¹ Reinsma, R., Het Verval van het Cultuurstelsel ('s-Gravenhage, 1955), p. 81.Google Scholar

² Bastin, J., Raffles' Ideas on the Land Rent System in Java and the Mackenzie Land Tenure Commission ('s-Gravenhage, 1954), Ch. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Staatsbladen van Nederlandsch Indië 1827, No. 48. (Henceforth N. I. Stbl.)

⁴ Bastin, Ch. 8.

⁵ N.I. StbI. 1819, No. 5.

⁶ van Deventer Jsz., S., Bijdragen tot de Kennis van het Landelijk Stelsel op java, III (Zalt-Bommel, 1866), 45–64.Google Scholar

⁷ This report is printed in Steijn Parvé, D. C., Het Koloniaal Monopoliestelsel … Nader Toegelicht (Zalt-Bommel, 1851), pp. 1–125Google Scholar, second part.

⁸ Printed in Steijn Parvé, pp. 294–328.

⁹ This report is printed in Cornets de Groot, J. P., Over het Beheer onzer Koloniën ('s-Gravenhage, 1862), pp. 339–370.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The parts of this account describing the cultivation system were incorporated into the State Record in 1834, see N. I. Stbl. 1834, No. 22; the complete account was published in the BTLVNI and separately printed in 1864 under the title Mijne Verrigtingen in Indie; Verslag van Z. Excellentie den Commissaris Generaal J. van den Bosch, over de ?aren 1830, 1831, 1832, en 1833, door Z. Excelt. Zelv' Opgesteld en Overhandigd aan Zijnen Opvolger den Gouverneur Generaal ad interim J. C. Baud, waarin de Grondslagen en Eerste Uitkomsten van het Kultuurstelsel Vergeleken Worden met de Vroeger Gevolgde Regeringsbeginselen en de daaruit Verkregen Resultaten; en Beschouwd in Verband met de Politieke en Finantiele Belangen van Indie en Nederland (Amsterdam, 1864).

¹¹ Correspondence and communication in Dutch colonial affairs was generally at three levels: (i) Reports and letters between the Ministry of Colonies and the Governor General and vice versa are in the Colonial Archive, which is housed in the State Archives in The Hague; these records were available to earlier writers on this subject. (2) The directives and letters from the Governor General to and from the leading Dutch civil servants in Java are generally not in the Colonial Archive unless they relate to a special problem; these records for this period I found in the personal archives of J. van den Bosch and J. C. Baud which are also in the Dutch State Archives, but have only recently been opened to the public so that earlier writers did not have all of them at their disposal. (3) The directives and letters from the Dutch civil servants to their subordinates and to the Indonesian Regents and others were not available to me or to any other writers on this subject; if they still exist, they are in archives in Indonesia and would undoubtedly shed additional light on the question of landrent, along with many other historical problems.

¹² Day, Clive, The Policy and Administration of the Dutch in java (New York, 1904).Google Scholar

¹³ Furnivall, J. S., Netherlands India, a Study of Plural Economy (Cambridge, 1939).Google Scholar (My citations will be drawn from the 1944 edition.)

¹⁴ Hall, D. G. E., A History of South-Bast Asia (London, 1955).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Day, p. 258.

¹⁶ Day, pp. 280–281.

¹⁷ Furnivall, p. 118.

¹⁸ Furnivall, p. 133.

¹⁹ Hall, p. 469.

²⁰ Hall, p. 470.

²¹ Colenbrander, H. T., Koloniale Geschiedenis, 3 vols. ('s-Gravenhage, 1925–1926).Google Scholar

²² Stapel, F. W., ed., Geschiedenis van Nederlandsch Indië, 5 vols. (Amsterdam, 1938–1940).Google Scholar

²³ Colenbrander, III, 37.

²⁴ Boudewijnse, J. en van Soest, G. H., De Indo-Nederlandsche Wetgeving, II (Haarlem-Amsterdam, 1876–1924), 71.Google Scholar I have left the translation in a rather literal form to indicate more clearly that all the village lands should be excused from the payment of landrent, not just one-fifth part.

²⁵ Stapel, V. 237.

