course would have defeated its own ends. The
murderous and mischievous pranks of Imbize, Ryhove,
and such demagogues, at Ghent and elsewhere, with
their wild theories of what they called Grecian, Roman,
and Helvetian republicanism, had inflicted damage
enough on the cause of freedom, and had paved the
road for the return of royal despotism. The senators
assembled at the Hague gave more moderate instructions
to their delegates at Augsburg. They were to
place the King’s tenure upon contract—not
an implied one, but a contract as literal as the lease
of a farm. The house of Austria, they were to
maintain, had come into the possession of the seventeen
Netherlands upon certain express conditions, and with
the understanding that its possession was to cease
with the first condition broken. It was a question
of law and fact, not of royal or popular right.
They were to take the ground, not only that the contract
had been violated, but that the foundation of perpetual
justice upon which it rested; had likewise been undermined.
It was time to vindicate both written charters and
general principles. “God has given absolute
power to no mortal man,” said Saint Aldegonde,
“to do his own will against all laws and all
reason.” “The contracts which the
King has broken are no pedantic fantasies,”
said the estates, “but laws planted by nature
in the universal heart of mankind, and expressly acquiesced
in by prince and people.” All men, at
least, who speak the English tongue, will accept the
conclusion of the provinces, that when laws which protected
the citizen against arbitrary imprisonment and guaranteed
him a trial in his own province—which forbade
the appointment of foreigners to high office —which
secured the property of the citizen from taxation,
except by the representative body—which
forbade intermeddling on the part of the sovereign
with the conscience of the subject in religious matters—when
such laws had been subverted by blood tribunals, where
drowsy judges sentenced thousands to stake and scaffold
without a hearing by excommunication, confiscation,
banishment-by hanging, beheading, burning, to such
enormous extent and with such terrible monotony that
the executioner’s sword came to be looked upon
as the only symbol of justice —then surely
it might be said, without exaggeration, that the complaints
of the Netherlanders were “no pedantic fantasies,”
and that the King had ceased to perform his functions
as dispenser of God’s justice.
The Netherlanders dealt with facts. They possessed a body of laws, monuments of their national progress, by which as good a share of individual liberty was secured to the citizen as was then enjoyed in any country of the world. Their institutions admitted of great improvement, no doubt; but it was natural that a people so circumstanced should be unwilling to exchange their condition for the vassalage of “Moors or Indians.”