ecretary of the province under Kieft and Stuyvesant, had
been sent by the latter to Holland to counteract the efforts of the
three emissaries whom the commonalty had sent thither to denounce the
existing system of government. Working in close co-operation with the
Amsterdam Chamber of the West India Company, he played a skilful game,
and succeeded in delaying and in part averting hostile action on
the part of the States General. The piece which follows is his chief
defensive recital of the acts of the administration, and as such has
much value.

Van Tienhoven had the reputation of a libertine, and conducted himself
as such while in Holland, finally escaping to New Netherland in 1651
with a girl whom he had deceived, though he had a wife in the province.
Yet Stuyvesant retained him in his favor, promoted him in 1652 to be
schout-fiscaal of New Netherland, and used him as his chief assistant.
After a disastrous outbreak, however, understood to have been caused by
his advice, the Company ordered Stuyvesant to exclude him from
office; and presently Van Tienhoven and his brother, a fraudulent
receiver-general, absconded from the province.

The manuscript of Van Tienhoven's _Answer_ was found by Brodhead in the
archives of the Netherlands, and is still there. Two translations of it,
differing but slightly, have been printed, the first in 1849 by Henry C.
Murphy, in the _Collections of the New York Historical Society_,
second series, II. 329-338, the other in the _Documents relating to
the Colonial History of New York_, I. 422-432. The former, revised
by comparison with the original manuscript at the Hague by Professor
William I. Hull, of Swarthmore College, appears in the following pages.

ANSWER TO THE REPRESENTATION OF NEW NETHERLAND, BY CORNELIS VAN
TIENHOVEN, 1650

A Brief Statement or Answer to some Points embraced in the Written
Deduction of Adrian van der Donk and his Associates, presented to
the High and Mighty Lords States General. Prepared by Cornelis van
Tienhoven, Secretary of the Director and Council of New Netherland.

IN order to present the aforesaid answer succinctly, he, Van Tienhoven,
will allege not only that it ill becomes the aforesaid Van her Donk
and other private persons to assail and abuse the administration of the
Managers in this country, and that of their Governors there,(1) in such
harsh and general terms, but that they would much better discharge
their duty if they were first to bring