History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen

by J. N. Larned

----------NAVARRE: End--------
NAVE.
NAVIO.
See CARAVELS.
----------NAVIGATION LAWS: Start--------
NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.
The first English Act.
"After the triumph of the parliamentary cause [in the English
Civil War], great numbers of the royalists had sought refuge
in Virginia, Barbadoes, and the other West India settlements;
so that the white population of these dependencies was in
general fiercely opposed to the new government, and they might
be said to be in a state of rebellion after all the rest of
the empire had been reduced to submission and quiet.
Barbadoes, indeed, had actually received Lord Willoughby as
governor under a commission from Charles II., then in Holland,
and had proclaimed Charles as king. It was in these
circumstances that the English parliament in 1651, with the
view of punishing at once the people of the colonies and the
Dutch, who had hitherto enjoyed the greater part of the
carrying-trade between the West Indies and Europe, passed
their famous Navigation Act, declaring that no merchandise
either of Asia, Africa, or America, except only such as should
be imported directly from the place of its growth or
manufacture in Europe, should be imported into England,
Ireland, or any of the plantations, in any but English-built
ships, belonging either to English or English-plantation
subjects, navigated by English commanders, and having at least
three-fourths of the sailors Englishmen. It was also further
enacted that no goods of the growth, production, or
manufacture of any country in Europe should be imported into
Great Britain except in British ships, or in such ships as
were the real property of the people of the country or place
in which the goods were produced, or from which they could
only be, or most usually were, exported. Upon this law, which
was re-enacted after the Restoration, and which down to our
own day has been generally regarded and upheld as the
palladium of our commerce, and the maritime Magna Charta of
England, we shall only at present observe that one of its
first consequences was undoubtedly the war with Holland which
broke out the year after it was passed."
G. L. Craik,
History of British Commerce,
chapter 7 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
Adam Smith,
Wealth of Nations,
book 4, chapter 2.
J. A. Blanqui,
History of Political Economy,
chapter 29.
NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1660-1672.
Effect upon the American colonies,
and their relation to Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.
NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.
Complete repeal of the British restrictive Acts.
"The question of the navigation laws was … brought forward
[in the British Parliament, at the commencement of the session
of 1849] … with a fair prospect of being settled!" The
stringency of the original act of 1651 had been "slightly
mitigated by another act passed in the reign of Charles II.;
but the modifications thus introduced were of slight
importance. A farther relaxation, made at the conclusion of
the war of independence, allowed the produce of the United
States to be imported in ships belonging to citizens of those
states. The last amendment of the original law was obtained in
the year 1825 by Mr. Huskisson, who made some important
changes in it. The law, then, which the legislature had to
reconsider in the year 1849 stood thus: the produce of Asia,
Africa, and America might be imported from places out of
Europe into the United Kingdom, if to be used therein, in
foreign as well us in British ships, provided that such ships
were the ships of the country of which the goods were the
produce, and from which they were imported. Goods which were
the produce of Europe, and which were not enumerated in the
act, might be brought thence in the ships of any country.
Goods sent to or from the United Kingdom to any of its
possessions, or from one colony to another, must be carried in
British ships, or in ships of the country in which they were
produced and from which they were imported. Then followed some
stringent definitions of the conditions which constituted a
vessel a British ship in the sense of the act. These
restrictions were not without their defenders. Even the great
founder of economic science, Adam Smith, while admitting that
the navigation laws were inconsistent with that perfect
freedom of trade which he contended for, sanctioned their
continuance on the ground that defence is much more important
than opulence. But as it was more and more strongly felt that
these laws were part and parcel of that baneful system of
monopoly which, under the name of protection, had so long been
maintained and was now so completely exploded, it began also
to be seriously doubted whether they were necessary to the
defence of the nation. … Therefore, on the 14th of February
in this year, Mr. Labouchere, as president of the board of
trade, proposed a resolution on the subject couched in the
following terms: 'That it is expedient to remove the
restrictions which prevent the free carriage of goods by sea
to and from the United Kingdom and the British possessions
abroad, and to amend the laws regulating the coasting trade of
the United Kingdom, subject nevertheless to such control by
her Majesty in council as may be necessary; and also to amend
the laws for the registration of ships and seamen.'
{2246}
A long debate took place on the question of the second reading
of the government measure. … 214 members followed Mr.
Disraeli into the lobby, while 275 voted with the government,
which therefore had a majority of 61. In the upper house Lord
Brougham astonished friend and foe by coming forward as the
strenuous and uncompromising opponent of the ministerial
measure. … The second reading was carried by a majority of
10. The smallness of this majority caused some anxiety to the
supporters of the measure with regard to its ultimate fate;
but this anxiety was relieved by the withdrawal of the most
conspicuous opponents of the bill, which consequently passed
without farther opposition."
W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 2, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
J. D. J. Kelley,
The Question of Ships,
chapter 4.
S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 20 (volume 4).
----------NAVIGATION LAWS: End----------
NAWAB-VIZIER,
NEWAB-WU-ZEER, of Oude.
See OUDE; also NABOB.
----------NAXOS: Start--------
NAXOS: B. C. 490.
Destruction by the Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 490.
NAXOS: B. C. 466.
Revolt from the Delian Confederacy.
Subjugation by Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.
NAXOS: B. C. 376.
Battle between the Spartans and Athenians.
A battle was fought in September, B. C. 376, off Naxos,
between a Lacedæmonian fleet of 60 triremes and an Athenian
fleet of 80. Forty-nine of the former were disabled or
captured. "This was the first great victory … which the
Athenians had gained at sea since the Peloponnesian war."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 77.
NAXOS: A. D. 1204-1567.
The mediæval dukedom.
"In the partition of the [Byzantine] empire [after the
conquest of Constantinople, in 1204, by the Crusaders and the
Venetians], the twelve islands of the Archipelago, which had
formed the theme of the Egean sea in the provincial division
of the Byzantine empire, fell to the share of the crusading
barons; but Mark Sanudo, one of the most influential of the
Venetian nobles in the expedition, obtained possession of the
principal part of the ancient theme—though whether by
purchase from the Frank barons to whom it had been allotted,
or by grant to himself from the emperor, is not known. Sanudo,
however, made his appearance at the parliament of Ravenika as
one of the great feudatories of the empire of Romania, and was
invested by the emperor Henry with the title of Duke of the
Archipelago, or Naxos. It is difficult to say on what precise
footing Sanudo placed his relations with the republic. His
conduct in the war of Crete shows that he ventured to act as a
baron of Romania, or an independent prince, when he thought
his personal interests at variance with his born allegiance to
Venice. … The new duke and his successors were compelled by
their position to acknowledge themselves, in some degree,
vassals both of the empire of Romania and of the republic of
Venice; yet they acted as sovereign princes." Nearly at the
close of the fourteenth century the dukedom passed from the
Sanudo family to the Crispo family, who reigned under the
protection of Venice until 1537, when the Duke of Naxos was
reduced to vassalage by the Turkish sultan Suleiman. Thirty
years later, his title and authority were extinguished by the
sultan, on the petition of the Greek inhabitants, who could
not endure his oppressive and disgraceful government.
G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 10, sections 1-3.
ALSO IN:
Sir J. E. Tennent,
History of Modern Greece,
chapter 3.
H. F. Tozer,
The Islands of the Aegean,
chapter 4.
----------NAXOS: End----------
NAZARETH, Battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
NEANDERTHAL MAN.
The race represented by a remarkable human skull and imperfect
skeleton found in 1857, in a limestone cave in the
Neanderthal, Rhenish Prussia, and thought to be the most
primitive race of which any knowledge has yet been obtained.
J. Geikie,
Prehistoric Europe,
page 22.
ALSO IN:
W. B. Dawkins,
Cave Hunting,
page 240.
NEAPOLIS, Schools of.
In the first century of the Roman empire, "Neapolis [modern
Naples] had its schools and colleges, as well as Athens; its
society abounded in artists and men of letters, and it enjoyed
among the Romans the title of the learned, which comprehended
in their view the praise of elegance as well as knowledge."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 40.
NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.
"Palaepolis is mentioned only by Livy: it was an ancient
Cumaean colony, the Cumaeans having taken refuge there across
the sea. Neapolis derives its name from being a much later
settlement of different Greek tribes, and was perhaps not
founded till Olymp. 91, about the time of the Athenian
expedition to Sicily, and as a fortress of the Greeks against
the Sabellians. It is not impossible that the Athenians also
may have had a share in it. Both towns, however, were of
Chalcidian origin and formed one united state, which at that
time may have been in possession of Ischia. Many absurdities
have been written about the site of Palaepolis, and most of
all by Italian antiquaries. We have no data to go upon except
the two statements in Livy, that Palaepolis was situated by
the side of Neapolis, and that the Romans [in the second
Samnite war] had pitched their camp between the two towns. The
ancient Neapolis was undoubtedly situated in the centre of the
modern city of Naples above the church of Sta. Rosa; the coast
is now considerably advanced. People have sought for
Palaepolis likewise within the compass of the modern city. …
I alone should never have discovered its true site, but my
friend, the Count de Serre, a French statesman, who in his
early life had been in the army and had thus acquired a quick
and certain miliary eye, discovered it in a walk which I took
with him. The town was situated on the outer side of Mount
Posilipo, where the quarantine now is."
B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lecture 40 (volume 1).
"Parthenopé was an ancient Greek colony founded by the
Chalcidians of Cuma on the northern part of the Bay of Naples.
In after years another city sprung up a little to the south,
whence the original Parthenopé was called Palæpolis or
Old-town, while the new town took the name of Neapolis. The
latter preserves its name in the modern Naples." Palæpolis was
taken by the Romans, B. C. 327, at the beginning of the second
Samnite War, and is heard of no more. Neapolis made peace with
them and lived.
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 21 (volume 1).
{2247}
NEAPOLIS (Syracuse).
See TEMENITES.
NEARDA.
See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.
----------NEBRASKA: Start--------
NEBRASKA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
NEBRASKA: A. D. 1803.
Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
NEBRASKA: A. D. 1854.
Territorial organization.
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
NEBRASKA: A. D. 1867.
Admission to the Union.
Nebraska was organized as a State and admitted
to the Union in 1867.
----------NEBRASKA: End--------
NECKER, Ministry of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788, to 1789 (JUNE).
NECTANSMERE, Battle of (A. D. 685).
See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
NEERWINDEN,
LANDEN,
Battle of (1693).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY)
Battle of (1793).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
NEGRITO.
"The term Negrito, i. e. 'Little Negro,' [was] long applied by
the Spaniards to the dark dwarfish tribes in the interior of
Luzon, and some others of the Philippine Islands. Here it will
be extended to the dwarfish negroid tribes in the Andaman
Islands and interior of Malacca, but to no others."
A. H. Keane,
Philology and Ethnology of the Interoceanic Races
(appendix to Wallace's Hellwald's Australasia),
section 4.
NEGRO, The.
See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
NEGRO PLOT, Imagined in New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.
NEGRO SLAVERY.
See SLAVERY: NEGRO.
NEGRO SUFFRAGE.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1867 (JANUARY), and (MARCH); and 1868-1870.
NEGRO TROOPS, in the American Civil War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
----------NEGROPONT: Start--------
NEGROPONT:
The Name.
The ancient island of Eubœa received from the Venetians the
name Negropont. "In the middle ages, Eubœa was called Egripo,
a corruption of Euripus, the name of the town built upon the
ruins of Chalcis. The Venetians, who obtained possession of
the island upon the dismemberment of the Byzantine empire by
the Latins, called it Negropont, probably a corruption of
Egripo, and 'ponte,' a bridge."
W. Smith,
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography.
NEGROPONT: A. D. 1470.
Capture and Massacre by the Turks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
----------NEGROPONT: End--------
NEGUS, OR NEGOOS, The.
See ABYSSINIA: 15-19TH CENTURIES.
NEHAVEND, Battle of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
NELSON'S FARM, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
NEMEDIANS, The.
It is among the legends of the Irish that their island was
settled, about the time of the patriarch Jacob, by a colony of
descendants from Japhet, led by one Nemedius, from whom they
and their posterity took the name of Nemedians. The Nemedians
were afterwards subjugated by a host of African sea-rovers,
known as Fomorians, but were delivered from these in time by a
fresh colony of their kindred from the East called the Fir
Bolgs.
T. Wright,
History of Ireland,
book 1, chapter 2.
NEMEAN AND ISTHMIAN GAMES.
"The Nemean and Isthmian [games in ancient. Greece] were
celebrated each twice in every Olympiad, at different seasons
of the year: the former in the plain of Nemea, in Argolis,
under the presidency of Argos; the latter in the Corinthian
isthmus, under the presidency of Corinth. These, like the
Pythian and Olympic games, claimed a very high antiquity,
though the form in which they were finally established was of
late institution; and it is highly probable that they were
really suggested by the tradition of ancient festivals, which
had served to cement an Amphictyonic confederacy."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 10.
NEMETACUM.
Modern Arras.
See BELGÆ.
NEMETES, The.
See VANGIONES.
NEMI, Priest of.
See ARICIAN GROVE.
NEMOURS, Treaty and Edict of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
NEODAMODES.
Enfranchised helots, in ancient Sparta.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 73.
NEOLITHIC PERIOD.
See STONE AGE.
NEOPLATONICS, The.
"There now [in the third century after Christ] arose another
school, which from its first beginnings announced itself as a
reform and support of the ancient faith, and, consequently, as
an enemy of the new religion. This was the Neoplatonic school
of Alexandria, founded by Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus, and
which was afterwards represented by Porphyrius, Amelius, and
Iamblicus. The doctrine of this school was the last, and in
many respects the best production of paganism, now in its
final struggle; the effort of a society, which acknowledged
its own defects, to regenerate and to purify itself.
Philosophy, and the religion of the vulgar, hitherto separated
and irreconcilable, joined in harmony together for mutual
support, and for a new existence. The Neoplatonics
endeavoured, therefore, to unite the different systems of
philosophy, especially the Pythagorean, Platonic, and
Aristotelean, in one body with the principles of oriental
learning, and thus to raise an edifice of universal, absolute
truth. In the same manner they represented the varied forms of
eastern and western religious worship as one entire whole,
which had manifested itself indeed in different ways, but at
the foundation of which there lay the same true faith. They
taught that 'every kind of homage and adoration, which men
offer to superior beings, is referred to heroes, demons, or
Gods, but, finally, to the one most-high God, the author of
all: that these demons are the chiefs and genii of the
different parts, elements, and powers of the world, of people,
countries, and cities, to obtain whose favour and protection,
it behoved men to honour them according to the rites and
customs of the ancients.'
{2248}
It is, therefore, manifest that these philosophers were
essentially hostile to the Christian religion,—the exclusive
character of which, and tendency to destroy all other
religions, stood in direct contrast with their doctrines: and
as their school was in its vigour at the very time in which
Christianity made its most rapid advances, and had struck
Paganism with a mortal wound, they employed themselves
especially, and more earnestly, than other philosophers, to
maintain their own tenets, and to destroy Christianity. They
in nowise, however, desired to defend heathenism, or its
worship, in their then degenerate and degrading state: their
ideal was a more pure, more noble, spiritualized, polytheism,
to establish which was the object which they had proposed to
themselves. Whilst, therefore, on the one hand, they preserved
the ancient and genuine truths which had sprung from primitive
tradition, and purified them from recent errors and
deformations; on the other, they adopted many of the doctrines
of the hated Christianity, and sought to reform paganism by
the aid of light which had streamed upon them from the
sanctuary of the Church. This admission and employment of
Christian truths are easily explained, if it be true, that two
of their chiefs, Ammonius and Porphyrius, had been Christians.
It is well known that they received instructions from
Christian masters. … This uniformity, or imitation, consists
not only in the use of terms, but in essential dogmas. The
Neoplatonic idea of three hypostases in one Godhead would not
have been heard of, if the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
had not preceded it. … Their doctrines respecting the minor
Gods, their influence and connexion with the supreme Being,
approached near to the Christian dogma of the angels. Nor is
the influence of Christianity less evident in the pure and
grave morality of the Neoplatonics: in their lessons which
teach the purifying of fallen souls, the detachment from the
senses, the crucifying … of the affections and passions, it
is easy to distinguish the Christian, from the commingled
pagan, elements. The Neoplatonics endeavoured to reform
polytheism by giving to men a doctrine more pure concerning
the Gods, by attributing an allegorical sense to the fables,
and a moral signification to the forms and ceremonies of
religion: they sought to raise the souls of men to piety, and
rejected from their mythology many of the degrading narrations
with which it had before abounded. It was their desire also to
abolish the sacrifices, for the Gods could only abhor the
slaughter, the dismemberment and the burning of animals. But
at the same time they reduced to a theory the apparitions of
the Gods; they declared magic to be the most divine of
sciences; they taught and defended theurgy, or the art of
invoking the Gods (those of an inferior order, who were united
to matter), and of compelling them to comply with the desires
of men."
J. J. I. Döllinger,
History of the Church,
volume 1, pages 70-73.
ALSO IN:
F. Ueberweg,
History of Philosophy,
sections 66-70 (volume 1).
C. Kingsley,
Alexandria and Her Schools.
NEPAUL, OR NIPAL, English war with the Ghorkas of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
NEPHTHALITES, The.
See HUNS, THE WHITE.
NÉRAC, Treaty of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
NERESHEIM, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
NERI AND BIANCHI (Blacks and Whites), The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.
NERIUM, Headland of.
The ancient name of Cape Finisterre,
NERO, Roman Emperor, A. D. 54-68.
NERONIA.
Games instituted by Nero, to be conducted in the Greek fashion
and to recur periodically, like the Olympian.
NERVA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 96-98.
NERVII, The.
A tribe in Belgic Gaul, at the time of Cæsar's conquest, which
occupied the country "between the Sambre and the Scheldt
(French and Belgic Hainaut, provinces of Southern Brabant, of
Antwerp, and part of Eastern Flanders). The writers posterior
to Cæsar mention Bagacum (Bavay) as their principal town."
Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2).
The tribe was destroyed by Cæsar.
See BELGÆ, CÆSAR'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE.
NESSA: Destruction by the Mongols (1220).
See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.
NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.
The great religious controversy of the Christian world in the
fourth century, relating to the mystery of the Trinity, having
been settled by the triumph of the doctrine of Athanasius over
the doctrine of Arius, it was succeeded in the fifth century
by a still more violent disputation, which concerned the yet
profounder mystery of the Incarnation. To the dogmatists of
one party it was wickedness to distinguish the divine nature
and the human nature which they believed to be united in
Christ; to the dogmatists of the other side it was sin to
confound them. Cyril of Alexandria became the implacable
leader of the first party. Nestorius, Patriarch of
Constantinople, was forced to the front of the battle on the
other side and became its martyr. The opponents of Nestorius
gained advantages in the contest from the then rapidly growing
tendency in the Christian world to pay divine honors to the
Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. To Nestorius and those who
believed with him, this was abhorrent. "Like can but bear
like," said Nestorius in one of his sermons; "a human mother
can only bear a human being. God was not born—he dwelt in
that which was born." But the mob was too easily charmed with
Mariolatry to be moved by reasoning on the subject, and Cyril
led the mob, not only in Alexandria, where it murdered Hypatia
and massacred Jews at his bidding, but generally throughout
the Christian world. A Council called at Ephesus in 431 and
recognized as the third Œcumenical Council, condemned
Nestorius and degraded him from his episcopal throne; but a
minority disputed its procedure and organized a rival Council,
which retorted anathemas and excommunications against Cyril
and his friends. The emperor at last interfered and dissolved
both; but Nestorius, four years later, was exiled to the
Libyan desert and persecuted remorselessly until he died.
Meantime the doctrine of Cyril had been carried to another
stage of development by one of his most ardent supporters, the
Egyptian monk Eutyches, who maintained that the human nature
of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature. Both forms of the
doctrine of one nature in the Son of God seem to have acquired
somewhat confusedly the name of Monophysite, though the latter
tenet is more often called Eutychian, from the name of its
chief promulgator.
{2249}
It kindled new fires in the controversy. In 449, a second
Council at Ephesus, which is called the "Robber Synod" on
account of the peculiar violence and indecency of its
proceedings, sustained the Monophysites. But two years later,
in 451, the vanquished party, supported by Pope Leo the Great,
at Rome, succeeded in assembling a Council at Chalcedon which
laid down a definition of the Christian faith affirming the
existence of two natures in one person, and which nevertheless
condemned Nestorianism and Monophysitism, alike. Their success
only inflamed the passions of the worshippers of the Virgin as
the "Mother of God." "Everywhere monks were at the head of the
religious revolution which threw off the yoke of the Council
of Chalcedon." In Jerusalem "the very scenes of the Saviour's
mercies ran with blood shed in his name by his ferocious
self-called disciples." At Alexandria, a bishop was murdered
in the baptistery of his church. At Constantinople, for sixty
years, there went on a succession of bloody tumults and fierce
revolutionary conspiracies which continually shook the
imperial throne and disorganized every part of society, all
turning upon the theological question of one nature or two in
the incarnate Son of God. The Emperor Zeno "after a vain
attempt to obtain the opinions of the chief ecclesiastical
dignitaries, without assembling a new Council, a measure which
experience had shown to exasperate rather than appease the
strife, Zeno issued his famous Henoticon, or Edict of Union.
… It aimed not at the reconcilement of the conflicting
opinions, but hoped, by avoiding all expressions offensive to
either party, to allow them to meet together in Christian
amity." The Henoticon only multiplied the factions in number
and heated the strife between them. The successor of Zeno,
Anastasius, became a partisan in the fray, and through much of
his reign of twenty-seven years the conflict raged more
fiercely than ever. Constantinople was twice, at least, in
insurrection. "The blue and green factions of the Circus—such
is the language of the times—gave place to these more
maddening conflicts. The hymn of the Angels in Heaven [the
Trisagion] was the battle-cry on earth." At length the death
of Anastasius ended the strife. His successor Justin (A. D.
518), bowed to the authority of the Bishop of Rome—the Pope
Hormisdas—and invoked his aid. The Eastern world, exhausted,
followed generally the emperor's example in taking the
orthodoxy of Rome for the orthodoxy of Christianity.
Nestorianism and Monophysitism in their extreme forms were
driven from the open field in the Christian world, but both
survived and have transmitted their remains to the present day.
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 2, chapters 3-4,
book 3, chapter 1, and 3.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47.
J. Alzog,
Universal Church History, 2d epoch,
chapter 2.
See, also,
NESTORIANS; JACOBITE CHURCH;
and MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.
NESTORIANS, The.
"Within the limits of the Roman empire … this sect was
rapidly extirpated by persecution [see above, NESTORIAN AND
MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY]; and even in the patriarchate of
Antioch, where, as we have seen, the tenets of Nestorius at
first found greatest favour, it had disappeared as early as
the time of Justinian [A. D. 527-565]. But another field lay
open to it in the Persian kingdom of the Sassanidæ, and in
this it ultimately struck its roots deeply. The Chaldæan
church, which at the beginning of the fifth century was in a
flourishing condition, had been founded by missionaries from
Syria; its primate, or Catholicos, was dependent on the
patriarch of Antioch, and in respect of language and
discipline it was closely connected with the Syrian church. It
is not surprising, therefore, to find that some of its members
lent a ready ear to the Nestorian doctrines. This was
especially the case with the church-teachers of the famous
seminary at Edessa in Mesopotamia. … One of their number,
Barsumas, who was bishop of the city of Nisibis from 435 to
489, by his long and active labours contributed most of all to
the establishment of the Nestorian church in Persia. He
persuaded the king Pherozes (Firuz) that the antagonism of his
own sect to the doctrine of the established church of the
Roman empire would prove a safeguard for Persia. … From that
time Nestorianism became the only form of Christianity
tolerated in Persia. … The Catholicos of Chaldæa now threw
off his dependence on Antioch, and assumed the title of
Patriarch of Babylon. The school of Edessa, which in 489 was
again broken up by the Greek emperor, Zeno, was transferred to
Nisibis, and in that place continued for several centuries to
be an important centre of theological learning, and especially
of biblical studies. … In the sixth century the Nestorians
had established churches from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian
Sea, and had preached the Gospel to the Medes, the Bactrians,
the Huns, and the Indians, and as far as the coast of Malabar
and the island of Ceylon. At a later period, starting from
Balk and Samarcand, they spread Christianity among the nomad
Tartar tribes in the remote valleys of the Imaus; and the
inscription of Siganfu, which was discovered in China, and the
genuineness of which is considered to be above suspicion,
describes the fortunes of the Nestorian church in that country
from the first mission, A. D. 636, to the year in which that
monument was set up, A. D. 781. In the ninth century, during
the rule of the caliphs at Bagdad, the patriarch removed to
that city, and at this period twenty-five metropolitans were
subject to him. … From the eleventh century onwards the
prosperity of the Chaldæan church declined, owing to the
terrible persecutions to which its members were exposed.
Foremost among these was the attack of Timour the Tartar, who
almost exterminated them. Within the present century their
diminished numbers have been still further thinned by
frightful massacres inflicted by the Kurds. Their headquarters
now are a remote and rugged valley in the mountains of
Kurdistan, on the banks of the Greater Zab. … Beyond the
boundary which separates Turkey from Persia to the southward
of Mount Ararat, a similar community is settled on the shores
of Lake Urumia. A still larger colony is found at Mosul, and
others … elsewhere in the neighbourhood of the Tigris. …
Of their widely extended missions only one fragment now
remains, in the Christians of St. Thomas on the Malabar coast
of India."
H. F. Tozer,
The Church and the Eastern Empire,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47.
NETAD, Battle of.
See HUNS: A. D. 453.
{2250}
----------NETHERLANDS: Start--------
NETHERLANDS.
The Land.
"The north-western corner of the vast plain which extends from
the German ocean to the Ural mountains is occupied by the
countries called the Netherlands [Low Countries]. This small
triangle, enclosed between France, Germany, and the sea, is
divided by the modern kingdoms of Belgium and Holland into two
nearly equal portions. … Geographically and
ethnographically, the Low Countries belong both to Gaul and to
Germany. It is even doubtful to which of the two the Batavian
island, which is the core of the whole country, was reckoned
by the Romans. It is, however, most probable that all the
land, with the exception of Friesland, was considered a part
of Gaul. Three great rivers—the Rhine, the Meuse, and the
Scheld—had deposited their slime for ages among the dunes
and sandbanks heaved up by the ocean around their mouths. A
delta was thus formed, habitable at last for man. It was by
nature a wide morass, in which oozy islands and savage forests
were interspersed among lagoons and shallows; a district lying
partly below the level of the ocean at its higher tides,
subject to constant overflow from the rivers, and to frequent
and terrible inundations by the sea. … Here, within a
half-submerged territory, a race of wretched icthyophagi dwelt
upon 'terpen,' or mounds, which they had raised, like beavers,
above the almost fluid soil. Here, at a later day, the same
race chained the tyrant Ocean and his mighty streams into
subserviency, forcing them to fertilize, to render commodious,
to cover with a beneficent network of veins and arteries, and
to bind by watery highways with the farthest ends of the
world, a country disinherited by nature of its rights. A
region, outcast of ocean and earth, wrested at last from both
domains their richest treasures. A race, engaged for
generations in stubborn conflict with the angry elements, was
unconsciously educating itself for its great struggle with the
still more savage despotism of man. The whole territory of the
Netherlands was girt with forests. An extensive belt of
woodland skirted the sea-coast, reaching beyond the mouths of
the Rhine. Along the outer edge of this barrier, the dunes
cast up by the sea were prevented by the close tangle of
thickets from drifting further inward, and thus formed a
breastwork which time and art were to strengthen. The groves
of Haarlem and the Hague are relics of this ancient forest.
The Badahuenna wood, horrid with Druidic sacrifices, extended
along the eastern line of the vanished lake of Flevo. The vast
Hercynian forest, nine days' journey in breadth, closed in the
country on the German side, stretching from the banks of the
Rhine to the remote regions of the Dacians, in such vague
immensity (says the conqueror of the whole country) that no
German, after traveling sixty days, had ever reached, or even
heard of, its commencement. On the south, the famous groves of
Ardennes, haunted by faun and satyr, embowered the country,
and separated it from Celtic Gaul. Thus inundated by mighty
rivers, quaking beneath the level of the ocean, belted about
by hirsute forests, this low land, nether land, hollow land,
or Holland, seemed hardly deserving the arms of the
all-accomplished Roman."
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
introduction, section 1.
NETHERLANDS:
The early inhabitants.
See BELGÆ; NERVII; BATAVIANS; and FRISIANS.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 69.
Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.
See BATAVIANS.
NETHERLANDS: 4-9th Centuries.
Settlement and domination of the Franks.
See FRANKS; also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 843-870.
Partly embraced in the kingdom of Lotharingia.
The partitioning.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
NETHERLANDS: (Flanders): A. D. 863-1383.
The Flemish towns and counts.
See FLANDERS.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 922-1345.
The early Counts of Holland.
"It was in the year 922 that Charles the Simple [of France]
presented to Count Dirk the territory of Holland, by letters
patent. This narrow hook of land, destined, in future ages, to
be the cradle of a considerable empire, stretching through
both hemispheres, was, thenceforth, the inheritance of Dirk's
descendants. Historically, therefore, he is Dirk I., Count of
Holland. … From the time of the first Dirk to the close of
the 13th century there were nearly four hundred years of
unbroken male descent, a long line of Dirks and Florences.
This iron-handed, hot-headed, adventurous race, placed as
sovereign upon its little sandy hook, making ferocious
exertions to swell into large consequence, conquering a mile
or two of morass or barren furze, after harder blows and
bloodier encounters than might have established an empire
under more favorable circumstances, at last dies out. The
countship falls to the house of Avennes, Counts of Hainault.
Holland, together with Zeland, which it had annexed, is thus
joined to the province of Hainault. At the end of another half
century the Hainault line expires. William the Fourth died
childless in 1355 [1345?]."
J. L. Motley,
Rise of the Dutch Republic,
introduction, sections 5-6.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 13-15th Centuries.
Relations with the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1345-1354.
The Rise of the Hooks and the Kabeljauws, or Cods.
"On the death of William IV. [Count of Holland] without issue
in 1345, his sister, married to the Emperor Louis, became
Countess of Zealand, Holland, Friezland and Hainault. But her
husband dying soon afterwards, many of the noblesse, whom she
had offended by the attempt to restrain their excesses,
instigated her son to assume the sovereignty. In the
sanguinary struggle which ensued, the people generally adhered
to the cause of Margaret." They "looked forward to the
necessities of a female reign as likely to afford them
opportunities to win further immunities, as the condition of
their support against the turbulent nobles. Did not these
live, like the great fish, by devouring the smaller ones? And
how could they be checked but by the hooks which, though
insignificant in appearance, when aptly used would be too
strong for them. Such was the talk of the people; and from
these household words arose the memorable epithets, which in
after years were heard in every civic brawl, and above the din
and death-cry of many a battle-field. Certain of the nobles
adhered to the cause of the Hooks, while some of the cities,
among which were Delft, Haarlem, Dort, and Rotterdam,
supported the Kabeljauws [or Cods].
{2251}
The community was divided into parties rather than into
classes. … In the exasperation of mutual injury, the primary
cause of quarrel was soon forgotten. The Hooks were proud of
the accession of a lord to their ranks; and the Kabeljauws
were equally glad of the valuable aid which a wealthy and
populous town was able to afford. The majority of the
cities,—perhaps the majority of the inhabitants in all of
them,—favoured the Hook party, as the preponderance of the
landowners lay in the opposite scale. But no adherence to
antagonistic principles, or even a systematic profession of
them, is traceable throughout the varying struggle. … In
Friezland the two factions were designated by the
recriminative epithets of 'Vet-Koopers' and
'Schieringers,'—terms hardly translatable. In the conflict
which first marshalled the two parties in hostile array, the
Hooks were utterly defeated;—their leaders who survived were
banished, their property confiscated, and their dwellings
razed to the ground. Margaret was forced to take refuge in
England, where she remained until a short time previous to her
death in 1354, when the four provinces acknowledged William V.
as their undisputed lord. The succeeding reigns are chiefly
characterised by the incessant struggles of the embittered
factions. … Whatever progress was made during the latter
half of the 14th century was municipal and commercial. In a
national view the government was helpless and inefficient,
entangled by ambitious family alliances with France, England,
and Germany, and distracted by the rival powers and
pretensions of domestic factions. Under the administration of
the ill-fated Jacoba [or Jacqueline] these evils reached their
full maturity."
W. T. McCullagh,
Industrial History of Free Nations,
chapter 9 (volume 2).
NETHERLANDS: 14-15th Centuries.
Commercial and industrial superiority.
Advance in learning and art.
"What a scene as compared with the rest of Northern Europe,
and especially with England … must have been presented by
the Low Countries during the 14th century! In 1370, there are
3,200 woollen-factories at Malines and on its territory. One
of its merchants carries on an immense trade with Damascus and
Alexandria. Another, of Valenciennes, being at Paris during a
fair, buys up an the provisions exposed for sale in order to
display his wealth. Ghent, in 1340, contains 40,000 weavers.