²⁶ Gerretson, C., “Historische Inleiding,” in De Sociaal-Economische Invloed van Nederlandsch-indie op Nederland (Wageningen, 1938), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

²⁷ [Merkus, P.], Kort Overzigt der Financiele Resultaten van het Stelsel van Kultures onder den Gouverneur-Generaal J. van den Bosch (Kampen, 1835)Google Scholar; and Blik op het Bestuur van Nederlandsch-lndie onder den Gouverneur-Generaal Js. van den Bosch, voor zoo Ver het door Denzelven Ingevoerde Stelsel van Cultures op Java Betreft (Kampen, 1835). Both works appeared anonymously. Their impact in the Netherlands and in Java is discussed in Van Deventer, III, 5ff. Furnivall attributes both pieces to Mr. P. Merkus, who had been a member of the Council of the Indies during Van den Bosch's years in Java. In this position, Merkus made the most principled objections to Van den Bosch's proposals, for he was a strong follower of the liberal ideas of ex-Governor General Van der Capellen and of ex-Minister Elout. His disagreements with Van den Bosch produced an exchange of Notes which are for the most part printed in Van Deventer, II. These Notes disagree with the methods rather than the ultimate goals of Van den Bosch, and it is interesting to note that at one point Merkus actually suggested tying the landrent into the cultivation system much as Van den Bosch had done (Note of 30 March 1831). This and other remarkable agreements have led Westendorp Boerma, J. J., Een Geestdriftig Nederlander, Johannes van den Bosch (Amsterdam, 1950), pp. 89–90Google Scholar, to ask if perhaps the differences between the liberal system before 1830 and the reactionary system after 1830 are less sharp than is generally imagined. I would agree with this proposition. For our current argument, these pieces are of interest chiefly in showing early discrepancies and abuses which crept into the system while also pointing out that the profits reported by the system were largely illusory; they do not cast much light on the problem of landrent.

As regards the authorship of the two brochures, there is little doubt that Merkus wrote the Kort Overzigt. By his own admission (Letter of Merkus to Baud, dd. Wiesbaden, 24 August 1836, Archive Baud, Folio 550; and Letter of Merkus to the King, dd. 15 July 1836, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 32), he confesses that he wrote the piece for the information of Elout, and that his friend Van der Capellen had published it without his knowledge. There is, on the other hand, little doubt that Merkus did not write the other brochure, Blik op het Bestuur. Van Deventer, III, 15, interprets Merkus's letter of 15 July 1836, incorrectly and consequently attributes the second brochure to him also. Doorninck's reference work on Anonymns and Pseudonyms leans toward attributing it to Joh. Olivier, Jz., who edited the magazine De Oosterling which had sponsored the publication of both brochures. Van der Capellen had the copies of both brochures in The Royal Library in The Hague inscribed with Olivier's name. Westendorp Boerma, p. 139, suggests that ex-Resident Mac Gillavry authored the piece. Whatever the truth of the matter, the style and general tone of the piece would make it highly doubtful that Merkus wrote it.

²⁸ Steijn Parvé, D. C., Het Koloniaal Monopoliestelsel Getoetst aan Geschiedenis en Staatshuishoudkunde ('s-Gravenhage, 1850)Google Scholar, and Het Koloniaal Monopoliestelsel … Nader Toegelicht (Zalt-Bommel, 1851). These books are an extension of the arguments in the above-mentioned brochures. Steijn Parvé's argument runs that the system is immoral because it is not based on liberal principles, and that it is not financially sound because it is built on false grounds. His arguments are quite sound in relation to the external aspects of the system, for there is little doubt that the initial financial gains registered in the Netherlands were highly padded. His line of reasoning is based upon a liberal economic analysis of the official pronouncements. I would contend, particularly with regard to the internal workings of the system in Java, that such an approach will never lead to an adequate understanding of how the system actually functioned. This argument is extraneous to our present concern with landrent, however, and on this topic Steijn Parvé had little new to say. It should be noted that Furnivall quite wisely used these books with great caution.

²⁹ Of the many writings of van Hoëvell, W. R., Furnivall cites the Reis over Java, Madura en Bali in het Midden van 1847, 3 vols. (Amsterdam, 1849)Google Scholar, which gives some indication of Van Hoëvell's concern with forced cultivations, government salt monopoly, and lack of governmental interest in indigenous agriculture. This work is not as critical of the cultivation system as Van Hoëvell's later writings and speeches. Regarding landrent, Van Hoëvell correctly observed in a little known article, “Vlugtige aanteekeningen op de ‘Beschouwingen over N. I.’ door … Nahuijs van Burgst … door W. L. de Sturler …,” Gruno I (1849), 239–247, that the belief that a village was excused from landrent merely by planting one-fifth of its lands with an exportable crop was a wrong interpretation of several phrases appearing in N. I. Stbl. 1834, No. 22.

³⁰ Cornets de Groot, J. P., Over het Beheer onzer Koloniën ('s-Gravenhage, 1862).Google Scholar Cornets de Groot had risen through the Dutch bureaucracy to high government position in Java. The emphasis of his account is upon bringing changes into the system as he had seen it in operation during the 1850's. His account leans heavily on government publications, and is quite moderate in tone. Furnivall seems to have made rather extensive use of this book.

