History of the United Netherlands from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Year's Truce, 1607b — John Shaqi
History of the United Netherlands from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Year's Truce, 1607bMotley, John Lothrop
History
History of the United Netherlands from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Year's Truce, 1607b
Motley, John Lothrop
Netherlands -- History -- Eighty Years' War, 1568-1648
All these private conversations of Barneveld, who was known to be the
chief of the peace party, were duly reported by Verreyken in secret notes
to the archduke and to Spinola. Of course they produced their effect.
It surely might have been seen that the tricks and shifts of an
antiquated diplomacy were entirely out of place if any wholesome result
were desired. But the habit of dissimulation was inveterate. That the
man who cannot dissemble is unfit to reign, was perhaps the only one of
his father's golden rules which Philip III. could thoroughly comprehend,
even if it be assumed that the monarch was at all consulted in regard to
this most important transaction of his life. Verreyken and the friar
knew very well when they brought the document that it would be spurned by
the States, and yet they were also thoroughly aware that it was the
king's interest to, begin the negotiations as soon as possible. When
thus privately and solemnly assured by the Advocate that they were really
wasting their time by being the bearers of these royal evasions, they
learned therefore nothing positively new, but were able to assure their
employers that to thoroughly disgust the peace party was not precisely
the mode of terminating the war.
Verreyken now received public and formal notification that a new
instrument must be procured from the king. In the ratification which had
been sent, that monarch spoke of the archdukes as princes and sovereign
proprietors of all the Netherlands. The clause by which, according to
the form prescribed by the States, and already adopted by the archdukes,
the United Provinces were described as free countries over which no
authority was claimed had been calmly omitted, as if, by such a
subterfuge, the independence of the republic could be winked out
of existence. Furthermore, it was objected that the document was in
Spanish, that it was upon paper instead of parchment, that it was not
sealed with the great, but with the little seal, and that it was
subscribed.
"I the King." This signature might be very appropriate for decrees
issued by a monarch to his vassals, but could not be rightly appended,
it was urged, to an instrument addressed to a foreign power. Potentates,
treating with the States-General of the United Provinces, were expected
to sign their names.
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