Texts concerning the Revolt of the Netherlands

21 Discourse of John Junius de Jonghe, 1574 ¹

This discourse was written by Doctor Junius de Jonghe of Brabant. He had been in the service of the Elector Palatine Frederick III since 1565 and was appointed governor of Veere by the prince of Orange in 1573. He went to Utrecht as a hostage in July 1574 to replace Marnix of St Aldegonde, who was then allowed to go to Holland to

1 Discours van Johannes Junius de Jonghe op den brief van den heere van Champagny (Knuttel, no. 224).

[p. 120]

take part in peace negotiations. The Discourse is Junius's answer to a letter of 13 August 1574 from the governor of Antwerp Frederick Perrenot, lord of Champagny (brother of Cardinal Granvelle), who conducted these peace negotiations on the Spanish side.

If you tell us that it is surprising that the subjects force the sovereign to convene the States [the States of Holland and Zeeland] are greatly astonished, for they are sure that you know perfectly well that the king in his goodness committed himself to allow this because he realised it was the basis and support of his authority and his entire royal power. In a good political and civil government the States are the leaders and the most important men of the people and represent the masses. What other men than the States of the land could so naturally be united with a good king who wishes to be a father and shepherd to his people? As there is nothing that accords better with the head of a human body than those members in which the force of life resides, because they are the principal instruments through which the life creating spirit, coming from the brain, is spread through the complicated system of nerves and veins in the entire body and keeps each separate member in natural community with the general body, so a good king spreads through the States to the entire body of the commonalty not only the benevolence, grace and privileges, thanks to which he keeps them united, but also the goodness, laws and ordinances by which the people are kept in good discipline and unity...

You say that only as a special favour did our king's ancestors allow the States General to assemble for matters of the highest moment. Even if this were true, it would indeed be most offensive to pretend that the king is less well-disposed towards these provinces than were his ancestors. This would mean that he has, in your view, a conception of authority and a method of government totally different from that which they had. If this were true the fruits to be expected from his rule would be the opposite of what his ancestors enjoyed: the hatred of the subjects instead of love, tyranny instead of lawful government and finally total ruin instead of prosperity.

But I cannot think that you are so ignorant of history or that your knowledge of the states of these Netherlands has grown so dim that you do not know that after the time of Charlemagne this country and these provinces were united into one body with many other neighbouring provinces under the name of Austrasia or - after Lothario,² one of

2 In 855 Lothario II became king of a realm extending from Burgundy to the North Sea, afterwards called Lorraine.

[p. 121]

Charlemagne's descendants, to whom the country was given - Lorraine. And though Lorraine was later divided between various successors, the parts nearly always had some union of friendship and mutual alliance or confederation with each other until duke Philip the Good quasi iure postliminii³ again joined them into one inseparable body and tied them together by very many fine ordinances, laws and privileges, given to the whole. Philip assembled all the States as often as was necessary,⁴ showing himself to all alike as a father of their country and a shepherd of the nation. The emperor and pope then even offered him the chance of making a kingdom of these Netherlands,⁵ but he would never permit this because he was averse to ambition and because he would not degrade the provinces and towns by such an innovation or do anything contrary to the oath he had sworn to them.

If you argue that our king possesses some provinces at present which then had nothing in common with them, I answer that the said duke at that time possessed other provinces in much the same state, which were afterwards separated from the provinces which remained in his possession. Thus, after he had gained possession of Holland and Zeeland, Philip the Good left these provinces united into one state to his son and only heir Charles the Bold.⁶ Charles was more ambitious and openly tried to make a kingdom of the Netherlands and might have succeeded had he not been prevented by the States of the country, which opposed this plan, as well as by the envy of Frederick III, emperor at the time.⁷ However this may be, nevertheless he left to his only daughter⁸ the whole of the Netherlands as a united body, joined together by many strong indissoluble ties. Her husband Maximilian, who became emperor afterwards, and after him his son Archduke Philip obtained them in the same way;⁹ and the emperor,

3 The right of returning to the old legal position. Cf. Corp. Iur. Just., 1, 6 pr. D. 1, 8.

4 This was done for the first time in 1465.

5 Emperor Frederick III was willing to elevate the duchy of Brabant to a kingdom within the Holy Roman Empire, but refused to detach the Burgundian Netherlands from the Empire in order to allow the creation of a kingdom of Burgundy.

6 Holland and Zeeland actually came into Philip's possession in 1433 (after Jemina of Bavaria's abdication). The conveyance of his provinces to Charles the Bold took place in 1465 (Philip died in 1467).

7 This passage refers to the negotiations at Treves in 1473 and the Emperor's sudden departure which ruined Charles's expectations of a royal title.

