“What reason is there,” said the states-general, “why the provinces should suffer themselves to be continually oppressed by their sovereign, with robbings, burnings, stranglings, and murderings?  Why, being thus oppressed, should they still give their sovereign—­exactly as if he were well conducting himself—­the honor and title of lord of the land?” On the other hand, if hereditary rule were an established fact, so also were ancient charters.  To maintain, not to overthrow, the political compact, was the purpose of the states.  “Je maintiendrai” was the motto of Orange’s escutcheon.  That a compact existed between prince and people, and that the sovereign held office only on condition of doing his duty, were startling truths which men were beginning, not to whisper to each other in secret, but to proclaim in the market-place. “’Tis well known to all,” said the famous Declaration of Independence, two years afterwards, “that if a prince is appointed by God over the land, ’tis to protect them from harm, even as a shepherd to the guardianship of his flock.  The subjects are not appointed by God for the behoof of the prince, but the prince for his subjects, without whom he is no prince.  Should he violate the laws, he is to be forsaken by his meanest subject, and to be recognized no longer as prince.”

William of Orange always recognized these truths, but his scheme of government contemplated a permanent chief, and as it was becoming obvious that the Spanish sovereign would soon be abjured, it was necessary to fix upon a substitute.  “As to governing these provinces in the form of a republic,” said he, speaking for the states-general, “those who know the condition, privileges, and ordinances of the country, can easily understand that ’tis hardly possible to dispense with a head or superintendent.”  At the same time, he plainly intimated that this “head or superintendent” was to be, not a monarch—­a one-ruler—­but merely the hereditary chief magistrate of a free commonwealth.

Where was this hereditary chief magistrate to be found?  His own claims he absolutely withdrew.  The office was within his grasp, and he might easily have constituted himself sovereign of all the Netherlands.  Perhaps it would have been better at that time had he advanced his claims and accepted the sovereignty which Philip had forfeited.  As he did not believe in the possibility of a republic, he might honestly have taken into his own hands the sceptre which he considered indispensable.  His self-abnegation was, however, absolute.  Not only did he decline sovereignty, but he repeatedly avowed his readiness to, lay down all the offices which he held, if a more useful substitute could be found.  “Let no man think,” said he, in a remarkable speech to the states-general,” that my good-will is in any degree changed or diminished.  I agree to obey—­as the least of the lords or gentlemen of the land could do—­whatever person it may, please you to select.  You have but to command my services wheresoever they are most wanted; to guard a province or a single city, or in any capacity in which I may be found most useful.  I promise to do my duty, with all my strength and skill, as God and my conscience are witnesses that I have done it hitherto.”