In 1389, it has 189,000 men bearing arms; the drapers alone
furnish 18,000 in a revolt. In 1380, the goldsmiths of Bruges
are numerous enough to form in war time an entire division of
the army. At a repast given by one of the Counts of Flanders
to the Flemish magistrates, the seats provided for the guests
being unfurnished with cushions, they quietly folded up their
sumptuous cloaks, richly embroidered and trimmed with fur, and
placed them on the wooden benches. When leaving the table at
the conclusion of the feast, a courtier called their attention
to the fact that they were going without their cloaks. The
burgomaster of Bruges replied: 'We Flemings are not in the
habit of carrying away the cushions after dinner.' …
Commines, the French chronicler, writing in the 15th century,
says that the traveller, leaving France and crossing the
frontiers of Flanders, compared himself to the Israelites when
they had quitted the desert and entered the borders of the
Promised Land. Philip the Good kept up a court which surpassed
every other in Europe for luxury and magnificence. … In all
such matters of luxury and display, England of the 16th or
17th century had nothing to compare with the Netherlands a
hundred or even two hundred years before. After luxury, come
comfort, intelligence, morality, and learning, which develop
under very different conditions. In the course of time even
Italy was outstripped in the commercial race. The conquest of
Egypt by the Turks, and the discovery of a water passage to
the Indies, broke up the overland trade with the East, and
destroyed the Italian and German cities which had flourished
on it. … Passing from the dominion of the House of Burgundy
to that of the House of Austria, which also numbered Spain
among its vast possessions, proved to them in the end an event
fraught with momentous evil. Still for a time, and from a mere
material point of view it was an evil not unmixed with good.
The Netherlanders were better sailors and keener merchants
than the Spaniards, and, being under the same rulers, gained
substantial advantages from the close connection. The new
commerce of Portugal also filled their coffers; so that while
Italy and Germany were impoverished, they became wealthier and
more prosperous than ever. … With wealth pouring in from all
quarters, art naturally followed in the wake of commerce.
Architecture was first developed, and nowhere was its
cultivation more general than in the Netherlands."
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, &c.,
volume 1, chapter 1.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland and Hainault): A. D. 1417-1430.
The despoiling of Countess Jaqueline.
In 1417, Count William VI. of Holland, Hainault and Friesland,
died, leaving no male heirs, but a daughter, Jacoba, or
Jaqueline, whom most of the nobles and towns of the several
states had already acknowledged as the heiress of her father's
sovereignty. Though barely seventeen years of age, the
countess Jake, as she was sometimes called, wore a widow's
weeds. She had been married two years before to John, the
second son of the king of France, who became presently
thereafter, by his brother's death, the dauphin of France.
John had died, a few months before Count William's death, and
the young countess, fair in person and well endowed in mind,
was left with no male support, to contend with the rapacity of
an unscrupulous bishop-uncle (John, called The Godless, Bishop
of Liege), who strove to rob her of her heritage. "Henry V.
[of England] had then stood her friend, brought about a
reconciliation, established her rights and proposed a marriage
between her and his brother John, Duke of Bedford, who was
then a fine young man of five or six and twenty. … But she
was a high-spirited, wilful damsel, and preferred her first
cousin, the Duke of Brabant, whose father was a brother of
Jean Sans Peur [Duke of Burgundy]. … The young Duke was only
sixteen, and was a weak-minded, passionate youth. Sharp
quarrels took place between the young pair; the Duchess was
violent and headstrong, and accused her husband of allowing
himself to be governed by favourites of low degree. The Duke
of Burgundy interfered in vain. … After three years of
quarrelling, in the July of 1421 Jaqueline rode out early one
morning, met a knight of Hainault called Escaillon, 'who had
long been an Englishman at heart,' and who brought her sixty
horsemen, and galloped off for Calais, whence she came to
England, where Henry received her with the courtesy due to a
distressed dame-errant, and she became a most intimate
companion of the Queen. …
{2252}
She loudly gave out that she intended to obtain a separation
from her husband on the plea of consanguinity, although a
dispensation had been granted by the Council of Constance, and
'that she would marry some one who would pay her the respect
due to her rank.' This person soon presented himself in the
shape of Humfrey, duke of Gloucester, the King's youngest
brother, handsome, graceful, accomplished, but far less
patient and conscientious than any of his three elders."
Benedict XIII., the anti-pope, was persuaded to pronounce the
marriage of Jaqueline and John of Brabant null and void; "but
Henry V. knew that this was a vain sentence, and intimated to
his brother that he would never consent to his espousing the
Duchess of Brabant; showing him that the wedlock could not be
legal, and that to claim the lady's inheritance would lead to
a certain rupture with the Duke of Burgundy, who could not but
uphold the cause of his cousin of Brabant." Notwithstanding
these remonstrances, the Duke Humfrey did marry the seductive
Jaqueline, early in 1424. "He then sent to demand from the
Duke of Brabant the possession of the lady's inheritance; and
on his refusal the Hainaulters espoused whichever party they
preferred and began a warfare among themselves." Soon
afterwards the godless bishop of Liege died and "bequeathed
the rights he pretended to have to Hainault, not to his niece,
but to the Duke of Burgundy. Gloucester in the meantime
invaded Hainault and carried on a 'bitter war there.' Burgundy
assembled men-at-arms for its protection; and letters passed
between the Dukes, ending in a challenge—not between
Jaqueline's two husbands, who would have seemed the fittest
persons to have fought out the quarrel, but between Gloucester
and Burgundy." It was arranged that the question of the
possession of Hainault should be decided by single combat.
Humfrey returned to England to make preparations, leaving
Jaqueline at Mons, with her mother. The latter proved false
and allowed the citizens of Mons to deliver up the unhappy
lady to Philip of Burgundy. Her English husband found himself
powerless to render her much aid, and was possibly indifferent
to her fate, since another woman had caught his fancy.
Jaqueline, after a time, escaped from her captivity, and
revived the war in Hainault, Gloucester sending her 500 men.
"The Duke of Brabant died, and reports reached her that
Gloucester had married Eleanor Cobham; but she continued to
battle for her county till 1428, when she finally came to
terms with Philippe [of Burgundy], let him garrison her
fortresses, appointed him her heir, and promised not to marry
without his consent. A year or two after, however, she married
a gentleman of Holland called Frank of Burslem, upon which he
was seized by the Burgundians. To purchase his liberty she
yielded all her dominions, and only received an annual pension
until 1436, when she died, having brought about as much strife
and dissension as any woman of her time."
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos of English History,
series 2, chapter 33.
ALSO IN:
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles
(translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapters 164, 181, 234>,
book 2, chapters 22-32, 48-49.
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 1, chapters 5-6.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.
The sovereignty of the House of Burgundy established.
"Upon the surrender of Holland, Zealand, Friezland, and
Hainault by Jacoba, Philip [the duke of Burgundy called Philip
the Good] became possessed of the most considerable states of
the Netherlands. John, duke of Burgundy, his father, had
succeeded to Flanders and Artois, in right of his mother
Margaret, sole heiress of Louis van der Male, count of
Flanders. In the year 1429, Philip entered into possession of
the county of Namur, by the death of Theodore, its last native
prince, without issue, of whom he had purchased it during his
lifetime for 132,000 crowns of gold. To Namur was added in the
next year the neighbouring duchy of Brabant, by the death [A.
D. 1430] of Philip (brother of John, who married Jacoba of
Holland), without issue; although Margaret, countess-dowager
of Holland, aunt of the late duke, stood the next in
succession, since the right extended to females, Philip
prevailed with the states of Brabant to confer on him, as the
true heir, that duchy and Limburg, to which the Margraviate of
Antwerp and the lordship of Mechlin were annexed. … The
accession of a powerful and ambitious prince to the government
of the county was anything but a source of advantage to the
Dutch, excepting, perhaps, in a commercial point of view."
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1451-1453.
Revolt of Ghent.
See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1456.
The Burgundian hand laid on Utrecht.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1456.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1473.
Guelderland taken into the Burgundian dominion.
See GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
The severance from Burgundy.
Accession of the Duchess Mary.
The grant of the "Great Privilege."
On the fifth of January, 1477, Charles the Bold of Burgundy
came to his end at Nancy, and Louis XI. of France laid prompt
and sure hands on the Burgundian duchy, which remained
thenceforth united to the French crown. It was the further
intention of Louis to secure more or less of the Netherland
domain of the late duke, and he began seizures to that end.
But the Netherland states much preferred to acknowledge the
sovereignty of the young duchess Mary, daughter and sole
heiress of Charles the Bold, provided she would make proper
terms with them. "Shortly after her accession, the nobles, to
whose guardianship she had been committed by Charles before
his departure, summoned a general assembly of the states of
the Netherlands at Ghent, to devise means for arresting the
enterprises of Louis, and for raising funds to support the war
with France, as well as to consider the state of affairs in
the provinces. … This is the first regular assembly of the
states-general of the Netherlands. … Charles, and his
father, Philip, had exercised in the Netherlands a species of
government far more arbitrary than the inhabitants had until
then been accustomed to. … It now appeared that a favourable
opportunity offered itself for rectifying these abuses; and
the assembly, therefore, made the consideration of them a
preliminary to the grant of any supplies for the war. … They
insisted so firmly on this resolution that Mary, finding they
were determined to refuse any subsidies till their grievances
were redressed, consented to grant charters of privileges to
all the states of the Netherlands. That of Holland and Zealand
[was] commonly called the Great Charter."
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1), with foot-note.
{2253}
"The result of the deliberations [of the assembly of the
states, in 1477] is the formal grant by Duchess Mary of the
'Groot Privilegie,' or Great Privilege, the Magna Charta of
Holland. Although this instrument was afterwards violated, and
indeed abolished, it became the foundation of the republic. It
was a recapitulation and recognition of ancient rights, not an
acquisition of new privileges. It was a restoration, not a
revolution. Its principal points deserve attention from those
interested in the political progress of mankind. 'The duchess
shall not marry without consent of the estates of her
provinces. All offices in her gift shall be conferred on
natives only. No man shall fill two offices. No office shall
be farmed. The Great Council and Supreme Court of Holland is
re-established. Causes shall be brought before it on appeal
from the ordinary courts. It shall have no original
jurisdiction of matters within the cognizance of the
provincial and municipal tribunals. The estates and cities are
guaranteed in their right not to be summoned to justice beyond
the limits of their territory. The cities, in common with all
the provinces of the Netherlands, may hold diets as often and
at such places as they choose. No new taxes shall be imposed
but by consent of the provincial estates. Neither the duchess
nor her descendants shall begin either an offensive or
defensive war without consent of the estates. In case a war be
illegally undertaken, the estates are not bound to contribute
to its maintenance. In all public and legal documents, the
Netherland language shall be employed. The commands of the
duchess shall be invalid, if conflicting with the privileges
of a city. The seat of the Supreme Council is transferred from
Mechlin to the Hague. No money shall be coined, nor its value
raised or lowered, but by consent of the estates. Cities are
not to be compelled to contribute to requests which they have
not voted. The Sovereign shall come in person before the
estates, to make his request for supplies.' … Certainly, for
the fifteenth century, the 'Great Privilege' was a reasonably
liberal constitution. Where else upon earth, at that day, was
there half so much liberty as was thus guaranteed?"
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
introduction, section 8.
ALSO IN:
L. S. Costello,
Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
chapters 28-30.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
The Austrian marriage of Mary of Burgundy.
"Several husbands were proposed to the Princess of Burgundy,
and every one was of opinion there was a necessity of her
marrying, to defend those territories that she had left to
her, or (by marrying the dauphin), to recover what she had
lost.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.
Several were entirely for this match, and she was as earnest
for it as anybody, before the letters she had sent by the Lord
of Humbercourt and the chancellor to the king [Louis XI.] were
betrayed to the ambassadors from Ghent. Some opposed the
match, and urged the disproportion of their age, the dauphin
being but nine years old, and besides engaged to the King of
England's daughter; and these suggested the son of the Duke of
Cleves. Others recommended Maximilian, the emperor's son, who
is at present King of the Romans." Duchess Mary made choice
presently of Maximilian, then Archduke of Austria, afterwards
King of the Romans and finally emperor. The husband-elect
"came to Cologne, where several of the princess's servants
went to meet him, and carry him money, with which, as I have
been told, he was but very slenderly furnished; for his father
was the stingiest and most covetous prince, or person, of his
time. The Duke of Austria was conducted to Ghent, with about
700 or 800 horse in his retinue, and this marriage was
consummated [August 18, 1477], which at first sight brought no
great advantage to the subjects of the young princess; for,
instead of his supporting her, she was forced to supply him
with money. His armies were neither strong enough nor in a
condition to face the king's; besides which, the humour of the
house of Austria was not pleasing to the subjects of the house
of Burgundy, who had been bred up under wealthy princes, that
had lucrative offices and employments to dispose of; whose
palaces were sumptuous, whose tables were nobly served, whose
dress was magnificent, and whose liveries were pompous and
splendid. But the Germans are of quite a contrary temper;
boorish in their manners and rude in their way of living."
Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 6, chapter 2 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
L. S. Costello,
Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
chapter 31.
See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
Maximilian and the Flemings.
The end of the Hook party in Holland.
"According to the terms of the marriage treaty between
Maximilian and Mary, their eldest son, Philip, succeeded to
the sovereignty of the Netherlands immediately upon the death
of his mother [March 26, 1482]. As he was at this time only
four years of age, Maximilian obtained the acknowledgment of
himself as guardian of the young count's person, and protector
of his states, by all the provinces except Flanders and
Guelderland. The Flemings having secured the person of Philip
at Ghent, appointed a regency." To reduce the Flemings to
obedience, Maximilian carried on two campaigns in their
country, during 1484 and 1485, as the result of which Ghent
and Bruges surrendered. "Maximilian was acknowledged protector
of Flanders during the minority of Philip, who was delivered
by the Ghenters into the hands of his father, and by him
entrusted to the care of Margaret of York, Duchess-dowager of
Burgundy, until he became of age." Three years later
(1488)—Maximilian having been, in the meantime, crowned "King
of the Romans," at Aix la Chapelle, and thus cadetted, so to
speak, for his subsequent coronation as emperor—the Flemings
rose again in revolt, Maximilian was at Bruges, and rumor
accused him of a design to occupy the city with German troops.
The men of Bruges forestalled the attempt by seizing him
personally and making him a prisoner. They kept him in durance
for nearly four months, until he had signed a treaty, agreeing
to surrender the government of the Netherlands to the young
Duke Philip, his son; to place the latter under the care of
the princes of the blood (his relatives on the Burgundian
side); to withdraw all foreign troops, and to use his
endeavors to preserve peace with France.
{2254}
On these terms Maximilian obtained his liberty; but, meantime,
his father, the Emperor Frederic, had marched an army to the
frontiers of Brabant for his deliverance, and the very
honorable King of the Romans, making haste to the shelter of
these forces, repudiated with alacrity all the engagements he
had sworn to. His imperial father led the army he had brought
into Flanders and laid siege to Ghent; but tired of the
undertaking after six weeks and returned to Germany, leaving
his forces to prosecute the siege and the war. The commotions
in Flanders now brought to life the popular party of the
"Hooks" in Holland, and war broke out in that province. In
neither part of the Netherlands were the insurgents
successful. The Flemings had been helped by France, and when
the French king abandoned them they were forced to buy a peace
on humiliating terms and for a heavy price in cash. In
Holland, the revolt languished for a time, but broke out with
fresh spirit in 1490, excited by an edict which summarily
altered the value of the coin. In the next year it took the
name of the "Casembrotspel," or Bread and Cheese War. This
insurrection was suppressed in 1492, with the help of German
troops, and proved only disastrous to the province. "It was
the last effort made for a considerable time by the Hollanders
against the increasing power and extortion of their counts.
… The miserable remnant of the Hook or popular party melted
so entirely away that we hear of them no more in Holland: the
county, formerly a power respected in itself, was now become a
small and despised portion of an overgrown state." In 1494,
Philip having reached the age of seventeen, and Maximilian
having become emperor by the death of his father, the latter
surrendered and the former was installed in the government of
the Netherlands.
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.
Beginning of the Austro-Spanish tyranny.
Absorption in the vast dominion of Charles V.
The seventeen Provinces, their independent constitutions and
their States-General.
"In 1494, Philip, now 17 years of age, became sovereign of the
Netherlands. But he would only swear to maintain the
privileges granted by his grandfather and great-grandfather,
Charles and Philip, and refused to acquiesce in the Great
Privilege of his mother. The Estates acquiesced. For a time,
Friesland, the outlying province of Holland, was severed from
it. It was free, and it chose as its elective sovereign the
Duke of Saxony. After a time he sold his sovereignty to the
House of Hapsburg. The dissensions of the Estates had put them
at the mercy of an autocratic family. Philip of Burgundy, in
1496, married Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. In
1500 his son Charles was born, who was afterwards Charles V.,
Duke of the Netherlands, but also King of Spain, Emperor of
Germany, King of Jerusalem, and, by the grant of Alexander
VI., alias Roderic Borgia and Pope, lord of the whole new
world. Joanna, his mother, through whom he had this vast
inheritance, went mad, and remained mad during her life and
his.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
Charles not only inherited his mother's and father's
sovereignties, but his grandfather's also.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526].
… The peril which the liberties of the Netherlands were now
running was greater than ever. They had been drawn into the
hands of that dynasty which, beginning with two little Spanish
kingdoms [Castile and Aragon], had in a generation developed
into the mightiest of monarchies. … Charles succeeded his
father Philip as Count of Flanders in 1506. His father, Philip
the Handsome, was at Burgos in Castile, where he was attacked
by fever, and died when only 28 years of age. Ten years
afterwards Charles became King of Spain (1516). When he was 19
years of age (1519) he was elected emperor.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.
The three nations over whom he was destined to rule hated each
other cordially. There was antipathy from the beginning
between Flemings and Spaniards. The Netherlands nobles were
detested in Spain, the Spaniards in the Low Countries were
equally abhorred. … Charles was born in Flanders, and during
his whole career was much more a Fleming than a Spaniard. This
did not, however, prevent him from considering his Flemish
subjects as mainly destined to supply his wants, and submit to
his exactions. He was always hard pressed for money. The
Germans were poor and turbulent. The conquest and subjection
of the Moorish population in Spain had seriously injured the
industrial wealth of that country. But the Flemings were
increasing in riches, particularly the inhabitants of Ghent.
They had to supply the funds which Charles required in order
to carry out the operations which his necessities or his
policy rendered urgent. He had been taught, and he readily
believed, that his subjects' money was his own. Now just as
Charles had come to the empire, two circumstances had occurred
which have had a lasting influence over the affairs of Western
Europe. The first of these was the conquest of Egypt by the
Turks under Selim I (1512-20). … Egypt had for nearly two
centuries been the only route by which Eastern produce, so
much valued by European nations, could reach the consumer. …
Now this trade, trifling to be sure to our present experience,
was of the highest importance to the trading towns of Italy,
the Rhine, and the Netherlands. … But the Netherlands had
two industries which saved them from the losses which affected
the Germans and Italians. They were still the weavers of the
world. They still had the most successful fisheries. … The
other cause was the revolt against the papacy" [the
Reformation—see PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, and after].
J. E. T. Rogers,
The Story of Holland,
chapters 5-6.
The seventeen provinces comprehended under the name of the
Netherlands, as ruled by Charles V., were the four duchies of
Brabant, Limburg, Luxemburg, and Guelderland; the seven
counties of Artois, Hainault, Flanders, Namur, Zutphen,
Holland, and Zealand; the five seigniories or lordships of
Friesland, Mechlin, Utrecht, Overyssel, and Groningen; and the
margraviate of Antwerp. "Of these provinces, the four which
adjoined the French border, and in which a French dialect was
spoken, were called Walloon [see WALLOONS]; in the other
provinces a dialect, more or less resembling German,
prevailed, that of the midland ones being Flemish, that of the
northern, Dutch. They differed still more in their laws and
customs than in language. Each province was an independent
state, having its own constitution, which secured more liberty
to those who lived under it than was then commonly enjoyed in
most other parts of Europe. …
{2255}
The only institutions which supplied any links of union among
the different provinces were the States-General, or assembly
of deputies sent from each, and the Supreme Tribunal
established at Mechlin, having an appellate jurisdiction over
them all. The States-General, however, had no legislative
authority, nor power to impose taxes, and were but rarely
convened. … The members of the States-General were not
representatives chosen by the people, but deputies, or
ambassadors, from certain provinces. The different provinces
had also their own States."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, pages 221-222.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1512.
Burgundian provinces included in the Circle of Burgundy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.
The Reformation in the Provinces.
The "Placards" and Persecutions of Charles V.
The Edict of 1550.
The Planting of the Inquisition.
"The people of the Netherlands were noted not less for their
ingenuity shown in the invention of machines and implements,
and for their proficiency in science and letters, than for
their opulence and enterprise. It was their boast that common
laborers, even the fishermen who dwelt in the huts of
Friesland, could read and write, and discuss the
interpretation of Scripture. … In such a population, among
the countrymen of Erasmus, where, too, in previous ages,
various forms of innovation and dissent had arisen, the
doctrines of Luther must inevitably find an entrance. They
were brought in by foreign merchants, 'together with whose
commodities,' writes the old Jesuit historian Strada, 'this
plague often sails.' They were introduced with the German and
Swiss soldiers, whom Charles V. had occasion to bring into the
country. Protestantism was also transplanted from England by
numerous exiles who fled from the persecution of Mary. The
contiguity of the country to Germany and France provided
abundant avenues for the incoming of the new opinions. 'Nor
did the Rhine from Germany, or the Meuse from France,' to
quote the regretful language of Strada, 'send more water into
the Low Countries, than by the one the contagion of Luther, by
the other of Calvin, was imported into the same Belgic
provinces.' The spirit and occupations of the people, the
whole atmosphere of the country, were singularly propitious
for the spread of the Protestant movement. The cities of
Flanders and Brabant, especially Antwerp, very early furnished
professors of the new faith. Charles V. issued, in 1521, from
Worms, an edict, the first of a series of barbarous enactments
or 'Placards,' for the extinguishing of heresy in the
Netherlands; and it did not remain a dead letter. In 1523, two
Augustinian monks were burned at the stake in Brussels. …
The edicts against heresy were imperfectly executed. The
Regent, Margaret of Savoy, was lukewarm in the business of
persecution; and her successor, Maria, the Emperor's sister,
the widowed Queen of Hungary, was still more leniently
disposed. The Protestants rapidly increased in number.
Calvinism, from the influence of France, and of Geneva, where
young men were sent to be educated, came to prevail among
them. Anabaptists and other licentious or fanatical sectaries,
such as appeared elsewhere in the wake of the Reformation,
were numerous; and their excesses afforded a plausible pretext
for violent measures of repression against all who departed
from the old faith. In 1550, Charles V. issued a new Placard,
in which the former persecuting edicts were confirmed, and in
which a reference was made to Inquisitors of the faith, as
well as to the ordinary judges of the bishops. This excited
great alarm, since the Inquisition was an object of extreme
aversion and dread. The foreign merchants prepared to leave
Antwerp, prices fell, trade was to a great extent suspended;
and such was the disaffection excited, that the Regent Maria
interceded for some modification of the obnoxious decree.
Verbal changes were made, but the fears of the people were not
quieted; and it was published at Antwerp in connection with a
protest of the magistrates in behalf of the liberties which
were put in peril by a tribunal of the character threatened.
'And,' says the learned Arminian historian, 'as this affair of
the Inquisition and the oppression from Spain prevailed more
and more, all men began to be convinced that they were
destined to perpetual slavery.' Although there was much
persecution in the Netherlands during the long reign of
Charles, yet the number of martyrs could not have been so
great as 50,000, the number mentioned by one writer, much less
100,000, the number given by Grotius."
G. P. Fisher,
The Reformation,
chapter 9.
"His hand [that of Charles V.] planted the inquisition in the
Netherlands. Before his day it is idle to say that the
diabolical institution ever had a place there. The isolated
cases in which inquisitors had exercised functions proved the
absence and not the presence of the system. … Charles
introduced and organized a papal inquisition, side by side
with those terrible 'placards' of his invention, which
constituted a masked inquisition even more cruel than that of
Spain. … The number of Netherlanders who were burned,
strangled, beheaded, or buried alive, in obedience to his
edicts … has been placed as high as 100,000 by distinguished
authorities, and have never been put at a lower mark than
50,000. The Venetian envoy Navigero placed the number of
victims in the provinces of Holland and Friesland alone at
30,000, and this in 1546, ten years before the abdication, and
five before the promulgation of the hideous edict of 1550. …
'No one,' said the edict [of 1550], 'shall print, write, copy,
keep, conceal, sell, buy, or give in churches, streets, or
other places, any book or writing made by Martin Luther, John
Ecolampadius, Ulrich Zwinglius, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, or
other heretics reprobated by the Holy Church; … nor break,
or otherwise injure the images of the holy virgin or canonized
saints; … nor in his house hold conventicles, or illegal
gatherings, or be present at any such in which the adherents
of the above-mentioned heretics teach, baptize, and form
conspiracies against the Holy Church and the general welfare.
… Moreover, we forbid … all lay persons to converse or
dispute concerning the Holy Scriptures, openly or secretly,
especially on any doubtful or difficult matters, or to read,
teach, or expound the Scriptures, unless they have duly
studied theology and been approved by some renowned
university; … or to preach secretly, or openly, or to
entertain any of the opinions of the above-mentioned heretics.
… Such perturbators of the general quiet are to be executed,
to wit: the men with the sword and the women to be buried alive,
if they do not persist in their errors; if they do persist in
them they are to be executed with fire; all their property in
both cases being confiscated to the crown.'"
The horrible edict further bribed informers, by promising to
them half the goods of a convicted heretic, while, at the same
time, it forbade, under sharp penalties, any petitioning for
pardon in favor of such heretics.
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 1, chapter 1,
and part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin,
book 13, chapters 9-11 (volume 7).
{2265}
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1539-1540.
The revolt and enslavement of Ghent.
See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.
Pragmatic Sanction of Charles V. changing the Relations of
his Burgundian inheritance to the Empire.
In the Germanic diet assembled at Augsburg in 1547, after the
Emperor's defeat of the Protestant princes at Muhlberg (see
GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552), he was able to exercise his will
almost without opposition and decree arbitrarily whatever he
chose. He there "proclaimed the Pragmatic Sanction for the
Netherlands, whereby his old Burgundian inheritance was
declared by his own law to be indivisible, the succession
settled on the house of Hapsburg, it was attached to the
German empire as a tenth district, had to pay certain
contributions, but was not to be subject to the Imperial
Chamber or the Imperial Court of Judicature. He thus secured
the personal union of these territories with his house, and
made it the duty of the empire to defend them, while at the
same time he withdrew them from the jurisdiction of the
empire; it was a union by which the private interests of the
house of Hapsburg had everything to gain, but which was of no
advantage to the empire."
L. Häusser,
The Period of the Reformation,
chapter 16.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
The Abdication of Charles V.
Accession of Philip II.
His sworn promises.
"In the autumn of this year [1555] the world was astonished by
the declaration of the emperor's intention to resign all his
vast dominions, and spend the remainder of his days in a
cloister. … On the 25th of October, the day appointed for
the ceremony [of the surrender of the sovereignty of the
Netherlands], the knights of the Golden Fleece, and the
deputies of all the states of the Netherlands assembled at
Brussels. … On the day after the emperor's resignation the
mutual oaths were taken by Philip and the states of Holland;
the former swore to maintain all the privileges which they now
enjoyed, including those granted or confirmed at his
installation as heir in 1549. He afterwards renewed the
promise made by Charles in the month of May preceding, that no
office in Holland, except that of stadtholder, should be given
to foreigners or to Netherlanders of those provinces in which
Hollanders were excluded from offices. In the January of the
next year [1556] the emperor resigned the crown of Spain to
his son, reserving only an annuity of 100,000 crowns, and on
the 7th of September following, having proceeded to Zealand to
join the fleet destined to carry him to Spain, he surrendered
the imperial dignity to his brother Ferdinand." He then
proceeded to the cloister of St. Just, near Piacenza, where he
lived in retirement until his death, which occurred August 21,
1558.
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
W. Stirling,
Cloister Life of Charles V.
O. Delepierre,
Historical Difficulties,
chapter 10.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559.
Opening of the dark and bloody reign of Philip II. of Spain.
His malignity.
His perfidy.
His evil and plotting industry.
"Philip, bred in this [Spanish] school of slavish
superstition, taught that he was the despot for whom it was
formed, familiar with the degrading tactics of eastern
tyranny, was at once the most contemptible and unfortunate of
men. … He was perpetually filled with one idea—that of his
greatness; he had but one ambition—that of command; but one
enjoyment—that of exciting fear. … Deceit and blood were
his greatest, if not his only, delights. The religious zeal
which he affected, or felt, showed itself but in acts of
cruelty; and the fanatic bigotry which inspired him formed the
strongest contrast to the divine spirit of Christianity. …
Although ignorant, he had a prodigious instinct of cunning. He
wanted courage, but its place was supplied by the harsh
obstinacy of wounded pride. All the corruptions of intrigue
were familiar to him; yet he often failed in his most
deep-laid designs, at the very moment of their apparent
success, by the recoil of the bad faith and treachery with
which his plans were overcharged. Such was the man who now
began that terrible reign which menaced utter ruin to the
national prosperity of the Netherlands. … Philip had only
once visited the Netherlands before his accession to sovereign
power. … Every thing that he observed on this visit was
calculated to revolt both [his opinions and his prejudices].
The frank cordiality of the people appeared too familiar. The
expression of popular rights sounded like the voice of
rebellion. Even the magnificence displayed in his honour
offended his jealous vanity. From that moment he seems to have
conceived an implacable aversion to the country, in which
alone, of all his vast possessions, he could not display the
power or inspire the terror of despotism. The sovereign's
dislike was fully equalled by the disgust of his subjects. …
Yet Philip did not at first act in a way to make himself more
particularly hated. He rather, by an apparent consideration
for a few points of political interest and individual
privilege, and particularly by the revocation of some of the
edicts against heretics, removed the suspicions his earlier
conduct had excited; and his intended victims did not perceive
that the despot sought to lull them to sleep, in the hopes of
making them an easier prey. Philip knew well that force alone
was insufficient to reduce such a people to slavery. He
succeeded in persuading the states to grant him considerable
subsidies, some of which were to be paid by instalments during
a period of nine years. That was gaining a great step towards
his designs. … At the same time he sent secret agents to
Rome, to obtain the approbation of the pope to his insidious
but most effective plan for placing the whole of the clergy in
dependence upon the crown. He also kept up the army of
Spaniards and Germans which his father had formed on the
frontiers of France; and although he did not remove from their
employments the functionaries already in place, he took care
to make no new appointments to office among the natives of the
Netherlands. … To lead his already, deceived subjects the
more surely into the snare, he announced his intended
departure on a short visit to Spain; and created for the
period of his absence a provisional government, chiefly
composed of the leading men among the Belgian nobility.
{2257}
He flattered himself that the states, dazzled by the
illustrious illusion thus prepared, would cheerfully grant to
this provisional government the right of levying taxes during
the temporary absence of the sovereign. He also reckoned on
the influence of the clergy in the national assembly, to
procure the revival of the edicts against heresy, which he had
gained the merit of suspending. … As soon as the states had
consented to place the whole powers of government in the hands
of the new administration for the period of the king's
absence, the royal hypocrite believed his scheme secure, and
flattered himself he had established an instrument of durable
despotism. … The edicts against heresy, soon adopted
[including a re-enactment of the terrible edict of 1550—see
above], gave to the clergy an almost unlimited power over the
lives and fortunes of the people. But almost all the
dignitaries of the church being men of great respectability
and moderation, chosen by the body of the inferior clergy,
these extraordinary powers excited little alarm. Philip's
project was suddenly to replace these virtuous ecclesiastics
by others of his own choice [through a creation of new
bishoprics], as soon as the states broke up from their annual
meeting; and for this intention he had procured the secret
consent and authority of the court of Rome. In support of
these combinations, the Belgian troops were completely broken
up and scattered in small bodies over the country. … To
complete the execution of this system of perfidy, Philip
convened an assembly of all the states at Ghent, in the month
of July, 1559. … Anthony Perrenotte de Granvelle, bishop of
Arras [afterwards cardinal], who was considered as Philip's
favorite counsellor, but who was in reality no more than his
docile agent, was commissioned to address the assembly in the
name of his master, who spoke only Spanish. His oration was
one of cautious deception." It announced the appointment of
Margaret, duchess of Parma, a natural daughter of Charles V.,
and therefore half-sister of Philip, to preside as regent over
the government of the Netherlands during the absence of the
sovereign. It also urged with skilful plausibility certain
requests for money on the part of the latter. "But
notwithstanding all the talent, the caution, and the mystery
of Philip and his minister, there was among the nobles one man
[William of Nassau, prince of Orange and stadtholder, or
governor, of Holland, Zealand, and Utrecht] who saw through
all. Without making himself suspiciously prominent, he
privately warned some members of the states of the coming
danger. Those in whom he confided did not betray the trust.
They spread among the other deputies the alarm, and pointed
out the danger to which they had been so judiciously awakened.
The consequence was, a reply to Philip's demand, in vague and
general terms, without binding the nation by any pledge; and
an unanimous entreaty that he would diminish the taxes,
withdraw the foreign troops, and entrust no official
employments to any but natives of the country. The object of
this last request was the removal of Granvelle, who was born
in Franche-Comte. Philip was utterly astounded at all this. In
the first moment of his vexation he imprudently cried out,
'Would ye, then, also bereave me of my place; I, who am a
Spaniard?' But he soon recovered his self-command, and resumed
his usual mask; expressed his regret at not having sooner
learned the wishes of the state; promised to remove the
foreign troops within three months; and set off for Zealand,
with assumed composure, but filled with the fury of a
discovered traitor and a humiliated despot." In August, 1559,
he sailed for Spain.
T. C. Grattan,
History of the Netherlands,
chapter 7.
