Texts concerning the Revolt of the Netherlands

[p. 183]

41 A brief discourse upon the peace negotiations which are now taking place at Cologne between the king of Spain and the States of the Netherlands, 1579 ¹

This discourse expounds a clear Calvinistic view concerning the peace negotiations at Cologne of 1579. It emphatically defends the policy of the States General.

Among the people who presume that the States General are responsible for continuing the war are on the one hand subjects and inhabitants of the country who remain loyal to our cause, and on the other hand the enemies: the Spaniards and their adherents. By ignorance or by malice they hold opinions about affairs which do not square with the safety and conservation of the state. We may suppose that those inhabitants of the united provinces who quite wrongly believe that it is the States who protract this war, are not well acquainted with what is happening and, secondly, are moved by a great desire to see the country at peace again and fully flourishing. Although their error is excusable because their intentions are good and laudable, they should however before forming a judgment take the trouble to enquire and to learn the reasons for the long duration of the disturbances and civil wars. If they do this, they will realise that the States General are constituted by people who appear and assemble on behalf of the nobles and the towns of the provinces. This means that the inhabitants themselves, who have delegated them, have also the power and authority to delegate others, if those who have this commission now or in future, do not do their duties in such a way as their state and charge requires. Therefore to calumniate them amounts to criticising oneself.

Moreover there is no reason in the world which could move the States to prolong the dissension and war. For it is a well-known fact that they have not had and have not now any money available to spend to their profit and advantage. And from the very beginning of the assembly, the shortage of money has continually been such that it was always allocated for war necessities before it had even been received. The situation the States have been in during these recent peace negotiations is common knowledge. They have indeed kept aloof from all financial administra-

1 Brief discours sur la negotiation de la paix, qui se traicte présentement à Coloigne entre le Roy d'Espaigne et let Estatz du Pays bas (Knuttel, no. 492).

[p. 184]

tion, because the public revenue is bonded to the merchants and all other monies are especially allocated for the support of the foot and horse which are still in active service. It is therefore neither the management of finances nor any other ambition which could move the States to want to keep the provinces in this disastrous state of civil war. For in peace time too, the States will still be the leading institution they are now, whether as States general or provincial, and the provinces and towns will always have the same power to delegate and employ whomsoever they like, without restrictions. The pensionaries and town-councillors will never be short of work, nor will there be fewer opportunities of promotion in times of peace than in the hard and bad times caused by such a detestable civil and intestine war. And it should not be presumed that there are people so wretched and miserable that they would imperil and endanger a whole country for the little good a war might bring them. Any one who pictures to himself the condition of the state, the need for money, the devastation and ruin of the countryside, the poverty of the towns, and the complaints made daily to the States about soldiers who commit thousands of oppressive and insolent acts for lack of pay, and to discharge debts, can easily imagine whether or not it is entertaining to be involved in such complicated and difficult matters without the means to apply suitable remedies, and whether the States have any reason to deprive the whole country and themselves of the benefit and happiness which a good and secure peace could bring. And even our enemies and their adherents who maliciously interpret all the States' actions in bad part in order to idealise their own unjust and tyrannical schemes could not rightly maintain that the States have ever postponed peace negotiations...

It would take us too long to discuss all the points of the instruction given to the deputies of the States² to show that the conditions which are put forward are necessary to maintain the privileges, liberty of conscience and free exercise of the reformed religion and to assure and secure that the promises made about these are kept. I will mention here only what the States have earnestly requested about the exercise of religion. They have asked that until a legitimate assembly of the States decides otherwise the exercise of the reformed religion may continue in those places where it is already in practice.³ This is the most controversial article and has been

2 Amongst the delegates of the States General at Cologne were the duke of Aerschot, the abbot Van der Linden and the Frisian Agge Albada who acted as spokesman.

3 As in the Pacification of Ghent the ultimate decision on the matter was expected from the States General.

[p. 185]

flatly refused by the king's ministers, so that we must examine whether the States are demanding something unlawful and whether the king has reason to reject it flatly. As to the States, it is easy to demonstrate that their demand is just and reasonable because every one can see that the greater part of the inhabitants of the country profess the reformed religion.⁴ As the States represent the whole nation and all the inhabitants of the country, it is reasonable that they comply with the just and respectable wishes and feelings of the inhabitants for the general welfare of the provinces. Of old and within the memory of man, the States in the Netherlands have represented the whole nation, to defend their rights and to maintain peace and tranquillity for them and to guard them from all injuries, violence and oppression against every one, even their princes. It is not easy to imagine a state, a kingdom or another sovereign government without a subordinate magistrate and States, which represent the provinces. However according to the privileges or constitutions with which the magistrate or the States are provided, this is more evident in some states than in others, so much so that in some countries the venerable name of the States with very little authority left to them has all but gone. This is by no means the case in the Netherlands. Here the States have always had so much authority and respect that the dukes and princes have not been able to make any alterations in the matter of sovereignty or been able to levy duties or other taxes, to have new money minted, or to make peace or war without the express consent of the States. This and many other rights and prerogatives are clear from their privileges, the laws and constitutions of the country. When the States grant subsidies to their princes even for an essential war against an open and declared enemy, this is described as a request, not as an aid or as taxes levied by the prince, to demonstrate that the States are not obliged to pay that money but grant it at the prince's request. And in order that these States shall always be respected and preserve their authority, they have never given an eternal and absolute consent to raise subsidies, but have always restricted it to a certain sum and time.

