Note on identification. P. H. van der Kemp’s text refers throughout to the Dutch Foreign Affairs minister simply as “Van Nagell” — that is, to Anne Willem Carel, Baron van Nagell (1756–1851), who served as head of the Dutch Foreign Office from 1813 to 1824. The original batch catalogue for this article mis-attributed the role to Cornelis Felix van Maanen (1772–1846), who was in fact the Dutch minister of Justice during the same period. The article below is written about the figure actually mentioned in Van der Kemp’s text: the Foreign Affairs minister Van Nagell.
Van Nagell — Anne Willem Carel, Baron van Nagell van Ampsen — served as minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands from 1813 until 1824, and in that capacity presided over the Dutch side of the diplomatic exchanges that followed Raffles’s interloping in the Malay Archipelago. In P. H. van der Kemp’s 1900 article he is mentioned twice, in both cases in connection with the diplomatic fall-out of Raffles’s actions: first, as the minister who exchanged memoranda with the British envoy in 1819 concerning Raffles’s conduct; second, as the addressee of a remarkable correspondence from the Dutch ambassador in London, Fagel, in January 1820.
The 1819 Memoranda with the British Envoy
Van der Kemp’s first reference to Van Nagell occurs in a footnote to his discussion of the British declaration — embodied in the treaty of 1824 — that the Netherlands “distinctly and solemnly disclaim any design on their part to aim either at political supremacy or at commercial monopoly in the Eastern Archipelago.” This declaration, Van der Kemp notes, was “not new,” having already appeared in the notes exchanged in August 1820 between Castlereagh–Canning and Fagel–Elout. But there had been an even earlier exchange on the same subject: “See the memoranda exchanged between Van Nagell and the British envoy in 1819, in Van Deventer’s appendices LXV and LXVI, ‘Nederlandsch Gezag’.” These memoranda — printed by S. van Deventer in his documentary appendices — constitute the first formal Dutch protest against Raffles’s conduct, and were drawn up at The Hague under Van Nagell’s supervision. The case, Van der Kemp adds, was again raised during the 1824 negotiations.
The Fagel–Van Nagell Correspondence of January 1820
Van Nagell’s second appearance in the article concerns a correspondence with the Dutch envoy in London. “There exists on this subject,” Van der Kemp writes, “a remarkable correspondence of 14 and 25 January 1820 between our envoy Fagel and minister Van Nagell; the latter was deeply indignant at Castlereagh’s communication that we should have to bear some sacrifices for the sake of the opposition in England.” The episode is significant as evidence of the friction between the Dutch and British governments over the question of compensation for the Dutch factories in Hindostan, which had been promised in 1814 but remained under negotiation six years later. Castlereagh later denied having made the offending communication; Fagel, who had reported it to Van Nagell, “maintained the truth of his communications.”
The Foreign Office in 1824
By February 1824, when the London treaty was in its final stage of negotiation, Van Nagell had either left or was about to leave the Foreign Office. Van der Kemp records that the Dutch Foreign Office “was at that time without a leading head. It was merely looked after by one of our envoys, Ridder Reinhold, who had no understanding of the matter.” The absence of Van Nagell (or of any successor of comparable standing) at this critical juncture is one of the structural causes Van der Kemp identifies for the mishandling of the Acheh treaty question. Had Van Nagell still been in office, the King’s authorisation of 13 February 1824 might not have been so lightly given on the strength of an oral communication by Captain Elout.
The Sumatra Question
Van Nagell’s overall responsibility extends, in Van der Kemp’s reading, to the entire period of Anglo-Dutch colonial negotiation between 1814 and 1824 — a decade during which the Dutch Foreign Office under his direction failed to translate strong diplomatic language (such as article 1 of the concept-convention of 24 July 1820, demanding an open British disavowal of Raffles’s conduct) into effective treaty guarantees. The eventual treaty of 17 March 1824, while it secured the formal Dutch sphere on Sumatra, left the Acheh reservation — that “Trojan horse” of British influence — embedded in the supplementary notes. Van der Kemp’s two references to Van Nagell thus frame a decade of Dutch diplomatic effort that, in his judgement, ended in substantial failure.
See Also
- Hendrik Fagel
- Elout
- Anton Reinhard Falck
- Ridder Reinhold
- Lord Castlereagh
- George Canning
- Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles
- Anglo-Dutch Treaty of London (1814)
- Anglo-Dutch Treaty of London (1824)
- Concept-convention of 24 July 1820
- Fagel-Elout negotiations (August 1820)
- Raising of the Acheh treaty in London negotiations
- Article 6 controversy
- Paper war
Source
Raffles’ Atjeh-overeenkomst van 1819, by P. H. van der Kemp, in Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 6e Volgr., Deel VII (1900), pp. 159-239. Universiteitsbibliotheek Vrije Universiteit, LS.08781.
