By both great parties, he complained, his shortcomings were all noted, the good which he had accomplished passed over in silence.

[Letter to the States-general, August, 1579, apud Bor, xiv. 97, sqq.  This was the opinion frequently expressed by Languet:  “Cherish the friendship of the Prince, I beseech you,” he writes to Sir Philip Sydney, “for there is no man like him in all Christendom.  Nevertheless, his is the lot of all men of prudence—­to be censured by all parties.  The people complain that he despises them; the nobility declare that it is their order which he hates; and this is as sensible as if you were to tell me that you were the son of a clown.”]

He solemnly protested that he desired, out of his whole heart, the advancement of that religion which he publicly professed, and with God’s blessing, hoped to profess to the end of his life, but nevertheless, he reminded the states that he had sworn, upon taking office as Lieutenant-General, to keep “all the subjects of the land equally under his protection,” and that he had kept his oath.  He rebuked the parsimony which placed the accepted chief of the provinces in a sordid and contemptible position.  “The Archduke has been compelled,” said he, in August, to the states-general, “to break up housekeeping, for want of means.  How shameful and disreputable for the country, if he should be compelled, for very poverty, to leave the land!” He offered to lay down all the power with which he had himself been clothed, but insisted, if he were to continue in office, upon being provided with, larger means of being useful. “’Twas impossible,” he said, “for him to serve longer on the same footing as heretofore; finding himself without power or authority, without means, without troops, without money, without obedience.”  He reminded the states-general that the enemy—­under pretext of peace negotiations—­were ever circulating calumnious statements to the effect that he was personally the only obstacle to peace.  The real object of these hopeless conferences was to sow dissension through the land, to set burgher against burgher, house against house.  As in Italy, Guelphs and Ghibellines—­as in Florence, the Neri and Bianchi—­as in Holland, the Hooks and Cabbeljaws had, by their unfortunate quarrels, armed fellow countrymen and families against each other—­so also, nothing was so powerful as religious difference to set friend against friend, father against son, husband against wife.

He warned the States against the peace propositions of the enemy.  Spain had no intention to concede, but was resolved to extirpate.  For himself; he had certainly everything to lose by continued war.  His magnificent estates were withheld, and—­added he with simplicity—­there is no man who does not desire to enjoy his own.  The liberation of his son, too, from his foreign captivity, was, after the glory of God and the welfare of the fatherland, the dearest object of his heart.  Moreover, he