As it is clear enough that the States are authorised to take up arms against princes who exceed the limits of their office by overt acts of tyranny,⁵ they are free beyond doubt to propose and demand such things as they think conducive to the well-being of the inhabitants of the provinces; and in consequence they should obtain these from their prince. As a great many inhabitants profess the reformed religion, it is clear that the States' de-

4 This is of course a gross overstatement.

5 Cf. the argument of the Vindiciae contra tyrannos published in the same year.

[p. 186]

mand is justified. The States are obliged to protect all subjects of the provinces alike and to support their requests provided they are not unreasonable. Obviously the requests cannot be regarded as unreasonable unless it is proved conclusively that in one country two religions should not be allowed. If this is proven, the true religion should be maintained and the false one rejected. Consequently it would also be necessary to prove that the reformed religion is false. In my opinion, however, it is superfluous to debate about tolerating the two religions because in large countries in Christendom such toleration is actually practised and has been practised for several centuries.⁶ Certainly it is more desirable to have one religion, just as it would be nice if all men were of the same opinion, had the same desires, were of the same condition and possessed an equal amount of wealth, and above all, were all virtuous and happy, but when this cannot be brought about, one has to govern the country in the best manner possible and to proclaim such laws in the matter of religion, that all are satisfied. Should the States which see that many people follow the example of their neighbours and profess another religion than the Roman, allow the king to ruin the country, expel and massacre the subjects rather than to tolerate both religions? And having seen that the king's unfair stubbornness and cruelty has been useless and that the reformed religion has achieved a great success, and the number of its adherents has increased rather than decreased, notwithstanding the fact that the king has had innumerable people burned alive, has expelled and exiled an infinite number of men and women of all ranks, declared their lives and possessions forfeit and sent the poor children begging - should the States then allow this for ever or should they rather oppose such barbarous tyranny for the defence and protection of the inhabitants of the country? And if it has been proved that there are no grounds for permitting two religions, one should examine which is the true one. And as the adherents of the reformed religion say that they are prepared to have their articles of faith examined by a free council and offer to prove that these are in conformity with the Scriptures,⁷ should we not hear them rather than condemn them unheard? For it is true that the Council of Trent has only served the purpose of the ecclesiastics who cannot be judges in their own cause. Neither France nor Germany, Poland, England or other countries and kingdoms have obeyed this council or obey it now.

6 In this context it was customary to refer to the practice of some Roman emperors (see Document 2).

7 In fact the adherents of the Reformed Church suggested a national council in their supplication of 22 June 1578 (see Document 33).

[p. 187]

As to the king, he must choose one of two things. Either he must grant his provinces the freedom to exercise the reformed religion or he must refuse this on the grounds of conscientious scruples. If he can grant toleration without feeling such scruples, what use to him is this long war and shedding the blood of so many of his poor subjects? Why else but to use the difference of religion as a pretext to exterminate all worthy people and to ruin the country completely by fire and sword as was suggested by his late secretary Escovedo,⁸ and to have a means of bringing all into total enslavement? But if his conscience forbids him to tolerate the reformed religion, what can the country expect from him? What else but a firm and resolute determination to continue the war and to achieve his aims by force or by ruses and intrigues and to raise expectations of peace in order to sow dissension and to deceive both sides? Thus in any case he wants to force his subjects to abandon him and to look for other ways of protecting and defending themselves. And the king's feigned conscientious scruples, his desires and wishes deserve no regard for he has no control over the conscience of the people. Have the States of the country, who have reserved to themselves the power to decide on all matters concerning the sovereignty, allowed the king alone to dispose of the conscience of his subjects? Can such permission be given at all, considering that neither the king nor the States but everyone personally must account to God for his faith and conscience? Everybody must examine the Scripture personally, so it is more appropriate to take the whole of the people into account than the king's desire alone. For when our salvation is in question, we should obey God and not men or kings.⁹ And as it is evident that in the Perpetual Edict the king of Spain has permitted the exercise of the reformed religion in Holland and Zeeland, and offers to continue it there,¹⁰ we must say that the king's real intention is to abolish this right in those provinces too by force or by ruses. Otherwise he wrongs his other subjects by refusing to grant them the same benefit.

8 See Document 27. Escovedo was assassinated in Spain in 1578.

9 See Document 35, note 5.

10 The Perpetual Edict indeed confirmed the Pacification as did the proposals put forward at Cologne on 18 July 1579 (see Document 40).