (Bordeaux, 1972), 79 Google Scholar; Bentley, , Pioneering, 70.Google Scholar According to Van Sandick, (Herinneringen, 43)Google Scholar, the English firm Hatton & Cookson, from Liverpool, outdid the Dutch about the year 1880. The data are clearly referring to different periods. I return below to the subject of priority in the Congo trade.
8 Aa, Robidé van der, Afrikaansche Studiün, 129–130.Google Scholar
9 Blink, , Kongoland, 171.Google Scholar
10 Sandick, Van, Herinneringen, 46.Google Scholar
11 Ibid., 40. According to Bentley, (Pioneering, 72)Google Scholar gin was ‘the sole currency of the place’.
12 See Oosterwijk, Vlucht na victorie.
13 Hudig, J., ‘In Memoriam L. Pincoffs’, Rotter dams Jaarboekje (1912), 178 ff.Google Scholar On the other hand, he could not, as a Jew, become a member of the club ‘Amicitia’, and the ladies of Rotterdam begged the forgiveness of other ladies whenever the Pincoffs were included in the guest list: Ibid., 182; Muller, H., Muller. Een Rotterdams Zeehandelaar. Hendrik Muller Szn (1819–i898) (Schiedam, 1977), 307;Google Scholar Mees, W. C., Man van de daad. Mr Marten Mees en de opkomst van Rotterdam (Rotterdam, 1946), 404.Google Scholar
14 Muller, , Muller, 308.Google Scholar
15 Ibid.
16 After the death of Prince Henry, Prince Alexander became chairman. There were ten provincial and eighteen municipal committees as well as two subcommittees in the East and West Indies. See Blink, , Kongoland, 30 ff.Google Scholar and Franssens, K., ‘Nederland na de Aardrijkskundige Conferentie van Brussel (1877–1879)’, Bijdragen over de Aardrijkskun-dige Conferentie van 1876 (Brussels, 1976), 501–516.Google Scholar
17 There is a complete list in Kan, C. M., Het internationaal onderzoek der Afrikaansche binnenlanden (Utrecht, 1877), 86.Google Scholar
18 Blink, , Kongoland, 32 ff.Google Scholar
19 Veth, P.J., Danië Veth's reizen in Angola (Haarlem, 1887);Google Scholar Feith, J., Het Verhaal van den Afrika Reiziger (Amsterdam, 1910).Google Scholar
20 Franssens, , ‘Nederland’, 505 Google Scholar; Kan, , Onderzoek, 16–17.Google Scholar
21 Bontinck, F., Aux origines de l'Etat indépendant du Congo (Louvain, 1966), 40.Google Scholar Pincoffs called Stanley's plans in a meeting of the committee ‘irréalisables’ (Franssens, ‘Nederland’, 310); Roeykens, A., Les débuts de l'oeuvre africaine de Léopold II, 1876–1879 (Brussels, 1955) 373.Google Scholar Cf. also Bontinck, F., ‘Les archives de la Nieuwe Afrikaansche Handelsvennootschap conservées à Schaarsbergen (Pays-Bas)”, Bulletin des Séances de l'Académie Royale des Sciences d-Outre-Mer (Brussels, 1970). 179.Google Scholar
22 Franssens, , ‘Nederland’, 510.Google Scholar
23 See for the Stanley-Pincoffs controversy also: Franssens, , ‘Nederland’, 310 ff.Google Scholar
24 Roeykens, (Débuts, 379)Google Scholar: ‘La Providence lui avait singulièrement facilité la chose …‘
25 This characterization is found in an article of the journalist Oldenkott in 1868, cited in Mees, , Man van de daad, 405.Google Scholar
26 Oosterwijk, , Vlucht, 161.Google Scholar
27 Mees, , Man van de daad, 466.Google Scholar
28 Muller, , Muller, 318.Google Scholar
29 Blink, H., ‘De Nederlanders aan Afrika's Zuid-Westkust’, Eigen Haard, 1890, No. 46, 732 Google Scholar; Muller, , Muller, 303 ffGoogle Scholar; Oosterwijk, , Vlucht, 141–2, 208, 228, 234.Google Scholar
30 Muller, , Muller, 310.Google Scholar
31 The history of the activities of Hendrik Muller in this respect is described in detail in his biography. See note 16.
32 Bescheiden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland, 1848–1919. Tweede Periode, 1871–1898 (ed. Woltring, J.), iii (1881–1885) (The Hague, 1967), 329.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as R.G.P. 122.
33 Ibid., 335.
34 Ibid., 336.
35 Ibid., 345. According to Latour da Veiga Pinto (Portugal, 79) it had the disposal of ‘une véritable petite armée’. On rights with the Portuguese see Oosterwijk, , Vlucht, 261–2, and 139–40.Google Scholar Michel, Marc (La Mission Marchand, 1895–1899 (The Hague/Paris 1972), 100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar note 6) says that Greshoff, the agent of the N.A.H.V., was a ‘véritable puissance’ whom the Bakongo nicknamed Fouman Tangon, i.e. ‘The Sungod’.
36 For this see Robinson, R. and Gallagher, J., Africa and the Victorians (London, 1961), 33, 168;Google Scholar and the review by Stengers, Jean, ‘L'Impérialisme colonial de la fin du XIXe siècle: mythe ou réalité’, J. Afr. Hist., iii, iii (1962), 469 n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Antsey, , Britain and the Congo, 31.Google Scholar Oosterwijk, (Vlucht, 89)Google Scholar gives a higher estimate for the Dutch share, but his figures are rather obscure. See also Latour da Pinto, Veiga, Portugal, 80.Google Scholar Aa, Robidé van der (Afrikaansche Studién, 129)Google Scholar mentions some export of textiles from Twente. See for this also Burgers, R. A., 100 jaar G. en H. Salomonson Leiden, 1954)Google Scholar
38 Bescheiden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland, 1848–1919. Tweede Periode, 1871–1898 (ed. Woltring, J.), 11 (1874–1880) (The Hague, 1965), xii (R.G.P. 118).Google Scholar
39 Van Bylandt to Rochussen, 12 Dec. 1882, R.G.P. 122, 345; Pinto, Latour da Veiga, Portugal, 237 ff.Google Scholar
40 Archief Kamer van Koophandel Rotterdam, 1882, nos. 54 and 54a.Google Scholar According to Latour da Pinto, Veiga (Portugal, 239)Google Scholar the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty did not get a bad reception in The Hague and the attitude of the Dutch government was ‘extrêmement mesuree’ (Portugal, 240), despite the vehement press campaign. Asser, however, refers to a vigorous Dutch protest and gives Van der Does credit for contributing much to the rejection of the treaty: Asser, T. M., ‘De Congo-Akte’, De Gids, XLIX (fourth series) (1885), 324.Google Scholar According to Crowe, S. E., The Berlin West-African Conference 1884–1885, (London, 1942), 23 Google Scholar, the Netherlands were second only to France in their resistance to the treaty.
41 On 3 April, 1884.
