56 An explanation of the advice published in the name of the prince of Orange with a corollary, 1583 1

This polemic against the prince of Orange's Advice of 7 February 1583 (Document 53) obviously comes from those circles at Ghent which had always been ill-disposed towards him and were inclining towards reconciliation with Parma and the king of Spain.

Let us deal briefly with the three courses of action which according to the prince of Orange are the only possible means of extricating ourselves from these troubles. The first one, reconciliation with the king, is, he says, objectionable because we would be accused of inconstancy. But would it not be better to redress the disloyalty into which he has forced us by shifting onto him the disgrace which he has brought on us in the eyes of the whole world in general and in particular? Is reconciliation with the king as pernicious as he says? It can, at any rate, not be worse than what he has brought upon us. We have better means of obtaining a good peace with the king than had the French who, in spite of all that had happened in France, did not fail to reconcile themselves with their king.2

As to the great secret which thanks to his long experience in the affairs of princes the prince of Orange reveals to us, to wit that those among the Malcontents who propose reconciliation to us, do this with the full knowledge of the prince of Parma, was any of us so simple as to be unaware of this? And was any one so simple as to wish it were otherwise?

The prince of Orange is really afraid that the war will end. You noticed how, when there was a lull in it, he used a number of devices to breathe new life into it, for peace would put an end to his great authority, his monarchical power, pomp, suite, retinue, good table and expensive guards etc., all of which he keeps at our expense; he alone costs the country more than all the combined salaries of all the governors whom the late Emperor Charles and his son the king maintained here. As for the tyranny and the actions blamed by him on the Walloons, what greater tyranny do you know of than that he exercises and makes the magistrates appointed by him exercise? What is the use of the privileges when these are at variance with his will? Privileges restored in such a manner give little cause for gratification and satisfaction. Who but he was responsible for the secession of the Walloons? And who but he wanted to be above all others, to dominate and to rule tyrannically? Has any other foreigner apart from him ever before introduced here a town administration consisting of eighteen persons?3 He will say that all this was done according to the people's wishes - yes at his suggestion and at his intercession. Did he not seditiously usurp the government of Brabant against the free vote of the States, an office held before him by none but the governors-general of the provinces?4 Did he not want to remove the count of Lalaing from his government? It was only because of this that the count then called in the duke of Anjou,5 without awaiting the consent of the States which the prince of Orange held in his power. Did he not intend by other means to deprive the baron of Capres of his government of Arras?6 ...Did he not want to suspend the baron of Ville, Count Rennenberg, governor of Friesland who therefore broke away from him?7 All these men are natives of the country. But John of Nassau, his brother, is not; he does not

have any estates in the Netherlands and yet the prince made him governor of Gelderland,8 contrary to the articles of inauguration of Archduke Matthias.9 He himself usurped not only the government of Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht,10 the admiralty,11 the government of Brabant (as I have already said) and next Friesland,12 but also wished to have that of Flanders. Thus you see his insatiable cupidity and ambition. It will not end until he has got everything, and quite unjustly for he has no right to all these offices. Do I need to recall those of the other religion, whom he had arrested illegally, simply because they did not approve of his practices? You can decide for yourselves whether they were wrong. Did he not treacherously try to arrest even John of Hembyze to whom he owed so much, and who finally had to go into exile to escape his rage? And master Peter Dathenus too?13 Not to mention the murders perpetrated on his behalf on Hessel, Visch and others.14 He publicly acknowledged that he was responsible for them by promoting the murderers to the highest posts in the country, to our everlasting shame, for we allowed it to happen. Who banished the men whose return15 as is clear from the ‘Advice’ which we are discussing he fears? What kind of law has been used here?