Texts concerning the Revolt of the Netherlands

[p. 282]

67 Adrian Saravia: The reasons why some of the magistrates of Leyden have conceived a bad opinion of me and caused me to be suspected by the States of Holland, 6 October 1588 ¹

Adrian Saravia (born 1530) was a chaplain in the service of the prince of Orange in 1568. He had been a minister since 1582 and later a professor at Leyden. As a staunch supporter of the earl of Leicester he was involved in the unsuccessful attempt to take Leyden for Leicester in October 1587, and was later to emigrate to England. In his Apology he sets forth Wilkes's constitutional point of view (see Document 65).

Thereupon after about six months² people began to discuss sovereignty, in order to reduce the authority of His Excellency³ and to make it inferior to that of the States, as if he were only the lieutenant of the States and they the sovereign. Conversing familiarly with a burgomaster on this topic one day, I told him my sincere opinion, which I was sure was the truth. I said firstly that those called the States had never been sovereign, were not sovereign and could not be sovereign. The reason is clear: where he reigns a sovereign acknowledges only God over him, and he has to account for his actions to none except God. The States have as their masters the town-councils, whose attorneys and commissaries they are, from whom they have instructions which limit their power, and to whom they have to report and account for their actions. Their title of representative States is also sufficient indication that they are not the true States, but only their servants pending the assembly and only for those affairs with which they are especially charged. This is entirely contrary to the nature of sovereignty. And I concluded that the governor-general of the country is not the lieutenant of the representative States, but of the county of Holland itself, which is the true state composed of all the towns and

1 ‘Les causes pourquoy certains du magistrat de Leide ont conceu mauvaise opinion de moy et fait que i'ay esté tenu suspect des Estats de Hollande’ (British Museum, Cotton Mss, Galba D iii, copied by Miss F.G. Oosterhoff in her doctoral thesis - unpublished -‘The Earl of Leicester's Governorship of the Netherlands, 1586-1587’, London, 1967, pp. 378ff.).

2 At the beginning of 1587.

3 Leicester, at that time temporarily in England.

[p. 283]

the nobility. The governor-general possesses his office not for a single day when the States meet, but till his commission is revoked by the special command of all the towns and the nobility. I added that the States have no power to deprive the governor of his power or to limit or modify it without a special charge and command of their masters. From them and not from the States the governor takes his authority. His Excellency took his oath to the county of Holland and to the body of the other provinces, and not to the representative States who were invested with authority in some special cases to-day but not for to-morrow. The body of the county keeps its authority for ever, losing it only when it is resigned and handed over to a single count or seignior.

As to the sovereign authority, I let this matter rest, but I told my friend that neither King Philip nor any of his predecessors was sovereign seignior of Holland, Gelderland, Friesland, Brabant etc., with the exception of the Emperor Charles in his capacity as emperor. It is true that King Philip is the sovereign prince of Flanders and Artois because the emperor acquired the sovereignty of these countries by the sword and King Francis and his successor King Henri renounced it several times in peace treaties.⁴ Thus King Philip is not only count of Flanders and Artois but sovereign prince and truly king, though he does not bear the title; he holds these countries directly from God and recognises Him alone as his superior. But he pays homage and service to the empire and is a liegeman of the emperor, for the duchies of Brabant and Gelderland, and for Holland and Friesland and the emperor is the true sovereign prince of these duchies and counties. And though King Philip forfeited the right and title of count of Holland,⁵ he could not forfeit the sovereignty, since he never had it. It could give rise to some misunderstanding, I said, should the authority of the Emperor Charles be associated with that of his son King Philip, for the case is quite different. The former derived his authority from being an emperor as well as from being a count, and thus he was sovereign not in his capacity as count but as emperor. And though King Philip succeeded his father, he succeeded him only in his capacity as count, Thus when he gave up the empire and all his seigniories,⁶ the Emperor Charles had two successors, the one his brother Ferdinand who succeeded to the empire and to sovereignty over all the lands and seigniories held from the empire, the other King Philip, who succeeded to Spain and to the lands and seigniories of the Netherlands,

4 The treaties of Madrid (1526), of Cambrai (1529), of Crépy (1544) and of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559).

5 In 1581 by the edict of the States General: Document 49.

6 In 1555-6.

[p. 284]

to each of them in accordance with their differing condition. If it is true that the emperor did not leave the sovereignty to King Philip - and I have never heard the contrary - and if, as seems to be the case, the emperor and the empire have nowadays abandoned it, we must conclude that as long as the towns of Holland remain as united as before, sovereignty devolved on all the town-councils together and on no one of them in particular, for they constitute one body, one state or county. Whenever a state is dissolved by the death of a sovereign who leaves no successor or in any other way, the power and authority, whether sovereign or not, comes into the possession of the whole of that state, unless regulations have previously been made about the government to be established during an interregnum, as in the Roman Empire and in elective kingdoms. When the kings had been expelled from Rome, the consuls and the senate thought that the sovereign authority had devolved on them, but the people understood it differently. When they saw that the senate appropriated all the royal and sovereign power that the kings had had formerly, they realised that they had been deceived when they were told that once the kings had been expelled they would be a free people. They had a rude awakening when instead of one king they saw two hundred. They rebelled against the senate and introduced reforms to give the state a popular form of government in which the people had the principal authority in matters of sovereign power, though the senate had the first rank and after them the equites. As for Holland, this can only be a popular state because the nobles have no prerogative either in voting or in state-affairs. In fact all of them together have but one vote, no more than the smallest town-council of Holland.⁷ In consequence I am greatly surprised at what your lawyers advise for they should be aware of this and should acquaint you with the form of your government. As long as you are not acquainted with this, you cannot conduct your affairs properly and in keeping with public law but will continue to make many mistakes and blunders on this matter.

I have discussed these matters with only two or three persons. I do not know if my views have been reported to the gentlemen of the States. It is certain however that thereafter they held me in suspicion and thought that I had informed His Excellency of many things prejudicial to their authority and the country. However I have never held any conversation about the state of the country with His Excellency, in general or in particular. Once when he complained of the way in which the States

7 See Document 66 note ii.

[p. 285]

thwarted him I asked him for the love of God and of His church to have some patience and told him the States would of their own accord in the end listen to reason. And I said to His Excellency that the late prince of Orange, blessed be his memory, had won them over by such means and had brought them to the point where they undertook nothing without his permission and counsel, and in fact decided shortly before his death to give him the whole government of the country and to make him count of Holland.⁸

8 The plan to raise the prince to the rank of count of Holland (and Zeeland) was ready to be put into effect when he was murdered (July 1584). The prince was to hold Holland as an independent county without feudal ties with the Empire.