"Crafty, saturnine, atrabilious, always dissembling and
suspecting, sombre, and silent like night when brooding over
the hatching storm, he lived shrunk within himself, with only
the fellowship of his gloomy thoughts and cruel resolves. …
There is something terrific in the secrecy, dissimulation and
dogged perseverance with which Philip would, during a series
of years, meditate and prepare the destruction of one man, or
of a whole population, and something still more awful in the
icy indifference, the superhuman insensibility, the
accumulated cold-blooded energy of hoarded-up vengeance with
which, at the opportune moment, he would issue a dry sentence
of extermination. … He seemed to take pleasure in
distilling, slowly and chemically, the poison which,
Python-like, he darted at every object which he detested or
feared, or which he considered an obstacle in his path."
C. Gayarre,
Philip II. of Spain,
chapter 1.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.
The Spanish troops, the new bishoprics,
and the shadow of the Inquisition.
The appeal of Brabant to its ancient "Joyeuse Entrée."
"The first cause of trouble, after Philip's departure from the
Netherlands, arose from the detention of the Spanish troops
there. The king had pledged his word … that they should
leave the country by the end of four months, at farthest. Yet
that period had long since passed, and no preparations were
made for their departure. The indignation of the people rose
higher and higher at the insult thus offered by the presence
of these detested foreigners. It was a season of peace. No
invasion was threatened from abroad; no insurrection existed
at home. … Granvelle himself, who would willingly have
pleased his master by retaining a force in the country on
which he could rely, admitted that the project was
impracticable. 'The troops must be withdrawn,' he wrote, 'and
that speedily, or the consequence will be an insurrection.'
… The Prince of Orange and Count Egmont threw up the
commands intrusted to them by the king. They dared no longer
hold them, as the minister added, it was so unpopular. … Yet
Philip was slow in returning an answer to the importunate
letters of the regent and the minister; and when he did reply,
it was to evade their request. … The regent, however, saw
that, with or without instructions, it was necessary to act.
… The troops were ordered to Zealand, in order to embark for
Spain. But the winds proved unfavorable. Two months longer
they were detained, on shore or on board the transports. They
soon got into brawls with the workmen employed on the dikes;
and the inhabitants, still apprehensive of orders from the
king countermanding the departure of the Spaniards, resolved,
in such an event, to abandon the dikes, and lay the country
under water! Fortunately, they were not driven to this
extremity.
{2258}
In January, 1561, more than a year after the date assigned by
Philip, the nation was relieved of the presence of the
intruders. … This difficulty was no sooner settled than it
was followed by another scarcely less serious." Arrangements
had been made for "adding 13 new bishoprics to the four
already existing in the Netherlands. … The whole affair had
been kept profoundly secret by the government. It was not till
1561 that Philip disclosed his views, in a letter to some of
the principal nobles in the council of state. But, long before
that time, the project had taken wind, and created a general
sensation through the country. The people looked on it as an
attempt to subject them to the same ecclesiastical system
which existed in Spain. The bishops, by virtue of their
office, were possessed of certain inquisitorial powers, and
these were still further enlarged by the provisions of the
royal edicts. … The present changes were regarded as part of
a great scheme for introducing the Spanish Inquisition into
the Netherlands. … The nobles had other reasons for opposing
the measure. The bishops would occupy in the legislature the
place formerly held by the abbots, who were indebted for their
election to the religious houses over which they presided. The
new prelates, on the contrary, would receive their nomination
from the crown; and the nobles saw with alarm their own
independence menaced by the accession of an order of men who
would naturally be subservient to the interests of the
monarch. … But the greatest opposition arose from the manner
in which the new dignitaries were to be maintained. This was
to be done by suppressing the offices of the abbots, and by
appropriating the revenues of their houses to the maintenance
of the bishops. … Just before Philip's departure from the
Netherlands, a bull arrived from Rome authorizing the erection
of the new bishoprics. This was but the initiatory step. Many
other proceedings were necessary before the consummation of
the affair. Owing to impediments thrown in the way by the
provinces, and the habitual tardiness of the court of Rome,
nearly three years elapsed before the final briefs were
expedited by Pius IV."
W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).
"Against the arbitrary policy embodied in the edicts, the new
bishoprics and the foreign soldiery, the Netherlanders
appealed to their ancient constitutions. These charters were
called 'handvests', in the vernacular Dutch and Flemish,
because the sovereign made them fast with his hand. As already
stated, Philip had made them faster than any of the princes of
his house had ever done, so far as oath and signature could
accomplish that purpose, both as hereditary prince in 1549,
and as monarch in 1555. … Of these constitutions, that of
Brabant, known by the title of the 'joyeuse entrée' 'blyde
inkomst,' or blythe entrance, furnished the most decisive
barrier against the present wholesale tyranny. First and
foremost, the 'joyous entry' provided, 'that the prince of the
land should not elevate the clerical state higher than of old
has been customary and by former princes settled; unless by
consent of the other two estates, the nobility and the
cities.' Again, 'the prince can prosecute no one of his
subjects, nor any foreign resident, civilly or criminally,
except in the ordinary and open courts of justice in the
province, where the accused may answer and defend himself with
the help of advocates.' Further, 'the prince shall appoint no
foreigners to office in Brabant.' Lastly 'should the prince,
by force or otherwise, violate any of these privileges, the
inhabitants of Brabant, after regular protest entered, are
discharged of their oaths of allegiance, and, as free,
independent, and unbound people, may conduct themselves
exactly as seems to them best.' Such were the leading
features, so far as they regarded the points now at issue, of
that famous constitution which was so highly esteemed in the
Netherlands, that mothers came to the province in order to
give birth to their children, who might thus enjoy, as a
birthright, the privileges of Brabant. Yet the charters of the
other provinces ought to have been as effective against the
arbitrary course of the government. 'No foreigner,' said the
constitution of Holland, 'is eligible as councillor,
financier, magistrate, or member of a court. Justice can be
administered only by the ordinary tribunals and magistrates.
The ancient laws and customs shall remain inviolable. Should
the prince infringe any of these provisions, no one is bound
to obey him.' These provisions from the Brabant and Holland
charters are only cited as illustrative of the general spirit
of the provincial constitutions. Nearly all the provinces
possessed privileges equally ample, duly signed and sealed."
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
E. E. Crowe,
Cardinal Granvelle
(Eminent Foreign Statesmen, volume 1).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
Beginning of organized resistance to the tyranny
and persecution of Philip.
The signing of the Compromise.
The League of the Gueux.
William of Orange now "claimed, in the name of the whole
country, the convocation of the states-general. This assembly
alone was competent to decide what was just, legal, and
obligatory for each province and every town. … The ministers
endeavored to evade a demand which they were at first
unwilling openly to refuse. But the firm demeanor and
persuasive eloquence of the prince of Orange carried before
them all who were not actually bought by the crown; and
Granvelle found himself at length forced to avow that an
express order from the king forbade the convocation of the
states, on any pretext, during his absence. The veil was thus
rent asunder, which had in some measure concealed the
deformity of Philip's despotism. The result was a powerful
confederacy among all who held it odious, for the overthrow of
Granvelle, to whom they chose to attribute the king's conduct.
… Those who composed this confederacy against the minister
were actuated by a great variety of motives. … It is
doubtful if any of the confederates except the prince of
Orange clearly saw that they were putting themselves in direct
and personal opposition to the king himself. William alone,
clear-sighted in politics and profound in his views, knew, in
thus devoting himself to the public cause, the adversary with
whom he entered the lists. This great man, for whom the
national traditions still preserve the sacred title of
'father' (Vader-Willem), and who was in truth not merely the
parent but the political creator of the country, was at this
period in his 30th year. … Philip, … driven before the
popular voice, found himself forced to the choice of throwing
off the mask at once, or of sacrificing Granvelle.
{2259}
An invincible inclination for manœuvring and deceit decided
him on the latter measure; and the cardinal, recalled but not
disgraced, quitted the Netherlands on the 10th of March, 1564.
The secret instructions to the government remained unrevoked;
the president Viglius succeeded to the post which Granvelle
had occupied; and it was clear that the projects of the king
had suffered no change. Nevertheless some good resulted from
the departure of the unpopular minister. The public
fermentation subsided; the patriot lords reappeared at court;
and the prince of Orange acquired an increasing influence in
the council and over the government. … It was resolved to
dispatch a special envoy to Spain, to explain to Philip the
views of the council. … The count of Egmont, chosen by the
council for this important mission, set out for Madrid in the
month of February, 1565. Philip received him with profound
hypocrisy; loaded him with the most flattering promises; sent
him back in the utmost elation: and when the credulous count
returned to Brussels, he found that the written orders, of
which he was the bearer, were in direct variance with every
word which the king had uttered. These orders were chiefly
concerning the reiterated subject of the persecution to be
inflexibly pursued against the religious reformers. Not
satisfied with the hitherto established forms of punishment,
Philip now expressly commanded that the more revolting means
decreed by his father in the rigor of his early zeal, such as
burning, living burial, and the like, should be adopted. …
Even Viglius was terrified by the nature of Philip's commands;
and the patriot lords once more withdrew from all share in the
government, leaving to the duchess of Parma and her ministers
the whole responsibility of the new measures. They were at
length put into actual and vigorous execution in the beginning
of the year 1566. The inquisitors of the faith, with their
familiars, stalked abroad boldly in the devoted provinces,
carrying persecution and death in their train. Numerous but
partial insurrections opposed these odious intruders. Every
district and town became the scene of frightful executions or
tumultuous resistance."
T. C. Grattan,
History of the Netherlands,
chapter 7.
In November, 1565, a meeting of Flemish nobles was held at
Culenborg House, Brussels, where they formed a league, in
which Philip de Marnix, Lord of Ste. Aldegonde, Count Louis of
Nassau, a younger brother of the Prince of Orange, and
Viscount Brederode, were the foremost leaders. "In a meeting
held at Breda, in January 1566, the league promulgated their
views in a paper called the Compromise, attributed to the hand
of Ste. Aldegonde. The document contained a severe
denunciation of the inquisition as an illegal, pernicious and
iniquitous tribunal; the subscribers swore to defend one
another against any attack that might be made upon them; and
declared, at the same time, that they did not mean to throw
off their allegiance to the King. … In the course of two
months the Compromise was signed by about 2,000 persons,
including many Catholics; but only a few of the great nobles
could be prevailed on to subscribe it. … The Prince of
Orange at first kept aloof from the league, and at this period
Egmont, who was of a more impulsive temper, seemed to act the
leading part; but the nation relied solely upon William. The
latter gave at least a tacit sanction to the league in the
spring of 1566, by joining the members of it in a petition to
the Regent which he had himself revised."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).
"The league had its origin in banquets, and a banquet gave it
form and perfection. … Brederode entertained the
confederates in Kuilemberg House; about 300 guests assembled;
intoxication gave them courage, and their audacity rose with
their numbers. During the conversation, one of their number
happened to remark that he had overheard the Count of
Barlaimont whisper in French to the regent, who was seen to
turn pale on the delivery of the petitions, that 'she need not
be afraid of a band of beggars (gueux).' … Now, as the very
name for their fraternity was the very thing which had most
perplexed them, an expression was eagerly caught up, which,
while it cloaked the presumption of their enterprise in
humility, was at the same time appropriate to them as
petitioners. Immediately they drank to one another under this
name, and the cry 'Long live the gueux!' was accompanied with
a general shout of applause. … What they had resolved on in
the moment of intoxication they attempted, when sober, to
carry into execution. … In a few days, the town of Brussels,
swarmed with ash-gray garments, such as were usually worn by
mendicant friars and penitents. Every confederate put his
whole family and domestics in this dress. Some carried wooden
bowls thinly overlaid with plates of silver, cups of the same
kind, and wooden knives; in short, the whole paraphernalia of
the beggar tribe, which they either fixed round their hats or
suspended from their girdles. … Hence the origin of the name
'Gueux,' which was subsequently borne in the Netherlands by
all who seceded from popery, and took up arms against the
king."
F. Schiller,
History of the Revolt of the Netherlands,
book 3.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 2, chapters 3-6 (volume 1).
F. von Raumer,
History of the 16th and 17th Centuries
illustrated by original documents,
letter 16 (volume 1).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
Field preaching under arms.
The riots of the Image-breakers.
Philip's schemes of revenge.
Discouragement and retirement of Orange.
Blindness of Egmont and Horn, and their fate.
"While the Privy Council was endeavouring to obtain a
'Moderation' of the Edicts, and … effected that the heretics
should be no longer burnt but hung, and that the Inquisition
should proceed 'prudently, and with circumspection,' a
movement broke out among the people which mocked at all
Edicts. The open country was suddenly covered with thousands
of armed noblemen, citizens, and peasants, who assembled in
large crowds in the open air to listen to some heretical
preacher, Lutheran, Calvinist, or even an Anabaptist, and to
hold forbidden services, with prayers and hymns, in the mother
tongue. They sallied forth with pistols, arquebuses, flails,
and pitchforks; the place of meeting was marked out like a
camp, and surrounded by guards; from 10,000 to 20,000
assembled, the armed men outside, the women and children
within.
{2260}
After the immense choir had sung a psalm, one of the
excommunicated preachers appeared between two pikes (according
to the 'Moderation' a price was set upon the head of everyone of
them), and expounded the new doctrine from the Scriptures; the
assembly listened in devout silence, and when the service was
ended separated quietly, but defiantly. This was repeated day
after day throughout the country, and nobody dared to attack
the armed field preachers. The Regent was in a painful
situation; she was always having it proclaimed that the Edicts
were in force, but nobody cared. … It was all in vain unless
foreign troops came to enforce obedience, and these she had
neither power nor funds to procure. The King hesitated in his
usual fashion, and left the Regent to the torments of
powerlessness and uncertainty. Meanwhile the universal
excitement bore fatal fruit. Instead of the dignified
preachings and peaceful assemblies of May, in June and July
there were wild excesses and furious mobs. Orange had just
persuaded the Regent to permit the field preaching in the open
country, if they avoided the towns, when the first great
outbreak occurred in Antwerp. Two days after a great
procession, on the 18th of August, 1566, at which the Catholic
clergy of Antwerp had made a pompous display to the annoyance
of the numerous Protestants, the beautiful cathedral was
invaded by a furious mob, who destroyed without mercy all the
images, pictures, and objects of art that it contained. This
demolition of images, the stripping of churches, desecration
of chapels, and destruction of all symbols of the ancient
faith, spread from Antwerp to other places, Tournay,
Valenciennes, &c. It was done with a certain moderation, for
neither personal violence nor theft took place anywhere,
though innumerable costly articles were lying about. Still,
these fanatical scenes not only excited the ire of Catholics,
but of every religious man; in Antwerp, especially, the
seafaring mob had rushed upon everything that had been held
sacred for centuries. In her distress the Regent wished to
flee from Brussels, but Orange, Egmont, and Horn compelled her
to remain, and induced her to proclaim the Act of the 25th of
August, by which an armistice was decided on between Spain and
the Beggars. In this the Government conceded the abolition of
the Inquisition and the toleration of the new doctrines, and
the Beggars declared that for so long as this promise was kept
their league was dissolved. In consideration of this, the
first men in the country agreed to quell the disturbances in
Flanders, Antwerp, Tournay; and Malines, and to restore peace.
Orange effected this in Antwerp like a true statesman, who
knew how to keep himself above party spirit; but in Flanders,
Egmont, on the contrary, went to work like a brutal soldier;
he stormed against the heretics like Philip's Spanish
executioners, and the scales fell from the eyes of the
bitterly disappointed people. Meanwhile a decision had been
come to at Madrid. … When at length the irresolute King had
determined to proclaim an amnesty, though it was really rather
a proscription, and to promise indulgence, while he was
assuring the Pope by protocol before notaries that he never
would grant any, the news came of the image riots of August,
and a report from the Duchess in which she humbly begged the
King's pardon for having allowed a kind of religious peace to
be extorted from her, but she was entirely innocent; they had
forced it from her as a prisoner in her palace, and there was
one comfort, that the King was not bound by a promise made
only in her name. Philip's rage was boundless. … He was
resolved upon fearful revenge, even when he was writing that
he should know how to restore order in his provinces by means
of grace and mercy. … Well-informed as Orange was, he
understood the whole situation perfectly; he knew that while
the Regent was heaping flattery upon him, she and Philip were
compassing his destruction; that her only object could be to
keep the peace until the Spanish preparations were complete,
and meanwhile, if possible, to compromise him with the people.
He wrote to Egmont, and laid the dangers of their situation
before him, and communicated his resolve either to escape
Philip's revenge by flight, or to join with his friends in
armed resistance to the expected attack of the Spanish army.
But Egmont in his unhappy blindness had resolved to side with
the Government which was more than ever determined on his
destruction, and the meeting at Dendermonde, October, 1566,
when Orange consulted him, Louis of Nassau, and Hogstraaten,
as to u plan of united action, was entirely fruitless. …

Admiral Horn, who had staked large property in the service of
the Emperor and King, and had never received the least return
in answer to his just demands, gave up his office, and, like a
weary philosopher, retired into solitude. Left entirely alone,
Orange thought of emigrating; in short, the upper circle of
the previous party of opposition no longer existed. But it was
not so with the mad leaders of the Beggars. While the zealous
inhabitants of Valenciennes, incited by two of the most
dauntless Calvinistic preachers, undertook to defend
themselves against the royal troops with desperate bravery,
Count Brederode went about the country with a clang of sabres,
exciting disturbances in order to give the heretics at
Valenciennes breathing-time by a happy diversion. … All that
Philip wanted to enable him to gain the day was an
unsuccessful attempt at revolt. The attack upon images and the
Beggars' volunteer march did more for the Government than all
Granvella's system; … drove every one who favoured the
Catholics and loved peace into the arms of the Government.,
The reaction set in with the sanguinary defeat of the rebels
at Valenciennes, who never again even made an attempt at
resistance. Orange gave up the liberties of his country for
lost. … Stating that he could never take the new oath of
fealty which was required, because it would oblige him to
become the executioner of his Protestant countrymen, he
renounced his offices and dignities, … made a last attempt
to save his friend Egmont, … and retired to Dillenburg, the
ancient property of the family. He wished to be spared for
better times; he saw the storm coming, and was too cool-headed
to offer himself as the first sacrifice. In fact, just when he
was travelling towards Germany, Duke Alba [more commonly
called Alva], the hangman of the Netherlands, was on his way
to his destination." Alva arrived in August, 1567, with an
army of 10,000 carefully picked veterans, fully empowered to
make the Netherlands a conquered territory and deal with it as
such. His first important act was the treacherous seizure and
imprisonment of Egmont and Horn. Then the organization of
terror began. The imprisonment and the mockery of a trial of
the two most distinguished victims was protracted until the
5th of June, 1568, when they were beheaded in the great square
at Brussels.
L. Häusser,
The Period of the Reformation,
chapters 22-23.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 2, chapters 6-10,
and part 3, chapters 1-2.
F. Schiller,
History of the Revolt of the Netherlands,
books 3-4.
{2261}
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.
The Council of Blood.
"In the same despatch of the 9th September [1567], in which
the Duke communicated to Philip the capture of Egmont and
Horn, he announced to him his determination to establish a new
court for the trial of crimes committed during the recent
period of troubles. This wonderful tribunal was accordingly
created with the least possible delay. It was called the
Council of Troubles, but it soon acquired the terrible name,
by which it will be forever known in history, of the
Blood-Council. It superseded all other institutions. Every
court, from those of the municipal magistracies up to the
supreme councils of the provinces, were forbidden to take
cognisance in future of any cause growing out of the late
troubles. The Council of State, although it was not formally
disbanded, fell into complete desuetude, its members being
occasionally summoned into Alva's private chambers in an
irregular manner, while its principal functions were usurped
by the Blood-Council. Not only citizens of every province, but
the municipal bodies, and even the sovereign provincial
Estates themselves, were compelled to plead, like humble
individuals, before this new and extraordinary tribunal. It is
unnecessary to allude to the absolute violation which was thus
committed of all charters, laws, and privileges, because the
very creation of the Council was a bold and brutal
proclamation that those laws and privileges were at an end.
… So well … did this new and terrible engine perform its
work, that in less than three months from the time of its
erection, 1,800 human beings had suffered death by its summary
proceedings; some of the highest, the noblest, and the most
virtuous in the land among the number; nor had it then
manifested the slightest indication of faltering in its dread
career. Yet, strange to say, this tremendous court, thus
established upon the ruins of all the ancient institutions of
the country, had not been provided with even a nominal
authority from any source whatever. The King had granted it no
letters patent or charter, nor had even the Duke of Alva
thought it worth while to grant any commissions, either in his
own name or as Captain-General, to any of the members
composing the board. The Blood-Council was merely an informal
club, of which the Duke was perpetual president, while the
other members were all appointed by himself. Of these
subordinate councillors, two had the right of voting, subject,
however, in all cases, to his final decision, while the rest
of the number did not vote at all. It had not, therefore, in
any sense, the character of a judicial, legislative, or
executive tribunal, but was purely a board of advice by which
the bloody labours of the Duke were occasionally lightened as
to detail, while not a feather's weight of power or of
responsibility was removed from his shoulders. He reserved for
himself the final decision upon all causes which should come
before the Council, and stated his motives for so doing with
grim simplicity. 'Two reasons,' he wrote to the King, 'have
determined me thus to limit the power of the tribunal; the
first that, not knowing its members, I might be easily
deceived by them; the second, that the men of law only condemn
for crimes which are proved; whereas your Majesty knows that
affairs of state are governed by very different rules from the
laws which they have here.' It being, therefore, the object of
the Duke to compose a body of men who would be of assistance
to him in condemning for crimes which could not be proved, and
in slipping over statutes which were not to be recognised, it
must be confessed that he was not unfortunate in the
appointments which he made to the office of councillors. …
No one who was offered the office refused it. Noircarmes and
Berlaymont accepted with very great eagerness. Several
presidents and councillors of the different provincial
tribunals were appointed, but all the Netherlanders were men
of straw. Two Spaniards, Del Rio and Vargas, were the only
members who could vote, while their decisions, as already
stated, were subject to reversal by Alva. Del Rio was a man
without character or talent, a mere tool in the hands of his
superiors, but Juan de Vargas was a terrible reality. No
better man could have been found in Europe, for the post to
which he was thus elevated. To shed human blood was, in his
opinion, the only important business and the only exhilarating
pastime of life. … It was the duty of the different
subalterns, who, as already stated, had no right of voting, to
prepare reports upon the cases. Nothing could be more summary.
Information was lodged against a man, or against a hundred
men, in one document. The Duke sent the papers to the Council,
and the inferior councillors reported at once to Vargas. If
the report concluded with a recommendation of death to the man
or the hundred men in question, Vargas instantly approved it,
and execution was done upon the man, or the hundred men,
within 48 hours. If the report had any other conclusion, it
was immediately sent back for revision, and the reporters were
overwhelmed with reproaches by the President. Such being the
method of operation, it may be supposed that the councillors
were not allowed to slacken in their terrible industry. The
register of every city, village, and hamlet throughout the
Netherlands showed the daily lists of men, women, and children
thus sacrificed at the shrine of the demon who had obtained
the mastery over this unhappy land. It was not often that an
individual was of sufficient importance to be tried—if trial
it could be called—by himself. It was found more expeditious
to send them in batches to the furnace. Thus, for example, on
the 4th of January, 84 inhabitants of Valenciennes were
condemned; on another day, 95 miscellaneous individuals from
different places in Flanders; on another, 46 inhabitants of
Malines; on another, 35 persons from different localities, and
so on. … Thus the whole country became a charnel-house; the
death-bell tolled hourly in every village; not a family but
was called to mourn for its dearest relatives, while the
survivors stalked listlessly about, the ghosts of their former
selves, among the wrecks of their former homes. The spirit of
the nation, within a few months after the arrival of Alva,
seemed hopelessly broken. The blood of its best and bravest
had already stained the scaffold; men to whom it had been
accustomed to look for guidance and protection, were dead, in
prison, or in exile. Submission had ceased to be of any avail,
flight was impossible, and the spirit of vengeance had
alighted at every fireside.
{2262}
The mourners went daily about the streets, for there was
hardly a house which had not been made desolate. The
scaffolds, the gallows, the funeral piles which had been
sufficient in ordinary times, furnished now an entirely
inadequate machinery for the incessant executions. Columns and
stakes in every street, the door-posts of private houses, the
fences in the fields, were laden with human carcases,
strangled, burned, beheaded. The orchards in the country bore
on many a tree the hideous fruit of human bodies. Thus the
Netherlands were crushed, and, but for the stringency of the
tyranny which had now closed their gates, would have been
depopulated."
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568.
Stupendous death-sentence of the Inquisition.
The whole population condemned.
"Early in the year, the most sublime sentence of death was
promulgated which has ever been pronounced since the creation
of the world. The Roman tyrant wished that his enemies' heads
were all upon a single neck, that he might strike them off at
a blow; the Inquisition assisted Philip to place the heads of
all his Netherland subjects upon a single neck, for the same
fell purpose. Upon the 16th February, 1568, a sentence of the
Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands
to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few
persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of
the King, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the
Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant
execution without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is
probably the most concise death-warrant that was ever framed.
Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were
sentenced to the scaffold in three lines; and as it was well
known that these were not harmless thunders, like some bulls
of the Vatican, but serious and practical measures which it
was intended should be enforced, the horror which they
produced may be easily imagined. It was hardly the purpose of
Government to compel the absolute completion of the wholesale
plan in all its length and breadth, yet in the horrible times
upon which they had fallen, the Netherlanders might be excused
for believing that no measure was too monstrous to be
fulfilled. At any rate, it was certain that when all were
condemned, any might at a moment's warning be carried to the
scaffold, and this was precisely the course adopted by the
authorities. … Under this new decree, the executions
certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest
positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in
a single letter to Philip, coolly estimated the number of
executions which were to take place immediately after the
expiration of Holy Week, 'at 800 heads.' Many a citizen,
convicted of a hundred thousand florins, and of no other
crime, saw himself suddenly tied to a horse's tail, with his
hands fastened behind him, and so dragged to the gallows. But
although wealth was an unpardonable sin, poverty proved rarely
a protection. Reasons sufficient could always be found for
dooming the starveling laborer as well as the opulent burgher.
To avoid the disturbances created in the streets by the
frequent harangues or exhortations addressed to the bystanders
by the victims on their way to the scaffold, a new gag was
invented. The tongue of each prisoner was screwed into an iron
ring, and then seared with a hot iron. The swelling and
inflammation, which were the immediate result, prevented the
tongue from slipping through the ring, and of course
effectually precluded all possibility of speech."
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.
The arming of Revolt and beginning of War
by the Prince of Orange.
Alva's successes, brutalities, and senseless taxation.
Quarrels with England and destruction of Flemish trade.
"So unprecedented already was the slaughter that even in the
beginning of March 1568, when Alva had been scarcely six
months in the country, the Emperor Maximilian, himself a Roman
Catholic, addressed a formal remonstrance to the king on the
subject, as his dignity entitled him to do, since the
Netherlands were a part of the Germanic body. It received an
answer which was an insult to the remonstrant from its
defiance of truth and common sense, and which cut off all hope
from the miserable Flemings. Philip declared that what he had
done had been done 'for the repose of the Provinces,' … and
almost on the same day he published a new edict, confirming a
decree of the Inquisition which condemned all the inhabitants
of the Netherlands to death as heretics, with the exception of
a few persons who were named [see above]. … In their utter
despair, the Flemings implored the aid of the Prince of
Orange, who … had quitted the country. … He was now
residing at Dillenbourg, in Nassau, in safety from Philip's
threats, and from the formal sentence which, in addition to
the general condemnation of the whole people, the Council of
Blood had just pronounced against him by name. But he resolved
that in such an emergency it did not become him to weigh his
own safety against the claims his countrymen had on his
exertions. After a few weeks energetically spent in levying
troops and raising money to maintain them, he published a
document which he entitled his 'Justification,' and which
stated his own case and that of the Provinces with a most
convincing clearness; and at the end of April he took the
field at the head of a small force, composed of French
Huguenots, Flemish exiles, … and German mercenaries. …
Thus in the spring of 1568 began that terrible war which for
40 years desolated what, in spite of great natural
disadvantages, had hitherto been one of the most prosperous
countries of Europe. … To dwell on many of its details …
would require volumes. … And, indeed, the pitched battles
were few. At the outset [May 23, 1568] Count Louis of Nassau,
the prince's brother, defeated and slew Count Aremberg, the
Spanish governor of the province of Groningen, very nearly on
the spot [near the convent of Heiliger-Lee, or the Holy Lion]
on which, in the palmy days of Rome, the fierce valor of
Arminius had annihilated the legions whose loss was so deeply
imprinted on the heart of Augustus; and Alva had avenged the
disaster by so complete a rout of Louis at Jemmingen, that
more than half of the rebel army was slaughtered on the field,
and Louis himself only escaped a capture, which would have
delivered him to the scaffold, by swimming the Ems, and
escaping with a mere handful of troops, all that were left of
his army, into Germany. But after dealing this blow … Alva
rarely fought a battle in the open field.
{2263}
He preferred showing the superiority of his generalship by
defying the endeavours of the prince and his brothers to bring
him to action, miscalculating, indeed, the eventual
consequences of such tactics, and believing that the
protraction of the war must bring the rebels to his
sovereign's feet by the utter exhaustion of their resources;
while the event proved that it was Spain which was exhausted
by the contest, that kingdom being in fact so utterly
prostrated by continued draining of men and treasure which it
involved, that her decay may be dated from the moment when
Alva reached the Flemish borders. His career in the
Netherlands seemed to show that, warrior though he was,
persecution was more to his taste than even victory.
Victorious, indeed, he was, so far as never failing to reduce
every town which he besieged, and to baffle every design of
the prince which he anticipated. … Every triumph which he
gained was sullied by a ferocious and deliberate cruelty, of
which the history of no other general in the world affords a
similar example. … Whenever Alva captured a town, he himself
enjoined his troops to show no mercy either to the garrison or
to the peaceful inhabitants. Every atrocity which greed of
rapine, wantonness of lust, and blood-thirsty love of
slaughter could devise was perpetrated by his express
direction. … He had difficulties to encounter besides those
of his military operations, and such as he was less skilful in
meeting. He soon began to be in want of money. A fleet laden
with gold and silver was driven by some French privateers into
an English harbour, where Elizabeth at once laid her hands on
it. If it belonged to her enemies, she had a right, she said,
to seize it: if to her friends, to borrow it (she had not
quite decided in which light to regard the Spaniards, but the
logic was irresistible, and her grasp irremovable), and, to
supply the deficiency, Alva had recourse to expedients which
injured none so much as himself. To avenge himself on the
Queen, he issued a proclamation [March, 1569] forbidding all
commercial intercourse between the Netherlands and England;
… but his prohibition damaged the Flemings more than the
English merchants, and in so doing inflicted loss upon
himself. … For he at the same time endeavoured to compel the
States to impose, for his use, a heavy tax on every
description of property, on every transfer of property, and
even on every article of merchandise [the tenth penny, or ten
per cent.] as often as it should be sold: the last impost, in
the Provinces which were terrified into consenting to it, so
entirely annihilating trade that it even roused the
disapproval of his own council; and that, finding themselves
supported by that body, even those Provinces which had
complied, retracted their assent. … After a time [1572] he
was forced first to compromise his demands for a far lower sum
than that at which he had estimated the produce of his taxes,
and at last to renounce even that. He was bitterly
disappointed and indignant, and began to be weary of his
post."
C. D. Yonge,
Three Centuries of Modern History,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 3, chapters 2-7 (volume 2).
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
The Beggars of the Sea and their capture of Brill.
Rapid Revolution in Holland and Zealand, but wholly in the
name of the King and his Stadtholder, William of Orange.
The Provisional Government organized.
In the spring of 1572, Alva having re-established friendly
relations with Queen Elizabeth, all the cruisers of the
rebellious Netherlanders—"Beggars of the Sea" as they had
styled themselves—were suddenly expelled from English ports,
where they had previously found shelter and procured supplies.
The consequence was unexpected to those who brought it about,
and proved most favorable to the patriotic cause. Desperately
driven by their need of some harbor of refuge, the fleet of
these adventurers made an attack upon the important seaport of
Brill, took it with little fighting and held it stubbornly.
Excited by this success, the patriotic burghers of Flushing,
on the isle of Walcheren, soon afterwards rose and expelled
the Spanish garrison from their town. "The example thus set by
Brill and Flushing was rapidly followed. The first half of the
year 1572 was distinguished by a series of triumphs rendered
still more remarkable by the reverses which followed at its
close. … Enkhuizen, the key to the Zuyder Zee, the principal
arsenal, and one of the first commercial cities in the
Netherlands, rose against the Spanish Admiral, and hung out
the banner of Orange on its ramparts. The revolution effected
here was purely the work of the people—of the mariners and
burghers of the city. Moreover, the magistracy was set aside
and the government of Alva repudiated without shedding one
drop of blood, without a single wrong to person or property.
By the same spontaneous movement, nearly all the important
cities of Holland and Zealand raised the standard of him in
whom they recognized their deliverer. The revolution was
accomplished under nearly similar circumstances everywhere.
