MAURICE AND OLDENBARNEVELDT
The conclusion of the truce did not bring, with material progress and
trade expansion, internal peace to the United Provinces. The relations
between the Prince-stadholder and the all-powerful Advocate had long
been strained. In the long-drawn-out negotiations Maurice had never
disguised his dislike to the project of a truce, and, though he finally
acquiesced, it was a sullen acquiescence. At first there was no overt
breach between the two men, but Maurice, though he did not refuse to
meet Oldenbarneveldt, was cold and unfriendly. He did not attempt to
interfere with the old statesman's control of the machinery of
administration or with his diplomatic activities, for he was naturally
indolent and took little interest in politics. Had he been ambitious, he
might many years before have obtained by general consent sovereign
power, but he did not seek it. His passion was the study of military
science. From his early youth he had spent his life in camps, and now he
found himself without occupation. The enemies of Oldenbarneveldt seized
the opportunity to arouse Maurice's suspicions of the Advocate's motives
in bringing about the truce, and even to hint that he had been bribed
with Spanish gold. Chief among these enemies was Francis van Aerssens,
for a number of years ambassador of the States at Paris. Aerssens owed
much to the Advocate, but he attributed his removal from his post at
the French court to the decision of Oldenbarneveldt to replace him by
his son-in-law, Van der Myle. He never forgave his recall, and alike by
subtle insinuation and unscrupulous accusation, strove to blacken the
character and reputation of his former benefactor.
By a curious fatality it was the outbreak of fierce sectarian strife and
dissension between the extreme and the moderate Calvinists which was
eventually to change the latent hostility of Maurice to Oldenbarneveldt
into open antagonism. Neither of the two men had strong religious
convictions, but circumstances brought it about that they were to range
themselves irrevocably on opposite sides in a quarrel between
fanatical theologians on the subject of predestination and grace.
From early times Calvinism in the northern Netherlands had been divided
into two schools. The strict Calvinists or "Reformed," known by their
opponents as "Precisians," and the liberal Calvinists, "the
Evangelicals," otherwise "the Libertines." To this Libertine party
belonged William the Silent, Oldenbarneveldt and the majority of the
burgher-regents of Holland. These men regarded the religious question
from the statesman's point of view. Having risen in rebellion against
the tyranny of the Spanish Inquisition, they were anxious to preserve
their countrymen (only a minority of whom were Protestants) from being
placed under the heel of a religious intolerance as narrow and bigoted
as that from which they had escaped. The "Reformed" congregations on the
other hand, led by the preachers, were anxious to summon a National
Synod for the purpose of creating a State Church to whose tenets,
rigidly defined by the Heidelberg catechism and the Netherland
confession, all would be required to conform on pain of being deprived
of their rights as citizens. The Libertines were opposed to such a
scheme, as an interference with the rights of each province to regulate
its own religious affairs, and as an attempt to assert the supremacy of
Church over State.
The struggle between the two parties, which had continued intermittently
for a number of years, suddenly became acute through the appointment by
Maurice of Jacob Harmensz, better known as Arminius, to the Chair of
Theology at Leyden, vacated by the death of Junius in 1602. The leader
of the strict Calvinist school, the learned Franciscus Gomarus, had at
the time of the appointment of Arminius already been a professor at
Leyden for eight years. Each teacher gathered round him a following of
devoted disciples, and a violent collision was inevitable. Prolonged and
heated controversy on the high doctrines of Predestination and Freewill
led to many appeals being made to the States-General and to the Estates
of Holland to convene a Synod to settle the disputed questions, but
neither of these bodies in the midst of the negotiations for the truce
was willing to complicate matters by taking a step that could not fail
to accentuate existing discords. Six months after the truce was signed
Arminius died. The quarrel, however, was only to grow more embittered.
