“We doubt not that her Majesty and your Excellency will think this strange language.  But we can assure you, that we too think it strange and grievous that those places should have been confided to such men, against our repeated remonstrances, and that, moreover, this very Stanley should have been recommended by your Excellency for general of all the forces.  And although we had many just and grave reasons for opposing your administration—­even as our ancestors were often wont to rise against the sovereigns of the country—­we have, nevertheless, patiently suffered for a long time, in order not to diminish your authority, which we deemed so important to our welfare, and in the hope that you would at last be moved by the perilous condition of the commonwealth, and awake to the artifices of your advisers.

“But at last-feeling that the existence of the state can no longer be preserved without proper authority, and that the whole community is full of emotion and distrust, on account of these great treasons—­we, the States-General, as well as the States-Provincial, have felt constrained to establish such a government as we deem meet for the emergency.  And of this we think proper to apprize your Excellency.”

He then expressed the conviction that all these evil deeds had been accomplished against the intentions of the Earl and the English government, and requested his Excellency so to deal with her Majesty that the contingent of horse and foot hitherto accorded by her “might be maintained in good order, and in better pay.”

Here, then, was substantial choleric phraseology, as good plain speaking as her Majesty had just been employing, and with quite as sufficient cause.  Here was no pleasant diplomatic fencing, but straightforward vigorous thrusts.  It was no wonder that poor Wilkes should have thought the letter “too sharp,” when he heard it read in the assembly, and that he should have done his best to prevent it from being despatched.  He would have thought it sharper could he have seen how the pride of her Majesty and of Leicester was wounded by it to the quick.  Her list of grievances against the States seem to vanish into air.  Who had been tampering with the Spaniards now?  Had that “shadowy and imaginary authority” granted to Leicester not proved substantial enough?  Was it the States-General, the state-council, or was it the “absolute governor”—­who had carried off the supreme control of the commonwealth in his pocket—­that was responsible for the ruin effected by Englishmen who had scorned all “authority” but his own?

The States, in another blunt letter to the Queen herself, declared the loss of Deventer to be more disastrous to them than even the fall of Antwerp had been; for the republic had now been split asunder, and its most ancient and vital portions almost cut away.  Nevertheless they were not “dazzled nor despairing,” they said, but more determined than ever to maintain their liberties, and bid defiance to the Spanish tyrant.  And again they demanded of, rather than implored; her Majesty to be true to her engagements with them.