History of the United Netherlands from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Year's Truce, 1605-07 — John Shaqi
History of the United Netherlands from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Year's Truce, 1605-07Motley, John Lothrop
History
History of the United Netherlands from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Year's Truce, 1605-07
Motley, John Lothrop
Netherlands -- History -- Eighty Years' War, 1568-1648
Soon afterwards this grave matter was discussed at the Hague between
Henry's envoy and Barneveld. It was a very delicate negotiation. The
Advocate wished to secure the assistance of a powerful but most
unscrupulous ally, and at the same time to conceal his real intention to
frustrate the French design upon the independence of the republic.
Disingenuous and artful as his conduct unquestionably was, it may at
least be questioned whether in that age of deceit any other great
statesman would have been more frank. If the comparatively weak
commonwealth, by openly and scornfully refusing all the insidious and
selfish propositions of the French king, had incurred that monarch's
wrath, it would have taken a noble position no doubt, but it would have
perhaps been utterly destroyed. The Advocate considered himself
justified in using the artifices of war against a subtle and dangerous
enemy who wore the mask of a friend. When the price demanded for
military protection was the voluntary abandonment of national
independence in favour of the protector, the man who guided the affairs
of the Netherlands did not hesitate to humour and to outwit the king who
strove to subjugate the republic. At the same time--however one may be
disposed to censure the dissimulation from the standing-ground of a lofty
morality--it should not be forgotten that Barneveld never hinted at any
possible connivance on his part with an infraction of the laws. Whatever
might be the result of time, of persuasion, of policy, he never led
Henry or his ministers to believe that the people of the Netherlands
could be deprived of their liberty by force or fraud. He was willing to
play a political game, in which he felt himself inferior to no man,
trusting to his own skill and coolness for success. If the tyrant were
defeated, and at the same time made to serve the cause of the free
commonwealth, the Advocate believed this to be fair play.
Knowing himself surrounded by gamblers and tricksters, he probably did
not consider himself to be cheating because he did not play his cards
upon the table.
So when Buzanval informed him early in October that the possession of
Sluys and other Flemish towns would not be sufficient for the king, but
that they must offer the sovereignty on even more favourable conditions
than had once been proposed to Henry III., the Advocate told him roundly
that my lords the States were not likely to give the provinces to any
man, but meant to maintain their freedom and their rights. The envoy
replied that his Majesty would be able to gain more favour perhaps with
the common people of the country.
When it is remembered that the States had offered the sovereignty of the
provinces to Henry III., abjectly and as it were without any conditions
at all, the effrontery of Henry IV. may be measured, who claimed the same
sovereignty, after twenty years of republican independence, upon even
more favourable terms than those which his predecessor had rejected.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account