Johannes Uyttenbogaert took the leadership of the Arminians, and
finally, after consultation with Oldenbarneveldt, he called together a
convention of Arminian preachers and laymen at Gouda (June, 1610). They
drew up for presentation to the Estates a petition, known as the
_Remonstratie,_ consisting of five articles, in which they defined the
points wherein they differed from the orthodox Calvinist doctrines on
the subjects of predestination, election and grace. The Gomarists on
their part drew up a _Contra-Remonstratie_ containing seven articles,
and they declined to submit to any decision on matters of doctrine, save
from a purely Church Synod. These two weighty declarations gained for
the two parties henceforth the names of Remonstrants and
Contra-Remonstrants. For the next three years a fierce controversy raged
in every province, pulpit replying to pulpit, and pamphlet to pamphlet.
The Contra-Remonstrants roundly accused their adversaries of holding
Pelagian and Socinian opinions and of being Papists in disguise. This
last accusation drew to their side the great majority of the Protestant
population, but the Remonstrants had many adherents among the
burgher-regents, and they could count upon a majority in the Estates of
Holland, Utrecht and Overyssel, and they had the powerful support of
Oldenbarneveldt.
The Advocate was no theologian, and on the doctrinal points in dispute
he probably held no very clear views. He inclined, however, to the
Arminians because of their greater tolerance, and above all for their
readiness to acknowledge the authority of the State as supreme, in
religious as well as in civil matters. He was anxious to bring about an
accommodation which should give satisfaction to both parties, but he was
dealing with fanatics, and the fires of religious bigotry when once
kindled are difficult to quench. And now was seen a curious object
lesson in the many-headed character of the government of the United
Netherlands. A majority of the provinces in the States-General favoured
the Contra-Remonstrants. The Estates of Holland, however, under the
influence of Oldenbarneveldt by a small majority refused the
Contra-Remonstrant demand and resolved to take drastic action against
the Gomarists. But a number of the representative towns in Holland, and
among them Amsterdam, declined to enforce the resolution. At Rotterdam,
on the other hand, and in the other town-councils, where the Arminians
had the majority, the Gomarist preachers were expelled from their
pulpits; and the Advocate was determined by coercion, if necessary, to
enforce the authority of the Estates throughout the province. But
coercion without the use of the military force was impossible in face of
the growing uprising of popular passion; and the military forces could
not be employed without the consent of the stadholder. Thus in 1617,
with the question of civil war in Holland trembling in the balance, the
ultimate decision lay with the stadholder; and Maurice after long
hesitation determined to throw the sword of the soldier into the scale
against the influence of the statesman.
Maurice had not as yet openly broken with his father's old friend, whose
immense services to the republic during the greater part of four decades
he fully recognised. As to the questions now in dispute the stadholder
was to an even less degree than the Advocate a zealous theologian. It is
reported that he declared that he did not know whether predestination
was blue or green. His court-chaplain, Uyttenbogaert, was a leading
Arminian; and both his step-mother, Louise (see p. 78), to whose
opinions he attached much weight, and his younger brother, Frederick
Henry, were by inclination "libertines." On the other hand William
Lewis, the Frisian Stadholder, was a zealous Calvinist, and he used all
his influence with his cousin to urge him to make a firm stand against
Oldenbarneveldt, and those who were trying to overthrow the Reformed
faith. Sir Dudley Carleton, the new English ambassador, ranged himself
also as a strong opponent of the Advocate. While Maurice, however, was
hesitating as to the action he should take, Oldenbarneveldt determined
upon a step which amounted to a declaration of war. In December, 1616,
he carried in the Estates of Holland a proposal that they should, in
the exercise of their sovereign rights, enlist a provincial force of
4000 militia (_waardgelders_) in their pay. Thus Holland, though a
strong minority in the Estates was in opposition, declared its intention
of upholding the principle of provincial sovereignty against the
authority of the States-General. The States-General at the instance of
the two stadholders, May, 1617, declared for the summoning of a National
Synod by a vote of four provinces against three. The Estates of Holland,
again with a sharp division of opinion but by a majority, declined to
obey the summons. An impasse was thus reached and Maurice at last openly
declared for the Contra-Remonstrant side.