With one fierce bound of enthusiasm the nation shook, off its
chain. Oudewater, Dort, Harlem, Leyden, Gorcum, Loewenstein,
Gouda, Medenblik, Horn, Alkmaar, Edam, Monnikendam,
Purmerende, as well as Flushing, Veer, and Enkhuizen, all
ranged themselves under the government of Orange as lawful
stadholder for the King. Nor was it in Holland and Zealand
alone that the beacon fires of freedom were lighted. City
after city in Gelderland, Overyssel, and the See of Utrecht,
all the important towns of Friesland, some sooner, some later,
some without a struggle, some after a short siege, some with
resistance by the functionaries of government, some by
amicable compromise, accepted the garrisons of the Prince and
formally recognized his authority. Out of the chaos which a
long and preternatural tyranny had produced, the first
struggling elements of a new and a better world began to
appear. … Not all the conquests thus rapidly achieved in the
cause of liberty were destined to endure, nor were any to be
retained without a struggle. The little northern cluster of
republics, which had now restored its honor to the ancient
Batavian name, was destined, however, for a long and vigorous
life. From that bleak isthmus the light of freedom was to
stream through many years upon struggling humanity in Europe,
a guiding pharos across a stormy sea; and Harlem, Leyden,
Alkmaar—names hallowed by deeds of heroism such as have not
often illustrated human annals, still breathe as
trumpet-tongued and perpetual a defiance to despotism as
Marathon, Thermopylae, or Salamis.
{2264}
A new board of magistrates had been chosen in all the redeemed
cities by popular election. They were required to take an oath
of fidelity to the King of Spain, and to the Prince of Orange
as his stadholder; to promise resistance to the Duke of Alva,
the tenth penny, and the Inquisition; 'to support every man's
freedom and the welfare of the country; to protect widows,
orphans, and miserable persons, and to maintain justice and
truth.' Diedrich Sonoy arrived on the 2nd June at Enkhuizen.
He was provided by the Prince with a commission, appointing
him Lieutenant-Governor of North Holland or Waterland. Thus,
to combat the authority of Alva, was set up the authority of
the King. The stadholderate over Holland and Zealand, to which
the Prince had been appointed in 1559, he now reassumed. Upon
this fiction reposed the whole provisional polity of the
revolted Netherlands. … The people at first claimed not an
iota more of freedom than was secured by Philip's coronation
oath. There was no pretence that Philip was not sovereign, but
there was a pretence and a determination to worship God
according to conscience, and to reclaim the ancient political
'liberties' of the land. So long as Alva reigned, the Blood
Council, the Inquisition, and martial law, were the only codes
or courts, and every charter slept. To recover this practical
liberty and these historical rights, and to shake from their
shoulders a most sanguinary government, was the purpose of
William and of the people. No revolutionary standard was
displayed. The written instructions given by the Prince to his
lieutenant Sonoy were to 'see that the Word of God was
preached, without, however, suffering any hindrance to the
Roman Church in the exercise of its religion.' … The Prince
was still in Germany, engaged in raising troops and providing
funds."
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.
Capture of Mons by Louis of Nassau and
its recovery by the Spaniards.
Spanish massacres at Mechlin, Zutphen and Naarden.
The siege and capture of Haarlem.
"While William of Orange was in Germany, raising money and
troops, he still directed the affairs of the Netherlands. His
prospects were again brightened by the capture, by his gallant
brother Louis of Nassau, of the important city of Mons. …
This last startling blow forced Alva to immediate action. He
at once sent his son, Don Frederic, to lay siege to Mons. Soon
after, the Duke of Medina Cœli, Alva's successor as governor
of the Netherlands [to whom, however, Alva did not surrender
his authority], arrived safely with his fleet, but another
Spanish squadron fell with its rich treasures into the hands
of the rebels. Alva was now so pressed for money that he
agreed to abolish the useless tenth-penny tax, if the
states-general of the Netherlands would grant him a million
dollars a year. He had summoned the states of Holland to meet
at the Hague on the 15th of July, but they met at Dort to
renounce his authority, at the summons of William of Orange,
who had raised an army in Germany, but was without means to
secure the necessary three months' payment in advance. While
still owning allegiance to the king, the states recognized
Orange as stadtholder, empowered him to drive out the Spanish
troops, and to maintain religious freedom. … Treating the
Emperor Maximilian's peace orders as useless, the prince
marched his army of 24,000 men to the relief of Mons. Most of
the Netherland cities on the way accepted his authority, and
everything looked favorable for his success, when an
unforeseen and terrible calamity occurred. The French king,
Charles IX., whose troops had been routed before Mons [by the
Spaniards], had promised to furnish further aid to the
provinces. Admiral Coligny was to join the forces of Orange
with 15,000 men. The frightful massacre of St. Bartholomew in
Paris, on the 24th of August, … was a terrible blow to the
prince. It broke up all his plans. He had reached the
neighborhood of Mons, which he was trying to reinforce, when a
night attack was made by the Spaniards on his lines, September
11. … Obliged to leave his gallant brother Louis to his fate
in Mons, Orange narrowly escaped being killed on his retreat.
… Deserted by the cities that had been so earnest in his
cause, sorrowful, but not despairing for his country, William
had only his trust in God and his own destiny to sustain him.
As Holland was the only province that clung to the hero
patriot, he went there expecting and prepared to die for
liberty. Louis of Nassau was forced, on the 21st of September,
to abandon Mons to the Spaniards, who allowed Noircarmes …
to massacre and pillage the inhabitants contrary to the terms
of surrender. This wretch killed Catholics and Protestants
alike, in order to secure their riches for himself. … The
city of Mechlin, which had refused to admit a garrison of his
troops, was even more brutally ravaged by Alva in order to
obtain gold. … Alva's son, Don Frederic, now proved an apt
pupil of his father, by almost literally executing his command
to kill every man and burn every house in the city of Zutphen,
which had opposed the entrance of the king's troops. The
massacre was terrible and complete. The cause of Orange
suffered still more by the cowardly flight of his
brother-in-law, Count Van den Berg, from his post of duty in
the provinces of Gelderland and Overyssel. By this desertion
rugged Friesland was also lost to the patriot side. Holland
alone held out against the victorious Spaniards. The little
city of Naarden at first stoutly refused to surrender, but
being weak was obliged to yield without striking a blow. Don
Frederic's agent, Julian Romero, having promised that life and
property should be spared, the people welcomed him and his
soldiers at a grand feast on the 2d of December. Hardly was
this over when 500 citizens, who had assembled in the town
hall, were warned by a priest to prepare for death. This was
the signal for the entrance of the Spanish troops, who
butchered everyone in the building. They then rushed furiously
through the streets, pillaging and then setting fire to the
houses. As the inmates came forth, they were tortured and
killed by their cruel foes. … Alva wrote boastfully to the
king that 'they had cut the throats of the burghers and all
the garrison, and had not left a mother's son alive.' He
ascribed this success to the favor of God in permitting the
defence of so feeble a city to be even attempted. … As the
city of Haarlem was the key to Holland, Don Frederic resolved
to capture it at any cost. But the people were so bent upon
resistance that they executed two of their magistrates for
secretly negotiating with Alva. …
{2265}
Ripperda, the commandant of the Haarlem garrison, cheered
soldiers and people by his heroic counsels, and through the
efforts of Orange the city was placed under patriot rule.
Amsterdam, which was in the enemy's hands, was ten miles
distant, across a lake traversed by a narrow causeway, and the
prince had erected a number of forts to command the frozen
surface. As a thick fog covered the lake in these December
days, supplies of men, provisions, and ammunition were brought
into the city in spite of the vigilance of the besiegers. The
sledges and skates of the Hollanders were very useful in this
work. But against Don Frederic's army of 30,000 men, nearly
equalling the entire population of Haarlem, the city with its
extensive but weak fortifications had only a garrison of about
4,000. The fact that about 300 of these were respectable
women, armed with sword, musket, and dagger, shows the heroic
spirit of the people. The men were nerved to fresh exertions
by these Amazons, who, led by their noble chief, the Widow
Kenau Hasselaer, fought desperately by their side, both within
and without the works. The banner of this famous heroine, who
has been called the Joan of Arc of Haarlem, is now in the City
Hall. A vigorous cannonade was kept up against the city for
three days, beginning December 18, and men, women, and
children worked incessantly in repairing the shattered walls.
They even dragged the statues of saints from the churches to
fill up the gaps, to the horror of the superstitious
Spaniards. The brave burghers repelled their assaults with all
sorts of weapons. Burning coals and boiling oil were hurled at
their heads, and blazing pitch-hoops were skilfully caught
about their necks. Astonished by this terrible resistance,
which cost him hundreds of lives, Don Frederic resolved to
take the city by siege." On the last day of January. 1573, Don
Frederic having considerably shattered an outwork called the
ravelin, ordered a midnight assault, and the Spaniards carried
the fort. "They mounted the walls expecting to have the city
at their mercy. Judge of their amazement to find a new and
stronger fort, shaped like a half-moon, which had been
secretly constructed during the siege, blazing away at them
with its cannon. Before they could recover from their shock,
the ravelin, which had been carefully undermined, blew up, and
sent them crushed and bleeding into the air. The Spaniards
outside, terrified at these outbursts, retreated hastily to
their camp, leaving hundreds of dead beneath the walls. Two
assaults of veteran soldiers, led by able generals, having
been repelled by the dauntless burghers of Haarlem, famine
seemed the only means of forcing its surrender. Starvation in
fact soon threatened both besiegers and besieged. Don Frederic
wished to abandon the contest, but Alva threatened to disown
him as a son if he did so. … There was soon a struggle for
the possession of the lake, which was the only means of
conveying supplies to the besieged. In the terrible
hand-to-hand fight which followed the grappling of the rival
vessels, on the 28th of May, the prince's fleet, under Admiral
Brand, was totally defeated. … During the month of June the
wretched people of Haarlem had no food but linseed and
rapeseed, and they were soon compelled to eat dogs, cats,
rats, and mice. When these gave out they devoured shoe-leather
and the boiled hides of horses and oxen, and tried to allay
the pangs of hunger with grass and weeds. The streets were
full of the dead and the dying." Attempts at relief by Orange
were defeated. "As a last resort the besieged resolved to form
a solid column, with the women and children, the aged and
infirm, in the centre, to fight their way out; but Don
Frederic, fearing the city would be left in ruins, induced
them to surrender on the 12th of July, under promise of mercy.
This promise was cruelly broken by a frightful massacre of
2,000 people, which gave great joy to Alva and Philip."
A. Young,
History of the Netherlands,
chapters 10-11.
ALSO IN:
R. Watson,
History of Philip II.,
books 11-12.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.
Siege and deliverance of Alkmaar.
Displacement of Alva.
Battle of Mookerhyde and death of Louis of Nassau.
Siege and relief of Leyden.
The flooding of the land.
Founding of Leyden University.
After the surrender of Haarlem, a mutiny broke out among the
Spanish troops that had been engaged in the siege, to whom 28
months' arrears of pay were due. "It was appeased with great
difficulty at the end of seven weeks, when Alva determined to
make a decisive attack on Holland both by land and water, and
with this view commanded his son, Don Frederic di Toledo, to
march to the siege of Alkmaar, and repaired in person to
Amsterdam. … Don Frederic laid siege to Alkmaar at the head
of 16,000 able and efficient troops; within the town were
1,300 armed burghers and 800 soldiers, as many perhaps as it
was at that time capable of containing. With this handful of
men the citizens of Alkmaar defended themselves no less
resolutely than the Haarlemmers had done. The fierce
onslaughts of the Spaniards were beaten back with uniform
success on the part of the besieged; the women and girls were
never seen to shrink from the fight, even where it was
hottest, but unceasingly supplied the defenders with stones
and burning missiles, to throw amongst their enemies. … But
as there were no means of conveying reinforcements to the
besieged from without, and their supplies began to fail, they
resolved, after a month's siege, on the desperate measure of
cutting through the dykes. Some troops sent by Sonnoy having
effected this, and opened the sluices, the whole country was
soon deluged with water. Don Frederic, astounded at this novel
mode of warfare, and fearing that himself and his whole army
would be drowned, broke up his camp in haste, and fled, rather
than retreated, to Amsterdam. It seemed almost as though the
blessing which the Prince of Orange had promised his people
had come upon them. The capture of Geertruydenberg, about this
time, by one of his lieutenants, was followed by a naval
victory, as signal as it was important. The Admiral Bossu, to
whom was given the command of the [Spanish] fleet at
Amsterdam, having sailed through the Pampus with the design of
occupying the Zuyderzee, and thus making himself master of the
towns of North Holland, encountered the fleet of those towns,
consisting of 24 vessels, commanded by Admiral Dirkson,
stationed in the Zuyderzee to await his arrival." After
several days of skirmishing, the Dutch fleet forced a close
fight, "which lasted with little intermission from the
afternoon of the 11th of October to midday of the 12th, during
which time two of the royalist ships were sunk and a
third captured.
{2266}
"The remainder fled or surrendered, Bossu, himself, being
taken prisoner. "On intelligence of the issue of the battle,
Alva quitted Amsterdam in haste and secrecy. This success
delivered the towns of North Holland from the most imminent
danger, and rendered the possession of Amsterdam nearly
useless to the royalists." Alva was now forced to call a
meeting of the states-general, in the hope of obtaining a vote
of money. "Upon their assembling at Brussels, the states of
Holland despatched an earnest and eloquent address, exhorting
them to emancipate themselves from Spanish slavery and the
cruel tyranny of Alva, which the want of unanimity in the
provinces had alone enabled him to exercise. … Their
remonstrance appears to have been attended with a powerful
effect, since the states-general could neither by threats or
remonstrances be induced to grant the smallest subsidy. …
Alva, having become heartily weary of the government he had
involved in such irretrievable confusion, now obtained his
recall; his place was filled by Don Louis de Requesens, grand
commander of Castile. In the November of this year, Alva
quitted the Netherlands, leaving behind him a name which has
become a bye-word of hatred, scorn, and execration. … During
the six years that he had governed the Netherlands, 18,000
persons had perished by the hand of the executioner, besides
the numbers massacred at Naarden, Zutphen, and other conquered
cities." The first undertaking of the new governor was an
attempt to raise the siege of Middleburg, the Spanish garrison
in which had been blockaded by the Gueux for nearly two years;
but the fleet of 40 ships which he fitted out for the purpose
was defeated, at Romers-waale, with a loss of ten vessels.
"The surrender of Middleburg immediately followed, and with it
that of Arnemuyden, which put the Gueux in possession of the
principal islands of Zealand, and rendered them masters of the
sea." But these successes were counterbalanced by a disaster
which attended an expedition led from Germany by Louis of
Nassau, the gallant but unfortunate brother of the Prince of
Orange. His army was attacked and utterly destroyed by the
Spaniards (April 14, 1574) at the village of Mookerheyde, or
Mook, near Nimeguen, and both Louis and his brother Henry of
Nassau were slain. "After raising the siege of Alkmaar, the
Spanish forces, placed under the command of Francesco di
Valdez on the departure of Don Frederic di Toledo, had for
some weeks blockaded Leyden; but were recalled in the spring
of this year to join the rest of the army on its march against
Louis of Nassau. From that time the burghers of Leyden … had
not only neglected to lay up any fresh stores of corn or other
provision, but to occupy or destroy the forts with which the
enemy had encompassed the town. This fact coming to the
knowledge of Don Louis, he once more dispatched Valdez to
renew the siege at the head of 8,000 troops. … Mindful of
Haarlem and Alkmaar, the Spanish commander … brought no
artillery, nor made any preparations for assault, but, well
aware that there were not provisions in the town sufficient
for three months, contented himself with closely investing it
on all sides, and determined to await the slow but sure
effects of famine." In this emergency, the States of Holland
"decreed that all the dykes between Leyden and the Meuse and
Yssel should be cut through, and the sluices opened at
Rotterdam and Schiedam, by which the waters of those rivers,
overflowing the valuable lands of Schieland and Rhynland,
would admit of the vessels bringing succours up to the very
gates of Leyden. The damage was estimated at 600,000 guilders.
… The cutting through the dykes was a work of time and
difficulty, as well from the labour required as from the
continual skirmishes with the enemy. … Even when completed,
it appeared as if the vast sacrifice were utterly unavailing.
A steady wind blowing from the north-east kept back the
waters. … Meanwhile the besieged, who for some weeks heard
no tidings of their deliverers, had scarcely hope left to
enable them to sustain the appalling sufferings they endured.
… 'Then,' says the historian, who heard it from the mouths
of the sufferers, 'there was no food so odious but it was
esteemed a dainty.' … The siege had now lasted five months.
… Not a morsel of food, even the most filthy and loathsome,
remained … when, on a sudden, the wind veered to the
north-west, and thence to the south-west; the waters of the
Meuse rushed in full tide over the land, and the ships rode
triumphantly on the waves. The Gueux, attacking with vigour
the forts on the dykes, succeeded in driving out the garrisons
with considerable slaughter. … On the … 3rd of October …
Valdez evacuated all the forts in the vicinity. … In memory
of this eventful siege, the Prince and States offered the
inhabitants either to found an university or to establish a
fair. They chose the former; but the States … granted both:
the fair of Leyden was appointed to be held on the 1st of
October in every year, the 3rd being ever after held as a
solemn festival; and on the 8th of February in the next year,
the university received its charter from the Prince of Orange
in the name of King Philip. Both proved lasting monuments."
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapters 8-9 (volumes 1-2).
ALSO IN:
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 4, chapters 1-2 (volume 2).
W. T. Hewett,
The University of Leiden
(Harper's Magazine, March, 1881).
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
series 5, chapter 16.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
Congress at Breda.
Offer of sovereignty to the English Queen.
Death of Requesens.
Mutiny of the Soldiery.
The Spanish Fury.
Alliance of Northern and Southern provinces under
the Pacification of Ghent and the Union of Brussels.
Arrival of Don John of Austria.
"The bankrupt state of Philip II.'s exchequer, and the
reverses which his arms had sustained, induced him to accept
… the proffered mediation of the Emperor Maximilian, which
he had before so arrogantly rejected, and a Congress was held
at Breda from March till June 1575. But the insurgents were
suspicious, and Philip was inflexible; he could not be induced
to dismiss his Spanish troops, to allow the meeting of the
States-General, or to admit the slightest toleration in
matters of religion; and the contest was therefore renewed
with more fury than ever. The situation of the patriots became
very critical when the enemy, by occupying the islands of
Duyveland and Schouwen, cut off the communication between
Holland and Zealand; especially as all hope of succour from
England had expired.
{2267}
Towards the close of the year envoys were despatched to
solicit the aid of Elizabeth, and to offer her, under certain
conditions, the sovereignty of Holland and Zealand. Requesens
sent Champagny to counteract these negociations, which ended
in nothing. The English Queen was afraid of provoking the
power of Spain, and could not even be induced to grant the
Hollanders a loan. The attitude assumed at that time by the
Duke of Alençon, in France, also prevented them from entering
into any negociations with that Prince. In these trying
circumstances, William the Silent displayed the greatest
firmness and courage. It was now that he is said to have
contemplated abandoning Holland and seeking with its
inhabitants a home in the New World, having first restored the
country to its ancient state of a waste of waters; a thought,
however, which he probably never seriously entertained, though
he may have given utterance to it in a moment of irritation or
despondency. … The unexpected death of Requesens, who
expired of a fever, March 5th 1576, after a few days' illness,
threw the government into confusion. Philip II. had given
Requesens a carte blanche to name his successor, but the
nature of his illness had prevented him from filling it up.
The government therefore devolved to the Council of State, the
members of which were at variance with one another; but Philip
found himself obliged to intrust it 'ad interim' with the
administration, till a successor to Requesens could be
appointed. Count Mansfeld was made commander-in-chief, but was
totally unable to restrain the licentious soldiery. The
Spaniards, whose pay was in arrear, had now lost all
discipline. After the raising of the siege of Leyden they had
beset Utrecht and pillaged and maltreated the inhabitants,
till Valdez contrived to furnish their pay. No sooner had
Requesens expired than they broke into open mutiny, and acted
as if they were entire masters of the country. After wandering
about some time and threatening Brussels, they seized and
plundered Alost, where they established themselves; and they
were soon afterwards joined by the Walloon and German troops.
To repress their violence, the Council of State restored to
the Netherlanders the arms of which they had been deprived,
and called upon them by a proclamation to repress force by
force; but these citizen-soldiers were dispersed with great
slaughter by the disciplined troops in various rencounters.
Ghent, Utrecht, Valenciennes, Maestricht were taken and
plundered by the mutineers; and at last the storm fell upon
Antwerp, which the Spaniards entered early in November, and
sacked during three days. More than 1,000 houses were burnt,
8,000 citizens are said to have been slain, and enormous sums
in ready money were plundered. The whole damage was estimated
at 24,000,000 florins. The horrible excesses committed in this
sack procured for it the name of the 'Spanish Fury.' The
government was at this period conducted in the name of the
States of Brabant. On the 5th of September, De Hèze, a young
Brabant gentleman who was in secret intelligence with the
Prince of Orange, had, at the head of 500 soldiers, entered
the palace where the Council of State was assembled, and
seized and imprisoned the members. William, taking advantage
of the alarm created at Brussels by the sack of Antwerp,
persuaded the provisional government to summon the
States-General, although such a course was at direct variance
with the commands of the King. To this assembly all the
provinces except Luxemburg sent deputies. The nobles of the
southern provinces, although they viewed the Prince of Orange
with suspicion, feeling that there was no security for them so
long as the Spanish troops remained in possession of Ghent,
sought his assistance in expelling them; which William
consented to grant only on condition that an alliance should
be effected between the northern and the southern, or Catholic
provinces of the Netherlands. This proposal was agreed to, and
towards the end of September Orange sent several thousand men
from Zealand to Ghent, at whose approach the Spaniards, who
had valorously defended themselves for two months under the
conduct of the wife of their absent general Mondragon,
surrendered, and evacuated the citadel. The proposed alliance
was now converted into a formal union by the treaty called the
Pacification of Ghent, signed November 8th 1576; by which it
was agreed, without waiting for the sanction of Philip, whose
authority however was nominally recognised, to renew the edict
of banishment against the Spanish troops, to procure the
suspension of the decrees against the Protestant religion, to
summon the States-General of the northern and southern
provinces, according to the model of the assembly which had
received the abdication of Charles V., to provide for the
toleration and practise of the Protestant religion in Holland
and Zealand, together with other provisions of a similar
character. About the same time with the Pacification of Ghent,
all Zealand, with the exception of the island of Tholen, was
recovered from the Spaniards. … It was a mistake on the part
of Philip II. to leave the country eight months with only an
'ad interim' government. Had he immediately filled up the
vacancy … the States could not have seized upon the
government, and the alliance established at Ghent would not
have been effected, by which an almost independent
commonwealth had been erected. But Philip seems to have been
puzzled as to the choice of a successor; and his selection, at
length, of his brother Don John of Austria Charles V.], caused a further considerable delay. … The
state of the Netherlands compelled Don John to enter them, not
with the pomp and dignity becoming the lawful representative
of a great monarch, but stealthily, like a traitor or
conspirator. In Luxemburg alone, the only province which had
not joined the union, could he expect to be received; and he
entered its capital a few days before the publication of the
treaty of Ghent, in the disguise of a Moorish slave, and in
the train of Don Ottavio Gonzaga, brother of the Prince of
Melfi. Having neither money nor arms, he was obliged to
negociate with the provincial government in order to procure
the recognition of his authority. At the instance of the
Prince of Orange, the States insisted on the withdrawal of the
Spanish troops, the maintenance of the treaty of Ghent, an act
of amnesty for past offences, the convocation of the
States-General, and an oath from Don John that he would
respect all the charters and customs of the country. The new
governor was violent, but the States were firm, and in January
1577 was formed the Union of Brussels, the professed objects
of which were, the immediate expulsion of the Spaniards, and
the execution of the Pacification of Ghent; while at the same
time the Catholic religion and the royal authority were to be
upheld.
{2268}
This union, which was only a more popular repetition of the
treaty of Ghent, soon obtained numberless signatures. …
Meanwhile Rodolph II., the new Emperor of Germany, had offered
his mediation, and appointed the Bishop of Liege to use his
good offices between the parties; who, with the assistance of
Duke William of Juliers, brought, or seemed to bring, the new
governor to a more reasonable frame of mind. … Don John
yielded all the points in dispute, and embodied them in what
was called the Perpetual Edict, published March 12th, 1577.
The Prince of Orange suspected from the first that these
concessions were a mere deception."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 3, chapters 7-9 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
Don John of Austria,
volume 2, chapters 4-5.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
The administration of Don John.
Orange's well-founded distrust.
Emancipation of Antwerp.
Battle of Gemblours.
Death of Don John and appointment of Parma.
Corruption of Flemish nobles.
Submission of the Walloon provinces.
Pretensions of the Duke of Anjou.
Constitution and declared independence of the Dutch Republic.
"It now seemed that the Netherlands had gained all they asked
for, and that everything for which they had contended had been
conceded. The Blood Council of Alva had almost extirpated the
Reformers, and an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of
the Low Countries, with the exception of the Hollanders and
Zelanders, belonged to the old Church, provided the
Inquisition was done away with, and a religious peace was
accorded. But Don John had to reckon with the Prince of
Orange. In him William had no confidence. He could not forget
the past. He believed that the signatures and concessions of
the governor and Philip were only expedients to gain time, and
that they would be revoked or set aside as soon as it was
convenient or possible to do so. … He had intercepted
letters from the leading Spaniards in Don John's employment,
in which, when the treaty was in course of signature, designs
were disclosed of keeping possession of all the strong places
in the country, with the object of reducing the patriots in
detail. … Above all, William distrusted the Flemish nobles.
He knew them to be greedy, fickle, treacherous, ready to
betray their country for personal advantage, and to ally
themselves blindly with their natural enemies. … As events
proved, Orange was in the right. Hence he refused to recognize
the treaty in his own states of Holland and Zeland. As soon as
it was published and sent to him, William, after conference
with these states, published a severe criticism on its
provisions. … In all seeming however Don John was prepared
to carry out his engagements. He got together with difficulty
the funds for paying the arrears due to the troops, and sent
them off by the end of April. He caressed the people and he
bribed the nobles. He handed over the citadels to Flemish
governors, and entered Brussels on May 1st. Everything pointed
to success and mutual good will. But we have Don John's
letters, in which he speaks most unreservedly and most
unflatteringly of his new friends, and of his designs on the
liberties of the Netherlands. And all the while that Philip
was soothing and flattering his brother, he had determined on
ruining him, and on murdering the man [Escovedo] whom that
brother loved and trusted. About this time, too, we find that
Philip and his deputy were casting about for the means by
which they might assassinate the Prince of Orange, 'who had
bewitched the whole people!' An attempt of Don John to get
possession of the citadel of Antwerp for himself failed, and
the patriots gained it. The merchants of Antwerp 'agreed to
find the pay still owing to the soldiers, on condition of
their quitting the city. But while they were discussing the
terms, a fleet of Zeland vessels came sailing up the Scheldt.
Immediately a cry was raised, 'The Beggars are coming,' and
the soldiers fled in dismay [August 1, 1577]. Then the
Antwerpers demolished the citadel, and turned the statue of
Alva again into cannon. After these events, William of Orange
put an end to negotiations with Don John. Prince William was
in the ascendant. But the Catholic nobles conspired against
him, and induced the Archduke Matthias, brother of the German
Emperor Rodolph, to accept the place of governor of the
Netherlands in lieu of Don John. He came, but Orange was made
the Ruwaard of Brabant, with full military power. It was the
highest office which could be bestowed on him. The 'Union of
Brussels' followed and was a confederation of all the
Netherlands. But the battle of Gemblours was fought in
February, 1578, and the patriots were defeated. Many small
towns were captured, and it seemed that in course of time the
governor would recover at least a part of his lost authority.
But in the month of September, Don John was seized with a
burning fever, and died on October 1st. … The new governor
of the Netherlands, son of Ottavio Farnese, Prince of Parma,
and of Margaret of Parma, sister of Philip of Spain, was a
very different person from any of the regents who had hitherto
controlled the Netherlands. He was, or soon proved himself to
be, the greatest general of the age, and he was equally,

according to the statesmanship of the age, the most
accomplished and versatile statesman. He had no designs beyond
those of Philip, and during his long career in the
Netherlands, from October, 1578, to December, 1592, he served
the King of Spain as faithfully and with as few scruples as
Philip could have desired. … Parma was religious, but he had
no morality whatever. … He had no scruple in deceiving,
lying, assassinating, and even less scruple in saying or
swearing that he had done none of these things. … He had an
excellent judgment of men, and indeed he had experience of the
two extremes, of the exceeding baseness of the Flemish nobles,
and of the lofty and pure patriotism of the Dutch patriots.
Nothing indeed was more unfortunate for the Dutch than the
belief which they entertained, that the Flemings who had been
dragooned into uniformity, could be possibly stirred to
patriotism. Alva had done his work thoroughly. It is possible
to extirpate a reformation. But the success of the process is
the moral ruin of those who are the subjects of the
experiment. Fortunately for Parma, there was a suitor for the
Netherland sovereignty, in the person of the very worst prince
of the very worst royal family that ever existed in Europe,
i. e., the Duke of Anjou, of the house of Valois.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.
{2269}
This person was favoured by Orange, probably because he had
detected Philip's designs on France, and thought that national
jealousy would induce the French government, which was
Catherine of Medici, to favour the low countries. Besides,
Parma had a faction in every Flemish town, who were known as
the Malcontents, who were the party of the greedy and
unscrupulous nobles. And, besides Anjou, there was the party
of another pretender, John Casimir, of Poland. He, however,
soon left them. Parma quickly found in such dissensions plenty
of men whom he could usefully bribe. He made his first
purchases in the Walloon district, and secured them. The
provinces here were Artois, Hainault, Lille, Douay, and
Orchies. They were soon permanently reunited to Spain. On
January 20, 1570, the Union of Utrecht, which was virtually
the Constitution of the Dutch Republic, was agreed to. It was
greater in extent on the Flemish side than the Dutch Republic
finally remained, less on that of Friesland [comprising
Holland, Zeland, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, and the Frisian
provinces]. Orange still had hopes of including most of the
Netherland seaboard, and he still kept up the form of
allegiance to Philip. The principal event of the year was the
siege and capture of Maestricht [with the slaughter of almost
its entire population of 34,000]. … Mechlin also was
betrayed by its commander, De Bours, who reconciled himself to
Romanism, and received the pay for his treason from Parma at
the same time. In March, 1580, a similar act of treason was
committed by Count Renneberg, the governor of Friesland, who
betrayed its chief city, Groningen. … In the same year,
1580, was published the ban of Philip. This instrument, drawn
up by Cardinal Granvelle, declared Orange to be a traitor and
miscreant, made him an outlaw, put a heavy price on his head
(25,000 gold crowns), offered the assassin the pardon of any
crime, however heinous, and nobility, whatever be his rank.
… William answered the ban by a vigorous appeal to the
civilized world. … Renneberg, the traitor, laid siege to
Steenwyk, the principal fortress of Drenthe, at the beginning
of 1581. … In February, John Norris, the English general,
… relieved the town. Renneberg raised the siege, was
defeated in July by the same Norris, and died, full of
remorse, a few days afterwards. But the most important event
in 1581 was the declaration of Dutch Independence formally
issued at the Hague on the 26th of July. By this instrument,
Orange, though most unwillingly, felt himself obliged to
accept the sovereignty over Holland and Zeland, and whatever
else of the seven provinces was in the hands of the patriots.
The Netherlands were now divided into three portions. The
Walloon provinces in the south were reconciled to Philip and
Parma. The middle provinces were under the almost nominal
sovereignty of Anjou, the northern were under William. …
Philip's name was now discarded from public documents … ;
his seal was broken, and William was thereafter to conduct the
government in his own name. The instrument was styled an 'Act
of Abjuration.'"
J. E. T. Rogers,
The Story of Holland,
chapters 11-12.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 5, chapters 4-5,
and part 6, chapters 1-4.
Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
Don John of Austria,
volume 2, chapters 8-10.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
Refusal of the sovereignty of the United Provinces by Orange.
Its bestowal upon the Duke of Anjou.
Base treachery of Anjou.
The "French Fury" at Antwerp.
Assassination of the Prince of Orange.
"What, then, was the condition of the nation, after this great
step [the Act of Abjuration] had been taken? It stood, as it
were, with its sovereignty in its hand, dividing it into two
portions, and offering it, thus separated, to two distinct
individuals. The sovereignty of Holland and Zealand had been
reluctantly accepted by Orange. The sovereignty of the United
Provinces had been offered to Anjou, but the terms of
agreement with that Duke had not yet been ratified. The
movement was therefore triple, consisting of an abjuration and
of two separate elections of hereditary chiefs; these two
elections being accomplished in the same manner by the
representative bodies respectively of the united provinces and
of Holland and Zealand. … Without a direct intention on the
part of the people or its leaders to establish a republic, the
Republic established itself. Providence did not permit the
whole country, so full of wealth, intelligence, healthy
political action—so stocked with powerful cities and an
energetic population, to be combined into one free and
prosperous commonwealth. The factious ambition of a few
grandees, the cynical venality of many nobles, the frenzy of
the Ghent democracy, the spirit of religious intolerance, the
consummate military and political genius of Alexander Farnese,
the exaggerated self-abnegation and the tragic fate of Orange,
all united to dissever this group of flourishing and kindred
provinces. The want of personal ambition on the part of
William the Silent inflicted, perhaps, a serious damage upon
his country. He believed a single chief requisite for the
united states; he might have been, but always refused to
become that chief; and yet he has been held up for centuries
by many writers as a conspirator and a self-seeking intriguer.
… 'These provinces,' said John of Nassau, 'are coming very
unwillingly into the arrangement with the Duke of Alençon
[soon afterwards made Duke of Anjou]. The majority feel much
more inclined to elect the Prince, who is daily, and without
intermission, implored to give his consent. … He refuses
only on this account—that it may not be thought that,
instead of religious freedom for the country, he has been
seeking a kingdom for himself and his own private advancement.