³¹ Pierson, N. G., Koloniale Politiek, (Amsterdam, 1877).Google Scholar Considered one of the outstanding liberals writing on the subject of colonial policy, Pierson is highly regarded for his calm opposition to the cultivation system based upon examination of the official documents. Clive Day, p. 293, refers to this work as “the most concise and suggestive.” Pierson's influence upon later writers is generally felt to be great, and it seems highly probable that Furnivall's general viewpoint and his willingness to give credence to Van den Bosch's official statements was largely due to a strong reliance upon Pierson. Pierson's approach to the landrent will be analyzed below.

³² Westendorp Boerma, J. J., Johannes van den Bosch als Sociaal Hervormer, de Maatschappij van Weldadigheid (Amsterdam, 1927).Google Scholar This book deals with Van den Bosch's career only in the years prior to the cultivation system. Westendorp Boerma later wrote a complete biography, Een Geestdriftig Neder lander, Johannes van den Bosch (Amsterdam, 1950), but obviously this was not available to Furnivall.

³³ Furnivall, p. 150.

³⁴ Pierson, pp. 92–94. My italics, RVN.

³⁵ van Deventer, S., Jsz., Bijdragen tot de Kennis van het Landelijk Stelsel op Java, op Last van Zijne Excellentie den Minister van Kolonien, J.D. Fransen van de Putte, Bijeenverzameld door …, 3 vols. (Zalt-Bommel, 1865–1866).Google Scholarvan Soest, G. H., Geschiedenis van het Kultuurstelsel, 3 vols. (Rotterdam, 1869–1871).Google Scholar

³⁶ Day, p. 269, calls Van Soest “one of the best historians of the culture system.”

³⁷ Van Soest, II, 96. Van den Bosch would retain the landrent because his main aim, increased revenue, did not permit its abolition.

³⁸ Early in 1833, for instance, Van den Bosch wrote the Resident of Banjumas a scathing letter for not yet introducing the Iandrent system into his district and consequently pursuing the cultivation system on grounds other than those prescribed. Kabinet letter No. 153a, dd. 28 January 1833, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46. See also, Van Deventer, III, 82–85.

³⁹ Kabinet letter No. 137, dd. 7 May 1830, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46A.

⁴⁰ Kabinet letter No. 228, dd. 7 June 1830, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46A.

⁴¹ Ibid.

⁴² Kabinet letter No. 233a, dd. 10 June 1830, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46A.

⁴³ Nahuijs van Bürgst, H. G., Beschouwingen over Nederlandsen Indie ('s-Gravenhage, 1848), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ This order of business was clearly set forth in many letters and circulars. For instance in Kabinet letter No. 233a cited above, Van den Bosch writes, “I have in mind making the contracting … easy by using the authority of the Residents….” Also his report of 10 October 1830 contains similar sentiments. This point was understood clearly by officials in the Netherlands; Baud's letter of May 1831, No. 132, to the Minister of Colonies is very explicit on this—Van Deventer, II, 194. There was never the confusion on this issue that has beclouded a clear understanding of the landrent problem.

⁴⁵ See the Note of Mr. P. Merkus, dd. 15 February 1831, Van Deventer, II, 219–227.

⁴⁶ See “Advice” of Van den Bosch, dd. 6 March 1829, in Steijn Parvé, p. 316, and Memorandum of July 1830 in Cornets de Groot, p. 108.

⁴⁷ In Van den Bosch's report of 1834, Mijne Verrigtingen in indie, there is no further mention of freedom; instead the emphasis is laid upon the compatibility of these arrangements with the traditional patterns of Javanese life.

⁴⁸ I have not been able to find a complete copy of this memorandum, but I have found extracts in Van Deventer, II, 157ff., Cornets de Groot, p. 107ff., and Blik op het Bestuur, p. 36ff. Reference to it is also made in numerous Kabinet letters. This memorandum again advances the active role of the entrepre neur in paying landrent and having free disposition over the produce—it is clear even here, however, that the landrent is to be paid. This memorandum seems to say very little in a specific and detailed way about landrent; this materialized in the subsequent correspondence. This memorandum does devote much attention to the use and regulation of corvée services, an aspect of the cultivation system that also calls for reconsideration.

⁴⁹ Kabinet letters No. 312, dd. 5 July 1830, to Resident of Pekalongan; No. 314, dd. 5 July 1830, to Resident of Bezukie & Banjuwangie; No. 315, dd. 5 July 1830, to Resident of Tagal; No. 318, dd. 7 July 1830, to Resident of Surabaya; No. 320, dd. 7 July 1830, to Resident of Cheribon; and especially No. 326, dd. 11 July 1830, to Residents of Bantam and Cheribon. Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46A.