On July 23 the Prince, accompanied by his suite, ostentatiously attended
divine service at the Cloister Church at the Hague, where the
Contra-Remonstrants had a fortnight before, in face of the prohibition
of the Estates, established themselves. This step was countered by
decisive action on the part of Oldenbarneveldt. A proposal was made in
the Estates of Holland, August 4, known as the "Sharp Resolution"--and
it well merited its name, for it was of the most drastic character. It
was a most unqualified declaration of provincial sovereignty, and yet it
was only passed in the teeth of a strong minority by the exertion of the
Advocate's personal influence. By this resolution Holland declined to
assent to the summoning of any Synod, National or Provincial, and
asserted the supremacy of the Estates in matters of religion. The
municipal authorities were ordered to raise levies of _Waardgelders_ to
keep the peace; and all officials, civil or military, were required to
take an oath of obedience to the Estates on pain of dismissal. A strong
protest was made by the representatives of the dissenting cities headed
by Reinier Pauw, burgomaster of Amsterdam.
On the plea of ill-health Oldenbarneveldt now left the Hague, and took
up his residence at Utrecht. His object was to keep this province firm
in its alliance with Holland. He did not return till November 6, but all
the time he was in active correspondence with his party in Holland, at
whose head were the three pensionaries of Rotterdam, Leyden and
Haarlem--De Groot, Hoogerbeets and De Haan. Under their leadership
levies of _Waardgelders_ were made in a number of towns; but other
towns, including Amsterdam, refused, and the total levy did not amount
to more than 1800 men. Meanwhile the majority of the States-General,
urged on by Maurice and William Lewis, were determined, despite the
resistance of Holland and Utrecht, to carry through the proposal for the
summoning of a National Synod. Overyssel had been overawed and persuaded
to assent, so that there were five votes against two in its favour. All
through the winter the wrangling went on, and estrangement between the
contending parties grew more bitter and acute. A perfect flood of
pamphlets, broadsheets and pasquinades issued from the press; and in
particular the most violent and envenomed attacks were made upon the
character and administration of the Advocate, in which he was accused of
having received bribes both from Spanish and French sources and to have
betrayed the interests of his country. The chief instigator of these
attacks was Oldenbarneveldt's personal enemy, Francis van Aerssens,
whose pen was never idle. The defenders of the Remonstrant cause and
of the principles of provincial sovereignty were not lacking in the
vigour and virulence of their replies; and the Advocate himself felt
that the accusations which were made against him demanded a formal and
serious rejoinder. He accordingly prepared a long and careful defence of
his whole career, in which he proved conclusively that the charges made
against him had no foundation. This _Remonstratie_ he addressed to the
Estates of Holland, and he also sent a copy to the Prince. If this
document did not at the time avail to silence the voices of prejudiced
adversaries whose minds were made up, it has at least had the effect of
convincing posterity that, however unwise may have been the course now
deliberately pursued by the Advocate, he never for the sake of personal
gain betrayed the interests of his country. Had he now seen that the
attempt of a majority in the Estates of Holland to resist the will of
the majority in the States-General could only lead to civil war, and had
he resigned his post, advising the Estates to disband the _Waardgelders_
and yield to superior force, a catastrophe might have been averted.
There is no reason to believe that in such circumstances Maurice would
have countenanced any extreme harshness in dealing with the Advocate.
But Oldenbarneveldt, long accustomed to the exercise of power, was
determined not to yield one jot of the claim of the sovereign province
of Holland to supremacy within its own borders in matters of religion.
The die was cast and the issue had to be decided by force of arms.
On June 28, 1618, a solemn protest was made by the Advocate in the
States-General against the summoning of a National Synod in opposition
to the expressed opinion of the Estates of Holland; and a threat was
made that Holland might withhold her contribution to the general fund.