Moreover, he believes that the connexion with France will be
of more benefit to the country and to Christianity.' … The
unfortunate negotiations with Anjou, to which no man was more
opposed than Count John, proceeded therefore. In the meantime,
the sovereignty over the united provinces was provisionally
held by the national council, and, at the urgent solicitation
of the states-general, by the Prince. The Archduke Matthias,
whose functions were most unceremoniously brought to an end by
the transactions which we have been recording, took his leave
of the states, and departed in the month of October. … Thus
it was arranged that, for the present, at least, the Prince
should exercise sovereignty over Holland and Zealand; although
he had himself used his utmost exertions to induce those
provinces to join the rest of the United Netherlands in the
proposed election of Anjou.
{2270}
This, however, they sternly refused to do. There was also a
great disinclination felt by many in the other states to this
hazardous offer of their allegiance, and it was the personal
influence of Orange that eventually carried the measure
through. … By midsummer [1581] the Duke of Anjou made his
appearance in the western part of the Netherlands. The Prince
of Parma had recently come before Cambray with the intention
of reducing that important city. On the arrival of Anjou,
however, … Alexander raised the siege precipitately and
retired towards Tournay," to which he presently laid siege,
and which was surrendered to him in November.
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 6, chapters 4-5 (volume 3).
Meantime, the Duke of Anjou had visited England, paying court
to Queen Elizabeth, whom he hoped to marry, but who declined
the alliance after making the acquaintance of her suitor.
"Elizabeth made all the reparation in her power, by the
honours paid him on his dismissal. She accompanied him as far
as Canterbury, and sent him away under the convoy of the earl
of Leicester, her chief favourite; and with a brilliant suite
and a fleet of fifteen sail. Anjou was received at Antwerp
with equal distinction; and was inaugurated there on the 19th
of February [1582] as Duke of Brabant, Lothier, Limbourg, and
Guelders, with many other titles, of which he soon proved
himself unworthy. … During the rejoicings which followed
this inauspicious ceremony, Philip's proscription against the
Prince of Orange put forth its first fruits. The latter gave a
grand dinner in the chateau of Antwerp, which he occupied, on
the 18th of March, the birth-day of the duke of Anjou." As he
quitted the dining hall, he was shot in the cheek by a young
man who approached him with the pretence of offering a
petition, and who proved to be the tool of a Spanish merchant
at Antwerp, with whom Philip of Spain had contracted for the
procurement of the assassination. The wound inflicted was
severe but not fatal. "Within three months, William was able
to accompany the duke of Anjou in his visits to Ghent, Bruges,
and the other chief towns of Flanders; in each of which the
ceremony of inauguration was repeated. Several military
exploits now took place [the most important of them being the
capture of Oudenarde, after a protracted siege, by the Prince
of Parma]. … The duke of Anjou, intemperate, inconstant, and
unprincipled, saw that his authority was but the shadow of
power. … The French officers, who formed his suite and
possessed all his confidence, had no difficulty in raising his
discontent into treason against the people with whom he had
made a solemn compact. The result of their councils was a
deep-laid plot against Flemish liberty; and its execution was
ere-long attempted. He sent secret orders to the governors of
Dunkirk, Bruges, Termonde, and other towns, to seize on and
hold them in his name; reserving for himself the infamy of the
enterprise against Antwerp. To prepare for its execution, he
caused his numerous army of French and Swiss to approach the
city." Then, on the 17th of January, 1583, with his body guard
of 200 horse, he suddenly attacked and slew the Flemish guards
at one of the gates and admitted the troops waiting outside.
"The astonished but intrepid citizens, recovering from their
confusion, instantly flew to arms. All differences in religion
or politics were forgotten in the common danger to their
freedom. … The ancient spirit of Flanders seemed to animate
all. Workmen, armed with the instruments of their various
trades, started from their shops and flung themselves upon the
enemy. … The French were driven successively from the
streets and ramparts. … The duke of Anjou saved himself by
flight, and reached Termonde. His loss in this base enterprise
[known as the French Fury] amounted to 1,500; while that of
the citizens did not exceed 80 men. The attempts
simultaneously made on the other towns succeeded at Dunkirk
and Termonde; but all the others failed. The character of the
Prince of Orange never appeared so thoroughly great as at this
crisis. With wisdom and magnanimity rarely equalled and never
surpassed, he threw himself and his authority between the
indignation of the country and the guilt of Anjou; saving the
former from excess and the latter from execration. The
disgraced and discomfited duke proffered to the states excuses
as mean as they were hypocritical. … A new treaty was
negotiated, confirming Anjou in his former station, with
renewed security against any future treachery on his part. He
in the mean time retired to France," where he died, June 10,
1584. Exactly one month afterwards (July 10), Prince William
was murdered, in his house, at Delft, by Balthazar Gerard, one
of the many assassins whom Philip II. and Parma had so
persistently sent against him. He was shot as he placed his
foot upon the first step of the great stair in his house,
after dining in a lower apartment, and he died in a few
moments.
T. C. Grattan,
History of the Netherlands,
chapter 13.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Froude,
History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
chapters 26, 29, 31-32 (volume 5-6).
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapter 4 (volume 1).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
Limits of the United Provinces and the Spanish Provinces.
The Republican constitution of the United Provinces,
and the organization of their government.
Disgraceful surrender of Ghent.
Practical recovery of Flanders and Brabant by the Spanish king.
At the time of the assassination of the Prince of Orange, "the
limit of the Spanish or 'obedient' Provinces, on the one hand,
and of the United Provinces on the other, cannot … be
briefly and distinctly stated. The memorable treason—or, as
it was called, the 'reconciliation' of the Walloon Provinces
in the year 1583-4—had placed the Provinces of Hainault,
Arthois, Douay, with the flourishing cities, Arras,
Valenciennes, Lille, Tournay, and others—all Celtic
Flanders, in short—in the grasp of Spain. Cambray was still
held by the French governor, Seigneur de Balagny, who had
taken advantage of the Duke of Anjou's treachery to the
States, to establish himself in an unrecognized but practical
petty sovereignty, in defiance both of France and Spain; while
East Flanders and South Brabant still remained a disputed
territory, and the immediate field of contest. With these
limitations, it may be assumed, for general purposes, that the
territory of the United States was that of the modern Kingdom
of the Netherlands, while the obedient Provinces occupied what
is now the territory of Belgium. …
{2271}
What now was the political position of the United Provinces at
this juncture? The sovereignty which had been held by the
Estates, ready to be conferred respectively upon Anjou and
Orange, remained in the hands of the Estates. There was no
opposition to this theory. … The people, as such, claimed no
sovereignty. … What were the Estates? … The great
characteristic of the Netherland government was the
municipality. Each Province contained a large number of
cities, which were governed by a board of magistrates, varying
in number from 20 to 40. This college, called the Vroedschap
(Assembly of Sages), consisted of the most notable citizens,
and was a self-electing body—a close corporation—the members
being appointed for life, from the citizens at large. Whenever
vacancies occurred from death or loss of citizenship, the
college chose new members—sometimes immediately, sometimes by
means of a double or triple selection of names, the choice of
one from among which was offered to the stadtholder [governor,
or sovereign's deputy] of the province. This functionary was
appointed by the Count, as he was called, whether Duke of
Bavaria or of Burgundy, Emperor, or King. After the abjuration
of Philip [1581], the governors were appointed by the Estates
of each Province. The Sage-Men chose annually a board of
senators, or schepens, whose functions were mainly judicial;
and there were generally two, and sometimes three,
burgomasters, appointed in the same way. This was the popular
branch of the Estates. But, besides this body of
representatives, were the nobles, men of ancient lineage and
large possessions, who had exercised, according to the general
feudal law of Europe, high, low, and intermediate jurisdiction
upon their estates, and had long been recognized as an
integral part of the body politic, having the right to appear,
through delegates of their order, in the provincial and in the
general assemblies. Regarded as a machine for bringing the
most decided political capacities into the administration of
public affairs, and for organizing the most practical
opposition to the system of religious tyranny, the Netherland
constitution was a healthy, and, for the age, an enlightened
one. … Thus constituted was the commonwealth upon the death
of William the Silent. The gloom produced by that event was
tragical. Never in human history was a more poignant and
universal sorrow for the death of any individual. The despair
was, for a brief season, absolute; but it was soon succeeded
by more lofty sentiments. … Even on the very day of the
murder, the Estates of Holland, then sitting at Delft, passed
a resolution 'to maintain the good cause, with God's help, to
the uttermost, without sparing gold or blood.' … The next
movement, after the last solemn obsequies had been rendered to
the Prince, was to provide for the immediate wants of his
family. For the man who had gone into the revolt with almost
royal revenues, left his estate so embarrassed that his
carpets, tapestries, household linen—nay, even his silver
spoons, and the very clothes of his wardrobe—were disposed of
at auction for the benefit of his creditors. He left eleven
children—a son and daughter by the first wife, a son and
daughter by Anna of Saxony, six daughters by Charlotte of
Bourbon, and an infant, Frederic Henry, born six months before
his death. The eldest son, Philip William, had been a captive
in Spain for seventeen years, having been kidnapped from
school, in Leyden, in the year 1567. He had already become …
thoroughly Hispaniolized under the masterly treatment of the
King and the Jesuits. … The next son was Maurice, then 17
years of age. … Grandson of Maurice of Saxony, whom he
resembled in visage and character, he was summoned by every
drop of blood in his veins to do life-long battle with the
spirit of Spanish absolutism, and he was already girding
himself for his life's work. … Very soon afterwards the
States General established a State Council, as a provisional
executive board, for the term of three months, for the
Provinces of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland, and such
parts of Flanders and Brabant as still remained in the Union.
At the head of this body was placed young Maurice, who
accepted the responsible position, after three days'
deliberation. … The Council consisted of three members from
Brabant, two from Flanders, four from Holland, three from
Zeeland, two from Utrecht, one from Mechlin, and three from
Friesland—eighteen in all. They were empowered and enjoined
to levy troops by land and sea, and to appoint naval and
military officers; to establish courts of admiralty, to expend
the moneys voted by the States, to maintain the ancient
privileges of the country, and to see that all troops in
service of the Provinces made oath of fidelity to the Union.
Diplomatic relations, questions of peace and war, the
treaty-making power, were not entrusted to the Council,
without the knowledge and consent of the States General, which
body was to be convoked twice a year by the State Council. …
Alexander of Parma … was swift to take advantage of the
calamity which had now befallen the rebellious Provinces. …
In Holland and Zeeland the Prince's blandishments were of no
avail. … In Flanders and Brabant the spirit was less noble.
Those provinces were nearly lost already. Bruges [which had
made terms with the King early in 1584] seconded Parma's
efforts to induce its sister-city Ghent to imitate its own
baseness in surrendering without a struggle; and that
powerful, turbulent, but most anarchical little commonwealth
was but too ready to listen to the voice of the tempter. …
Upon the 17th August [1584] Dendermonde surrendered. … Upon
the 7th September Vilvoorde capitulated, by which event the
water-communication between Brussels and Antwerp was cut off,
Ghent, now thoroughly disheartened, treated with Parma
likewise; and upon the 17th September made its reconciliation
with the King. The surrender of so strong and important a
place was as disastrous to the cause of the patriots as it was
disgraceful to the citizens themselves. It was, however, the
result of an intrigue which had been long spinning. … The
noble city of Ghent—then as large as Paris, thoroughly
surrounded with moats, and fortified with bulwarks, ravelins,
and counterscarps, constructed of earth, during the previous
two years, at great expense, and provided with bread and meat,
powder and shot, enough to last a year—was ignominiously
surrendered. The population, already a very reduced and
slender one for the great extent of the place and its former
importance, had been estimated at 70,000.
{2272}
The number of houses was 35,000, so that, as the inhabitants
were soon farther reduced to one-half, there remained but one
individual to each house. On the other hand, the 25
monasteries and convents in the town were repeopled. … The
fall of Brussels was deferred till March, and that of Mechlin
(19th July, 1585), and of Antwerp [see below] (19th August,
1585), till Midsummer of the following year; but the surrender
of Ghent foreshadowed the fate of Flanders and Brabant. Ostend
and Sluys, however, were still in the hands of the patriots,
and with them the control of the whole Flemish coast. The
command of the sea was destined to remain for centuries with
the new republic."
J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 1 (volume 1).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
The Siege and surrender of Antwerp.
Decay of the city.
"After the fall of Ghent, Farnese applied himself earnestly to
the siege of Antwerp, one of the most memorable recorded in
history. The citizens were animated in their defence by the
valour and talent of Ste Aldegonde. It would be impossible to
detail with minuteness in this general history the various
contrivances resorted to on either side for the attack and the
defence; and we must therefore content ourselves with briefly
adverting to that stupendous monument of Farnese's military
genius, the bridge which he carried across the Scheldt, below
Antwerp, in order to cut off the communication of the city
with the sea and the maritime provinces. From the depth and
wideness of the river, the difficulty of finding the requisite
materials, and of transporting them to the place selected in
the face of an enemy that was superior on the water, the
project was loudly denounced by Farnese's officers as
visionary and impracticable; yet in spite of all these
discouragements and difficulties, as the place seemed
unapproachable in the usual way, he steadily persevered, and
at last succeeded in an undertaking which, had he failed,
would have covered him with perpetual ridicule. The spot fixed
upon for the bridge was between Ordam and Kalloo, where the
river is both shallower and narrower than at other parts. The
bridge consisted of piles driven into the water to such
distance as its depth would allow; which was 200 feet on the
Flanders side and 900 feet on that of Brabant. The interval
between the piles, which was 12 feet broad, was covered with
planking; but at the extremities towards the centre of the
river the breadth was extended to 40 feet, thus forming two
forts, or platforms, mounted with cannon. There was still,
however, an interstice in the middle of between 1,000 and
1,100 feet, through which the ships of the enemy, favoured by
the wind and tide, or by the night, could manage to pass
without any considerable loss, and which it therefore became
necessary to fill up. This was accomplished by mooring across
it the hulls of 32 vessels, at intervals of about 20 feet
apart, and connecting them together with planks. Each vessel
was planted with artillery and garrisoned by about 30 men;
while the bridge was protected by a flota of vessels moored on
each side, above and below, at a distance of about 200 feet.
During the construction of the bridge, which lasted half a
year, the citizens of Antwerp viewed with dismay the progress
of a work that was not only to deprive them of their maritime
commerce, but also of the supplies necessary for their
subsistence and defence. At length they adopted a plan
suggested by Gianbelli, an Italian engineer, and resolved to
destroy the bridge by means of fire-ships, which seem to have
been first used on this occasion. Several such vessels were
sent down the river with a favourable tide and wind, of which
two were charged with 6,000 or 7,000 lbs. of gunpowder each,
packed in solid masonry, with various destructive missiles.
One of these vessels went ashore before reaching its
destination; the other arrived at the bridge and exploded with
terrible effect. Curiosity to behold so novel a spectacle had
attracted vast numbers of the Spaniards, who lined the shores
as well as the bridge. Of these 800 were killed by the
explosion, and by the implements of destruction discharged
with the powder; a still greater number were maimed and
wounded, and the bridge itself was considerably damaged.
Farnese himself was thrown to the earth and lay for a time
insensible. The besieged, however, did not follow up their
plan with vigour. They allowed Farnese time to repair the
damage, and the Spaniards, being now on the alert, either
diverted the course of the fire-ships that were subsequently
sent against them, or suffered them to pass the bridge through
openings made for the purpose. In spite of the bridge,
however, the beleaguered citizens might still have secured a
transit down the river by breaking through the dykes between
Antwerp and Lillo, and sailing over the plains thus laid under
water, for which purpose it was necessary to obtain possession
of the counter-dyke of Kowenstyn; but after a partial success,
too quickly abandoned by Hohenlohe and Ste Aldegonde, they
were defeated in a bloody battle which they fought upon the
dyke. Antwerp was now obliged to capitulate; and as Farnese
was anxious to put an end to so long a siege, it obtained more
favourable terms than could have been anticipated (August 17th
1585). The prosperity of this great commercial city received,
however, a severe blow from its capture by the Spaniards. A
great number of the citizens, as well as of the inhabitants of
Brabant and Flanders, removed to Amsterdam and Middelburg."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 3, chapter 9 (volume 2).
The downfall of the prosperity of the great capital "was
instantaneous. The merchants and industrious citizens all
wandered away from the place which had been the seat of a
world-wide traffic. Civilization and commerce departed, and in
their stead were the citadel and the Jesuits."
J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 5 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
F. Schiller,
Siege of Antwerp.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
Proffered sovereignty of the United Provinces
declined by France and England.
Delusive English succors.
The queen's treachery and Leicester's incompetency.
Useless battle at Zutphen.
"It was natural that so small a State, wasted by its
protracted struggles, should desire, more earnestly than ever,
an alliance with some stronger power; and it was from among
States supposed to have sympathies with Protestants, that such
an alliance was sought. From the Protestant countries of
Germany there was no promise of help; and the eyes of the
Dutch diplomatists were therefore turned towards France and
England. In France, the Huguenots, having recovered from St.
Bartholomew, now enjoyed toleration; and were a rising and
hopeful party, under the patronage of Henry of Navarre.
{2273}
If the king of France would protect Holland from Philip, and
extend to its people the same toleration which he allowed his
own subjects, Holland offered him the sovereignty of the
united provinces. This tempting offer was declined: for a new
policy was now to be declared, which united France and Spain
in a bigoted crusade against the Protestant faith. The League,
under the Duke de Guise, gained a fatal ascendency over the
weak and frivolous king, Henry III., and held dominion in
France. … Nor was the baneful influence of the League
confined to France: it formed a close alliance with Philip and
the Pope, with whom it was plotting the overthrow of
Protestant England, the subjection of the revolted provinces
of Spain, and the general extirpation of heresy throughout
Europe. … The only hope of the Netherlands was now in
England, which was threatened by a common danger; and envoys
were sent to Elizabeth with offers of the sovereignty, which
had been declined by France. So little did the Dutch statesmen
as yet contemplate a republic, that they offered their country
to any sovereign, in return for protection. Had bolder
counsels prevailed, Elizabeth might, at once, have saved the
Netherlands, and placed herself at the head of the Protestants
of Europe. She saw her own danger, if Philip should recover
the provinces: but she held her purse-strings with the grasp
of a miser: she dreaded an open rupture with Spain; and she
was unwilling to provoke her own Catholic subjects. Sympathy
with the Protestant cause, she had none. … She desired to
afford as much assistance as would protect her own realm
against Philip, at the least possible cost, without
precipitating a war with Spain. She agreed to send men and
money: but required Flushing, Brill, and Rammekens to be held
as a security for her loans. She refused the sovereignty of
the States: but she despatched troops to the Netherlands, and
sent her favourite, the Earl of Leicester, to command them. As
she had taken the rebellious subjects of Spain under her
protection, Philip retaliated by the seizure of British ships.
Spanish vengeance was not averted, while the Netherlands
profited little by her aid."
Sir T. E. May,
Democracy in Europe,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
Leicester sailed for the Hague in the middle of December,
1585, having been preceded by 8,000 English troops, eager to
prevent or revenge the fall of Antwerp. "Had there been good
faith and resolution, and had Lord Grey, or Sir Richard
Bingham, or Sir John Norris been in command, 20,000 Dutch and
English troops might have taken the field in perfect
condition. The States would have spent their last dollar to
find them in everything which soldiers could need. They would
have had at their backs the enthusiastic sympathy of the
population, while the enemy was as universally abhorred; and
Parma, exhausted by his efforts in the great siege, with his
chest empty, and his ranks thinned almost to extinction, could
not have encountered them with a third of their numbers. A
lost battle would have been followed by a renewed revolt of
the reconciled Provinces, and Elizabeth, if she found peace so
necessary to her, might have dictated her own conditions." But
months passed and nothing was done, while Queen Elizabeth was
treacherously negotiating with agents of Spain. In the summer
of 1586, "half and more than half of the brave men who had
come over in the past September were dead. Their places were
taken by new levies gathered in haste upon the highways, or by
mutinous regiments of Irish kernes, confessed Catholics, and
led by a man [Sir William Stanley] who was only watching an
opportunity to betray his sovereign. … Gone was now the
enthusiasm which had welcomed the landing of Leicester. In the
place of it was suspicion and misgiving, distracted councils,
and divided purposes. Elizabeth while she was diplomatising
held her army idle. Parma, short-handed as he was, treated
with his hand upon his sword, and was for ever carving slice
on slice from the receding frontiers of the States. At the
time of Leicester's installation he was acting on the Meuse.
He held the river as far as Venloo. Venloo and Grave were in
the hands of the patriots, both of them strong fortresses, the
latter especially. … After the fall of Antwerp these two
towns were Parma's next object. The siege of Grave was formed
in January. In April Colonel Norris and Count Hohenlohe forced
the Spanish lines and threw in supplies; but Elizabeth's
orders prevented further effort. Parma came before the town in
person in June, and after a bombardment which produced little
or no effect, Grave, to the surprise of everyone, surrendered.
Count Hemart, the governor, was said to have been corrupted,
by his mistress. Leicester hanged him; but Hemart's gallows
did not recover Grave or save Venloo, which surrendered also
three weeks later. The Earl, conscious of the disgrace, yet
seeing no way to mend it, … was willing at last to play into
his mistress's hands. He understood her [Queen Elizabeth] at
last, and saw what she was aiming at. 'As the cause is now
followed,' he wrote to her on the 27th of June, 'it is not
worth the cost or the danger. … They [the Netherlanders]
would rather have lived with bread and drink under your
Majesty's protection than with all their possessions under the
King of Spain. It has almost broken their hearts to think your
Majesty should not care any more for them. But if you mean
soon to leave them they will be gone almost before you hear of
it. I will do my best, therefore, to get into my hands three
or four most principal places in North Holland, so as you
shall rule these men, and make war and peace as you list. Part
not with Brill for anything. With these places you can have
what peace you will in an hour, and have your debts and
charges readily answered. But your Majesty must deal
graciously with them at present, and if you mean to leave them
keep it to yourself.' … No palliation can be suggested, of
the intentions to which Leicester saw that she was still
clinging, and which he was willing to further in spite of his
oath to be loyal to the States. … The incapacity of
Leicester … was growing evident. He had been used as a lay
figure to dazzle the eyes of the Provinces, while both he and
they were mocked by the secret treaty. The treaty was hanging
fire. … The Queen had … so far opened her eyes as to see
that she was not improving her position by keeping her army
idle; and Leicester, that he might not part with his
government in entire disgrace, having done absolutely nothing,
took the field for a short campaign in the middle of August
[1586].
{2274}
Parma had established himself in Gelderland, at Zutphen, and
Duesberg. The States held Deventer, further down the Issel;
but Deventer would probably fall as Grave and Venloo had
fallen if the Spaniards kept their hold upon the river;
Leicester therefore proposed to attempt to recover Zutphen.
Everyone was delighted to be moving. … The Earl of Essex,
Sir William Russell, Lord Willoughby, and others who held no
special commands, attached themselves to Leicester's staff;
Sir Philip Sidney obtained leave of absence from Flushing; Sir
John Norris and his brother brought the English contingent of
the States army; Sir William Stanley had arrived with his
Irishmen; and with these cavaliers glittering about him, and
9,000 men, Leicester entered Gelderland. Duesberg surrendered
to him without a blow; Norris surprised a fort outside
Zutphen, which commanded the river and straitened the
communications of the town." Parma made an attempt, on the
morning of September 22, to throw supplies into the town, and
Leicester's knights and gentlemen, forewarned of this project
by a spy, "Volunteered for an ambuscade to cut off the convoy.
… Parma brought with him every man that he could spare, and
the ambuscade party were preparing unconsciously to encounter
4,000 of the best troops in the world. They were in all about
500. … The morning was misty. The waggons were heard coming,
but nothing could be seen till a party of horse appeared at
the head of the train where the ambuscade was lying. Down
charged the 500, much as in these late years 600 English
lancers charged elsewhere, as magnificently and as uselessly.
… Never had been a more brilliant action seen or heard of,
never one more absurd and profitless. For the ranks of the
Spanish infantry were unbroken, the English could not touch
them, could not even approach them, and behind the line of
their muskets the waggons passed steadily to the town. … A
few, not many, had been killed; but among those whose lives
had been flung away so wildly was Philip Sidney. He was struck
by a musket ball on his exposed thigh, as he was returning
from his last charge," and died a few weeks later. "Parma
immediately afterwards entered Zutphen unmolested. …
Leicester's presence was found necessary in England. With the
natural sympathy of one worthless person for another, he had
taken a fancy to Stanley, and chose to give him an independent
command; and leaving the government to the Council of the
States, and the army again without a chief, he sailed in
November for London."
J. A. Froude,
History of England: The Reign of Elizabeth,
chapter 33 (volume 6).
ALSO IN:
Correspondence of Leicester during his
Government of the Low Countries
(Camden Society 27).
W. Gray,
Life and Times of Sir Philip Sidney,
chapter 10.
C. R. Markham,
The Fighting Veres,
chapters 7-8.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.
The ruin of the Spanish Provinces.
Great prosperity of the United Provinces.
Siege and capture of Sluys.
The last of Leicester.
"Though the United Provinces were distracted by domestic
dissensions and enfeebled by mutual distrust, their condition,
compared with that portion of the Netherlands reduced under
the yoke of Spain, was such as to afford matter of deep
gratulation and thankfulness. The miseries of war had visited
the latter unhappy country in the fullest measure; multitudes
of its inhabitants had fled in despair; and the sword, famine,
and pestilence, vied with each other in destroying the
remainder. … The rich and smiling pastures, once the
admiration and envy of the less favoured countries of Europe,
were now no more; woods, roads, and fields, were confounded in
one tangled mass of copse and brier. In the formerly busy and
wealthy towns of Flanders and Brabant, Ghent, Antwerp, and
Bruges, members of noble families were seen to creep from
their wretched abodes in the darkness of night to beg their
bread, or to search the streets for bones and offal. A
striking and cheering contrast is the picture presented by the
United Provinces. The crops had, indeed, failed there also,
but the entire command of the sea which they preserved, and
the free importation of corn, secured plentiful supplies. …
They continued to carry on, under Spanish colours, a lucrative
half-smuggling traffic, which the government of that nation
found it its interest to connive at and encourage. The war,
therefore, instead of being, as usual, an hindrance to
commerce, rather gave it a new stimulus; the ports were
crowded with vessels. … Holland and Zealand had now for more
than ten years been delivered from the enemy. … The security
they thus offered, combined with the freedom of religion, and
the activity of trade and commerce, drew vast multitudes to
their shores; the merchants and artisans expelled, on account
of their religion, from the Spanish Netherlands, transferred
thither the advantages of their enterprise and skill. … The
population of the towns became so overflowing that it was
found impossible to build houses fast enough to contain it.
… The miserable condition of the Spanish Netherlands, and
the difficulty of finding supplies for his troops, caused the
Duke of Parma to delay taking the field until late in the
summer [1587]; when, making a feint attack upon Ostend, he
afterwards … commenced a vigorous siege of Sluys. In order
to draw him off from this undertaking, Maurice, with the Count
of Hohenlohe, marched towards Bois-le-Duc. … The danger of
Sluys hastened the return of the Earl of Leicester to the
Netherlands, who arrived in Ostend with 7,000 foot and 500
horse. … Sluys had been besieged seven weeks, and the
garrison was reduced from 1,600 men to scarcely half that
number, when Leicester made an attempt to master the fort of
Blankenburg, in the neighbourhood of the enemy's camp; but on
intelligence that Parma was approaching to give him battle, he
hastily retreated to Ostend," and Sluys was surrendered. "The
loss of Sluys exasperated the dissensions between Leicester
and the States into undisguised and irreconcilable hostility."
He was soon afterwards recalled to England, and early in the
following year the queen required him to resign his command
and governorship in the Netherlands. In the meantime, the
English queen had reopened negotiations with Parma, who
occupied her attention while his master, Philip II. of Spain,
was preparing the formidable Armada which he launched against
England the next year
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 3, chapters 2-3 (volume 2).
{2275}
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
Successes of Prince Maurice.
Departure of Parma to France.
His death.
Appointment of Archduke Albert to the Government.
"The destruction of the great Spanish Armada by the English in
1588 infused new hopes into all the enemies of Spain, and
animated the Dutch with such courage, that Maurice led his
army against that of the Duke of Parma, and forced him to
raise the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, at that time garrisoned by
a portion of Leicester's army under the command of Sir Francis
Vere. … The young Stadtholder was induced by this success to
surprise the Castle of Blyenbeck, which was yielded to his
arms in 1589; and the following year [March 1] he got
possession of Breda by a 'ruse de guerre,'"—having introduced
70 men into the town by concealing them in a boat laden with
turf. "The Duke of Parma was now recalled from the Low
Countries into France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1590], and the old
Peter Ernest, Count de Mansfeld, succeeded to the government
of the Low Countries. … Maurice defeated the Spanish army in
the open field at Caervorden, and took Nimeguen [October 21,
1591] and Zutphen [May 30, 1591; also, Deventer, June 10, of
the same year]. … These successes added greatly to the
reputation of Count Maurice, who now made considerable
progress, so that in the year 1591 the Dutch saw their
frontiers extended, and had well-grounded hopes of driving the
Spaniards out of Friesland in another campaign. … The death
of the Prince of Parma [which occurred December 3, 1592]
delivered the Confederates from a formidable adversary; but
old Count Mansfeld, at the head of an army of 30,000 men, took
the field against them. Maurice, however, in 1593,
notwithstanding this covering force, sat down before
Gertruydenberg, advantageously situated on the frontier of
Brabant." The siege was regarded as a masterpiece of the
military art of the day, and the city was brought to surrender
at the end of three months. "With the useful aid of Sir
Francis Vere and the English, Maurice afterwards took
Gronenburg and Grave, which formed part of his own patrimony.
The Duke of Parma was succeeded in the government of the
Netherlands by the Archduke Albert, a younger son of the
Emperor Maximilian, who was married to Isabella, daughter of
King Philip."
Sir E. Cust,
Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War:
Maurice of Orange-Nassau,
pages 25-28.
ALSO IN:
C. R. Markham,
The Fighting Veres,
part 1, chapters 10-15.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1597.
Spanish operations in Northern France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.
Steady decline of Spanish power.
Sovereignty of the provinces made over to the Infanta
Isabella and the Archduke, her husband.
Death of Philip II.
Negotiations for peace.
A twelve years' truce agreed upon.
Acknowledgment of the independence of the republic.
"Philip's French enterprise had failed. The dashing and
unscrupulous Henry of Navarre had won his crown, by conforming
to the Catholic faith. …
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
Great was the shock given by his politic apostacy to the
religious sentiments of Europe: but it was fatal to the
ambition of Philip; and again the Netherlands could count upon
the friendship of a king of France. Their own needs were
great: but the gallant little republic still found means to
assist the Protestant champion against their common enemy, the
king of Spain. In the Netherlands the Spanish power was
declining. The feeble successors of Parma were no match for
Maurice of Nassau and the republican leaders: the Spanish
troops were starving and mutinous: the provinces under Spanish
rule were reduced to wretchedness and beggary. Cities and
fortresses fell, one after another, into the hands of the
stadtholder. The Dutch fleet joined that of England in a raid
upon Spain itself, captured and sacked Cadiz [see SPAIN: A. D.
1596], raised the flag of the republic on the battlements of
that famous city; and left the Spanish fleet burning in the
harbour. Other events followed, deeply affecting the fortunes
of the republic. Philip at length made peace with Henry of
Navarre, and was again free to coerce his revolted provinces.
But his accursed rule was drawing to a close. In 1598 he made
over the sovereignty of the Netherlands to the Infanta
Isabella and her affianced husband, the Archduke Albert, who
had cast aside his cardinal's hat, his archbishopric, and his
priestly vows of celibacy, for a consort so endowed. Philip
had ceased to reign in the Netherlands; and a few months
afterwards [September 13, 1598] he closed his evil life, in
the odour of sanctity. … The tyrant was dead: the little
republic, which he had scourged so cruelly, was living and
prosperous. … Far different was the lot of the ill-fated
provinces still in the grasp of the tyrant. The land lay waste
and desolate: its inhabitants had tied to England or Holland,
or were reduced to want and beggary. … That the republic
should have outlived its chief oppressor was an event of happy
augury: but years of trial and danger were still to be passed
through. The victory of Nieuport [gained July 2, 1600, by an
army of Dutch and English over the superior forces of the
Archduke Albert] raised Prince Maurice's fame, as a soldier,
to its highest point; and the gallant defence of Ostend, for
upwards of three years [against a siege, conducted by the
Spanish general Spinola, to which its garrison finally
succumbed in 1604, when the town was a heap of ruins, and
after 100,000 men are said to have been sacrificed on both
sides] … proved that the courage and endurance of his
soldiers had not declined during the protracted war [while
Sluys was taken by the Prince the same year]. At sea the Dutch
fleets won new victories over the Spaniards and Portuguese;
and privateers made constant ravages upon the enemy's
commerce. But there were also failures and reverses, on the
side of the republic, dissensions among its leaders, and
anxieties concerning the attitude of foreign States. And thus,
with varied fortunes, this momentous war had now continued for
upwards of forty years. … On both sides there was a desire
for peace. The Dutch would accept nothing short of
unconditional independence: the Spaniards almost despaired of
reducing them to subjection, while they dreaded more
republican victories at sea, and the extension of Dutch
maritime enterprise in the East. Overtures for peace were
first made cautiously and secretly by the archdukes ['this was
the title of the archduke and archduchess'], and received by
the States with grave distrust. Jealous and haughty was the
bearing of the republic, in the negotiations which ensued. The
states-general, in full session, represented Holland, and
received the Spanish envoys. The independence of the States
was accepted, on both sides, as the basis of any treaty: but,
as a preliminary to the negotiations, the republic insisted
upon its formal recognition, as a free and equal State, in
words dictated by itself. …
{2276}
At length an armistice was signed, in order to arrange the
terms of a treaty of peace. It was a welcome breathing time:
but peace was still beset with difficulties and obstacles. The
Spaniards were insincere: they could not bring themselves to
treat seriously, and in good faith, with heretics and rebels:
they desired the re-establishment of the Church of Rome; and
they claimed the exclusive right of trading with the East and
West Indies. The councils of the republic were also divided.
