The erosion of the VOC. The VOC
and its search for alternatives to
decline
(1740-1796)
Chris Nierstrasz (University of Warwick)
Non-state actor vs State actor
17 November 1757, Van der Parra to Van Eck:
‘It is essential not to accede to the request of the
Armenians of Madras, and if feasible also to
achieve an interdiction on the sending of cloths
by the Moors and merchants from the Malabar.
This is to clear the way for those, who would
otherwise be prevented from making an
acceptable profit, and who would find
themselves in [financial] difficulties because of
these heathens.’
Sources
• Secondary literature
• Primary sources:
– The Regulations of the VOC
– The private correspondence of Van Eck
Silver and bills of exchange
140000000
120000000
100000000
Value of Invoice
80000000
Sales
60000000
40000000
20000000
0
Export of silver and bills of
exchange
Silver and bills of exchange
140000000
120000000
100000000
Invoice value of the Imports by
the VOC
Sales
80000000
Bills of exchange
60000000
40000000
20000000
0
exports of precious metals
Monopoly and Private trade
• Monopoly between Europe and Asia
• Monopoly in intra-Asian trade
Monopoly and Private trade
• Move away from monopoly in Asia (1741)
Monopoly and Private trade
Regulations:
• According to goods
• According to groups
• According to regions
Monopoly and Private trade
Changes in policy, managing Dutch private trade
(1741-1771):
– Van Imhoff (1741-1750): Monopoly of certain
goods combined with freedom of trade
– Mossel (1750-1761): Restrictive on trade between
Indian subcontinent and Batavia
– Van der Parra (1761-1775) : Continues the line of
Mossel, but sudden reversal towards freedom of
trade in 1771
Monopoly and Private trade
Changes in policy, relating to expansion of
English Power: (1771-1796)
• After 1771, English allowed access to Batavia
• After 1784, VOC forced to allow access to the
Spice Islands
Monopoly and Private trade
European Monopoly:
Slowly eroded by allowing permitted trade after
1771
The reality of private trade
Case study: Lubbert Jan van Eck, VOC-servant on
the Coromandel Coast and in Ceylon
(Correspondence for the period 1756-1765)
The reality of private trade
Company priorities were considered to prevail over private
trade interests
permitted packages (December 1761): Your Honour is
pressingly charged to ensure it that next year and
thereafter too, no so-called permitted packages containing
cloth are to be allowed to the naval officers upon their
departure for this capital, nor shall any servants under your
government be permitted to do so, until the demands for
both patria and Asia have been delivered in their entirety
and approved, under punishment of confiscation and a fine
of four times their value.
The reality of private trade
Allowing private trade, a deterioration of the
position of the VOC servants
‘Nowadays a Governor has at his disposal only
what he earns by his personal participation in
the trade, of which he has to spent a large
part to sustain his pomp and circumstance.’
15 October 1759, Van Eck to Van der Parra
The reality of private trade
Private trade divided according to the VOC
hierarchy
‘First, you know all too well that in the smaller VOC
settlements almost nobody but the chiefs and
their deputies, and they alone, participate in
trade (...) So, as a good friend, I advise you to
abandon your plans, news of which has already
spread along the Coast like wildfire, which many
people will deem very strange and, to tell you the
honest truth will be judged far too greedy.’
8 August 1758, Van Eck to Faure
Conclusion