The majority of the States-General (July 9) declared the raising of
local levies illegal, and (July 23) it was resolved that a commission be
sent to Utrecht with Maurice at its head to demand the disbanding of the
_Waardgelders_ in that town.
The Estates of Holland[5] impelled by Oldenbarneveldt now took a very
strong step, a step which could not be retrieved. They resolved also to
despatch commissioners to Utrecht to urge the town-council to stand
firm. De Groot, Hoogerbeets and two others were nominated, and they at
once set out for Utrecht. Maurice, with the deputation from the
States-General and a large suite, left the Hague only a little later
than De Groot and his companions, and reached Utrecht on the evening of
the 25th. This strange situation lasted for several days, and much
parleying and several angry discussions took place. Matters were further
complicated by the news that the dissentient towns of Holland were also
sending a deputation. This news had a considerable effect upon Colonel
Ogle, the commander of the _Waardgelders_ in Utrecht, and his officers.
They were already wavering; they now saw that resistance to the orders
of the States-General would be useless. The Prince, who had been
collecting a body of troops, now determined on action. His force entered
the city on the evening of the 31st, and on the following morning he
commanded the local levies to lay down their arms. They at once obeyed,
and Maurice took possession of the city. The Holland commissioners and
the members of the town-council fled. Maurice appointed a new
town-council entirely Contra-Remonstrant; and changes were made in both
branches of the Estates, so as to secure a Contra-Remonstrant majority
and with it the vote of the province in the States-General for the
National Synod. Holland now stood alone, and its opposition had to be
dealt with in a fashion even sterner than that of Utrecht.
The Remonstrant cities of Holland were still for resistance, and
attempts were made to influence the stadholder not to resort to extreme
measures. Maurice had, however, made up his mind. On August 18 the
States-General passed a resolution demanding the dismissal of the
_Waardgelders_ in Holland within twenty-four hours. The placard was
published on the 20th and was immediately obeyed. The Estates of
Holland had been summoned to meet on the 21st, and were at once called
upon to deal with the question of the National Synod. A few days later
(August 28) a secret resolution was adopted by the majority in the
States-General, without the knowledge of the Holland deputies, to arrest
Oldenbarneveldt, De Groot, Hoogerbeets and Ledenburg, the secretary of
the Estates of Utrecht, on the ground that their action in the troubles
at Utrecht had been dangerous to the State. On the following day the
Advocate, on his way to attend the meeting of the Estates, was arrested
and placed in confinement. De Groot, Hoogerbeets and Ledenburg met with
similar treatment. After protesting the Estates adjourned on the 30th
until September 12, the deputies alleging that it was necessary to
consult their principals in this emergency, but in reality because the
suddenness of the blow had stricken them with terror. It was a prudent
step, for Maurice was resolved to purge the Estates and the
town-councils of Holland, as he had already purged those of Utrecht.
Attended by a strong body-guard he went from town to town, changing the
magistracies, so as to place everywhere the Contra-Remonstrants in
power. As a consequence of this action the deputies sent by the towns
were likewise changed; and, when the Estates next met, the supporters of
Oldenbarneveldt and his policy had disappeared. A peaceful revolution
had been accomplished. All opposition to the summoning of the Synod was
crushed; and (November 9) the Estates passed a vote of thanks to the
stadholder for "the care and fidelity" with which he had discharged a
difficult and necessary duty.
Meanwhile Oldenbarneveldt and the other prisoners had been confined in
separate rooms in the Binnenhof and were treated with excessive
harshness and severity. They were permitted to have no communication
with the outside world, no books, paper or writing materials; and the
conditions of their imprisonment were such as to be injurious to health.
