canker of freemen’ might not enter the manor; but
the patrons cheerfully joined the free boors in resisting arbitrary taxation.
As a compromise, it was proposed that, from a double nomination by the villages, the governor should appoint tribunes, to act as magistrates in trivial cases, and as agents for the towns, to give their opinion whenever they should be consulted.
Town meetings were absolutely prohibited.1
Vander Donk and others were charged with leaving nothing untried to abjure what they called the galling yoke of an arbitrary gov-
A commission repaired to Holland
for redress; as farmers, they claimed the liberties essential
to the prosperity of agriculture; as merchants, they protested against the intolerable burden of the customs; and when redress was refused, tyranny was followed by its usual consequence—clandestine associations against oppression.2
The excess of complaint obtained for New Amsterdam a court of justice like that of the
metropolis; but the municipal liberties included no political franchise; the sheriff3
was appointed by the governor; the two burgomasters and five schepens made a double nomination of their own successors, from which ‘the valiant director himself elected the board.’4
The city had privileges, not the citizens.
The province gained only the municipal liberties, on which rested the commercial aristocracy of Holland
Citizenship was a commercial privilege, and not a political enfranchisement.5
It was not much more than a license to trade.6