|
[[Berkas:Gustaaf Willem baron van Imhoff2.jpg|thumb|Van Imhoff dikirim kembali ke Belanda, tetapi kemudian menjadi Gubernur-Jenderal Hindia Belanda yang baru.]]
Valckenier hadsudah askeddiminta todigantikan besebagai replacedgubernur-jenderal latepada inakhir tahun 1740, anddan inpada Februarybulan Februari 1741 hadmenerima receivedsurat ayang replymenyuruh instructingdia him to appointmengangkat van Imhoff assebagai his successorpenggantinya;{{sfn|Vanvugt|1985|p=106}} anversi alternativelain accountialah indicatesbahwa that the LordsHeeren XVII informedmenggantikan himValckenier thatsebagai hehukuman wasatas toekspornya beterlalu replacedbanyak bygula vandan Imhoffterlalu assedikit punishmentkopi forpada exporting too much sugar and too little coffee intahun 1739, andyang thussangat causingmerugikan large financial lossesVOC.{{sfn|Ricklefs|2001|p=124}}{{sfn|Raat|2010|p=82}} By the timeSaat Valckenier receivedmenerima thesurat replytersebut, van Imhoff was already on his waysudah backdalam toperjalanan theke NetherlandsBelanda. Valckenier leftmeninggalkan theHindia IndiesBelanda onpada 6tanggal 6 November 1741, aftersetelah appointing a temporary successor,memilih [[Johannes Thedens]]. Takingsebagai commandpenggantinya ofsampai avan fleet,Imhoff Valckeniesudah headedkembali. forPada the Netherlands. Ontanggal 25 January Januari 1742 hedia arrivedmendarat indi Capetown[[Cape butTown]] wastetapi detained,ditangkap anddan investigateddiselidiki byoleh governorgubernur Hendrik Swellengrebel byatas orderperintah of the LordsHeeren XVII. InValckenier Augustdikirim 1942kembali Valckenierke wasBatavia sentpada backbulan toAgustus Batavia1742, wheredi hemana wasia imprisoneddipenjarakan indi FortBenteng Batavia, anddan, threetiga monthsbulan laterkemudian, trieddigugat onatas severalbeberapa chargestuntutan, including histermasuk involvementketerlibatannya indalam theGeger massacrePacinan.{{sfn|Stellwagen|1895|p=227}} InPada Marchbulan Maret 1744 heia wasdinyatakan convictedbersalah anddan condemneddituntut todengan death,hukuman andmati; allharta hisbendanya belongings were confiscateddisita.{{sfn|Blok|Molhuysen|1927|pp=1220–1221}} InPada bulan December 1744 thekasus trialitu wasdibukakan reopenedkembali whensetelah Valckenier gavemembuat apernyataan lengthyyang statementpanjang tountuk defendmembela himselfdirinya.{{sfn|Geyl|1962|p=341}}{{sfn|Vanvugt|1985|pp=92–95, 106–107}}{{sfn|Blok|Molhuysen|1927|p=1220}} Valckenier askedmeminta forlebih morebanyak evidencebukti fromdari the NetherlandsBelanda, buttetapi diedmati indalam hiskurungan prisonpada cell ontanggal 20 June Juni 1751, beforesebelum thepenyelidikan investigation was completeddiselesaikan. TheHukuman deathmati penaltydibatalkan waspada rescinded posthumously intahun 1755.{{sfn|Setiono|2008|pp=125–126}}{{sfn|Blok|Molhuysen|1927|p=1220}} Vermeulen characterisesberpendapat thebahwa investigationpenyeledikan asValckenier unfairtidak andadil fuelleddan bydipicu popularoleh outrageamarah inmasyarakat thedi Netherlands,Belanda.{{sfn|Terpstra|1939|p=246}} andIni arguablymungkin thisdiakui wassecara officiallyresmi, recognisedsebab becausepada intahun 1760 Valckenier'sputra sonValckenier, Adriaan Isaäk Valckenier, receivedmendapatkan reparationsganti totallingrugi sebanyak 725,.000 [[Gulden Hindia-Belanda|gulden]].{{sfn|Blok|Molhuysen|1927|p=1221}}
Sugar production in the area suffered greatly after the massacre, as many of the Chinese who had run the industry had been killed or were missing. It began to recover after the new governor-general, van Imhoff, "colonised" Tangerang. He initially intended for men to come from the Netherlands and work the land; he considered those already settled in the Indies to be lazy. However, he was unable to attract new settlers because of high taxes and thus sold the land to those already in Batavia. As he had expected, the new land-owners were unwilling to "soil their hands", and quickly rented out the land to ethnic Chinese.{{sfn|Ota|2006|p=133}} Production rose steadily after this, but took until the 1760s to reach pre-1740 levels, after which it again diminished.{{sfn|Ota|2006|p=133}}{{sfn|Bulbeck|Reid|Tan|Wu|1998|p=113}} The number of mills also declined. In 1710 there had been 131, but by 1750 the number had fallen to 66.{{sfn|Dobbin|1996|pp=53–55}}
|
