does many bad things which he otherwise would not do; in a word,
that he is an indirect cause of his ruin and dislike in the
country. But it seems that the Director can or will not see it;
for when it was represented to him by some persons he gave it
no consideration. It has been contrived to disguise and manage
matters so, that in the Fatherland, where the truth can be
freely spoken, nobody would be able to molest him in order to
discover the truth. We do not attempt it. Having established
the powers of the Council, it is easy to understand that the
right people clung by each other, in order to maintain the
imaginary sovereignty and to give a gloss to the whole business.
Nine men were chosen to represent the whole commonalty, and
commissions and instructions were given that whatever these
men should do, should be the act of the whole commonalty.<6>
And so in fact it was, as long as it corresponded with the
wishes and views of the Director. In such cases they
represented the whole commonalty; but when it did not so
correspond, they were then clowns, usurers, rebels and the
like. But to understand this properly it will be best briefly
to state all things chronologically, as they have happened
during his administration, and in what manner those who have
sought the good of the country have been treated with injustice.

<1> Lubbertus van Dincklagen, doctor of laws, was sent out as
schout-fiscaal of New Netherland in 1634, quarrelled with Van
Twiller, and was sent back by him in 1636. In 1644 he was
Provisionally appointed as Kieft's successor, but Stuyvesant
was finally made Director, and Van Dincklagen went out with
him as vice-director and second member of the Council. He
opposed some of Stuyvesant's arbitrary acts, supplied the three