⁵⁰ Kabinet letter No. 348, dd. 19 July 1830, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46A.

⁵¹ Kabinet Letter No. 347, dd. 19 July 1830, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46A.

⁵² Kabinet letters Nos. 346 & 352.

⁵³ Actually the Resident of Pasuruan, H. J. Domis, provided Van den Bosch with many of the details and most of the calculations which were incorporated in the July memorandum. Pasuruan was one of the districts in which European contractors had arranged sugar production without government intervention, but these arrangements were modified after 1830. In the memorandum, Van den Bosch also drew heavily upon the experience in Pekalongan, as provided by the Resident M. H. Halewijn. This contrasts with the often-made contention that Van den Bosch drew all his information from the Preanger district and sought to impose this Preanger pattern on all Java.

⁵⁴ Kabinet letter No. 950, dd. 26 December 1830, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46A.

⁵⁵ Kabinet letter No. 453, dd. 9 August 1830, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46A. Parts of this letter, which, as Van den Bosch probably suspected, made their way back to the Netherlands. Van Deventer, II, 162ff. & footnote p. 157, quotes from it, but his major concern is to show that Van den Bosch had increased the amounts of village land used for government cultivations from one-fifth to one-third.

⁵⁶ Note of 29 January 1831, Van Deventer, II, 216. Van Soest, II, 85, makes one of his few factual errors when he refers to “age” instead of “price” in discussing this Note.

⁵⁷ Note of 8 March 1831, Van Soest, II, 97, and Van Deventer, II, 249, 267.

⁵⁸ Kabinet letter No. 77, dd. 14 January 1832, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 80.

⁵⁹ Besluit No. 1, dd. 8 June 1832, Van Deventer, II, 405–407.

⁶⁰ Kabinet letter No. 77, dd. 14 January 1832.

⁶¹ See Bake, R. W. J. C., Kunnen en Moeten er Veranderingen Gebragt Worden in het Kultuurstelsel op Java? (Utrecht, 1854), p. 22.Google Scholar “… landrent on the sugar cane fields is always calculated as the most expensive, i.e., lands of the first quality, although if those fields were planted in rice they would not fall under this classification….” As early as November 1830, Van den Bosch indicated to the Resident of Bezukie that he should try to get the sugar cane for less specie “through a reasonable increase of the landrent which can occur because he [the Javanese] draws so much more from his land….” Kabinet letter No. 820, dd. 18 November 1830, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46A.

⁶² The impact of rising rice prices upon landrent was already recognized by Van den Bosch in October 1830, when he wrote in a private letter to Baud that losses of government income from the landrent (which would now have a crop equivalent rather than a monetary payment, RVN) would be partly offset by rising rice prices as the quantity of rice grown decreased. Westendorp Boerma, J. J., ed., Briefwisseling tussen J. van den Bosch en J. C. Baud, I (Utrecht, 1956), 65–69.Google Scholar Also see Besluit No. 1, dd. 8 June 1832, Van Deventer, II, 405–407.

⁶³ Van Deventer, II, 620–689.

⁶⁴ Van Soest, II, 270.

⁶⁵ I am in complete agreement with Westendorp Boerma and Furnivall that Van Soest's history is a “tissue of insinuations.” I have seldom encountered a more blatant use of veiled inferences and twisted meanings in order to besmirch someone's character. Where Van Soest uses facts, as he frequently does, however, I cannot quibble with their accuracy, only with the use to which he puts them.

⁶⁶ Boerma, Westendorp, Een Geestdriftig Nederlander, p. 52.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid., pp. 47–48.

⁶⁸ Ibid., pp. 25, 33, 34. The “advice” of 6 March 1829, Steijn Parvé, pp. 294–328, contains many examples of these diverse views.

⁶⁹ Westendorp Boerma, pp. 22–24.

⁷⁰ Ibid., p. 49.

⁷¹ An example of this is found in his conflicting concepts about Javanese institutions, especially land-holding. This is discussed in s'Jacob, E. H., Landsdomcin en Adatrecht (Utrecht, 1945), pp. 65–66.Google Scholar See also Reinsma, p. 20.

⁷² It was completely in keeping with Van den Bosch's methods that he could write the acting Resident of Surabaya to arrange for sugar delivery in any way he saw fit, just so that 20,000 piculs of sugar would be obtained for thirteen guilders copper money per picul. Kabinet letter No. 489, dd. 12 August 1830, Archive Van den Bosch, Folio 46A.

⁷³ Letter dd. 18 April 1835, accompanying Cultivation Report of 1834, Archive Ministry of Colonies, Kabinet 4405.

⁷⁴ Heilbroner, Robert L., The Great Ascent (New York, 1963), p. 117.Google Scholar