8 Mary, 1477-82.

9 Maximilian, Holy Roman Emperor from 1493, acted as regent for his son Philip the Fair from 1482 till 1494.

[p. 122]

Charles V, too, the father of our king, sacred be his memory, left them as an inheritance to his son.¹⁰ Charles V, not satisfied with the junction and union mentioned before and clearly expecting that afterwards attempts would be made to set the provinces against each other in hatred and quarrels under the pretext that they had nothing in common with each other, abolished and removed all the differences which existed in their legal systems (for some were legally dependent on the crown of France, some on the empire and some were organised in yet another way). At a general diet in Germany¹¹ he united all the provinces into one body with the consent of all princes and estates of the empire, ordaining that henceforward all these provinces inseparably united should be held in fief from the empire; to this end they should contribute to the ordinary imperial taxes as much as two princes of the empire. This was held inviolate by His Imperial Highness, sacred be his memory, as well as by our king, so that His Majesty sent the count of Hoogstraten, sacred be his memory,¹² to Germany to emphasise that the said provinces are one body or one circle of the empire.

As they have always been recognised as such I was very surprised to hear you say that these provinces are so different in the matter of sovereignty and jurisdiction and that they have nothing in common with each other but their geographical location. Why do they assemble together in the matter of taxes and requests¹³ and why are the taxes afterwards divided and levied according to the individual power of every province? Do you really want the provinces to be but one body over tax matters but when steps are needed to stop the total destruction of the whole country each province to deal with the matter independently without taking measures in common with the others? This is in my poor opinion not only beyond all reason but also has some semblance of tyranny and injustice. But I would ask you this: when His Majesty reminded the States of the distress of the French war in the year 1557, how could they then have taken that heavy burden upon themselves unless unitedly? And how

10 Maximilian once again acted as regent after Philip's death (1506) until his grandson Charles V assumed personal power in 1515.

11 At Augsburg in 1548 (see Document 19, n. 8). The feudal ties between the provinces of Flanders and Artois and France were severed in 1529.

12 Anthony Lalaing, count of Hoogstraten, Knight of the Golden Fleece and supporter of Orange in his struggle with Granvelle, made this journey to Vienna before April 1566. He was wounded during Orange's campaign in 1568, and died shortly after.

13 At least the so-called patrimonial provinces, that is, the provinces which had been part of the Burgundian possessions since the time of Philip the Good.

[p. 123]

could they have succeeded in carrying it but thanks to their exceptional loyalty to the lord of their country and the admirable harmony with which, to the highest praise and honour of His Royal Majesty, they raised the nine years' subsidy?¹⁴ So it seems that in order to wage war against a foreign potentate, the provinces of the Netherlands as well as their States are considered to be one single body, whereas in this disastrous domestic war which brings total ruin upon them, they have to be considered separate from each other and not entitled to assemble the States General to remedy the common disease by means of a common medicine.

For who does not know that the provinces of these Netherlands have always derived the greatest advantage from being united with each other? Has this union not been the origin of the old custom they have always observed, of assembling towns and provinces for the meeting of the archers and crossbowmen and bearers of other old-fashioned arms, which they call the landjuweel? Why else have the towns and provinces always met for public repasts and plays by order of the authorities unless it were to demonstrate the great unity of these provinces, as Greece showed her unity in the meeting of the Olympic Games? Is not the name of Netherlanders, or Flemish, as the Spaniards call us nowadays, common to all the Netherlands? Though two languages are spoken in the Netherlands, these are so familiar throughout these provinces that in many towns both languages are almost equally spoken. Are not nearly all the provincial High Courts subordinate to the Great Council of Mechlin¹⁵ and have the ecclesiastical jurisdictions not traditionally been subject to Cologne or Mentz?¹⁶ What further evidence do you wish to hear beyond that which I have produced, that all these provinces are only one circle or province of the empire?

How could you think it strange that a circle of the empire assembles its states simultaneously? In fact, if one province is allowed to assemble without the other such a circle might be considered a monstrosity...

And even if the fact that the king and the emperor, Charles, sacred be his memory, issued their edicts and placards about religion in all the provinces in general, should be the only evidence, does not this in itself refute your statement that these provinces of the Netherlands have

14 The States General had been allowed to supervise the way in which the nine years' subsidy was spent.

15 The Great Council of Mechlin was the supreme court of justice, created by Charles the Bold in 1473.

16 Not Cologne and Mainz but Cologne, Rheims and Treves were the archbishoprics to which the Netherlands belonged before 1559.

[p. 124]

nothing in common with each other? And is the request of the people of Holland and Zeeland¹⁷ not wholly justified by the rule Quod omnes attingit, ab omnibus probari debet,¹⁸ that is, what concerns all in common, must be decided upon by all? For as the great rigour of the edicts issued in all the provinces of these Netherlands in general has brought about a general rising of the people, why should the General States of all the provinces not assemble together?

17 This request of the States of Holland and Zeeland to the king was handed to Marnix in July 1574. He delivered it to Champagny who in his turn sent it back as unacceptable with a covering letter to Junius dated 13 August 1574.

18 This famous formula is first to be found in the Constitution of Justinian of 531. It was cited throughout the Middle Ages. Cf. Corp. Iur. Can., c. 101, 1, n.2.