6.3.2 Liberty Is Good, but Property Rights Are Better: The Placaet of 1776
In the Resolutiën van Holland, we find that the States of Holland deliberated on the issue on 8 February 1776. They agreed with Bosschaert’s report, and only made some very small changes in his concept-Placaet.46 At the same time, they decided to send the Placaet to the States General, where it could then be discussed.47
When we read the relevant Generality documents of 23 May 1776, one can easily see how the process was fully guided by Holland.
When we take a look at the eerste minuten, one notes that the proceedings of the States of Holland were simply copied verbatim, although this copying is obviously not to be seen anymore in the geresumeerde minuten.48 The only changes made were those that were necessary to show that the deliberations related to the States General, which is why for example the phrase “that the affair shall be brought before the Generality” is deleted by the scribe.49 The Generality approved the proposed placaet without much ado, and ordered it to be sent to the West India Company, the Sociëteit van Suriname and the directors of the Dutch Berbice colony (a small Dutch colony around the Berbice river which later became part of British Guyana). Interestingly, the document does not mention anything about the East India Company, which shows again that the Placaet might have been conceived as a means to stop the specific problem of slaves claiming their freedom in Surinam.50We should not be surprised to see little intervention by the other provinces, given that both their financial interests, as well as the number of black people on their soil, must have been very limited. However, that one other province with a stake made a remarkable intervention, the consequences of which are very unclear. In the margin of the decision by the States General, we find written that “The Lords Deputies of the Province of Zeeland have declared, for the time being, to not be encumbered by this”.51 This qualification by Zeeland was not discussed by L.R.
Priester, who had access to the archival files for Zeeland, and I am likewise unsure what the intentions of Zeeland were. It could mean several things, namely that Zeeland preferred the continued application of the freedom principle, or that it considered the restrictions on the freedom principle by the placaet, discussed below, as either too far-ranging or not far-ranging enough. Given Zeeland’s financial interest in the slave trade and the practice of some of its captains to give away presentslaven, it seems rather unlikely that their reflex was made in order to protect the freedom principle. Unfortunately, I have not found any clarification to the declaration of Zeeland in the documents of the States General nor of Holland.Finally, what did the resolution itself say?
The preamble shows how property rights clearly trumped the natural liberty of the metropolis. It acknowledged that all people who were in the Republic were recognised as free. However, this could not be fully allowed for blacks and other slaves who came from the colonies. Allowing this would ensure they could never be sent back to the colonies against their will, and that slavery would not “re-attach” if they eventually returned to the colonies. Such a proposition would go against the property rights and the freedoms of the Dutch citizens and had to be remediated.
For the category of slaves who were freed by their masters before they came to the Republic, things were clear. They were to be considered as fully free in the metropolis, but only as manumitted persons if they returned to the colonies.52
The Republic was less permissive of runaways. Even if they reached the metropolis, they remained slaves. Their masters could ask permission from the courts in the place where the slaves had hidden themselves to have them sent back to the colonies. For this category, the soil became completely unfree.53
The third category consisted of those slaves who were sent by their masters to the United Provinces to conduct some business for them.
If they did not return voluntarily, they could be constrained by the court, and they remained slaves in the meantime. However, their stay was limited to six months, which could be extended on request for a maximum of another six months. If these time constraints were not met, the slave was considered to be free. If he returned to the colonies later, he would only be counted as a manumitted person there.54The interests of creditors were considered as more important than the interests of the colonial proprietors in one case. If slaves were mortgaged, they could only be taken to the metropolis if sufficient caution money was paid, and if there had been written permission by the colonial government. If these conditions were not met, the proprietor was fined and the creditor could still have the slaves sent back to the colonies (except if their owner had already granted them their freedom before).55
The placaet ended with a non-retroactivity clause, and an order for the placaet to be published and made known. As said, it was sent to the directors of the WIC, the directors of the Sociëteit van Suriname and the directors of the small Berbice colony. However, we only find it published in the Placaetboeken of Surinam, which further confirms the idea that it were especially Surinam slaves travelling to the metropolis.56
More on the topic 6.3.2 Liberty Is Good, but Property Rights Are Better: The Placaet of 1776:
- 6.3.2 Liberty Is Good, but Property Rights Are Better: The Placaet of 1776
- Batselé Filip. Liberty, Slavery and the Law in Early Modern Western Europe. Springer International Publishing,2020. — 221 p., 2020