Texts concerning the Revolt of the Netherlands

50 A true warning to all worthy men of Antwerp, 1581 ¹

This pamphlet was undoubtedly written in 1581, although author, place and year of publication are not indicated. The author tries to refute the arguments used by people opposed to the declaration of the States General on Philip's dismissal. Agreeing that the privileges such as the Joyeuse Entrée do not allow the subjects to depose a prince he develops a theory obviously derived from the Vindiciae contra tyrannos and other writings.

God has created men free and wants them to be governed justly and righteously and not wilfully and tyrannically. This is why He did not give any single man in this world permission to do what he likes nor declared any one exempt from punishment. He has set His will alone as a rule for justice. Justice and God's will serve for man's guidance. For this reason the people and States of the country bind the king or lord whom they install and swear him in to conditions which they think useful and fitting for the country. Thus it is made clear that the king does not own the provinces. Otherwise we should all be unfree and slaves, and all our

1 Een trouwe waerschouwinghe aen de goede mannen van Antwerpen (Knuttel, no. 575).

[p. 229]

possessions, even ourselves, our wives and children would belong to the king in the same way as a horse or an ox belongs to an owner. But the lord of the country is only a vicar of God, a shepherd of the people, a father of the country who administers righteousness and justice to all. For that reason is he chosen and installed and to this end is all his power and authority given to him. It is true that he may be called the hereditary lord of the provinces; but it should be understood that the right of succession was given and granted to him by the provinces themselves, that is to say by God by means of the States or of men authorised by the provinces to install and accept the lord; therefore all his rights and power are dependent on the States of the country.

In some countries the kings are always chosen anew without right of succession, as in the Empire and in Poland; in other countries only the sons succeed and not the daughters, as in France; elsewhere, the child chosen by the States succeeds, whereas there are also examples where only the eldest child has the right of succession. In short, all countries have such usages and rights as they themselves have wished to establish and accept. From this it is clear that the right of succession that some of the kings and princes have, and all the power and authority they may attribute to themselves has been granted and given to them by the countries, that is, by the States of the countries which represent the whole body of the community.

In law, therefore, royal rights and power are defined in the following manner: the people of the country charge and entrust the king or lord with his power, on such conditions as are usual according to the constitution of that country; but in all countries, whatever their nature, the king is always charged to administer right and justice and to be submissive to God's law and the rights of the country. If he becomes instead of a father a murderer, instead of a shepherd a butcher, instead of a prince a tyrant the provinces are no longer bound to obey him. They resume the power and authority which they had given to him, because he is not fulfilling his obligations towards them and is breaking the conditions upon which they installed and accepted him as their lord and prince. The right of succession does not hold in these circumstances. The provinces resume their original rights and return to the position their ancestors were in; they are no longer bound to him, they may choose a new protector and lord and put such conditions to him as they think best for the safety of the country and the prosperity of the commonalty. It is true that this is not stated explicitly in the conditions put to the prince at his installation; one does not usually mention this as one always hopes for the best and does not

[p. 230]

expect a king to forget his oath and become a tyrant. And, in fact, it is not even necessary to mention it. It is a self-evident conclusion drawn from nature and human intelligence and it is graven in everyone's heart. For men have been created free by God and cannot be made slaves by people who have no power over them save that which they themselves have granted and given their rulers.

Our forefathers were wise and prudent men; in addition to natural law which the lords were of course bound to keep they made them accept many conditions and agreements which specified their rulers' obligations. These conditions and agreements are the privileges of the country. If the lord violates them he forfeits his subjects' obedience until he has made good and redressed the abuses. A good example of this is the case of Duke John. Duke John confessed in a document,² that the people whom he had charged with the government of the country had in many ways offended against the privileges. These men were publicly criticised by the towns for trying to estrange the duke from the duchess his consort.³ And, the document says, this was why the States chose and appointed a regent, as, according to their privileges, they may do. This also appears explicitly from the following words of the Joyeuse Entrée: ‘If it be the case that we, our heirs or descendants transgress or violate this,’ etc. The wording clearly shows that the whole procedure is only applicable when one or more of the articles which in the text precede this clause are infringed.

But this restriction does not imply that our forefathers deprived themselves or their descendants of the power and the right, based on God's will and on justice, to punish their lords by making war on them or even by deposing them for ever, when they realised that their rulers had become oppressors and tyrants instead of lords. If they search deep into their consciences and carefully consider the text of the privileges, even the good souls who have been emphasising the restrictions of the Joyeuse Entrée must be able to grasp this. If they really wished to interpret the privileges under discussion as literally as they claim, they would have to punish and condemn themselves for having waged war against the king their lord,⁴ for the text of the privileges does not say that the inhabitants may wage war against him if he infringes the privileges. This is not the purport of the text. The only thing it says is that until the prince has redressed the grievances

2 See Document 47.

3 John IV of Brabant was married to his cousin Jemina of Bavaria, who left him in 1420.

4 The States General had declared the royal governor Don John to be an enemy of the country in December 1577.

[p. 231]

and repaired the abuses to the satisfaction of the States his subjects are absolved from their duty to obey him and to submit to his command. In other words, the text does not refer to a tyrannical misgovernment so crude and general in its nature that the inhabitants feel entitled to take up arms. It simply refers to cases where the privileges are infringed on particular points and when it is easy to remedy and redress the situation. In such circumstances there is no reason to expect that the prince and the inhabitants are estranged for ever. However, the words we have referred to - ‘until the abuse will have been redressed and repaired’ - also indicate how the subjects should conduct themselves when the prince commits contraventions and offences of a general nature, offences which cannot possibly be redressed or repaired and which cause total and lasting estrangement between lord and subjects. When there is no hope of redress or repair, each of us is entitled, according to the right given by God and by nature, to protect and defend himself against all unlawful violence.