Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T07:37:30.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The British in Banjarmasin: An Abortive Attempt at Settlement 1700–1707

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

R. Suntharalingam
Get access

Extract

Early in July 1698 the royal assent was received to an Act of Parliament which sanctioned the formation of a corporation, called the General Society, whose subscribers were vested with exclusive rights to trade in the East. The ‘New’ Company obtained its Royal Charter in September 1698 under the name of ‘The English Company Trading to the Indies' and it was to superced the ‘Old’ Company which was given a three-year grace to wind up its business. The ‘Old’ Company was expected to liquidate its East Indian assets, dismantle its Asian factories and recall its servants by September 1701.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , September 1963 , pp. 48 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The dismantling of the ‘Old’ Company's establishments in the East, however never took place. In 1702, discussions led to a fusion of the ‘Old’ and the ‘New’ Company and the union became operative in 1709. See Das, Harihar, The Norris Embassy to Aurangzib (1699–1702), (Calcutta, 1959), pp, 44–57.Google Scholar

2. Willi, Johannes of Gais, , The Early Relations of England with Borneo to 1805. (Langensalza, 1922), p.11.Google Scholar

3. Dr. C Kagtegaal argues that in 1636 the authority of Banjarmasin spread over Landak, Sambas, Sukadana, Kota Waringin and the whole east coast. See his De Voormalige Zelfbesturende en Gouvernements-landschappen in Zuid-Oost Borneo (Utrecht. 1939), p.4.

4. de Graaf, H.J., Geschiedenis van Indonesie, (The Hague/Bandung, 1949), p.318.Google Scholar

5. Schrieke, H., Indonesian Sociological Studies, Part I, (The Hague/Bandung, 1955), pp.30–1.Google Scholar

6. H.J. Graaf, De Regering van Sultan Agung, Vorst van Mataram 1613 – 1645. En die van zijn Voorganger Panem-bahan Seda-Ing-Krapjak 1601 – 1613 The Hague, 1958), p. 279.

7. Such economic sanctions were also applied against the Dutch. See Schrieke, , op.cit., p.75.Google Scholar

8. Schrieke, , op.cit., p.29.Google Scholar

9. de Graaf, H.J., De Regering van Sultan Agung, p.279.Google Scholar

10. de Graaf, H.J., De Regering van Sunan Mangku-Rat I Tegal-Wangi, Vorst van Mataram 1646–1677, (The Hague, 1961), pp. 67–8.Google Scholar

11. Cense, A., De Kroniek van Bandjarmasin, (Santpoort, 1928), p.117.Google Scholar

12. Schrieke, , op.cit., pp.54–5.Google Scholar

13. de Jonge, J.K.J., De Opkomst van net Nederlansch Gezag in Ooat-Indie (1595–1610). Part III, (Amsterdam, 1865), p.158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Willi, , op.cit., pp. 2–7.Google Scholar

15. It must be pointed out here that the decision to close the British factory at Sukadana was already taken prior to the attack by Mataram. I am indebted to Dr. D.K. Bassett for this reference.

16. Nagtegaal, , op.cit., p. 4.Google Scholar

17. Heeres, J.E., ‘Corpus Diplomaticum Neerlando-Indicum’, Part I, (1596–1650)Google Scholar, Bijdragen tot de Taal-Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indie, (BKI). 57, 1907, pp. 270–1.

18. Mees, C.A., De Kroniek van Koetai, (Santpoort, 1935), p. 14.Google Scholar

19. For texts of these agreements see J.E. Heeress ‘Corpus Diplomaticum Neerlando-Indicum’, Pt. II, (1650–1675), BKI., 87, 1931, pp.181–2, 186–8, 285–7.

