Texts concerning the Revolt of the Netherlands

38 A discourse containing a true understanding of the Pacification of Ghent, of the Union of the States and other ensuing treaties in the matter of religion, 1579 ¹

This authoritative plea for religious peace was published before the special session of the States General at Antwerp in March and April 1579, where the prince of Orange intended to raise this subject again.

1 Discours contenant le vray entendement de la Pacification de Gand, de l'union des Estats, et aultres traictez y ensuyviz, touchant le faict de la religion, J.K. van der Wulp, Catalogus van de tractaten, pamfletten, enz. over de geschiedenis van Nederland aanwezig in de bibliotheek van Isaac Meulman, 1, no. 412.

[p. 174]

I think that we have elucidated well enough the true meaning of the Pacification of Ghent and the ensuing negotiations and shown that the States in no way violated the principles involved when they drafted the decree of religious peace.² The Religions-Frid is the only means of keeping peace and harmony among the inhabitants of these provinces; and the principal intention and aim of the Pacification and the Union was to establish peace.³ Consequently all those who stir up discord or make war because of some points of detail and justify this by referring to the Pacification and the Union, should be considered violators of both because they contravene their principal intention. It is the general intention which must be taken as the rule to be applied to all ensuing cases. And should any difficulty on that subject arise, it must be solved not at the whim of some private persons but by the States who are the authors of the Pacification and Union. We shall develop this point somewhat further. Obviously contracts can never be concluded between men in so valid a way that there will never be need for revision. The acts of men are never perfect; man is far too ready to seek his own advantage and to surprise his partner by interpreting the contract concluded with him in a partial manner. It is this which is at the root of so many misunderstandings between men. The only way to overcome such difficulties is for the partners to make sure that they may negotiate further contracts to settle the differences which have arisen out of the original one. It is beyond doubt that the Pacification of Ghent and the Union, contracts concluded between men, are subject to partial interpretation. Don John in particular made this quite clear. When he wished to renew civil war in our country he interpreted these agreements in his own way and so found a pretext to start war. The States replied by putting forward the only correct interpretation, declaring that it was their intention never to go to war again, and they have carried their point. When Don John took the castle of Namur and other places⁴ and justified all his deceptions by a false interpretation of the Pacification, Union and Perpetual Edict, the States repudiated this by developing their correct interpretation somewhat further in accordance with their good intentions,⁵ as I have already fully explained. From this it appears that the intention of the States has been

2 The States General resolved in their meeting of 12 July 1578 to submit the draft of the religious peace to the States of the provinces.

3 The Union of Brussels of 9 January 1577.

4 On 24 July 1577 Don John took the citadel of Namur, together with the fortresses of Charlemont and Philippeville by surprise.

5 The second Union of Brussels of 10 December 1577.

[p. 175]

from the outset to keep enough authority and power in their own hands to enable them to obviate all misunderstandings and intrigues by means of which these treaties might in future be used for any purpose other than the original.

It is in the nature of contracts that at their conclusion the aim is always to appease the parties in such a way that no discord will arise between them and that they will remain friends forever. This aim can never change, because contracts are concluded to end controversies. However, it is not possible to provide against particular problems that may arise and will mar the effect of the general purpose of the contract. If this happens, the contract must be renewed and reworded immediately and steps be taken to resolve these problems so that the general aim of remaining friends forever be not diverted or lost. And experience shows that at the conclusion of contracts there is never any mistake about the general aim: all misunderstandings that occur concern particular points and sufficient provision to resolve these can never be made. It is not possible to continue to insist that before a contract is finally concluded everything must be conditioned in detail and the parties should so conduct themselves that in future no rewording is required, for human understanding cannot foresee every contingency: circumstances always change. If it should really be impossible to compose and draw up contracts in such a way that our principal intention and general aim becomes perfectly clear, then surely all contracts would only give new food for debate and war, and this is obviously a ridiculous conclusion. In my opinion the more details one puts in a contract of alliance or friendship when concluding it, the more one deviates from one's general aim to remain friends forever. Thus one had better not enter into too much detail, but rather add a clause enabling, even compelling, all ensuing differences to be settled by friendly discussion. This ought to be self-evident as the contract has been concluded in good faith.

By the way, how, when concluding the Pacification, could the States have possibly made provision for all such contingencies as might arise afterwards? Certainly they did not have the time to consider the situation carefully. For, so closely oppressed as they were, on one side by the Spaniards, on the other by the common people reduced to commotion by the sack of Antwerp,⁶ they were compelled to come to a decision without even thinking of all the contingencies we have mentioned above. Given the circumstances this was to be expected. The States were therefore satisfied

6 The Spanish Fury of 4 November 1576.

[p. 176]

to have so settled things that the provinces of Holland, Zeeland and their associates would return to the community of our state. As to the future, they intended to adapt their policies to circumstances. At present we can see that to preserve the state we must concede their freedom to adherents of the reformed religion as has been done in Holland and Zeeland; otherwise we shall endanger the whole country. But as it was made a condition when conceding this freedom to adherents of the reformed religion in Holland, that they should give no offence to the other provinces,⁷ similarly it must be made a condition that the adherents of the reformed religion in the other provinces should not give offence to the Catholics of their towns nor disturb them in their practice. In making these provisions the States do not violate the Pacification; they wish to prevent disputes arising in the other provinces because of difference of religion. And this is the principal aim of the Pacification.

That the States have reserved to themselves, that is to the Union, the power of settling all differences which might arise afterwards, appears from the clause in the Union, in which it is said that no member of the Union may privately offer any counsel or advice, nor have any secret understanding with people who are not members of their Union, nor reveal to them what is or will be discussed, advised or resolved in their assembly; and that all shall be obliged to conform to whatever their general and unanimous resolution implies.⁸ This was put in such a way because they were convinced that after concluding the Union with the object of remaining friends forever and maintaining the liberty of the country, the particular points laid down in the Union would always be subject to distortions, and therefore the best thing was to leave everything to the States.

It is nonsense to maintain that because His Majesty confirmed it the States cannot interpret, moderate or alter the Pacification without the king's consent. After agreeing to it, the king himself immediately violated it and later expressly declared in his letters that he did not wish to hear about it any more.⁹ But, apart from this, since the king has so far forgotten his duty towards his subjects that he does not deserve to be mentioned by them, it is quite unnecessary to respect him when order must be established in this country. His Highness, His Excellency,¹⁰ the Council

7 See the Pacification, Document 23.

8 See the First Union of Brussels, Document 24.

9 It was approved by the ratification of the Perpetual Edict at the beginning of 1577, but disavowed in the letters from the king transmitted by John Noircarmes, baron of Selles, at the end of this year.

10 Matthias and the prince of Orange.

[p. 177]

and the States must establish order and they possess for doing so the same authority they had before.