A commission was appointed by the States-General to examine the accused,
and it began its labours in November. The method of procedure was unjust
and unfair in the extreme, even had it been a case of dealing with vile
criminals. The treatment of Oldenbarneveldt in particular was almost
indecently harsh. The aged statesman had to appear sixty times before
the commission and was examined and cross-examined on every incident of
the forty years of his administration and on every detail of his
private life. He was allowed not only to have no legal adviser, but
also was forbidden access to any books of reference or to any papers or
to make any notes. It was thus hoped that, having to trust entirely to
his memory, the old man might be led into self-contradictions or to
making damaging admissions against himself. De Groot and Hoogerbeets had
to undergo a similar, though less protracted, inquisition. Such was its
effect upon Ledenburg that he committed suicide.
It was not until February 20, 1619, that the States-General appointed an
extraordinary court for the trial of the accused. It consisted of
twenty-four members, of whom twelve were Hollanders.
It is needless to say that such a court had no legal status; and the
fact that nearly all its members were the Advocate's personal or
political enemies is a proof that the proceedings were judicial only in
name. It was appointed not to try, but to condemn the prisoners.
Oldenbarneveldt protested in the strongest terms against the court's
competence. He had been the servant of the Estates of the sovereign
province of Holland, and to them alone was he responsible. He denied to
the States-General any sovereign rights; they were simply an assembly
representing a number of sovereign allies. These were bold statements,
and they were accompanied by an absolute denial of the charges brought
against him. It was quite useless. All the prisoners were condemned,
first De Groot, then Hoogerbeets, then Oldenbarneveldt. The trials were
concluded on May 1, but it was resolved to defer the sentences until
after the close of the National Synod, which had been meeting at
Dordrecht. This took place on May 9.
Meanwhile strong and influential efforts were made for leniency. The
French ambassador, Aubrey du Maurier, during the trial did his utmost to
secure fair treatment for the Advocate; and a special envoy, Châtillon,
was sent from Paris to express the French king's firm belief in the aged
statesman's integrity and patriotism based on an intimate knowledge of
all the diplomatic proceedings during and after the negotiations for the
Truce. But these representations had no effect and were indeed resented.
Equally unfruitful were the efforts made by Louise de Coligny to soften
the severity of her step-son's attitude. Even William Lewis wrote to
Maurice not to proceed too harshly in the matter. All was in vain. The
Prince's heart was steeled. He kept asking whether the Advocate or his
family had sued for pardon. But Oldenbarneveldt was far too proud to
take any step which implied an admission of guilt; and all the members
of his family were as firmly resolved as he was not to supplicate for
grace. Few, however, believed that capital punishment would be carried
out. On Sunday, May 12, however, sentence of death was solemnly
pronounced; and on the following morning the head of the great statesman
and patriot was stricken off on a scaffold erected in the Binnenhof
immediately in front of the windows of Maurice's residence. The
Advocate's last words were a protestation of his absolute innocence of
the charge of being a traitor to his country; and posterity has endorsed
the declaration.
That Oldenbarneveldt had in the last two years of his life acted
indiscreetly and arrogantly there can be no question. His long tenure of
power had made him impatient of contradiction; and, having once
committed himself to a certain course of action, he determined to carry
it through in the teeth of opposition, regardless of consequences and
with a narrow obstinacy of temper that aroused bitter resentment. His
whole correspondence and private papers were however seized and
carefully scrutinised by his personal enemies; and, had they found any
evidence to substantiate the charges brought against him, it would have
been published to the world. It is clear that not a shred of such
evidence was discovered, and that the Advocate was perfectly innocent of
the treasonable conduct for which a packed court condemned him to suffer
death. Such was the reward that Oldenbarneveldt received for life-long
services of priceless value to his country. He more than any other man
was the real founder of the Dutch Republic; and it will remain an
ineffaceable stain on Maurice's memory that he was consenting unto this
cruel and unjust sentence.
Sentences of imprisonment for life were passed upon De Groot and
Hoogerbeets. They were confined in the castle of Loevestein. The
conditions of captivity were so far relaxed that the famous jurist was
allowed to receive books for the continuance of his studies. Through the
ingenuity and daring of his wife De Groot contrived to escape in 1621 by
concealing himself in a trunk supposed to be filled with heavy tomes.