20. For a concise account of Dutch-Banjarese relations in “this period see Noorlander, J.C., Bandjarmasin en de Compagnie in de Tweede Helft der 18de Eeuw, (Leiden, 1935), pp. 3–12.Google Scholar

21. In 1618, the Banjarmasin factory was described as one of ‘the needless factories’ Sainsbury, W. Noel (Ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, East Indies, China and Japan, 1617–1621 (London, 1870), p. 107.Google Scholar

22. Willi, , op.cit., p. 8.Google Scholar

23. Basset, D.K., ‘The “Amboyna Massacre” of 1623’, Journal Easteast Asian History. I (2), 09, 1960, p.13.Google Scholar

24. Basset, D.K., ‘The Trade of the English East India Company in the Far East, 1623–1684,’ The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 1960, pp. 32–47, 145–57.Google Scholar

25. Company to Council at Banjarmasin, 21 August, 1701. Java Factory Records. (JFR), VIB, No. 31.

26. Instructions given by Thomas Rodgett to Capt. Stacy, 13 January 1702, JFR, VIB, No.22.

27. Company to Council at Banjarmasin, , 21 08 1701. JFR, VIB, No. 31.Google Scholar

28. Willi, , op.cit., p. 11.Google Scholar

29. Company to Council at Banjarmasin, , 29 08 1701. JFR, VIB, No. 34.Google Scholar

30. Company to Council at Banjarmasin, , 21 08 1701. JFR, VIB, No. 31.Google Scholar

31. Willi, , op.cit., pp. 12–3.Google Scholar

32. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 21 07 1702. JFR, VIB, No. 56.Google Scholar

33. Allen Catchpoole was appointed President of the ‘New’ Company's China Presidency in 1699. He endeavoured to establish his headquarters at Chusan, but experienced great difficulties, and in January 1702 he was ordered to leave Chusan, He retired to Batavia, and it was under his express instructions that Banjarmasin was resettled. Eames, James Bromley, The English in China. (London. 1909), pp. 51–4.Google Scholar

34. Consultation held by Council of Chusan at Batavia, 25 April 1702. JFR, VIB, No.6.

35. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 21 07 1702.Google Scholar JFR, VIB No.56.

36. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 3 08 1702.Google Scholar JFR, VIB, No.68.

37. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 25 11 1702.Google Scholar Sumatra Factory Records. (SRR), VI.

38. Tooly, to Rouse, and Master, 11 09 1702. JFR, VIB, No.94.Google Scholar

39. Rouse, and Master, to Tooly, 21 10 1702. JFR, VIB, No.138.Google Scholar

40. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 30 12 1703. SRR, VII, f.7.Google Scholar

41. In March 1704, the Banjarmasin Council resolved to present the Old Sultan a clock and the Young Sultan a bridle and a saddle. Banjarmasin Council to company, 23, 03 1704.Google Scholar SFR, VII, f.2.

42. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 30 09 1704. SFR, VII, f.13.Google Scholar

43. Griffith, William to Company, 30 08 1705. SFR, VII, ff.23–4.Google Scholar

44. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 28 03 1705. SFR, VII, f.16.Google Scholar

45. Barre, Henry to Company, 4. 02 1706. SFR, VII, f.26.Google Scholar

46. Joyner, Thomas to Company, 30 08 1705. SFR, VII, f.30.Google Scholar

47. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 8 10 1705. SFR, VII, f.24.Google Scholar

48. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 31 01 1706. SFR, VII, f.25.Google Scholar

49. Barre, to Company, 4 02, 1706. SFR, VII, f.27.Google Scholar

50. Willi, (op.cit., p. 17)Google Scholar tends to think that Tomborneo (or Tongborneo) meant a bar which lay at the entrance to the Banjarmasin river, but in actuality, it referred to an island located close to the bar.

51. Banjarmasin Council (at Batavia) to Company, 5 03 1708. SFR, VII, f.53.Google Scholar

52. Barre, to Company, 23 11 1706.Google Scholar SFR, VII, f.34.

53. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 2h 02 1704Google Scholar, SFR, VII, f.5.