Barneveldt, the civilian, was bent upon peace: Prince Maurice,
the soldier, was burning for the renewal of the war. But
Barneveldt and the peace party prevailed, and negotiations
were continued. Again and again, the armistice was renewed:
but a treaty of peace seemed as remote as ever. At length
[April 9, 1609], after infinite disputes, a truce for twelve
years was agreed upon. In form it was a truce, and not a
treaty of peace: but otherwise the republic gained every point
upon which it had insisted. Its freedom and independence were
unconditionally recognised: it accepted no conditions
concerning religion: it made no concessions in regard to its
trade with the Indies. The great battle for freedom was won:
the republic was free: its troubles and perils were at an end.
Its oppressors had been the first to sue for peace: their
commissioners had treated with the states-general at the
Hague; and they had yielded every point for which they had
been waging war for nearly half a century."
Sir T. E. May,
Democracy in Europe,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 3, chapters 3-4 (volume 2).
J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapters 30-52 (volumes 3-4).
Douglas Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland England, and America,
chapter 18 (volume 2).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.
Rise and growth of Eastern trade.
Formation of the Dutch East India Company.
"Previous to their assertion of national independence, the
commerce of the Dutch did not extend beyond the confines of
Europe. But new regions of traffic were now to open to their
dauntless enterprise. It was in 1594 that Cornelius Houtman,
the son of It brewer at Gouda, returned from Lisbon, where,
having passed the preceding year, he had seen the gorgeous
produce of the East piled on the quays of the Tagus. His
descriptions fired the emulation of his friends at Amsterdam,
nine of whom agreed to join stock and equip a little flotilla
for a voyage round the Cape of Good Hope; Houtman undertook
the command, and thus the marvellous commerce of the Dutch in
India began. The influence which their trade with India and
their settlements there exerted in maturing and extending the
greatness of the Dutch, has often been overrated. It was a
source, indeed, of infinite pride, and for a time of rapid and
glittering profit; but it was attended with serious drawbacks,
both of national expenditure and national danger. … From the
outset they were forced to go armed. The four ships that
sailed on the first voyage of speculation from Amsterdam, in
1595, were fitted out for either war or merchandise. They were
about to sail into hitherto interdicted waters; they knew that
the Portuguese were already established in the Spice Islands,
whither they were bound; and Portugal was then a dependency of
Spain. On their arrival at Java, they had, consequently, to
encounter open hostility both from Europeans and the natives
whom the former influenced against them. At Bali, however,
they were better received; and, in 1597, they reached home
with a rich cargo of spices and Indian wares. It was a proud
and joyous day in Amsterdam when their return was known. …
From various ports of Zealand and Holland 80 vessels sailed
the following year to America, Africa, and India. Vainly the
Portuguese colonists laboured to convince the native princes
of the East that the Dutch were a mere horde of pirates with
whom no dealings were safe. Their businesslike and punctilious
demeanour, and probably, likewise, the judiciously selected
cargoes with which they freighted their ships outwards,
whereby they were enabled to offer better terms for the silk,
indigo, and spice they wished to buy, rapidly disarmed the
suspicion of several of the chiefs. … In 1602 the celebrated
East India Company was formed under charter granted by the
States-General,—the original capital being 6,000,000
guilders, subscribed by the merchants of Delft, Rotterdam,
Hoorn, Enkhuysen, Middleberg, but above all Amsterdam. They
established factories at many places, both on the continent of
India and in the islands; but their chief depot was fixed at
Bantam," until, dissatisfied with certain taxes imposed on
them by the lord of Bantam, they looked elsewhere for a
station. "The sovereign of Java gladly offered them a
settlement not above 100 miles distant, with full permission
to erect such buildings as they chose, and an engagement that
pepper (the chief spice thence exported) should be sent out of
his dominions toll-free. These terms were accepted. Jocatra, a
situation very propitious for traffic, was chosen as the site
of their future factory. Warehouses of stone and mortar
quickly rose; and dwellings, to the number of 1,000, were in a
short time added. All nations had leave to settle and trade
within its walls; and this was the origin of Batavia. In six
years the Company sent out 46 vessels, of which 43 returned in
due course laden with rich cargoes. … By the books of the
Company it appeared that, during the next eleven years, they
maintained 30 ships in the Eastern trade, manned by 5,000
seamen. … Two hundred per cent. was divided by the
proprietors of the Company's stock on their paid-up capital in
sixteen years. … But of all the proud results of their
Indian commerce, that which naturally afforded to the Dutch
the keenest sense of exultation, was the opportunity it
afforded them of thoroughly undermining the once exclusive
trade of Spain, not with foreign nations merely, but with her
own colonies, and even at home. The infatuated policy of her
government had prepared the way for her decline. … In the
space of a few years the Dutch had taken and rifled 11 Spanish
galleons, 'carkets and other huge ships, and made about 40 of

them unserviceable.' So crippled was their colonial trade
that, even for their own use, the Spaniards were obliged to
buy nutmegs, cloves, and mace, from their hated rivals."
W. T. McCullagh,
Industrial History of Free Nations,
chapter 13 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
D. McPherson,
Annals of Commerce,
volume 2, pages 206-296.
J. Yeats,
Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
part 3, chapters 3-4.
{2277}
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
Calvinistic persecution of Arminianism.
The hunting down of John of Barneveldt by Prince Maurice.
Synod of Dort.
Calvin's doctrine of predestination was strongly expressed in
what was called the Heidelberg Catechism. "A synod of the
pastors of Holland had decreed that this must be signed by all
their preachers, and be to them what the Thirty-nine Articles
are to the English Church and the Confession of Augsburg to
the Lutherans. Many preachers hesitated to pledge themselves
to doctrines that they did not think Scriptural nor according
to primitive faith, and still more, not accordant with the
eternal mercy of God. Of these Jacob Hermann, a minister of
Amsterdam, or as he Latinised his name, Arminius, was the
foremost, and under his influence a number of clergy refused
their signature. The University of Leyden in 1603 chose
Arminius as their Professor of Theology. The opposite party,
in great wrath, insisted on holding a synod, and the
States-General gave permission, but at first only on condition
that there should be a revision of the confession of faith and
catechism. The ministers refused, but the States-General
insisted, led by John Barneveldt, then Advocate and Keeper of
the Seals, who declared in their name that as 'foster fathers
and protectors of the churches to them every right belonged.'
It was an Erastian sentiment, but this opinion was held by all
reformed governments, including the English, and Barneveldt
spoke in the hope of mitigating Calvinistic violence. The
Advocate of the States-General was in fact their mouthpiece.
They might vote, but no one expressed their decisions at home
or abroad save the Advocate; and Barneveldt, both from
position and character, was thus the chief manager of civil
affairs, and an equal if not a superior power to Maurice of
Nassau, the Stadtholder and commander-in-chief, and recently,
by the death of his elder brother, Prince of Orange. The
question had even been mooted of giving him the sovereignty,
but to this Barneveldt was strongly averse. Maurice knew very
little about the argument, and his real feelings were
Arminian, though jealousy of Barneveldt made him favour the
opposite party, whose chief champion was Jacob Gomer, or
Gomerus as he called himself. King James, though really
holding with the Arminians, disliked Barneveldt, and therefore
threw all the weight of England into the scale against them.
Arguments were held before Maurice and before the university,
in which three champions on the one side were pitted against
three on the other, but nothing came of them but a good deal
of audacious profanity, till Arminius, in ministering to the
sick during a visitation of the plague at Amsterdam, caught
the disease and died. He was so much respected that the
University of Leyden pensioned his widow. They chose a young
Genevese, named Conrad Voorst or Vorstius, as his successor.
Voorst had written two books, one on the nature of God,
Tractatus Theologicus de Deo, and the other, Exegesis
Apologetica, in which (by Fuller's account) there was a
considerable amount of materialism, and likewise what amounted
to a denial of the Divine Omniscience, being no doubt a
reaction from extreme Calvinism. King James met with the book,
and was horrified at its statements. He conceived himself
bound to interfere both as protector to the States—which he
said had been cemented with English blood—and because the
University of Leyden was much frequented by the youth of
England and Scotland, who often completed their legal studies
there. He ordered Sir Ralf Winwood, his ambassador at the
Hague, to deliver a sharp remonstrance to the States, and to
read them a catalogue of the dangerous and blasphemous errors
that he had detected, recommending the States to protest
against the appointment, and burn the books. Barneveldt was
much distressed, and uncertain whether James really was
speaking out of zeal for orthodoxy, or to have an excuse for a
quarrel. Letters and arguments passed without number. …
Leyden supported the professor it had invited, and, together
with Barneveldt, felt that to expel a man whom they had
chosen, at the bidding of a foreign sovereign, was almost
accepting a yoke like that of the Inquisition. … Maurice, on
the other hand, was glad to set the English King against
Barneveldt, and to represent that support of the foes of
strict Calvinism meant treachery to the Republic and a
betrayal to Spain. Winwood, on the King's part, insisted on
Vorstius's dismissal and banishment. … Maurice's own
preacher, Uytenbogen, wrote a remonstrance on behalf of the
Arminians, who were therefore sometimes termed Remonstrants,
while the Gomerists, from their answer, were called
Counter-Remonstrants. Unfortunately, political jealousy of
Barneveldt on the part of Maurice caused the influence of
Uytenbogen to decline. Most of the preachers and of the
populace held to the Counter-Remonstrants and their
old-fashioned Calvinism, most of the nobles and magistrates
were Remonstrants. The question began to branch into a second,
namely, whether the state had power to control the faith of
all its subjects, and whether when it convoked a synod it
could control its decisions, or was bound to enforce them
absolutely and without question. … Whichever party was
predominant in a place turned the other out of church. Appeals
were made to the Stadtholder, and he became angry. The
States-General at large, with Barneveldt to speak for them,
were Remonstrant; the states of Holland were
Counter-Remonstrant; and one of the questions thus at issue
was how far the power of the general government outweighed
that of a particular state. … By steps here impossible to
follow, Maurice destroyed the ascendency of Barneveldt, and
the reports that the old statesman was playing into the hands
of Spain grew more and more current. The magistrates of the
Arminian persuasion found themselves depending for protection
on the Waartgelders, a sort of burgher militia, who
endeavoured to keep the peace between the furious mobs who
struggled on either side. Accusations flew about freely that
now Maurice, now Barneveldt wanted the sovereignty. England
favoured the former; and after Henri IV. was dead, French
support little availed the latter, but rather did him harm.
Maurice did not scruple to raise the popular cry that there
were two factions in Holland, for Orange or for Spain, though
he must have known that there never had been a more steady foe
of Spain than the old statesman. The public, however,
preferred the general to the statesman, and bit by bit Maurice
succeeded in exchanging Remonstrant magistrates for
Counter-Remonstrant, or, as Barneveldt explained the matter to
Sir Dudley Carleton, who had become ambassador from England,
Puritan for double Puritan. … Sunday, the 17th of July,
1617, Uytenbogen preached against the assembly of a national
synod, knowing well that it would only confirm and narrow the
cruel doctrine. Maurice, who was bent on the synod came out in
a rage. …
{2278}
Barneveldt on this moved the States-General to refuse their
consent to the synod as inconsistent with their laws. This was
carried by a majority, and was called the Sharp Resolve. …
The High Council by a majority of one set aside the Sharp
Resolve, and decided for the synod. Barneveldt had a severe
illness, during which Maurice's influence made progress,
assisted by detestable accusations that the Advocate was in
league with the Spaniards. At last Maurice mastered Utrecht,
hitherto the chief hold of Arminianism. He disbanded the
Waartgelders, and when the States-General came together in the
summer of 1618, he had all prepared for sweeping his
adversaries from his path. On the 29th of August, as
Barneveldt was going to take his place at the States-General,
he was told by a chamberlain that the Prince wished to speak
with him, and in Maurice's ante-room was arrested by a
lieutenant of the guard and locked up. In exactly the same
manner was arrested his friend and supporter Pensionary
Rambolt Hoogenboets, who had protested against the decree by
which the High Council reversed that of the States-General,
and Hugo Van Groot, or, as he called himself, Hugo Grotius,
one of the greatest scholars who ever lived, especially in
jurisprudence, and a strong adherent of the Advocate. … The
synod met at Dordrecht [or Dort] in January, 1619, and lasted
till April. The Calvinists carried the day completely, and
Arminians were declared heretics, schismatics, incapable of
preaching, or of acting as professors or schoolmasters, unless
they signed the Heidelberg Catechism and Netherland
Confession, which laid down the hard-and-fast doctrine that
predestination excluded all free will on man's part, but
divided the human race into vessels of wrath and vessels of
mercy, without power on their own part to reverse the doom.
… The trial of Barneveldt was going on at the same time with
the Synod of Dordrecht after he had been many months in
prison. Twenty-four commissioners were appointed, twelve from
Holland, and two from each of the other states, and most of
them were personal enemies of the prisoner. Before them he was
examined day by day for three months, without any indictment;
no witnesses, no counsel on either side; nor was he permitted
pen and ink to prepare his defence, nor the use of his books
and papers." Barneveldt and his family protested against the
flagrant injustice and illegality of the so-called trial, but
refused to sue for pardon, which Maurice was determined they
should do. "It was submission that he wanted, not life"; but
as the submission was not yielded he coldly exacted the life.
Barneveldt was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded by the
sword. The sentence was executed on the same day it was
pronounced, May 12, 1619. Grotius was condemned to perpetual
imprisonment, but made his escape, by the contrivance of his
wife, in 1621.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
series 6, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Motley,
Life and Death of John of Barneveld,
chapters 14-22 (volume 2).
J. Arminius,
Works, etc.; edited by Nichols,
volume 1.
NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D.1608-1620.
Residence of the exiled Independents who afterwards founded
Plymouth Colony in New England.
See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.
The founding of the Bank of Amsterdam.
See MONEY AND BANKING: 17TH CENTURY.
NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.
Henry Hudson's voyage of exploration.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.
NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1610-1614.
Possession taken of New Netherland (New York).
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1621.
Incorporation of the Dutch West India Company.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
End of the Twelve Years Truce.
Renewal of war.
Death of Prince Maurice.
Reversion of the sovereignty of the Spanish Provinces to
the king of Spain.
"In 1621, the twelve years' truce being expired, the King of
Spain and the Archdukes offered to renew it, on the condition
that the States would acknowledge their ancient sovereigns,
one of whom, the Archduke Albert, died this year. Even if the
States had been inclined to negotiate, the will of Maurice was
in the ascendant, and the war was renewed. The Dutch, it is
true, were now entirely insulated. James of England was making
overtures to Spain and being cajoled. France, who had wished
to save Barneveldt, was unfriendly in consequence of the
manner in which her intercession had been treated. The Dutch
party which was opposed to Maurice was exasperated, and the
great counsellor was no more there to advise his country in
its emergencies. The safety of Holland lay in the fact that
the wars of religion were being waged on a wider and more
distant field, for a larger stake, and with larger armies. Not
content with murdering Barneveldt, Maurice took care to ruin
his family. But at last, and just before his death in 1625,
Maurice, in the bitterness of disappointment, said, 'As long
as the old rascal was alive, we had counsels and money; now we
can find neither one nor the other.' … The memory of
Barneveldt was avenged, even though his reputation has not
been rehabilitated. Frederic Henry, half-brother of Maurice,
was at once made Captain and Admiral-General of the States,
and soon after Stadtholder. … Very speedily the controversy
which had threatened to tear Holland asunder was silenced by
mutual consent, except in synods and presbyteries. In a few
years, Holland became, as far as the government was concerned,
the most tolerant country in the world, the asylum of those
whom bigotry hunted from their native land. Hence it became
the favourite abode of those wealthy and enterprising Jews,
who greatly increased its wealth by aiding its external and
internal commerce."
J. E. T. Rogers,
Story of Holland,
chapter 26.
"Marquis Spinola commenced the campaign by the siege of.
Bergen-op-Zoom, with a considerable Spanish army, in 1622, but
Maurice was enabled to meet him with the united forces of
Mansfeld, Brunswick [see GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623], and his
own, and obliged the Marquis to raise the siege. He afterwards
encountered Don Gonsalvo de Cordova, who endeavoured to stay
their passage into Germany with a Spanish force near Fleurus;
but he also was defeated. After this, however, Prince Maurice
could effect nothing considerable, but maintained his ground
solely by acting on the defensive during the entire year 1623.
… He could not prevent the capture [by Spinola] of Breda,
one of the strongest fortifications of the Low Countries. …
The mortification at being unable to relieve this place during
a long blockade of six months preyed upon the mind of Prince
Maurice, whose health had already begun to give way. … An
access of fever obliged him to quit the field and withdraw to
the Hague, where he died in 1625, at the age of 58 years."
Sir E. Cust,
Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War:
Maurice of Orange-Nassau,
page 47.
{2279}
The new Stadtholder, Prince Frederic Henry, made every effort
to raise the siege of Breda, but without success, and the
place was surrendered (June 2, 1625) to the Spaniards. In the
next year little was accomplished on either side; but in 1627
the Prince took Grol, after a siege of less than one month. In
1628 the Dutch Admiral Piet Heyn captured one of the Spanish
silver-fleets, with a cargo, largely pure silver, valued at
12,000,000 florins. In 1629 the king of Spain and the
Archduchess made overtures of peace, with offers of a renewed
truce for 24 years. "But no sooner did the negotiations become
public than they encountered general and violent opposition,"
especially from the West India Company, which found the war
profitable, and from the ministers of the church. At the same
time the operations of the war assumed more activity. The
Prince laid siege to Bois-le-Duc, a Brabant town deemed
impregnable, and the Spaniards, to draw him away, invaded
Guelderland, and captured Amersfoort, near Utrecht. They laid
waste the country, and were compelled to retire, without
interrupting the siege of Bois-le-Duc, which presently was
surrendered. In 1631 the Prince undertook the siege of
Dunkirk, which had long been a rendezvous of pirates,
troublesome to the commerce of all the surrounding nations;
but on the approach of a Spanish relieving force, the deputies
of the States, who had authority over the commander, required
him to relinquish the undertaking. In 1632, the Prince
achieved a great success, in the siege and reduction of
Maestricht, which he accomplished, notwithstanding his lines
were attacked by a Spanish army of 24,000 men, and by an army
from Germany, under the Imperial general Pappenheim, who
brought 16,000 men to assist in raising the siege. In the face
of these two armies, Maestricht was forced to capitulate, and
the fall of Limburg followed. Peace negotiations were reopened
the same year, but came to nothing, and they were followed
shortly by the death of the Archduchess Isabella. "At her
death, the Netherlands, in pursuance of the terms of the
surrender made by Philip II., reverted to the King of Spain,
who placed the government, after it had been administered a
short time by a commission, in the hands of the Marquis of
Aitona, commander-in-chief of the army, until the arrival of
his brother Ferdinand, cardinal and archbishop of Toledo
[known as 'the Cardinal Infant'], whom he had, during the
lifetime of the Archduchess, appointed her successor."
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 3, chapter 6 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
C. R. Markham,
The Fighting Veres,
part 2, chapter 4.
NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1623.
The massacre of Amboyna.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1624-1661.
Conquests in Brazil and their loss.
See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1625.
The Protestant alliance in the Thirty Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1635.
Alliance with France against Spain and Austria.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
The Cardinal Infant in the government
of the Spanish Provinces.
His campaigns against the Dutch and French.
Invasion of France.
Dutch capture of Breda.
In 1635, the Archduchess Isabella having recently died, it was
thought expedient in Spain "that a member of the royal family
should be intrusted with the administration of the Netherlands
[Spanish Provinces]. This appointment was accordingly
conferred on the Cardinal Infant [Ferdinand, son of Philip
III.], who was at that time in Italy, where he had collected a
considerable army. With this force, amounting to about 12,000
men, he had passed in the preceding year through Germany, on
his route to the Netherlands, and, having formed a junction
with the Imperialists, under the King of Hungary, he greatly
contributed to the victory gained over the Swedes and German
Protestants, at Nordlingen. …
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
The Cardinal Infant entered on the civil and military
government of the Spanish Netherlands nearly at the time when
the seizure of the Elector of Treves had called forth from
France an open declaration of war. By uniting the newly raised
troops which he had brought with him from Italy to the veteran
legions of the provinces, he found himself at the head of a
considerable military force. At the same time, an army of
20,000 French was assembled under the inspection of their king
at Amiens, and was intrusted to Chatillon, and Mareschal Brezé
the brother-in-law of Richelieu. … It was intended, however,
that this army should form a junction with the Dutch at
Maestricht, after which the troops of both nations should be
placed under the orders of Frederic Henry, Prince of Orange,
who had inherited all the military talents of his ancestors.
In order to counteract this movement, the Cardinal Infant
separated his army into two divisions. One was ordered to
confront the Dutch, and the other, under Prince Thomas of
Savoy, marched to oppose the progress of the French. This
latter division of the Spaniards encountered the enemy at
Avein, in the territory of Liege; but though it had taken up a
favourable position, it was totally defeated, and forced to
retreat to Namur. The French army then continued its march
with little farther interruption, and effected its intended
union with the Dutch in the neighbourhood of Maestricht. After
this junction, the Prince of Orange assumed the command of the
allied army, which now stormed and sacked Tillemont, where
great cruelties were committed. … The union of the two
armies spread terror throughout the Spanish Netherlands, and
the outrages practised at Tillemont gave the Catholics a
horror at the French name and alliance. … The Flemings,
forgetting their late discontents with the Spanish government,
now made the utmost efforts against their invaders. … The
Spanish prince … contrived to elude a general engagement.
… His opponents … were obliged to employ their arms in
besieging towns. It was believed for some time that they
intended to invest Brussels, but the storm fell on Louvain."
The Emperor now sent from Germany a force of 18,000 men, under
Piccolomini, "to the succour of the Cardinal Infant.
{2280}
The slowness of all the operations of the Prince of Orange
afforded sufficient time for these auxiliaries to cut off the
French supplies of provisions, and advance to the relief of
Louvain. On the intelligence of their approach, the
half-famished French abandoned the siege, and, after suffering
severely in their retreat, retired to recruit at Ruremonde.
The Dutch afforded them no assistance, and showed them but
little sympathy in their disasters. Though the Dutch hated
Spain, they were jealous of France, and dreaded an increase of
its power in the Netherlands. … Mareschals Chatillon and
Brezé, who were thus in a great measure the victims of the
policy of their allies, were under the necessity of leading
back beyond the Meuse, to Nimeguen, the wretched remains of
their army, now reduced to 9,000 men. … After the departure
of the French, the exertions of the Prince of Orange were
limited, during this season, to an attempt for the recovery of
the strong fortress of Skink, which had recently been reduced
by the Spaniards. The Cardinal Infant, availing himself of the
opportunity thus presented to him, quickly regained, by aid of
the Austrian reinforcements, his superiority in the field. He
took several fortresses from the Dutch, and sent to the
frontiers of France detachments which levied contributions
over great part of Picardy and Champagne. … Encouraged by
these successes, Olivarez [the Spanish minister] redoubled his
exertions, and now boldly planned invasions of France from
three different quarters"—to enter Picardy on the north,
Burgundy on the east, and Guienne at the south. "Of all these
expeditions, the most successful, at least for a time, was the
invasion of Picardy, which, indeed, had nearly proved fatal to
the French monarchy. By orders of the Cardinal Infant, his
generals, Prince Thomas of Savoy, Piccolomini, and John de
Vert, or Wert, … began their march at the head of an army
which exceeded 30,000 men, and was particularly strong in
cavalry. … No interruption being … offered by the Dutch,
the Spanish generals entered Picardy [1636], and seized almost
without resistance on La Capelle and Catelet, which the French
ministry expected would have occupied their arms for some
months. The Count de Soissons, who was already thinking more
of his plots against Richelieu than the defence of his
country, did nothing to arrest the progress of the Spaniards,
till they arrived at the Somme," and there but little. They
forced the passage of the river with slight difficulty, and
"occupied Roye, to the south of the Somme, on the river Oise;
and having thus obtained an entrance into France, spread
themselves over the whole country lying between these rivers.
The smoke of the villages to which they set fire was seen from
the heights in the vicinity of Paris; and such in that capital
was the consternation consequent on these events that it seems
probable, had the Spanish generals marched straight on Paris,
the city would have fallen into their hands." But Prince
Thomas was not bold enough for the exploit, and prudently
"receded with his army to form the siege of Corbie. This town
presented no great resistance to his arms, but the time
occupied by its capture allowed the Parisians to recover from
their consternation, and to prepare the means of defence."
They raised an army of 60,000 men, chiefly apprentices and
artisans of the capital, before which Prince Thomas was
obliged to retreat. "The French quickly recovered all those
fortified places in Picardy which had been previously lost by
the incapacity, or, as Richelieu alleged, by the treachery of
their governors. But they could not prevent the Spaniards from
plundering and desolating the country as they retired. … The
Cardinal Infant was obliged to remain on the defensive for
some time after his retreat from Picardy to the Netherlands,
which were anew invaded by a French force, under the Cardinal
La Valette, a younger son of the Duke d'Epernon. But even
while restricting his operations to defence, the Infant could
not prevent the capture by the French of Ivry and Landreci in
Hainault. While opposing the enemy in that quarter, he
received intelligence of an unexpected attempt on Breda by the
Dutch [1637]. He immediately hastened to its relief; but the
Prince of Orange having rapidly collected 6,000 or 7,000
peasants, whom he had employed in forming intrenchments and
drawing lines of circumvallation, was so well fortified on the
arrival of the Cardinal Infant, who had crossed the Scheldt at
Antwerp, and approached with not fewer than 25,000 men, that
that Prince, in despair of forcing the enemy's camp, or in any
way succouring Breda, marched towards Guelderland. In that
province he took Venlo and Ruremonde; but Breda, as he had
anticipated, surrendered to the Dutch after a siege of nine
weeks. … Its capture greatly relieved the Dutch in Brabant,
who now, for many years, had been checked by an enemy in the
heart of their territories. … Early in the year 1638, the
Infant resumed offensive operations, and again rendered
himself formidable to his enemies. He frustrated the attempts
which the Dutch had concerted against Antwerp. … In person
he beat off the army of the Prince of Orange, who had invested
Gueldres; and, about the same time, his active generals;
Prince Thomas of Savoy and Piccolomini, compelled the French
to raise the siege of St. Omer."
J. Dunlop,
Memoirs of Spain from 1621 to 1700,
volume 1, chapter 4.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1643.
Invasion of France by the Spaniards and their defeat at Rocroi.
Loss of Thionville and the line of the Moselle.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643; and 1643.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
French campaign in Flanders, under Orleans and Enghien (Conde).
Siege and capture of Dunkirk.
"In 1645, Orleans led the [French] army into Flanders, and
began the campaign with the capture of Mardyck. A few weeks of
leisurely siege resulted in the conquest of some towns, and by
the first of September Gaston sought rest at the Court. As it
was now well towards the end of the season, the Hollanders
were at last ready to cooperate, and they joined the French
under Gassion and Rantzau. But the allied armies did little
except march and countermarch, and at the end of the year the
Spaniards surprised the French garrison at Mardyck and retook
the only place of importance they had lost. … Gaston was,
however, well content even with the moderate glory of such
warfare. In 1646 he commanded an army of 35,000 men, one
portion of which was led by Enghien himself. The Hollanders
were under arms unusually early, but they atoned for this by
accomplishing nothing. The French laid siege to Courtrai,
which in due time surrendered, and they then spent three weeks
in a vigorous siege of Mardyck.
{2281}
This place was finally captured for the second time in
fourteen months. It was now late in August, and Orleans was
ready to rest from a campaign which had lasted three months.
… By the departure of Gaston the Duke of Enghien was left
free to attempt some important movement, and his thoughts
turned upon the capture of the city of Dunkirk. Dunkirk was
situated on the shore of the North Sea, in a position that
made it alike important and formidable to commerce. … Its
harbor leading to a canal in the city where a fleet might
safely enter, and its position near the shores of France and
the British Channel, had rendered it a frequent retreat for
pirates. The cruisers that captured the ships of the merchants
of Havre and Dieppe, or made plundering expeditions along the
shores of Picardy and Normandy, found safe refuge in the
harbor of Dunkirk. Its name was odious through northern
France, alike to the shipper and the resident of the towns
along the coast. The ravages of the pirates of Dunkirk are
said to have cost France as much as a million a year. … The
position of Dunkirk was such that it seemed to defy attack,
and the strangeness and wildness of its approaches added
terror to its name. It was surrounded by vast plains of sand,
far over which often spread the waters of the North Sea, and
its name was said to signify the church of the dunes. Upon
them the fury of the storms often worked strange changes. What
had seemed solid land would be swallowed up in some tempest.
What had been part of the ocean would be left so that men and
wagons could pass over what the day before had been as
inaccessible as the Straits of Dover. An army attempting a
siege would find itself on these wild dunes far removed from
any places for supplies, and exposed to the utmost severity of
storm and weather. Tents could hardly be pitched, and the
changing sands would threaten the troops with destruction. The
city was, moreover, garrisoned by 3,000 soldiers, and by 3,000
of the citizens and 2,000 sailors. … The ardor of Enghien
was increased by these difficulties, and he believed that with
skill and vigor the perils of a siege could be overcome. This
plan met the warm approval of Mazarin. … Enghien advanced
with his army of about 15,000 men, and on the 10th of
September the siege began. It was necessary to prevent
supplies being received by sea. Tromp, excited to hearty
admiration of the genius of the young general, sailed with ten
ships into the harbor, and cut off communications. Enghien, in
the meantime, was pressing the circumvallation of the city
with the utmost vigor. … Half fed, wet, sleepless, the men
worked on, inspired by the zeal of their leader. Piccolomini
attempted to relieve the city, but he could not force
Enghien's entrenchments, except by risking a pitched battle,
and that he did not dare to venture. Mines were now carried
under the city by the besiegers, and a great explosion made a
breach in the wall. The French and Spanish met, but the smoke
and confusion were so terrible that both sides at last fell
back in disorder. The French finally discovered that the
advantage was really theirs, and held the position. Nothing
now remained but a final and bloody assault, but Leyde did not
think that honor required him to await this. He agreed that if
he did not receive succor by the 10th of October, the city
should be surrendered. Piccolomini dared not risk the last
army in Flanders in an assault on Enghien's entrenchments,
and, on October 11th, the Spanish troops evacuated the town. A
siege of three weeks had conquered obstacles of man and
nature, and destroyed the scourge of French commerce."
J. B. Perkins,
France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
chapter 8 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon,
Life of Condé,
chapter 2.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.
Final Negotiation of Peace between Spain and the
United Provinces.
"The late campaign had been so unfortunate [to the Spaniards]
that they felt their only possibility of obtaining reasonable
terms, or of continuing the war with the hope of a change in
fortune, was to break the alliance between Holland and
France. A long debt of gratitude, assistance rendered in the
struggle with Spain when assistance was valuable, the treaty
of 1635 renewed in 1644, forbade Holland making a peace,
except jointly with France. On the other hand, the
States-General were weary of war, and jealous of the power and
ambition of the French. … This disposition was skilfully
fostered by the Spanish envoys. Pau and Knuyt,
plenipotentiaries from Holland to the Congress at Münster
[where, in part, the negotiations of the Peace of Westphalia
were in progress—see GERMANY: A. D. 1648], were gained to the
Spanish interest, as Mazarin claimed, by the promise to each
of 100,000 crowns. But, apart from bribes, the Spanish used
Mazarin's own plans to alarm the Hollanders. … It was
intimated to the Hollanders that France was about to make a
separate peace, that the Spanish Netherlands were to be given
her, and that perhaps with the hand of the infanta might be
transferred what claims Spain still made on the allegiance of
the United Provinces. The French protested in vain they had
never thought of making any treaty unless Holland joined, and
that the proposed marriage of Louis with the infanta had been
idle talk, suggested by the Spanish for the purpose of
alarming the States-General. The Hollanders were suspicious,
and they became still more eager for peace. … In the spring
of 1646, seventy-one proposed articles had been submitted to
the Spanish for their consideration. The French made repeated
protests against these steps, but the States-General insisted
that they were only acting with such celerity as should enable
them to have the terms of their treaty adjusted as soon as
those of the French. The successes of 1646 and the capture of
Dunkirk quickened the desires of the United Provinces for a
treaty with their ancient enemy. … In December, 1646,
articles were signed between Spain and Holland, to be inserted
in the treaty of Münster, when that should be settled upon,
though the States-General still declared that no peace should
be made unless the terms were approved by France. Active
hostilities were again commenced in 1647, but little progress
was made in Flanders during this campaign. Though the
Hollanders had not actually made peace with Spain, they gave
the French no aid. … On January 30, 1648, the treaty was at
last signed. 'One would think,' wrote Mazarin, 'that for
eighty years France had been warring with the provinces, and
Spain had been protecting them. They have stained their
reputation with a shameful blemish.'
