“The nobles and cities constituting the States,” they said, “have been denounced to Lord Leicester as enemies of religion, by the self-seeking mischief-makers who surround him.  Why?  Because they had refused the demand of certain preachers to call a general synod, in defiance of the States-General, and to introduce a set of ordinances, with a system of discipline, according to their arbitrary will.  This the late Prince of Orange and the States-General had always thought detrimental both to religion and polity.  They respected the difference in religious opinions, and leaving all churches in their freedom, they chose to compel no man’s conscience—­a course which all statesmen, knowing the diversity of human opinions, had considered necessary in order to maintain fraternal harmony.”

Such words shine through the prevailing darkness of the religious atmosphere at that epoch, like characters of light.  They are beacons in the upward path of mankind.  Never before, had so bold and wise a tribute to the genius of the reformation been paid by an organized community.  Individuals walking in advance of their age had enunciated such truths, and their voices had seemed to die away, but, at last, a little, struggling, half-developed commonwealth had proclaimed the rights of conscience for all mankind—­for Papists and Calvinists, Jews and Anabaptists—­because “having a respect for differences in religious opinions, and leaving all churches in their freedom, they chose to compel no man’s conscience.”

On the constitutional question, the States commenced by an astounding absurdity.  “These mischief-makers, moreover,” said they, “have not been ashamed to dispute, and to cause the Earl of Leicester to dispute, the lawful constitution of the Provinces; a matter which has not been disputed for eight hundred years.”

This was indeed to claim a respectable age for their republic.  Eight hundred years took them back to the days of Charlemagne, in whose time it would have been somewhat difficult to detect a germ of their States-General and States-Provincial.  That the constitutional government—­consisting of nobles and of the vroedschaps of chartered cities—­should have been in existence four hundred and seventeen years before the first charter had ever been granted to a city, was a very loose style of argument.  Thomas Wilkes, in reply; might as well have traced the English parliament to Hengist and Horsa.  “For eight hundred years;” they said, “Holland had been governed by Counts and Countesses, on whom the nobles and cities, as representing the States, had legally conferred sovereignty.”

Now the first incorporated city of Holland and Zeeland that ever existed was Middelburg, which received its charter from Count William I. of Holland and Countess Joan of Flanders; in the year 1217.  The first Count that had any legal recognized authority was Dirk the First to whom Charles the Simple presented the territory of Holland, by letters-patent, in 922.  Yet the States-General, in a solemn and eloquent document, gravely dated their own existence from the year 787, and claimed the regular possession and habitual delegation of sovereignty from that epoch down!