then, after all, were the provinces and cities.  And the States-General were at that moment as much qualified to represent those provinces and cities as they ever had been, and they claimed no more.  Wilkes, nor any other of the Leicester party, ever hinted at a general assembly of the people.  Universal suffrage was not dreamed of at that day.  By the people, he meant, if he meant anything, only that very small fraction of the inhabitants of a country, who, according to the English system, in the reign of Elizabeth, constituted its Commons.  He chose, rather from personal and political motives than philosophical ones, to draw a distinction between the people and the States, but it is quite obvious, from the tone of his private communications, that by the ‘States’ he meant the individuals who happened, for the time-being, to be the deputies of the States of each Province.  But it was almost an affectation to accuse those individuals of calling or considering themselves ‘sovereigns;’ for it was very well known that they sat as envoys, rather than as members of a congress, and were perpetually obliged to recur to their constituents, the States of each Province, for instructions.  It was idle, because Buys and Barneveld, and Roorda, and other leaders, exercised the influence due to their talents, patriotism, and experience, to stigmatize them as usurpers of sovereignty, and to hound the rabble upon them as tyrants and mischief-makers.  Yet to take this course pleased the Earl of Leicester, who saw no hope for the liberty of the people, unless absolute and unconditional authority over the people, in war, naval affairs, justice, and policy, were placed in his hands.  This was the view sustained by the clergy of the Reformed Church, because they found it convenient, through such a theory, and by Leicester’s power, to banish Papists, exercise intolerance in matters of religion, sequestrate for their own private uses the property of the Catholic Church, and obtain for their own a political power which was repugnant to the more liberal ideas of the Barneveld party.

The States of Holland—­inspired as it were by the memory of that great martyr to religious and political liberty, William the Silent—­maintained freedom of conscience.

The Leicester party advocated a different theory on the religious question.  They were also determined to omit no effort to make the States odious.

“Seeing their violent courses,” said Wilkes to Leicester, “I have not been negligent, as well by solicitations to the ministers, as by my letters to such as have continued constant in affection to your Lordship, to have the people informed of the ungrateful and dangerous proceedings of the States.  They have therein travailed with so good effect, as the people are now wonderfully well disposed, and have delivered everywhere in speeches, that if, by the overthwart dealings of the States, her Majesty shall be drawn to stay her succours and goodness to them, and that thereby your Lordship be also discouraged to return, they will cut their throats.”