Texts concerning the Revolt of the Netherlands

[p. 180]

40 Letters from the States of the Netherlands to the Electors and other commissaries of His Imperial Majesty sent to Cologne to make peace, 10 September 1579 ¹

In this letter the States General answered the proposals of mediation made at the Cologne peace conference by the imperial commissioners (the electors of Cologne and Treves, the bishop of Würzburg and the count of Schwartzenberg). These negotiations opened in May 1579 in the presence of the papal nuncio. The duke of Terranova was there for Spain.

When the inhabitants of the provinces learned that the king refused to allow them to abide by the Pacification of Ghent and that a general war, leading in its turn to serious domestic quarrels, was fought to ensure that those who had forsaken the Roman Catholic religion and would not come back to the old religious rites prevailing at the time of Charles V, would be banished or massacred in violation of the Pacification of Ghent, which they were not allowed to keep, things had come to such a pass that to ward off the complete ruin of the provinces it was necessary to take further action and to restore the peace of the inhabitants firstly by letters in which the parties promised to respect each other's religious persuasion² and later by religious peace³ and other agreements. Therefore people who accuse the inhabitants or the States of inconstancy and almost of perjury for exceeding the limits of the Pacification of Ghent by permitting the exercise of another religion should be bitterly hated and blamed. For it was the king, the king's commanders and councillors who were the first to reject the afore-mentioned Pacification⁴ under the pretext of the Perpetual Edict and some letters as being dishonest and scandalous. They strove to abolish it by force of arms and to restore the former cruel conditions of the inquisition. In fact the States and the inhabitants were not allowed to keep the Pacification though they wanted and desired it (with

1 Brieven der Staten van Nederlant aen de keurvorsten ende andere commissarissen der Keyserlicker Maiesteyt nae Cuelen ghesonden om den peys te maecken (Knuttel, no. 484).

2 At the second Union of Brussels of 10 December 1577.

3 See Document 38, note 2.

4 See Document 38, note 9.

[p. 181]

permission and under the protection of the clerics) to avert further misery and difficulties; the king's captains and soldiers made this impossible. Apart from the fact that the inhabitants may have wanted to alter the Pacification concluded by them, it was the king's severity, the distress of the provinces and the desire to prevent the imminent dangers (which one feared because of the war that was started and the ensuing domestic quarrels) that made the States introduce some necessary alterations. This obviously suffices to justify the States' policy. A man prevented by a stronger person from doing what he wants to do cannot be blamed for his actions; nor may he be blamed if he is forced by circumstances to alter his conduct, for instance, if the country's distress requires new measures to prevent domestic troubles or the threat of hostile armies. All laws and statutes should be made conducive to the peace of the commonwealth and ordinances, dispositions and treaties should be observed as long as circumstances do not change and remain as they were before. Only those can be accused of breach of faith and inconstancy who do not do what they promised so long as circumstances remain as they were at the time when the promise was made. However if circumstances change or if those who made the promise are prevented from carrying it out, the situation becomes totally different - especially in the present case when both the changes and the impossibility to carry out one's promises are caused by the very people with whom negotiations were conducted and when there is a real danger of disturbances (as the Spaniards had certainly expected when they revoked the Pacification)...

And because His Royal Majesty once rejected the Pacification of Ghent so resolutely and strove so hard to abolish and annihilate it entirely and spent so much money on this war, we rightly call into question the fine words addressed under pretext of the Pacification to the nobles and burghers. We fear that the only reason why there are so many foreign soldiers about is to try to deceive the people and to stir up greater dissension and to mislead and to surprise all the towns and provinces. For since the king rejected the Pacification when the provinces were in a more favourable condition, who will believe that now after having brought so much woe upon the provinces and having spent so much money on the war, he will wholeheartedly approve of the Pacification and lay it before his subjects in full earnest? The opposite seems clear from the veiled wording of the articles⁵ and from the fact that the Pacification has been altered not only with regard to the authority of the prince of Orange and

5 The proposals of mediation made on 18 July 1579.

[p. 182]

the assurance given to Holland and Zeeland but also because the Perpetual Edict is interpreted as an integral part of it and the two new articles concerning religion contain explicit binding regulations, according to which the inhabitants of the other provinces are more strictly obliged and with more stringent stipulations than in the preceding Pacification to profess the Roman Catholic faith in accordance with the pretended obligation of the Perpetual Edict. This is clear from the vague and diffuse words of the afore-mentioned articles and from the excepting clause which follows. According to these the religious stipulations of the Pacification of Ghent are valid only with regard to the inhabitants of Holland, Zeeland and Bommel. And though in the second article dealing with religion, under the pretext of merciful generosity, those who have forsaken the Roman Catholic religion, are said to be tolerated, this toleration is immediately restricted to exempting them from the rigour of the king's religious edicts. People who left these provinces must have their possessions administered by Catholics. When they return they must live as Catholics and make it clear to the local priest and magistrate that they really do so. This is quite contrary to the Pacification of Ghent which allows every one to arrive in, to stay in, to trade in, to depart from, and to return to these provinces without being obliged to profess any particular religion, and to entrust the administration of his goods to whoever he chooses.⁶ Thus the Pacification of Ghent is highly praised in order to increase domestic dissension, while in truth its benefit is entirely lost and annihilated. In fact the old conditions have been restored in which any one was liable to the inquisition, excommunication, first indictment, second indictment, invocation of the secular authority and the rest of the usual practices. In the present situation, however, such means cannot be used without creating everlasting mutual hostility between the provinces and towns, without causing disturbances and internecine killings by the inhabitants with great danger that what remains of the Catholic religion as well as of the king's authority will be totally lost.

6 See Pacification, Document 23.