{2282}
It was eighty years since William of Orange had issued his
proclamation inviting all the Netherlands to take up arms 'to
oppose the violent tyranny of the Spaniards.' Unlike the truce
of 1609, a formal and final peace was now made. The United
Provinces were acknowledged as free and sovereign states. At
the time of the truce the Spaniards had only treated with them
'in quality of, and as holding them for independent
provinces.' By a provision which had increased the eagerness
for peace of the burghers and merchants of the United
Provinces, it was agreed that the Escaut [Scheldt] should be
closed. The wealth and commerce of Antwerp were thus
sacrificed for the benefit of Amsterdam. The trade with the
Indies was divided between the two countries. Numerous
commercial advantages were secured and certain additional
territory was ceded to the States-General."
J. B. Perkins,
France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
chapter 8 (volume 1).
"It had … become a settled conviction of Holland that a
barrier of Spanish territory between the United Provinces and
France was necessary as a safeguard against the latter. But
the idea of fighting to maintain that barrier had not yet
arisen, though fighting was the outcome of the doctrine. All
that the United Provinces now did, or could do, was simply to
back out of the war with Spain, sit still, and look passively
upon the conflict between her and France for possession of the
barrier, until it should please the two belligerents to make
peace."
J. Geddes,
History of the Administration of John De Witt,
book 2, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 1).
NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1647-1648.
The Spanish war with France.
Siege and Battle of Lens.
"While Condé was at the head of the army of the Netherlands,
it at least suffered no disaster; but, while he was affording
the enemy a triumph in Spain [by his failure at Lerida,—the
army which he left behind him was equally unfortunate].
See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.
As he had taken some regiments with him to Spain, it did not
exceed 16,000 men; and in 1647 was commanded by the two
marshals, Gassion and Rantzau," who exercised the command on
alternate days. Both were brave and skilful officers, but they
were hostile to one another, and Rantzau was, unfortunately, a
drunkard. "The Spanish army had been raised to 22,000 men, and
besides being superior in numbers to them, was now under the
command of a singularly active leader, the Archduke Leopold.
He took town after town before their face; and towards the end
of June laid siege to Landrecies. The danger of so important a
place stimulated Mazarin to send some strong battalions,
including the royal guards, to reinforce the army: and the two
marshals made skilful dispositions to surprise the Spanish
camp. By a night march of great rapidity, they reached the
neighbourhood of the enemy without their presence being
suspected; but the next morning, when the attack was to be
made, it was Rantzau's turn to command; and he was too
helplessly drunk to give the necessary orders. Before he had
recovered his consciousness daylight had revealed his danger
to the archduke, and he had taken up a position in which he
could give battle with advantage. Greatly mortified, the
French were forced to draw off, and leave Landrecies to its
fate. As some apparent set-off to their losses, they succeeded
in taking Dixmude, and one or two other unimportant towns, and
were besieging Lens, when Gassion was killed; and though, a
few days afterwards, that town was taken, its capture made but
small amends. … Though the war was almost at an end in
Germany, Turenne was still in that country; and, therefore,
the next year there was no one who could be sent to replace
Gassion but Condé and Grammont, who fortunately for the
prince, was his almost inseparable comrade and adviser. …
Though 16,000 men had been thought enough for Gassion and
Rantzau, 30,000 were now collected to enable Condé to make a
more successful campaign. The archduke had received no
reinforcements, and had now only 18,000 men to make head
against him; yet with this greatly inferior force he, for a
while, balanced Condé's successes; losing Ypres, it is true,
but taking Courtrai and Furnes, and defeating and almost
annihilating a division with which the prince had detached
Rantzau to make an attempt upon Ostend. At last, in the middle
of August, he laid siege to Lens, the capture of which had, as
we have already mentioned, been the last exploit of the French
army in the preceding campaign, and which was now retaken
without the garrison making the slightest effort at
resistance. But, just as the first intelligence of his having
sat down before it reached Condé, he was joined by the Count
d'Erlach with a reinforcement of 5,000 men from the German
army; and he resolved to march against the archduke in the
hope of saving" the place. "He arrived in sight of the town on
the 20th of August, a few hours after it had surrendered; and
he found the archduke's victorious army in a position which,
eager as he was for battle, he could not venture to attack.
For Leopold had 18,000 men under arms, and the force that
Condé had been able to bring with him did not exceed 14,000,
with 18 guns. For the first time in his life he decided on
retreating;" but early in the retreat his army was thrown into
disorder by an attack from the archduke's cavalry, commanded
by General Beck. "All was nearly lost, when Grammont turned
the fortune of the day. He was in the van, but the moment that
he learnt what was taking place behind him, he halted the
advanced guard, and leading it back towards the now triumphant
enemy, gave time for those regiments which had been driven in
to rally behind the firm line which he presented. … It soon
came to be a contest of hard fighting, unvaried by manœuvres
on either side; and in hard fighting no troops could stand
before those who might be lead by Condé. … At last victory
declared for him in every part of his line. He had sustained a
heavy loss himself, but less than that of the enemy, who left
3,000 of their number slain upon the field; while 5,000
prisoners, among whom was Beck himself, struck down by a
mortal wound, and nearly all their artillery and baggage,
attested the reality and greatness of his triumph."
C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
chapter 10 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
Sir E. Cust,
Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
part 1, pages 149-152.
{2283}
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650.
Suspension of the Stadtholdership.
Supremacy of the States of Holland.
The fourth stadtholder, William II., who succeeded his father,
Frederick Henry, in 1647, "was young and enterprising, and not at
all disposed to follow the pacific example of his father. …
His attempt at a coup d'état only prepared the way for an
interregnum. … He was brother-in-law to the Elector of
Brandenburg … and son-in-law to Charles I. of England and
Henrietta Maria, the sister of Louis XIII. … The proud
descendant of the Stuarts, the Princess Mary, who had been
married to him when hardly more than a child, thought it
beneath her not to be the wife of a sovereign, and encouraged
her husband not to be satisfied to remain merely 'the official
of a republic.' Thus encouraged, the son of Frederick Henry
cherished the secret purpose of transforming the elective
stadtholdership into an hereditary monarchy. … He needed
supreme authority to enable him to render assistance to
Charles I. … Finding in the opposition of the States an
insurmountable obstacle to his wish of intervention, he sought
the support of France, … and was now ready to come to an
understanding with Mazarin to break the treaty of Munster and
wrest the Netherlands from Spain. Mazarin promised in return
to help him to assert his authority over the States. … But
if William desired war, the United Provinces, and in
particular the province of Holland, could not dispense with
peace. … The States of Holland … fixed the period for the
disbanding of the twenty-nine companies whose dismissal had
been promised to them. After twelve days of useless
deliberations they issued definite orders to that effect. The
step had been provoked, but it was precipitate and might give
rise to a legal contest as to their competency. The Prince of
Orange, therefore, eager to hasten a struggle from which he
expected an easy victory, chose to consider the resolution of
the States of Holland as a signal for the rupture of the
Union, and the very next day solemnly demanded reparation from
the States-General, who in their turn issued a counter order.
The Prince made skilful use of the rivalry of power between
the two assemblies to obtain for himself extraordinary powers
which were contrary to the laws of the Confederation. By the
terms of the resolution, which was passed by only four
provinces, of which two were represented by but one deputy
each, he was authorised to take all measures necessary for the
maintenance of order and peace, and particularly for the
preservation of the Union. 'The States-General consequently
commissioned him to visit the town councils of Holland,
accompanied by six members of the States-General and of the
Council of State, with all the pomp of a military escort,
including a large number of officers. He was charged to
address them with remonstrances and threats intended to
intimidate the provincial States.' This was the first act of
the coup d'état that he had prepared, and his mistake was
quickly shown him." The Prince gained nothing by his
visitation of the towns. At Amsterdam he was not permitted to
enter the place with his following, and he returned to the
Hague especially enraged against that bold and independent
city. He planned an expedition to take it by surprise; but the
citizens got timely warning and his scheme was baffled. He had
succeeded, however, in arresting and imprisoning six of the
most influential deputies of the Assembly of Holland, and his
attitude was formidable enough to extort some concessions from
the popular party, by way of compromise. A state of suspicious
quiet was restored for the time, which William improved by
renewing negotiations for a secret treaty with France.
"Arrogating to himself already the right to dispose as he
pleased of the republic, he signed a convention with Count
d'Estrades, whom he had summoned to the Hague. By this the
King of France and the Prince of Orange engaged themselves 'to
attack conjointly the Netherlands on May 1, 1651, with an army
of 20,000 foot and 10,000 horse, to break at the same time
with Cromwell, to re-establish Charles II. as King of England,
and to make no treaty with Spain excepting in concert with
each other.' The Prince of Orange guaranteed a fleet of 50
vessels besides the land contingent, and in return for his
co-operation was promised the absolute possession of the city
of Antwerp and the Duchy of Brabant or Marquisate of the Holy
Roman Empire. William thus interested France in the success of
his cause by making ready to resume the war with Spain, and
calculated, as he told his confidants, on profiting by her
assistance to disperse the cabal opposed to him. … The
internal pacification amounted then to no more than a truce,
when three months later the Prince of Orange, having
over-fatigued and heated himself in the chase, was seized with
small-pox, of which in a few days he died. He was thus carried
off at the age of 24, in the full force and flower of his age,
leaving only one son, born a week after his father's death.
… His attempt at a coup d'état was destined to press heavily
and long upon the fate of the posthumous son, who had to wait
22 years before succeeding to his ancestral functions. It
closed the succession to him for many years, by making the
stadtholdership a standing menace to the public freedom. …
The son of William II., an orphan before his birth, and named
William like his father, seemed destined to succeed to little
more than the paternal name. … Three days after the death of
William II., the former deputies, whom he had treated as state
prisoners and deprived of all their offices, were recalled to
take their seats in the Assembly. At the same time the
provincial Town Councils assumed the power of nominating their
own magistrates, which had almost always been left to the
pleasure of the Stadtholder, and thus obtained the full
enjoyment of municipal freedom. The States of Holland, on
their side, grasped the authority hitherto exercised in their
province by the Prince of Orange, and claimed successively all
the rights of sovereignty. The States of Zealand … exhibited
the same eagerness to free themselves from all subjection. …
Thus, before declaring the stadtholdership vacant, the office
was deprived of its prerogatives. To complete this
transformation of the government, the States of Holland took
the initiative in summoning to the Hague a great assembly of
the Confederation, which met at the beginning of the year
1651. … The congress was called upon to decide between two
forms of constitution. The question was whether the United
Provinces should be a republic governed by the States-General,
or whether the government should belong to the States of each
province, with only a reservation in favour of the obligations
imposed by the Act of Union. Was each province to be sovereign
in itself, or subject to the federal power?" The result was a
suspension and practical abolition of the stadtholdership.
"Freed from the counterbalancing power of the Stadtholder,
Holland to a great extent absorbed the federal power, and was
the gainer by all that that power lost. …
{2284}
The States of Holland, … destined henceforward to be the
principal instrument of government of the republic, was
composed partly of nobles and partly of deputies from the
towns. … The Grand Pensionary was the minister of the States
of Holland. He was appointed for five years, and represented
them in the States-General. … Called upon by the vacancy in
the stadtholdership to the government of the United Provinces,
without any legal power of enforcing obedience, Holland
required a statesman who could secure this political supremacy
and use it for her benefit. The nomination of John de Witt as
Grand Pensionary placed at her service one of the youngest
members of the assembly."
A. L. Pontalis,
John de Witt,
chapters 1-2 (volume 1).
NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1648.
Still held to form a part of the Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1648-1665.
Prosperity and pre-eminence of the Dutch Republic.
The causes.
"That this little patch of earth, a bog rescued from the
waters, warred on ever by man and by the elements, without
natural advantages except those of contact with the sea,
should in the middle of the seventeenth century have become
the commercial centre of Europe, is one of the phenomena of
history. But in the explanation of this phenomenon history has
one of its most instructive lessons. Philip II. said of
Holland, 'that it was the country nearest to hell.' Well might
he express such an opinion. He had buried around the walls of
its cities more than three hundred thousand Spanish soldiers,
and had spent in the attempt at its subjugation more than two
hundred million ducats. This fact alone would account for his
abhorrence, but, in addition, the republic was in its every
feature opposed to the ideal country of a bigot and a despot.
The first element which contributed to its wealth, as well as
to the vast increase of its population, was its religious
toleration. … This, of course, was as incomprehensible to a
Spanish Catholic as it was to a High-Churchman or to a
Presbyterian in England. That Lutherans, Calvinists,
Anabaptists, Jews, and Catholics should all be permitted to
live under the same government seemed to the rest of Europe
like flying in the face of Providence. Critics at this time
occasionally said that the Hollanders cared nothing for
religion; that with them theology was of less account than
commerce. To taunts like these no reply was needed by men who
could point to their record of eighty years of war. This war
had been fought for liberty of conscience, but more than all,
as the greater includes the less, for civil liberty. During
its continuance, and at every crisis, Catholics had stood side
by side with Protestants to defend their country, as they had
done in England when the Spanish Armada appeared upon her
coast. It would have been a strange reward for their fidelity
to subject them, as Elizabeth did, to a relentless
persecution, upon the pretext that they were dangerous to the
State. In addition to the toleration, there were other causes
leading to the marvellous prosperity of the republic, which
are of particular interest to Americans. In 1659, Samuel Lamb,
a prominent and far-seeing London merchant, published a
pamphlet, in the form of a letter to Cromwell, urging the
establishment of a bank in England similar to the one at
Amsterdam. In this pamphlet, which Lord Somers thought worthy
of preservation, the author gives the reasons, as they
occurred to him, which accounted for the vast superiority of
Holland over the rest of Europe as a commercial nation. … As
the foundation of a bank for England was the subject of the
letter, the author naturally lays particular stress upon that
factor, but the other causes which he enumerates as explaining
the great trade of the republic are the following: First. The
statesmen sitting at the helm in Holland are many of them
merchants, bred to trade from their youth, improved by foreign
travel, and acquainted with all the necessities of commerce.
Hence, their laws and treaties are framed with wisdom. Second.
In Holland when a merchant dies, his property is equally
divided among his children, and the business is continued and
expanded, with all its traditions and inherited experience. In
England, on the contrary, the property goes to the eldest son,
who often sets up for a country gentleman, squanders his
patrimony, and neglects the business by which his father had
become enriched. Third. The honesty of the Hollanders in their
manufacturing and commercial dealings. When goods are made up
in Holland, they sell everywhere without question, for the
purchaser knows that they are exactly as represented in
quality, weight, and measure. Not so with England's goods. Our
manufacturers are so given to fraud and adulteration as to
bring their commodities into disgrace abroad. 'And so the
Dutch have the pre-eminence in the sale of their manufactures
before us, by their true making, to their very files and
needles.' Fourth. The care and vigilance of the government in
the laying of impositions so as to encourage their own
manufactures; the skill and rapidity with which they are
changed to meet the shifting wants of trade; the encouragement
given by ample rewards from the public treasury for useful
inventions and improvements; and the promotion of men to
office for services and not for favor or sinister ends. Such
were the causes of the commercial supremacy of the Dutch as
they appeared to an English merchant of the time, and all
modern investigations support his view. … Sir Joshua
[Josiah] Child, writing a few years later ['A New Discourse of
Trade, page 2, and after—1665], gives a fuller explanation of
the great prosperity of the Netherland Republic. He evidently
had Lamb's pamphlet before him, for he enumerates all the
causes set forth by his predecessor. In addition, he gives
several others, as to some of which we shall see more
hereafter. Among these are the general education of the
people, including the women, religious toleration, care of the
poor, low custom duties and high excise, registration of
titles to real estate, low interest, the laws permitting the
assignment of debts, and the judicial system under which
controversies between merchants can be decided at one fortieth
part of the expense in England. … Probably, no body of men
governing a state were ever more enlightened and better
acquainted with the necessities of legislation than were these

burghers, merchants, and manufacturers who for two centuries
gave laws to Holland. It was largely due to the intelligence
displayed by these men that the republic, during the
continuance of its war, was enabled to support a burden of
taxation such as the world has rarely seen before or since.
{2285}
The internal taxes seem appalling. Rents were taxed
twenty-five per cent.; on all sales of real estate two and a
half per cent. were levied, and on all collateral inheritances
five per cent. On beer, wine, meat, salt, spirits, and all
articles of luxury, the tax was one hundred per cent., and on
some articles this was doubled. But this was only the internal
taxation, in the way of excise duties, which were levied on
everyone, natives and foreigners alike. In regard to foreign
commodities, which the republic needed for its support, the
system was very different. Upon them there was imposed only a
nominal duty of one per cent., while wool, the great staple
for the manufacturers, was admitted free. Here the statesmen
of the republic showed the wisdom which placed them, as
masters of political economy, at least two centuries in
advance of their contemporaries."
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
volume 2, pages 324-331.
ALSO IN:
W. T. McCullagh,
Industrial History of Free Nations,
volume 2: The Dutch, chapter 12.
NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1651-1660.
The rule of Holland, and her Grand Pensionary, John de Witt.
"The Republic had shaken off the domination of a person; it
now fell under the domination of a single province. Holland
was overwhelmingly preponderant in the federation. She
possessed the richest, most populous, and most powerful towns.
She contributed more than one-half of the whole federal
taxation. She had the right of naming the ambassadors at
Paris, Stockholm, and Vienna. The fact that the States General
met on her territory—at the Hague—necessarily gave her
additional influence and prestige. … With the Stadtholder's
power that of the States General also, as representing the
idea of centralisation, had largely disappeared. The
Provincial Estates of Holland, therefore, under the title of
'Their High Mightinesses,' became the principal power—to
such an extent, indeed, that the term 'Holland' had by the
time of the Restoration [the English Restoration, A. D. 1660]
become synonymous among foreign powers with the whole
Republic. Their chief minister was called 'The Grand
Pensionary,' and the office had been since 1653 filled by one
of the most remarkable men of the time, John de Witt. John de
Witt therefore represented, roughly speaking, the power of the
merchant aristocracy of Holland, as opposed to the claims of
the House of Orange, which were supported by the 'noblesse,'
the army, the Calvinistic clergy, and the people below the
governing class. Abroad the Orange family had the sympathy of
monarchical Governments. Louis XIV. despised the Government of
'Messieurs les Marchands,' while Charles II., at once the
uncle and the guardian of the young Prince of the house of
Orange, the future William III. of England, and mindful of
the scant courtesy which, to satisfy Cromwell, the Dutch had
shown him in exile, was ever their bitter and unscrupulous
foe. The empire of the Dutch Republic was purely commercial
and colonial, and she held in this respect the same position
relatively to the rest of Europe that England holds at the
present day."
O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
J. Geddes,
History of the Administration of John de Witt,
volume 1.
NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1652.
Recovery of Dunkirk and Gravelines.
Invasion of France. See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652.
First Settlement at the Cape of Good Hope.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652-1654.
War with the English Commonwealth.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654.
NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1653-1656.
Campaigns of Condé in the service of Spain against France.
See FRANCE: A. D 1653-1656.
NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1657-1658.
England in alliance with France in the Franco-Spanish War.
Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1659.
Cessions of territory to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1664.
The seizure of New Netherland by the English.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1665-1666.
War with England renewed.
"A formal declaration of war between Holland and England took
place in March, 1665. The English nation, jealous of the
commercial prosperity of Holland, eagerly seconded the views
of the king against that country, and in regard to the war a
remarkable degree of union prevailed throughout Great Britain.
Such, however, was not the case with the Dutch, who were very
much divided in opinion, and had many reasons to be doubtful
of the support of France. One of the grand objects of Charles
II. was undoubtedly … to restore his nephew the Prince of
Orange to all the power which had been held by his ancestors
in the United Provinces. But between Holland and England there
existed, besides numerous other most fertile causes of
discord, unsettled claims, upon distant territories, rival
colonies in remote parts of the world, maritime jealousy and
constant commercial opposition. These were national motives
for hostility, and affected a large body of the Dutch people.
But, on the other hand, considerations of general interest
were set aside by the political factions which divided the
United Provinces, and which may be classed under the names of
the Republican and the Monarchical parties. The Monarchical
party was, of course, that which was attached to the interests
of the House of Orange. … In the end of 1664, 130 Dutch
merchantmen had been captured by England; acts of hostility
had occurred in Guinea, at the Cape de Verd, [in New
Netherland], and in the West Indies: but Louis [XIV. of
France] had continued to avoid taking any active part against
Great Britain, notwithstanding all the representations of De
Witt, who on this occasion saw in France the natural ally of
Holland. On the 13th of June [1665], however, a great naval
engagement took place between the Dutch fleet, commanded by
Opdam and Van Tromp, and the English fleet, commanded by the
Duke of York and Prince Rupert. Opdam was defeated and killed;
Van Tromp saved the remains of his fleet; and on the very same
day a treaty was concluded between Arlington [the English
minister] and an envoy of the Bishop of Munster, by which it
was agreed that the warlike and restless prelate should invade
the United Provinces with an army of 20,000 men, in
consideration of sums of money to be paid by England.
{2286}
This treaty at once called Louis into action, and he notified
to the Bishop of Munster that if he made any hostile movement
against the States of Holland he would find the troops of
France prepared to oppose him. This fact was announced to the
States by D'Estrades on the 22nd of July, together with the
information that the French monarch was about to send to their
assistance a body of troops by the way of Flanders. … Still,
however, Louis hung back in the execution of his purposes,
till the aspect of affairs in the beginning of 1666 forced him
to declare war against England, on the 26th of January in that
year, according to the terms of his treaty with Holland. …
The part that France took in the war was altogether
insignificant, and served but little to free the Dutch from
the danger in which they were placed. That nation itself made
vast efforts to obtain a superiority at sea; and in the
beginning of June, 1666, the Dutch fleet, commanded by De
Ruyter and Van Tromp, encountered the English fleet, under
Monk and Prince Rupert, and a battle which lasted for four
days, with scarcely any intermission, took place. It would
seem that some advantage was gained by the Dutch; but both
fleets were tremendously shattered, and retired to the ports
of their own country to refit. Shortly after, however, they
again encountered, and one of the most tremendous naval
engagements in history took place, in which the Dutch suffered
a complete defeat; 20 of their first-rate men-of-war were
captured or sunk; and three admirals, with 4,000 men, were
killed on the part of the States. The French fleet could not
come up in time to take part in the battle, and all that Louis
did was to furnish De Witt with the means of repairing the
losses of the States as rapidly as possible. The energy of the
grand pensionary himself, however, effected much more than the
slow and unwilling succour of the French king. With almost
superhuman exertion new fleets were made ready and manned,
while the grand pensionary amused the English ministers with
the prospect of a speedy peace on their own terms; and at a
moment when England was least prepared, De Ruyter and
Cornelius de Witt appeared upon the coast, sailed up the
Thames, attacked and took Sheerness, and destroyed a great
number of ships of the line. A multitude of smaller vessels
were burnt; and the consternation was so great throughout
England, that a large quantity of stores and many ships were
sunk and destroyed by order of the British authorities
themselves, while De Ruyter ravaged the whole sea-coast from
the mouth of the Thames to the Land's End. The negotiations
for peace, which had commenced at Breda, were now carried on
upon terms much more advantageous to Holland, and were
speedily concluded; England, notwithstanding the naval glory
she had gained, being fully as much tired of the war as the
States themselves. A general treaty was signed on the 25th of
July."
G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 6.
"The thunder of the Dutch guns in the Medway and the Thames
woke England to a bitter sense of its degradation. The dream
of loyalty was roughly broken. 'Everybody now-a-days,' Pepys
tells us, 'reflect upon Oliver and commend him: what brave
things he did, and made all the neighbour princes fear him.'
But Oliver's successor was coolly watching this shame and
discontent of his people with the one aim of turning it to his
own advantage."
J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 8, chapter 1 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
C. D. Yonge,
History of the British Navy,
volume 2, chapter 5.
NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1667.
The claims and conquests of Louis XIV.
The War of the Queen's Rights.
In 1660 Louis XIV., king of France, was married to the Infanta
of Spain, Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV., who solemnly
renounced at the time, for herself and her posterity, all
rights to the Spanish crown. The insincerity and hollowness of
the renunciation was proved terribly at a later time by the
long "war of the Spanish succession." Meantime Louis
discovered other pretended rights in his Spanish wife on which
he might found claims for the satisfaction of his territorial
greed. These rested on the fact that she was born of her
father's first marriage, and that a customary right in certain
provinces of the Spanish Netherlands gave daughters of a first
marriage priority of inheritance over sons of a second
marriage. At the same time, in the laws of Luxembourg and
Franche-Comté, which admitted all children to the partition of
an inheritance, he found pretext for claiming, on behalf of
his wife, one fourth of the former and one third of the
principality last named. Philip IV. of Spain died in
September, 1665, leaving a sickly infant son under the regency
of an incapable and priest-ruled mother, and Louis began
quickly to press his claims. Having made his preparations on a
formidable scale, he sent forth in May, 1667, to all the
courts of Europe, an elaborate "Treatise on the Rights of the
Most Christian Queen over divers States of the monarchy of
Spain," announcing at the same time his intention to make a
"journey" in the Catholic Netherlands—the intended journey
being a ruthless invasion, in fact, with 50,000 men, under the
command of the great marshal-general, Turenne. The army began
its march simultaneously with the announcement of its purpose,
crossing the frontier on the 24th of May. Town after town was
taken, some without resistance and others after a short, sharp
siege, directed by Vauban, the most famous among military
engineers. Charleroi was occupied on the 2d of June; Tournay
surrendered on the 24th; two weeks later Douai fell; Courtrai
endured only four days of siege and Oudenarde but two; Lille
was a more difficult prize and held Turenne and the king
before it for twenty days. "All Walloon Flanders had again
become French at the price of less effort and bloodshed than
it had cost, in the Middle Ages, to force one of its places.
… September 1, the whole French army was found assembled
before the walls of Ghent." But Ghent was not assailed, the
French army being greatly fatigued and much reduced by the
garrisoning of the conquered places. Louis, accordingly,
returned to Saint-Germain, and Turenne, after taking Alost,
went into winter quarters. Before the winter passed great
changes of circumstance had occurred. The Triple Alliance of
England, Holland and Sweden had been formed, Louis had made
his secret treaty at Vienna with the Emperor, for the
partitioning of the Spanish dominions, and his further
"journey" in the Netherlands was postponed.
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 1, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
A. F. Pontalis,
John de Witt,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
{2287}
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1668.
The Triple Alliance with England and Sweden
against the French king.
"The rapid conquests of the French king in Flanders during the
last summer had drawn the eyes of Europe towards the seat of
war in that country. The pope, Clement IX., through pity for
the young king of Spain, and the States, alarmed at the
approach of the French arms to their frontier, offered their
mediation. To both Louis returned the same answer, that he
sought nothing more than to vindicate the rights of his wife;
that he should be content to retain possession of the
conquests which he had already made, or to exchange them
either for Luxembourg, or Franche-comté, with the addition of
Aire, St. Omer, Donai, Cambrai, and Charleroi, to strengthen
his northern frontier. … But Spain was not sufficiently
humbled to submit to so flagrant an injustice. … If it was
the interest of England, it was still more the interest of the
States, to exclude France from the possession of Flanders.
Under this persuasion, sir William Temple, the resident at
Brussels, received instructions to proceed to the Hague and
sound the disposition of de Witt; and, on his return to
London, was despatched back again to Holland with the proposal
of a defensive alliance, the object of which should be to
compel the French monarch to make peace with Spain on the
terms which he had previously offered. … Temple acted with
promptitude and address: … he represented the danger of
delay; and, contrary to all precedent at the Hague, in the
short space of five days—had the constitutional forms been
observed it would have demanded five weeks—he negotiated
[January, 1668] three treaties which promised to put an end to
the war, or, if they failed in that point, to oppose at least
an effectual barrier to the further progress of the invader.
The first was a defensive alliance by which the two nations
bound themselves to aid each other against any aggressor with
a fleet of forty men of war, and an army of 6,400 men, or with
assistance in money in proportion to the deficiency in men; by
the second, the contracting powers agreed by every means in
their power to dispose France to conclude a peace with Spain
on the alternative already offered, to persuade Spain to
accept one part of that alternative before the end of May,
and, in case of a refusal, to compel her by war, on condition
that France should not interfere by force of arms. These
treaties were meant for the public eye: the third was secret,
and bound both England and the States, in case of the refusal
of Louis, to unite with Spain in the war, and not to lay down
their arms till the peace of the Pyrenees were confirmed. On
the same day the Swedish ambassadors gave a provisional, and
afterwards a positive assent to the league, which from that
circumstance obtained the name of the Triple Alliance. Louis
received the news of this transaction with an air of haughty
indifference. … In consequence of the infirm state of
Charles II. of Spain, he had secretly concluded with the
emperor Leopold an 'eventual' treaty of partition of the
Spanish monarchy on the expected death of that prince, and
thus had already bound himself by treaty to do the very thing
which it was the object of the allied powers to effect. …
The intervention of the emperor, in consequence of the
eventual treaty, put an end to the hesitation of the Spanish
cabinet; the ambassadors of the several powers met at
Aix-la-Chapelle [April-May, 1668]; Spain made her choice; the
conquered towns in Flanders were ceded to Louis, and peace was
re-established between the two crowns. … The States could
ill dissemble their disappointment. They never doubted that
Spain, with the choice in her hands, would preserve Flanders,
and part with Franche-comté. … The result was owing, it is
said, to the resentment of Castel-Rodrigo [the governor of the
Spanish Netherlands], who, finding that the States would not
join with England to confine France within its ancient limits,
resolved to punish them by making a cession, which brought the
French frontier to the very neighbourhood of the Dutch
territory."
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter 6.
"Dr. Lingard, who is undoubtedly a very able and well-informed
writer, but whose great fundamental rule of judging seems to
be that the popular opinion on a historical question cannot
possibly be correct, speaks very slightingly of this
celebrated treaty [of the Triple Alliance]. … But grant that
Louis was not really stopped in his progress by this famous
league; still it is certain that the world then, and long
after, believed that he was so stopped; and that this was the
prevailing impression in France as well as in other countries.
Temple, therefore, at the very least, succeeded in raising the
credit of his country, and lowering the credit of a rival
power."
Lord Macaulay,
Sir William Temple (Essays).
ALSO IN:
O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 14.
Sir W. Temple,
Letters, January 1668
(Works, volume 1).
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 15, chapter 4 (volume 3).
A. F. Pontalis,
John de Witt,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1670.
Betrayed to France by the English king.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1672-1674.
The war with France and England.
Murder of the DeWitts.
Restoration of the Stadtholdership.
"The storm that had been prepared in secret for Holland began
to break in 1672. France and England had declared war at once
by land and sea, without any cause of quarrel, except that
Louis declared that the Dutch insulted him, and Charles
complained that they would not lower their flag to his, and
that they refused the Stadtholdership to his nephew, William
of Orange. Accordingly, his fleet made a piratical attack on
the Dutch ships returning from Smyrna, and Louis, with an
immense army, entered Holland. … They [the French] would
have attempted the passage of the Yssel, but the Dutch forces,
under the Prince of Orange, were on the watch, and turned
towards the Rhine, which was so low, in consequence of a
drouth, that 2,000 adventurous cavalry were able to cross,
half wading, half swimming, and gained a footing on the other
side." This "passage of the Rhine" was absurdly celebrated as
a great military exploit by the servile flatterers of the
French king. "The passage thus secured, the King crossed the
river the next day on a bridge of boats, and rapidly overran
the adjoining country, taking the lesser towns, and offering
to the Republic the most severe terms, destructive of their
independence, but securing the nominal Stadtholdership to the
Prince of Orange.
{2288}
The magistrates of Amsterdam had almost decided on carrying
the keys to Louis, and the Grand Pensionary himself was ready
to yield; but William, who preferred ruling a free people by
their own choice to being imposed on them by the conqueror,
still maintained that perseverance would save Holland, that
her dykes, when opened, would admit floods that the enemy
could not resist, and that they had only to be firm. The
spirit of the people was with him, and in Amsterdam,
Dordrecht, and the other cities, there were risings with loud
outcries of 'Orange boven,' Up with Orange, insisting that he
should be appointed Stadtholder. The magistracy confirmed the
choice, but Cornelius de Witt, too firm to yield to a popular
cry, refused to sign the appointment, and thus drew on himself
the rage of the people. He was arrested under an absurd
accusation of having bribed a man to assassinate the Prince,
and … [after torture] was sentenced to exile, whereupon his
brother [the Grand Pensionary] announced that he should
accompany him; but while he was with him in his prison at [the
Hague], the atrocious mob again arose [August 20, 1672], broke
open the doors, and, dragging out the two brothers, absolutely
tore them limb from limb."
C. M. Yonge,
Landmarks of History,
part 3, chapter 4, part 6.
The Prince of Orange, profiting by the murder of the De Witts,
rewarded the murderers, and is smirched by the deed, whether
primarily responsible for it or not; but the power which it
secured to him was used ably for Holland. The dykes had
already been cut, on the 18th of June, and "the sea poured in,
placing a waste of water between Louis and Amsterdam, and the
province of Holland at least was saved. The citizens worked
with the intensest energy to provide for their defence. …
Every fourth man among the peasantry was enlisted; mariners
and gunners were drawn from the fleet." Meantime, on the 7th
of June, the fleet itself, under De Ruyter, had been
victorious, in Southwold Bay, or Solebay, over the united
fleets of England and France. The victory was indecisive, but
it paralyzed the allied navy for a season, and prevented a
contemplated descent on Zealand. "All active military
operations against Holland were now necessarily at an end.
There was not a Dutch town south of the inundation which was
not in the hands of the French; and nothing remained for the
latter but to lie idle until the ice of winter should enable
them to cross the floods which cut them off from Amsterdam.
Leaving Turenne in command, Louis therefore returned to St.