54. Barre, to Company, 23 03 1706.Google Scholar SFR, VII, f.29.

55. Barre, to Company, 23 11 1706.Google Scholar SFR, VII, f.34.

56. Banjarmasin. Council to Company, 23 11 1706Google Scholar; Barre, to Company, 30 01 1707.Google Scholar SFR, VII, ff.34, 42.

57. Rodgett, 's Instructions to Capt. Stacy, 13 01 1702Google Scholar; Edward Arnold's Instructions pertaining to Trade at Banjar, n.d., JFR, VIB, Nos.22, 23.

58. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 29 11 1706.Google Scholar SFR, VII, ff.37–8.

59. Company to Banjarmasin Council, 21 08 1701.Google Scholar JFR, VIB, No.31.

60. Barre, to Company, 4 02 1706. SFR, VII, f.26Google Scholar

61. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 29 11 1706. SFR, VII, f.38.Google Scholar

62. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 25 11 1706.Google Scholar SFR, VI. It should be pointed out here that the above figures have been mistakingly cited as representing the pepper exports of British factories in West Sumatra. See bright, A. and Read, T.H., The Malay Peninsula; A Record of British progress in the Middle East, (London, 1912), p.41Google Scholar; Bastin, John, ‘The Changing Balance of the Early Southeast Asian Pepper Trade’, Papers on Southeast. Asian. Subjects, No.1, (Kuala Lumpur, 1960), p.42.Google Scholar

63. Barre, to Company, 23 03 1706. SFR, VII, f.28.Google Scholar

64. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 25 01 1706. SFR, VI.Google Scholar

65. D. Beeckman says that the Banjarese ‘are the greatest Lovers of Opium imaginable’. See Beeckman, D., A Voyage to and from the Island of Borneo in the East Indies, (London, 1718), p.87.Google Scholar

66. The Banjarmasin Council reported that Barre was taken ill suddenly and died within a few days. The Banjarese confessed subsequently that they poisoned Barre. See Beeckman, , op.cit., pp.101–2.Google Scholar

67. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 22 03 1707.Google Scholar SFR, VII, f.43.

68. Casby, J. and Griffith, W. to Company, 2 06 1707, SFR, VII, f.46.Google Scholar

69. Griffith, to Company, 25 02 1708. SFR, VII, f.51.Google Scholar

70. Capt. Edwards to Company. 7 March 1708. SFR, VII, f.53.

71. Cunningham ‘bred a Surgeon’, had served in the Pulo Condore establishment prior to its destruction in March 1705. He was held prisoner for sometime, and on his release was given the Banjarmasin appointment. Willi, , op.cit., p.14.Google Scholar

72. Hamilton, Alexander, A New Account of the East Indies. Vol.11, Ed. by SirPoster, William, (London, 1930), p.77.Google Scholar

73. For a brief account of the fighting see Hamilton, A., op.cit., p.78.Google Scholar

74. Some effort was made at re-establishing the British factory at Banjarmasin. In March 1708, the Anna was despatched to Banjarmasin but it failed to effect a settlement. The directors were not easily discouraged, and in 1713, they renewed their efforts at Banjarmasin by sending two vessels which however, did not succeed in establishing a permanent factory. Villi, , op.cit., pp.16–7.Google Scholar

75. Banjarmasin Council to Company, 24 07 1707.Google Scholar SFR, VII, f.32.

76. Cunningham, to Company, 26 07 1707.Google Scholar SFR, VII, f.47.

77. Willi, , op.cit., p.15.Google Scholar

78. Griffith, to Company, 25 02, 1708. SFR, VII, f.51.Google Scholar

79. Company to Banjarmasin Council, 21 08 1701. JFR, VIB, No.31.Google Scholar

80. Barre, to Company, 23 03 1706. SFR, VII, f.29.Google Scholar

81. I wish to acknowledge the criticism and advice received from Dr. D.K. Bassett in the writing of this article.