The trunk was conveyed by water to Rotterdam, from whence the prisoner
managed to make his way safely to France.
Concurrently with the political trials the National Synod had been
pursuing its labours at Dordrecht. On November 13 rather more than one
hundred delegates assembled under the presidency of Johannes Bogerman of
Leeuwarden. Fifty-eight of the delegates were preachers, professors and
elders elected by the provincial synods, fifteen were commissioners
appointed by the States-General, twenty-eight were members of foreign
Reformed churches. English and Scottish representatives took an active
part in the proceedings. The Synod decided to summon the Remonstrants to
send a deputation to make their defence. On December 6 accordingly, a
body of twelve leading Remonstrants with Simon Episcopius at their head
took their seats at a table facing the assembly. Episcopius made a
long harangue in Latin occupying nine sessions. His eloquence was,
however, wasted on a court that had already prejudged the cause for
which he pleaded. After much wrangling and many recriminations Bogerman
ordered the Remonstrants to withdraw. They did so only to meet in an
"anti-synod" at Rotterdam at which the authority of the Dordrecht
assembly to pronounce decisions on matters of faith was denied.
Meanwhile the Contra-Remonstrant divines at Dordrecht during many weary
sessions proceeded to draw up a series of canons defining the true
Reformed doctrine and condemning utterly, as false and heretical, the
five points set forth in the Remonstrance. On May 1 the Netherland
confession and the Heidelberg catechism were unanimously adopted, as
being in conformity with Holy Scripture, and as fixing the standard of
orthodox teaching. The Synod was dissolved eight days later. The final
session was the 154th; and this great assembly of delegates from many
lands, the nearest approach to a general council of the Protestant
churches that has ever been held, came to a close amidst much festivity
and no small congratulation. No time was lost in taking action by the
dominant party against their opponents. Two hundred Remonstrant
preachers were driven into exile; and the congregations were treated
with the same spirit of intolerance as had hitherto been the lot of the
Catholics, and were forbidden the exercise of public worship.
After the Advocate's death, except for the persecution directed against
the Remonstrant party, the course of public affairs went on smoothly.
Maurice, who by the death of his brother, Philip William, had in
February, 1618, become Prince of Orange, was virtually sovereign in the
United Provinces. His name appeared in treaties with eastern potentates
and in diplomatic despatches, just as if he were a reigning monarch; and
the people of the Netherlands were even at times spoken of as his
subjects. But Maurice never cared to trouble himself about the details
of politics, and he now left the management of affairs in the hands of a
few men that he could trust, notably in those of Francis van Aerssens
(henceforth generally known as lord of Sommelsdijk) and Reinier Pauw,
the influential burgomaster of Amsterdam. Aerssens had shown himself
spiteful and vindictive in his conduct towards his earlier patron,
Oldenbarneveldt, but being a clever diplomatist and gifted with
considerable powers of statesmanship, he became henceforth for many
years the trusted adviser and confidant not only of Maurice, but of his
successor Frederick Henry.
The year 1620 was marked by the sudden death in June of William Lewis,
the Stadholder of Friesland. His loss was much deplored by Maurice, who
had for years been accustomed to rely upon the tried experience and
sound judgment of his cousin both in peace and war. A few months earlier
(March) Louise de Coligny had died at Fontainebleau. She too had been
from his youth the wise adviser of her step-son, but she was deeply
grieved at the fate of Oldenbarneveldt, and after his execution left the
Netherlands to take up her residence in her native country. By the death
of William Lewis the two stadholderates of Groningen with Drente and of
Friesland became vacant. Maurice succeeded to that of Groningen, but the
Frieslanders remained faithful to the house of Nassau-Siegen and elected
Ernest Casimir, the younger brother of William Lewis, as their
stadholder.
* * * * *