Texts concerning the Revolt of the Netherlands

64 Prouninck's Apology, 10 March 1587 ¹

Gerard Prouninck (Van Deventer), presumably the author of the dialogue Emanuel and Ernest of 1580 (Document 47), was an orthodox Calvinist who hoped eventually to return to Brabant which he had left in 1579. He supported the policies of the earl of Leicester and in October 1586 accepted a post as burgomaster of Utrecht. When the States of Holland came to oppose Leicester and his party they refused to admit Prouninck to the States General. In his apology he sought to refute charges brought against him.

Long before my time and without my knowledge the council of this city decided to offer the sovereignty to the queen of England on condition that the true reformed religion alone should be recognised, our freedoms, rights, privileges and traditional customs maintained while fully respecting Her Majesty's highness.² I agree with the council that humanly

1 Bor, Oorsprongk, ii, pp. 915ff.

2 In June 1586 the city council of Utrecht adopted a petition of the burgher captains of the town requesting ‘that the whole government and absolute power over this province be in all humility and loyalty committed to Her Majesty of England, to Her Majesty's pleasure, in such a way that she may decide upon all matters after her own discretion and wise counsel without any conditions and limitation, provided the true Christian religion and the privileges be maintained so that neither these nor Her Majesty's authority are hurt’.

[p. 270]

speaking these provinces cannot survive in their struggle with a domestic foe in possession of sovereign power without a sovereign head of their own. We all know that our nature is corrupt, that we have for a long time been accustomed to the rule of one supreme command and that distrust, quarrels and discord have been caused among us because numerous provinces hold equal power. But even if we do not emphasise these factors it is obvious that, although we should strengthen ourselves in every way in view of our war against so superior an enemy, rule by many weakens us too much for us to equal him in the very thing that is most important, that is, the best form of government. We have never, moreover, shown ourselves capable of carrying on an offensive war. But as the population is growing weary of the war which inflicts daily losses upon them, it is humanly speaking impossible for us to withstand such a powerful enemy in a defensive war. We will not even refer to the fact that because it is uncertain who possesses supreme authority in the Netherlands, numerous plans to bring them once again under the king of Spain are being considered.

For these and other reasons we obviously need a sovereign head. After vain attempts to find one in Germany and France when we had been abandoned by all kings and princes, God in his mercy has at last made the queen of England take our affairs in hand. Thus there was good reason to offer the government of these countries to Her Majesty in candid gratitude. This is due to her more than to any other potentate because she is assisting us in our emergency and, because our Christian religion is the same, we may and must, after God's decrees, entrust our state to her with the greatest confidence. The only difficulty is to induce Her Majesty to accept this for she has never tried to expand her territory. She is on the other hand wise enough to study carefully the state of our affairs. As we know by experience, it is not he who is in need and forced to ask for help but he who can help and is being asked, who may impose conditions and laws. But nevertheless we would like to acquire Her Majesty's help on conditions specified by us. Is it then unreasonable that we should approach her with fair conditions which will not estrange her from our cause, that is, conditions by which she may accept us as her subjects and protect us without injuring her authority and her reputation? After

[p. 271]

mature deliberation the former magistrate of Utrecht seems to have thought that it would not be good policy for us to prize a queen of England less highly than the princes of the House of Burgundy or Austria who were originally only dukes and vassals whereas the princes of England have always been kings and sovereign lords. Is it reasonable to prescribe conditions and laws to Her Majesty which were never prescribed to previous lords whether of the House of Burgundy or of Austria, not even at a time when these seventeen provinces were in full bloom and peace, whereas now only a corner of the country is left, and we are impoverished, corrupt, in the midst of internal and external war, quarrels and discord? Of course not, for if we put such conditions, we would certainly offend her authority and thus show that we did not desire Her Majesty's protection.

Obviously where many govern, the highest authority is with many but where one head rules, supreme authority cannot be shared. Those who claim the contrary wish to remain masters themselves and cause much distrust between the princes and their subjects and this leads finally either to tyranny or to domestic wars. As far as we are concerned, if we had succeeded in maintaining ourselves under a government of many, we would not have needed to ask for a sovereign head; but because we were not able to govern ourselves in such a way, how then can we help our princes and princesses if we are to be co-rulers? Naval experience teaches us that in a storm a ship at sea must be navigated by a single helmsman of high rank.

We would wish to be too wise and clever were we to presume, without regard to God's ordinances, to provide against all the faults of princes and kings. This would be a rare, nay an impossible thing, on this earth. But by seeking absolute perfection in royal government even though in our actions we proved ourselves very much less than perfect, we encounter so many difficulties that neither those princes nor we ourselves are able to govern us. Thus we must deal reasonably with reasonable princes and for the rest leave it to God Almighty to punish or bless our posterity according to whether we heed His laws and ways or disobey Him...

With regard to the accusation that I have shown insufficient respect for the privileges I should indeed be distressed if I knew one person on this earth who loved the rights, freedoms and privileges of my fatherland more dearly than I do. To defend them I have possibly left more property in the hands of my enemies than has any one of my accusers. I do not want to praise myself but if these people did value the conservation of our privileges more highly than I do, or if some of them did not find more profit in troubled waters than I have sought, I think they would not attempt

[p. 272]

to hide their shame under unjust accusations. And what could induce me to act contrary to the privileges since I have always, so far as was in my power, myself refrained from yielding to avarice and ambition? Yet there is no question over which we can more easily err during this domestic war than over the matter of privileges. Many privileges which are profitable in time of peace would be detrimental in time of war, particularly those releasing one from the duty of receiving garrisons or from paying capitation taxes, or those ensuring freedom of trade, or hindering the reform of the magistracies and more of such nature. With my own eyes I have seen a town given up to the enemy which could very well have been saved if it had not been for insistence on privileges.³ The highest law is the tranquillity and prosperity of the people. Privileges must be suspended if otherwise these would be injured. Privileges are there for the sake of the people, the people do not exist for the sake of the privileges. May the privileges therefore not serve us as a pretext for recalcitrance, selfishness or for delaying good resolutions...

3 Prouninck's native town Bois-le-Duc in 1579.