Note on identification. P. H. van der Kemp’s text refers throughout to the Dutch Foreign Affairs minister simply as “Van Nagell” — that is, to Anne Willem Carel, Baron van Nagell (1756–1851), who served as head of the Dutch Foreign Office from 1813 to 1824. The original batch catalogue for this article mis-attributed the role to Cornelis Felix van Maanen (1772–1846), who was in fact the Dutch minister of Justice during the same period. The article below is written about the figure actually mentioned in Van der Kemp’s text: the Foreign Affairs minister Van Nagell.
Van Nagell — Anne Willem Carel, Baron van Nagell van Ampsen — served as minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands from 1813 until 1824, and in that capacity presided over the Dutch side of the diplomatic exchanges that followed Raffles’s interloping in the Malay Archipelago. In P. H. van der Kemp’s 1900 article he is mentioned twice, in both cases in connection with the diplomatic fall-out of Raffles’s actions: first, as the minister who exchanged memoranda with the British envoy in 1819 concerning Raffles’s conduct; second, as the addressee of a remarkable correspondence from the Dutch ambassador in London, Fagel, in January 1820.
The 1819 Memoranda with the British Envoy
Van der Kemp’s first reference to Van Nagell occurs in a footnote to his discussion of the British declaration — embodied in the treaty of 1824 — that the Netherlands “distinctly and solemnly disclaim any design on their part to aim either at political supremacy or at commercial monopoly in the Eastern Archipelago.” This declaration, Van der Kemp notes, was “not new,” having already appeared in the notes exchanged in August 1820 between Castlereagh–Canning and Fagel–Elout. But there had been an even earlier exchange on the same subject: “See the memoranda exchanged between Van Nagell and the British envoy in 1819, in Van Deventer’s appendices LXV and LXVI, ‘Nederlandsch Gezag’.” These memoranda — printed by S. van Deventer in his documentary appendices — constitute the first formal Dutch protest against Raffles’s conduct, and were drawn up at The Hague under Van Nagell’s supervision. The case, Van der Kemp adds, was again raised during the 1824 negotiations.
The Fagel–Van Nagell Correspondence of January 1820
Van Nagell’s second appearance in the article concerns a correspondence with the Dutch envoy in London. “There exists on this subject,” Van der Kemp writes, “a remarkable correspondence of 14 and 25 January 1820 between our envoy Fagel and minister Van Nagell; the latter was deeply indignant at Castlereagh’s communication that we should have to bear some sacrifices for the sake of the opposition in England.” The episode is significant as evidence of the friction between the Dutch and British governments over the question of compensation for the Dutch factories in Hindostan, which had been promised in 1814 but remained under negotiation six years later. Castlereagh later denied having made the offending communication; Fagel, who had reported it to Van Nagell, “maintained the truth of his communications.”
The Foreign Office in 1824
By February 1824, when the London treaty was in its final stage of negotiation, Van Nagell had either left or was about to leave the Foreign Office. Van der Kemp records that the Dutch Foreign Office “was at that time without a leading head. It was merely looked after by one of our envoys, Ridder Reinhold, who had no understanding of the matter.” The absence of Van Nagell (or of any successor of comparable standing) at this critical juncture is one of the structural causes Van der Kemp identifies for the mishandling of the Acheh treaty question. Had Van Nagell still been in office, the King’s authorisation of 13 February 1824 might not have been so lightly given on the strength of an oral communication by Captain Elout.
The Sumatra Question
Van Nagell’s overall responsibility extends, in Van der Kemp’s reading, to the entire period of Anglo-Dutch colonial negotiation between 1814 and 1824 — a decade during which the Dutch Foreign Office under his direction failed to translate strong diplomatic language (such as article 1 of the concept-convention of 24 July 1820, demanding an open British disavowal of Raffles’s conduct) into effective treaty guarantees. The eventual treaty of 17 March 1824, while it secured the formal Dutch sphere on Sumatra, left the Acheh reservation — that “Trojan horse” of British influence — embedded in the supplementary notes. Van der Kemp’s two references to Van Nagell thus frame a decade of Dutch diplomatic effort that, in his judgement, ended in substantial failure.
See Also
- Hendrik Fagel
- Elout
- Anton Reinhard Falck
- Ridder Reinhold
- Lord Castlereagh
- George Canning
- Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles
- Anglo-Dutch Treaty of London (1814)
- Anglo-Dutch Treaty of London (1824)
- Concept-convention of 24 July 1820
- Fagel-Elout negotiations (August 1820)
- Raising of the Acheh treaty in London negotiations
- Article 6 controversy
- Paper war
Source
Raffles’ Atjeh-overeenkomst van 1819, by P. H. van der Kemp, in Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 6e Volgr., Deel VII (1900), pp. 159-239. Universiteitsbibliotheek Vrije Universiteit, LS.08781.