9 June, afternoon. Extraordinary session.
Present: the honorable lord director general Petrus Stuyvesant, the lords Nicasius de Sille, fiscal, Pieter Tonneman, assessor, Brian Nuton, capt. lieutenant, Poulus Leendertsz vander Grift and Allard Antony, burgomasters, Augustijn Bouljou, capt. of the frigate the St. Piere, presently lying before this city.
The fiscal de Sille put the accompanying charge in writing, of which he delivered copies.
[several lines lost] to prove [ ] because these are his own words, [ ] because he [ ] a commission from France [ ] with the same answer is it made true [ ] declared impounded etc. It is completely resigned to the judgment of a genuine difference of opinion on the commission,[i] whether any proof implies that the director general and councilors have confiscated the prize or declared it impounded because they have let an allied friend come in, sailing or privateering on a French commission. If this consequence is acceptable, the deponent shall also be able to say and claim that the Dutch and English ships and goods be confiscated or be declared as a property prize because the director general and councilors let it come in and sell their goods.
The deponent continues (if it is true that your honors had not consented, they would not have been allowed to come in, much less be allowed to sell here as he has done.) The director general and councilors cannot refuse consent to be allowed to come here at the roadstead to any allied friends and neighbors, as, among others, the officials of the French Crown always have been, and as are now the officials of the king of Spain as well, but that director general and councilors have given consent for the confiscation of some Spanish goods or ships or declare them an impounded prize was and is denied once again; also, that the director general and councilors have given consent for the sale, because no consent was asked of them; therefore, it was neither given nor refused, but was allowed, as allied friends, to buy or barter goods whatever seemed necessary to them for money or wares. Regarding this subject, it can come into consideration that when England had peace, the United Netherlands war with Spain: both Dutch as well as Spanish warships and privateers were allowed in the harbors with their captured prizes, and [ they ] bought and sold for their money and goods whatever they needed, and both have never been accused by the king or parliament of England that they confiscated Spanish or Dutch prizes, or declared them an impounded prize because they [ ] in the harbors [several lines lost] have not [ ] in [ ] have been allowed to sell; for [ ] repeat once again that the director general and councilors cannot forbid any allied friends from coming to their roadsteads, nor could they obstruct honest trade, the soul of our fatherland, the growth and advancement of this budding place, which, if the director general and councilors put this into practice, would give thereby the neighboring French governor of Cristoffel, Guardeloupe and others, inducement and justifiable cause to apply the same standards to us and our nation, which would result in significant damage for the director general and councilors to the shame of the Dutch nation in general and its subjects in particular.
With regard to the petitioner’s application about Capt. Beauljeu, born as the petitioner says in his country whose mother and sisters are his neighbors next to each other, this is not very relevant, as the aforesaid Beauljeu is with Joan Ballardo Ferrerra, a born citizen and inhabitant of St Lucar de Berramede, and has robbed him or the Spanish nation. He can seek and demand better justice against him before his competent judge in his country; meanwhile it is again denied that the director general and councilors have confiscated and impounded this prize he brought along. For reasons related more broadly, the director general and councilors could not forbid him nor the other French capt.
N. Rooselijn from coming up to this roadstead, much less prevent him from dividing and disposing of their goods, done or taken place not in this harbor (as the petitioner mistakenly says) but on Nooten Eylant beyond the reach of the fort’s cannon.[ii]
But it seems that the petitioner maintains that allowing or not obstructing means giving absolute consent; if this is the case, the petitioner may say now or afterwards that the director general and councilors gave permission for his smuggling of some pieces of linen, for his impudent lies and for his bold and intolerable gestures and actions performed in their session etc. because they allowed this and did not prevent it.
[several lines lost] and barks [ ] transport of people [ without ] proper passport etc. This is to be remembered. Dated as above.