Germain on August 1." Before winter came, however, the alarm
of Europe at Louis' aggressions had brought about a coalition
of the Emperor Leopold and the Elector of Brandenburg, to
succor the Dutch States. Louis was forced to call Turenne with
16,000 men to Westphalia and Condé with 17,000 to Alsace. "On
September 12 the Austrian general Montecuculi, the Duke of
Lorraine, and the Grand Elector effected their junction,
intending to cross the Rhine and join William;" but Turenne,
by a series of masterly movements, forced them to retreat,
utterly baffled, into Franconia and Halberstadt. The Elector
of Brandenburg, discouraged, withdrew from the alliance, and
made peace with Louis, June 6, 1673. The spring of 1673 found
the French king advantageously situated, and his advantages
were improved. Turning on the Spaniards in their Belgian
Netherlands, he laid siege to the important stronghold of
Maestricht and it was taken for him by the skill of Vauban, on
the 30th of June. But while this success was being scored, the
Dutch, at sea, had frustrated another attempt of the
Anglo-French fleet to land troops on the Zealand coast. On the
7th of June, and again on the 14th, De Ruyter and Van Tromp
fought off the invaders, under Prince Rupert and D'Estrees,
driving them back to the Thames. Once more, and for the last
time, they made their attempt, on the 21st of August, and were
beaten in a battle near the Zealand shore which lasted from
daylight until dark. The end of August found a new coalition
against Louis formed by treaties between Holland, Spain, the
Emperor and the Duke of Lorraine. A little later, the Prince
of Orange, after capturing Naarden, effected a junction near
Bonn with Montecuculi; who had evaded Turenne. The Electors of
Treves and Mayence thereupon joined the coalition and Cologne
and Munster made peace. By this time, public opinion in
England had become so angrily opposed to the war that Charles
was forced to arrange terms of peace with Holland,
notwithstanding his engagements with Louis. The tide was now
turning fast against France. Denmark had joined the coalition.
In March it received the Elector Palatine; in April the Dukes
of Brunswick and Lüneburg came into the league; in May the
Emperor procured from the Diet a declaration of war in the
name of the Empire, and on the 1st of July the Elector of
Brandenburg cast in his lot once more with the enemies of
France. To effectually meet this new league of his foes, Louis
resolved with heroic promptitude to abandon his conquests in
the Netherlands. Maestricht and Grave, alone, of the places he
had taken, were retained. But Holland still refused to make
peace on the terms which the French king proposed, and held
her ground in the league.
O. Airy,
The English Reformation and Louis XIV.,
chapter 19.
ALSO IN:
F. P. Guizot,
History of France,
chapter 44 (volume 5).
C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
A. F. Pontalis,
John de Witt,
chapters 12-14 (volume 2).
Sir W. Temple,
Memoirs,
part 2 (works, volume 2).
See, also,
NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1673.
Reconquest of New Netherland from the English.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1673-1678.
Fresh conquests by Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674.
The Treaty of Westminster.
Peace with England.
Relinquishment of New Netherland.
An offer from the Dutch to restore New Netherland to England
"was extorted from the necessities of the republic, and its
engagement with Spain. With the consent of the States General,
the Spanish ambassador offered advantageous articles to the
British government. Charles, finding that Louis refused him
further supplies, and that he could not expect any from
Parliament, replied that he was willing to accept reasonable
conditions. … Sir William Temple was summoned from his
retirement, and instructed to confer with the Spanish
ambassador at London, the Marquis del Fresno, to whom the
States General had sent full powers.
{2289}
In three days all the points were arranged; and a treaty was
signed at Westminster [February 19, 1674] by Arlington and
four other commissioners on the part of Great Britain, and by
Fresno on the part of the United Netherlands. The honor of the
flag, which had been refused by De Witt, was yielded to
England; the Treaty of Breda was revived; the rights of
neutrals guaranteed; and the commercial principles of the
Triple Alliance renewed. By the sixth article it was
covenanted that 'all lands, islands, cities, havens, castles
and fortresses, which have been or shall be taken by one party
from the other, during the time of this last unhappy war,
whether in Europe or elsewhere, and before the expiration of
the times above limited for the duration of hostilities, shall
be restored to the former Lord and Proprietor in the same
condition they shall be in at the time that this peace shall
be proclaimed.' This article restored New Netherland to the
King of Great Britain. The Treaty of Breda had ceded it to him
on the principle of 'uti possidetis.' The Treaty of
Westminster gave it back to him on the principle of reciprocal
restitution. Peace was soon proclaimed at London and at the
Hague. The treaty of Westminster delivered the Dutch from fear
of Charles, and cut off the right arm of Louis, their more
dreaded foe. England, on her part, slipped out of a disastrous
war. … By the treaty of Westminster the United Provinces
relinquished their conquest of New Netherland to the King of
England. The sovereign Dutch States General had treated
directly with Charles as sovereign. A question at once arose
at Whitehall about the subordinate interest of the Duke of
York. It was claimed by some that James's former American
proprietorship was revived. … The opinion of counsel having
been taken, they advised that the duke's proprietorship had
been extinguished by the Dutch conquest, and that the king was
now alone seized of New Netherland, by virtue of the Treaty of
Westminster. … A new patent to the Duke of York was
therefore sealed. By it the king again conveyed to his brother
the territories he had held before, and granted him anew the
absolute powers of government he had formerly enjoyed over
British subjects, with the like additional authority over 'any
other person or persons' inhabiting his province. Under the
same description of boundaries, New Jersey, and all the
territory west of the Connecticut River, together with Long
Island and the adjacent islands, and the region of Pemaquid,
were again included in the grant. The new patent did not, as
has been commonly, but erroneously stated, 'recite and confirm
the former.' It did not in any way allude to that instrument.
It read as if no previous English patent had ever existed. …
As his colonial lieutenant and deputy, the duke, almost
necessarily, appointed Major Edmund Andros, whom the king had
directed in the previous March to receive New Netherland from
the Dutch."
J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapters 5-6.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674-1678.
Continued war of the Coalition against France.
"The enemies of France everywhere took courage. … Louis XIV.
embraced with a firm glance the whole position, and, well
advised by Turenne, clearly took his resolution. He understood
the extreme difficulty of preserving his conquests, and the
facility moreover of making others more profitable, while
defending his own frontier. To evacuate Holland, to indemnify
himself at the expense of Spain, and to endeavor to treat
separately with Holland while continuing the war against the
House of Austria,—such was the new plan adopted; an
excellent plan, the very wisdom of which condemned so much the
more severely the war with Holland. … The places of the
Zuyder-Zee were evacuated in the course of December by the
French and the troops of Munster. … The evacuation of the
United Provinces was wholly finished by spring. … Louis
resolved to conquer Franche-Comté in person; while Turenne
covered Alsace and Lorraine, Schomberg went to defend
Roussillon, and Condé labored to strengthen the French
positions on the Meuse, by sweeping the enemy from the
environs of Liege and Maestricht. On the ocean, the defensive
was preserved." Louis entered Franche-Comté at the beginning
of May with a small army of 8,000 infantry and 5,000 or 6,000
cavalry, but with Vauban, the great master of sieges, to do
his serious work for him. A small corps had been sent into the
country in February, and had already taken Gray, Vesoul and
Lons-le-Saulnier. Besançon was now reduced by a short siege;
Dole surrendered soon afterward, and early in July the
subjugation of the province was complete. "The second conquest
of Franche-Comté had cost a little more trouble than the
first; but it was definitive. The two Burgundies were no more
to be separated, and France was never again to lose her
frontier of the Jura. … The allies, from the beginning of
the year, had projected a general attack against France. They
had debated among themselves the design of introducing two
great armies, one from Belgium into Champagne, the other from
Germany into Alsace and Lorraine; the Spaniards were to invade
Roussillon; lastly, the Dutch fleet was to threaten the coasts
of France and attempt some enterprise there. The tardiness of
the Germanic diet to declare itself" frustrated the first of
these plans. Condé, occupying a strong position near
Charleroi, from which the allies could not draw him, took
quick advantage of an imprudent movement which they made, and
routed them by a fierce attack, at the village of Seneffe
(August 11, 1674). But William of Orange rallied the flying
forces—Dutch, German and Spanish now fighting side by
side—so successfully that Condé was repulsed with terrible
loss in the end, when he attempted to make his victory
complete. The battle was maintained, by the light of the moon,
until midnight, and both armies withdrew next morning, badly
crippled. Turenne meantime, in June, had crossed the Rhine at
Philippsburg and encountered the Imperialists, on the 16th,
near Sinsheim, defeated them there and driven them beyond the
Neckar. The following month, he again crossed the river and
inflicted upon the Palatinate the terrible destruction which
made it for the time being a desert, and which is the black
blot on the fame of the great soldier. "Turenne ordered his
troops to consume and waste cattle, forage, and harvests, so
that the enemy's army, when it returned in force, as he
foresaw it would do, could find nothing whereon to subsist."
In September the city of Strasburg opened its gates to the
Imperialists and gave them the control of its fortified
bridge, crossing the Rhine.
{2290}
Turenne, hastening to prevent the disaster, but arriving too
late, attacked his enemies, October 4, at the village of
Ensisheim and gained an inconclusive victory. Then followed,
before the close of the year, the most famous of the military
movements of Turenne. The allies having been heavily
reinforced, he retired before them into Lorraine, meeting and
gathering up reinforcements of his own as he moved. Then, when
he had completely deceived them as to his intentions, he
traversed the whole length of the Vosges with his army, in
December, and appeared suddenly at Belfort, finding their
forces scattered and entirely unprepared. Defeating them at
Mülhausen December 29, and again at Colmar, January 5, he
expelled them from Alsace, and offered to Strasburg the
renewal of its neutrality, which the anxious city was glad to
accept. "Thus ended this celebrated campaign, the most
glorious, perhaps, presented in the military history of
ancient France. None offers higher instruction in the study of
the great art of war." In the campaign of 1675, which opened
in May, Turenne was confronted by Montecuculi, and the two
masterly tacticians became the players of a game which has
been the wonder of military students ever since. "Like two
valiant athletes struggling foot to foot without either being
able to overthrow the other, Turenne and Montecuculi manœuvred
for six weeks in the space of a few square leagues [in the
canton of Ortnau, Swabia] without succeeding in forcing each
other to quit the place." At length, on the 27th of July,
Turenne found an opportunity to attack his opponent with
advantage, in the defile of Salsbach, and was just completing
his preparations to do so, when a cannon-ball from one of the
enemy's batteries struck him instantly dead. His two
lieutenants, who succeeded to the command, could not carry out
his plans, but fought a useless bloody battle at Altenheim and
nearly lost their army before retreating across the Rhine.
Condé was sent to replace Turenne. Before he arrived,
Strasburg had again given its bridge to the Imperialists and
they were in possession of Lower Alsace; but no important
operations were undertaken during the remainder of the year.
In other parts of the wide war field the French suffered
disaster. Marshal de Crequi, commanding on the Moselle, was
badly defeated at Konsaarbrück, August 11, and Treves, which
he defended, was lost a few weeks later. The Swedes, also,
making a diversion in the north, as allies of France, were
beaten back, at Fehrbellin.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
But next year (1676) Louis recovered all his prestige. His
navy, under the command of Duquesne and Tourville, fought the
Dutch and Spaniards on equal terms, and defeated them twice in
the Mediterranean, on the Sicilian coast. On land the main
effort of the French was directed against the Netherlands.
Condé, Bouchain and Aire were taken by siege; and Maestricht
was successfully defended against Orange, who besieged it for
nearly eight weeks. But Philippsburg, the most important
French post on the Rhine, was lost, surrendering to the Duke
of Lorraine. Early in 1677, Louis renewed his attacks on the
Spanish Netherlands and took Valenciennes March 17, Cambrai
April 4, and Saint-Omer April 20, defeating the Prince of
Orange at Cassel (April 11) when he attempted to relieve the
latter place. At the same time Crequi, unable to defend Lower
Alsace, destroyed it—burning the villages, leaving the
inhabitants to perish—and prevented the allies, who
outnumbered him, from making any advance. In November, when
they had gone into winter-quarters, he suddenly crossed the
Rhine and captured Freiburg. The next spring (1678) operations
began early on the side of the French with the siege of Ghent.
The city capitulated, March 9, after a short bombardment. The
Spanish governor withdrew to the citadel, but "surrendered, on
the 11th, that renowned castle built by Charles V. to hold the
city in check. The city and citadel of Ghent had not cost the
French army forty men." Ypres was taken the same month.
Serious negotiations were now opened and the Peace of
Nimeguen, between France and Holland, was signed August 11,
followed early the next year by a general peace. The Prince of
Orange, who opposed the peace, fought one bootless but bloody
battle at Saint-Denis, near Mons, on the 14th of August, three
days after it had been signed.
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 1, chapters 5-6.
"It may be doubted whether Europe has fully realised the
greatness of the peril she so narrowly escaped on this
occasion. The extinction of political and mental freedom,
which would have followed the extinction of the Dutch
Republic, would have been one of the most disastrous defeats
of the cause of liberty and enlightenment possible in the then
condition of the world. … The free presses of Holland gave
voice to the stilled thought and agony of mankind. And they
were the only free presses in the world. But Holland was not
only the greatest book mart of Europe, it was emphatically the
home of thinkers and the birthplace of ideas. … The two men
then living to whose genius and courage the modern spirit of
mental emancipation and toleration owes its first and most
arduous victories were Pierre Bayle and John Locke. And it is
beyond dispute that if the French King had worked his will on
Holland, neither of them would have been able to accomplish
the task they did achieve under the protection of Dutch
freedom. They both were forced to seek refuge in Holland from
the bigotry which hunted them down in their respective
countries. All the works of Bayle were published in Holland,
and some of the earliest of Locke's writings appeared there
also; and if the remainder saw the light afterwards in
England, it is only because the Dutch, by saving their own
freedom, were the means of saving that of England as well. …
At least, no one can maintain that if Holland had been
annihilated in 1672, the English revolution could have
occurred in the form and at the time it did."
J. C. Morison,
The Reign of Louis XIV.
(Fortnightly Review, March, 1874).
ALSO IN:
H. M. Hozier,
Turenne,
chapters 12-13.
T. O. Cockayne,
Life of Turenne.
Lord Mahon,
Life of Condé,
chapter 12.
See, also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689.
Invasion of England by the Prince of Orange.
His accession to the English throne.
See ENGLAND A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER),
to 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689-1696.
The War of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance
against Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.
{2291}
NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D; 1690-1691.
The Battle of Fleurus and the loss of Mons.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1692.
The Naval Battle of La Hogue.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1692.
The loss of Namur and the Battle of Steenkerke.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.
NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1693.
The Battle of Neerwinden.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).
NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1694-1696.
Campaigns without battles.
The recovery of Namur.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1694; and 1695-1696.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
French conquests restored.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
A. D. 1698-1700.
The question of the Spanish Succession.
The Treaties of Partition.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1701.
Occupied by French troops.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1702.
The Second Grand Alliance against France and Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702.
The War of the Spanish Succession: The Expedition to Cadiz.
The sinking of the treasure ships in Vigo Bay.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
Marlborough's first campaigns.
"The campaign [of 1702] opened late in the Low Countries,
owing, doubtless, to the death of king William. The elector of
Bavaria, and his brother the elector of Cologne, took part
with France. About the middle of April, the prince of
Nassau-Saarbruck invested Keyserwerth, a place belonging to
the latter elector, on the Rhine; whilst Lord Athlone, with
the Dutch army, covered the siege, in pursuance of the advice
of Lord Marlborough to the states. The place was strong; the
French Marshal Boufflers made efforts to relieve it; after a
vigorous defence, it was carried by assault, with dreadful
carnage, about the middle of June. Boufflers, unable to
relieve Keyserwerth, made a rapid, march to throw himself
between Athlone and Nimeguen, with the view to carry that
place by surprise; was defeated by a forced and still more
rapid march of the Dutch, under Athlone, to cover it; and
moved upon Cleves, laying the country waste with wanton
barbarity along his line of march. Marlborough now arrived to
take the command in chief. It was disputed with him by
Athlone, who owed his military rank and the honours of the
peerage to the favour of king William. Certain representatives
of the states, who attended the army under the name of field
deputies, thwarted him by their caution and incompetency; the
Prussian and Hanoverian contingents refused to move without
the orders of their respective sovereigns. Lord Marlborough,
with admirable temper and adroitness, and, doubtless, with the
ascendant of his genius, surmounted all these obstacles. The
Dutch general cheerfully served under him; the confederates
were reconciled to his orders; he crossed the Meuse in pursuit
of the French; came within a few leagues of Boufflers' lines;
and, addressing the Dutch field deputies who accompanied him,
said, in a tone of easy confidence, 'I will now rid you of
these troublesome neighbours.' Boufflers accordingly
retreated,—abandoning Spanish Guelderland, and exposing
Venloo, Ruremonde, and even Liege, which he had made a
demonstration to cover. The young duke of Burgundy, grandson
of Louis XIV., and elder brother of the king of Spain, had
commanded the French army in name. He now returned to
Versailles; and Boufflers could only look on, whilst
Marlborough successively captured Venloo, Ruremonde, and
Liege. The navigation of the Meuse and communication with
Maestricht was now wholly free; the Dutch frontier was secure;
and the campaign terminated with the close of October. … The
duke of Marlborough resumed his command in the Low Countries
about the middle of spring. He found the French strong and
menacing on every side. Marshal Villars had, like Marlborough,
fixed the attention of Europe for the first time in the late
campaign. He obtained a splendid victory over the prince of
Baden at Fredlingen, near the Black Forest. That prince lost
3,000 men, his cannon and the field. … Villars opened this
year's campaign by taking Kehl, passed through the Black
Forest into Bavaria, and formed a junction with the elector;
whilst the prince of Baden was kept in check by a French army
under marshal Tallard. … The imperial general, Count Styrum
was now moving to join the prince of Baden with 20,000 men.
Villars persuaded the elector to cross the Danube and prevent
this junction; attacked the imperialists in the plain of
Hochstedt near Donawert; and put them to the rout. The capture
of Augsburg followed: the road was open to Vienna, and the
emperor thought of abandoning the capital. … Holland was
once more threatened on her frontier. Marshal Villeroi,
liberated by exchange, was again at the head of an army, and,
in conjunction with Boufflers, commenced operations for
recovering the ground and the strong places from which
Marlborough had dislodged the French on the Meuse. The
campaign had opened at this point of the theatre of war with
the capture of Rheinberg. It was taken by the Prussians before
the duke of Marlborough arrived. The duke's first operation
was the capture of Bonne. He returned to the main army with
the view to engage the French under Villeroi. That marshal
abandoned his camp, and retired within his lines of defence on
the approach of the English general. Marlborough was prevented
from attacking the French by the reluctance of the Dutch
generals and the positive prohibition of the Dutch field
deputies. … The only fruit of Marlborough's movement was the
easy capture of Huy. Boufflers obtained the slight advantage
of surprising and defeating the Dutch general Opdam near
Antwerp. Marlborough, still embarrassed by the Dutch field
deputies, to whose good intentions and limited views he bowed
with a facility which only proves the extent of his
superiority, closed the campaign with the acquisition of
Limburg and Guelders. … In the beginning of … [1704] the
emperor, threatened by the French and Bavarians in the very
capital of the empire, implored aid from the queen; and on the
19th of April, the duke of Marlborough left England to enter
upon a campaign memorable for … [the] victory of Blenheim.
… On his arrival at the Hague, he proposed to the states
general to alarm France for her frontier by a movement on the
Moselle.
{2292}
Their consent even to this slight hazard for their own
security, was not easily obtained. Villeroi, who commanded in
Flanders, soon lost sight of him; so rapid or so well masked
were his movements; Tallard, who commanded on the Moselle,
thought only of protecting the frontier of France; and
Marlborough, to the amazement of Europe, whether enemies or
allies, passed in rapid succession the Rhine, the Maine, and
the Necker. Intercepted letters, and a courier from the prince
of Baden, apprised him that the French were about to join the
Bavarians through the defiles of the Black Forest, and march
upon Vienna. He now threw off the mask, sent a courier to the
states, acquainting them that he was marching to the succour
of the empire by order of the queen of England, and trusted
they would permit their troops to share the glory of his
enterprise. The pensionary Heinsius alone was in his
confidence; and the states, though taken by surprise, conveyed
to him their sanction and confidence with the best grace. He
met Prince Eugene for the first time at Mindlesheim.
Marlborough and Eugene are henceforth associated in the career
of war and victory."
Sir J. Mackintosh,
The History of England,
volume 9, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
L. Creighton,
Life of Marlborough,
chapters 6-7.
G. Saintsbury,
Marlborough,
chapter 5.
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Marlborough,
chapters 11-22 (volume 1).
J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapters 5-6 (volume 1).
Sec, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and 1703.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1704.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
The campaign on the Danube and victory at Blenheim.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705.
The War of the Spanish Succession: A campaign spoiled.
After his campaign in Bavaria, with its great victory on the
field of Blenheim (see GERMANY: A. D. 1704), Marlborough
passed the winter in England and returned in the spring of
1705 to the Low Countries, where he had planned to lead,
again, the campaign of the year. Prince Eugene was now in
Italy, and the jealous, incapable Prince Louis of Baden,
commanding the German army, was the coadjutor on whom he must
depend. The latter assented to Marlborough's plans and
promised co-operation. The Dutch generals and deputies also
were reluctantly brought over to his views, which contemplated
an invasion of France on the side of the Moselle. "Slight as
were the hopes of any effective co-operation which Prince
Louis gave, they were much more than he accomplished. When the
time came he declared himself sick, threw up his command and
set off to drink the waters of Schlangenbad. Count de Frise
whom he named in his place brought to Marlborough only a few
ragged battalions, and, moreover, like his principal, showed
himself most jealous of the English chief. … Marlborough
nevertheless took the field and even singly desired to give
battle. But positive instructions from Versailles precluded
Villars [the commander of the French] from engaging. He
intrenched himself in an extremely strong position at Sirk,
where it was impossible for an inferior army to assail him.
And while the war was thus unprosperous on the Moselle, there
came adverse tidings from the Meuse. Marshal Villeroy had
suddenly resumed the offensive, had reduced the fortress of
Huy, had entered the city and invested the citadel of Liege."
Marlborough, on this news, being applied to for immediate aid
by the Dutch General Overkirk—the ablest and best of his
colleagues—"set out the very next day on his march to Liege,
leaving only a 'sufficient force as he hoped for the security
of Treves." Villeroy "at once relinquished his design upon the
citadel of Liege and fell back in the direction of Tongres, so
that Marlborough and Overkirk effected their junction with
ease. Marlborough took prompt measures to re-invest the
fortress of Huy, and compelled it to surrender on the 11th of
July. Applying his mind to the new sphere before him,
Marlborough saw ground to hope that, with the aid of the Dutch
troops, he might still make a triumphant campaign. The first
object was to force the defensive lines that stretched across
the country from near Namur to Antwerp, protected by numerous
fortified posts and covered in other places by rivers and
morasses, … now defended by an army of at least 60,000 men,
under Marshal Villeroy and the Elector of Bavaria. Marlborough
laid his plans before Generals Overkirk and Slangenberg as
also those civilian envoys whom the States were wont to
commission at their armies. But he found to his sorrow that
for jealousy and slowness a Dutch deputy was fully a match for
a German Margrave." He obtained with great difficulty a
nominal assent to his plans, and began the execution of them;
but in the very midst of his operations, and when one division
of the Dutch troops had successfully crossed the river Dyle,
General Slangenberg and the deputies suddenly drew back and
compelled a retreat. Then Marlborough's "fertile genius
devised another scheme—to move round the sources of the river
[Dyle] and to threaten Brussels from the southern side. … On
the 15th off August he began his march, as did also Overkirk
in a parallel direction, and in two days they reached Genappe
near the sources of the Dyle. There uniting in one line of
battle they moved next morning towards Brussels by the main
chaussée, or great paved road; their head-quarters that day

being fixed at Frischermont, near the borders of the forest of
Soignies. On the French side the Elector and Villeroy,
observing the march of the allies, had made a corresponding
movement of their own for the protection of the capital. They
encamped behind the small stream of the Ische, their right and
rear being partly covered by the forest. Only the day before
they had been joined by Marsin from the Rhine, and they agreed
to give battle sooner than yield Brussels. One of their main
posts was at Waterloo. … It is probable, had a battle now
ensued, that it would have been fought on the same, or nearly
the same ground as was the memorable conflict a hundred and
ten years afterwards. … But the expected battle did not take
place." Once more the Dutch deputies and General Slangenberg
interfered, refusing to permit their troops to engage; so that
Marlborough was robbed of the opportunity for winning a
victory which he confidently declared would have been greater
than Blenheim. This practically ended the campaign of the
year, which had been ruined and wasted throughout by the
stupidity, the cowardice and the jealousies of the Dutch
deputies and the general who counselled them.
Earl Stanhope,
History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 6.
In Spain, a campaign of more brilliancy was carried on by
Charles Mordaunt, Earl of Peterborough, in Catalonia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
{2293}
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
The Battle of Ramillies and its results.
"The campaign of 1706 was begun unusually late by Marlborough,
his long stay on the Continent in the winter and his English
political business detaining him in London till the end of
April, and when he finally landed at the Hague his plans were
still coloured by the remembrance of the gratuitous and
intolerable hindrances which he had met with from his allies.
… He had made up his mind to operate with Eugene in Italy,
which, if he had done, there would probably have been seen
what has not been seen for nearly two thousand years—a
successful invasion of France from the southeast. But the
kings of Prussia and Denmark, and others of the allies whom
Marlborough thought he had propitiated, were as recalcitrant
as the Dutch, and the vigorous action of Villars against the
Margrave of Baden made the States-General more than ever
reluctant to lose their sword and shield. So Marlborough was
condemned to action on his old line of the Dyle, and this time
fortune was less unkind to him. Secret overtures were made
which induced him to threaten Namur, and as Namur was of all
posts in the Low Countries that to which the French attached
most importance, both on sentimental and strategical grounds,
Villeroy was ordered to abandon the defensive policy which he
had for nearly two years been forced to maintain, and to fight
at all hazards. Accordingly the tedious operations which had
for so long been pursued in this quarter were exchanged at
once for a vigorous offensive and defensive, and the two
generals, Villeroy with rather more than 60,000 men,
Marlborough with that number or a little less, came to blows
at Ramillies (a few miles only from the spot where the lines
had been forced the year before) on May 23, 1706, or scarcely
more than a week after the campaign had begun. Here, as
before, the result is assigned by the French to the fault of
the general. … The battle itself was one completely of
generalship, and of generalship as simple as it was masterly.
It was in defending his position, not in taking it up, that
Villeroy lost the battle. … Thirteen thousand of the French
and Bavarians were killed, wounded, and taken, and the loss of
the allies, who had been throughout the attacking party, was
not less than 4,000 men. … The Dutch, who bore the burden of
the attack on Ramillies, had the credit of the day's fighting
on the allied side, as the Bavarian horse had on that of the
French. In hardly any of Marlborough's operations had he his
hands so free as at Ramillies, and in none did he carry off a
completer victory. … The strong places of Flanders fell
before the allied army like ripe fruit. Brussels surrendered
and was occupied on the fourth day after the battle, May 28.
Louvain and Malines had fallen already. The French garrison
precipitately left Ghent, and the Duke entered it on June 2.
Oudenarde came in next day; Antwerp was summoned, expelled the
French part of its garrison, and capitulated on September 7.
And a vigorous siege in less than a month reduced Ostend,
reputed one of the strongest places in Europe. In six weeks
from the battle of Ramillies not a French soldier remained in
a district which the day before that battle had been occupied
by a network of the strongest fortresses and a field army of
80,000 men. The strong places on the Lys and the Dender,
tributaries of the Scheldt, gave more trouble, and Menin, a
small but very important position, cost nearly half the loss
of Ramillies before it could be taken. But it fell, as well as
Dendermonde and Ath, and nothing but the recrudescence of
Dutch obstruction prevented Marlborough from finishing the
campaign with the taking of Mons, almost the last place of any
importance held by the French north of their own frontier, as
that frontier is now understood. But the difficulties of all
generals are said to begin on the morrow of victory, and
certainly the saying was true in Marlborough's case. … The
Dutch were, before all things, set on a strong barrier or zone
of territory, studded with fortresses in their own keeping,
between themselves and France: the Emperor naturally objected
to the alienation of the Spanish-Austrian Netherlands. The
barrier disputes were for years the greatest difficulty which
Marlborough had to contend with abroad, and the main theme of
the objections to the war made by the adverse party at home.
… It was in the main due, no doubt, to these jealousies and
hesitations, strengthened by the alarm caused by the loss of
the battle of Almanza in Spain, and by the threatened invasion
of Germany under Villars, that made the campaign of 1707 an
almost wholly inactive one. … The campaign of this year is
almost wholly barren of any military operations interesting to
anyone but the mere annalist of tactics."
G. Saintsbury,
Marlborough,
chapter 6.
In Spain, several sharp changes of fortune during two years
terminated in a disastrous defeat of the allies at Almanza in
April, 1707, by the Duke of Berwick.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1706 and 1707;
see, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.
Earl Stanhope,
History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 7 and 9.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
The War of the Spanish Succession: Oudenarde and Malplaquet.
To the great satisfaction of Marlborough, Prince Eugene of
Savoy was sent by the Emperor to co-operate with him, in the
spring of 1708. The two generals met in April to discuss
plans; after which Eugene returned into Germany to gather up
the various contingents that would compose his army. He
encountered many difficulties and delays, and was unable to
bring his forces to the field until July. Marlborough,
meantime, had been placed in a critical situation. "For whilst
the English commander and Eugene had formed the plan to unite
and overwhelm Vendome, the Court of Versailles had, on its
side, contemplated the despatch of a portion of the Army of
the Rhine, commanded by the Elector of Bavaria and the Duke of
Berwick, so to reinforce Vendome that he might overwhelm
Marlborough, and Berwick was actually on his march to carry
out his portion of the plan." Prince Eugene crossed the
Moselle on the 28th June, "reached Düren the 3rd July, and
learning there that affairs were critical, hastened with an
escort of Hussars, in advance of his army, to Brussels. On his
arrival there, the 6th, he learned that the French had
attacked and occupied the city of Ghent, and were then
besieging the castle."
{2294}
The two commanders having met at Assche, to concert their
movements, made haste to throw: "a reinforcement into the
fortress of Oudenarde, then besieged by the French; and,
convinced now that the conquest of that fortress by Vendome
would give him an unassailable position, they pushed forward
their troops with all diligence to save it. The two armies
united on the 8th. On the 9th they set out for Oudenarde, and
crossed the Dender on the 10th. Before daybreak of the 11th
Marlborough despatched General Cadogan with a strong corps to
the Scheldt, to throw bridges over that river near Oudenarde
and to reconnoitre the enemy. The main army followed at 7
o'clock." In the battle which ensued, Vendome was hampered by
the equal authority of the Duke of Burgundy—the king's
grandson—who would not concur with his plans. "One after
another the positions occupied by the French soldiers were
carried. Then these took advantage of the falling night to
make a retreat as hurried and disorderly as their defence had
been wanting in tenacity. In no pitched battle, indeed, have
the French soldiers less distinguished themselves than at
Oudenarde. Fighting under a divided leadership, they were
fighting virtually without leadership, and they knew it. The
Duke of Burgundy contributed as much as either Marlborough or
Eugene to gain the battle of Oudenarde for the Allies." The
French army, losing heavily in the retreat, was rallied
finally at Ghent. "The Allies, meanwhile, prepared to take
advantage of their victory. They were within a circle
commanded by three hostile fortresses, Ypres, Lille, and
Tournay. After some consideration it was resolved, on the
proposition of Eugene, that Lille should be besieged." The
siege of Lille, the capital of French Flanders, fortified by
the utmost skill and science of Vauban, and held by a garrison
of 10,000 men under Marshal Boufflers, was a formidable
undertaking. The city was invested on the 13th of August, and
defended heroically by the garrison: but Vendome, who would
have attacked the besiegers, was paralyzed by the royal youth
who shared his command. Lille, the town, was surrendered on
the 22d of October and its citadel on the 9th of December. The
siege of Ghent followed, and the capitulation of that city, on
the 2d of January, 1709, closed the campaign. "The winter of
1709 was spent mainly in negotiations. Louis XIV. was
humiliated, and he offered peace on terms which the Allies
would have done well to accept." Their demands, however, rose
too high, and the war went on. "It had been decided that the
campaign in the Netherlands should be continued under the same
skilful generals who had brought that of 1708 to so successful
an issue. … On the 23rd of [June] … the allied army,
consisting of 110,000 men, was assembled between Courtray and
Menin. Marlborough commanded the left wing, about 70,000
strong; Eugene the right, about 40,000. Louis, on his side,
had made extraordinary efforts. But even with these he had
been able to put in the field an army only 80,000 strong
[under Marshal Villars]. … Villars had occupied a position
between Douai and the Lys, and had there thrown up lines, in
the strengthening of which he found daily employment for his
troops." Not venturing to attack the French army in its strong
position, Marlborough and Eugene began operations by laying
siege to Tournay. The town was yielded to them on the 30th of
July and the citadel on the 3d of September. They next turned
their attention to Mons, which the French thought it necessary
to save at any cost. The attempt which the latter made to
drive the allied army from the position it had gained between
themselves and Mons had its outcome in the terribly bloody
battle of Malplaquet—"the bloodiest known till then in modern
history. The loss of the victors was greater than that of the
vanquished. That of the former amounted to from 18,000 to
20,000 men: the French admitted a loss of 7,000, but German
writers raise it to 15,000. Probably it did not exceed 11,000.
… The results … were in no way proportionate to its cost.
The French army retreated in good order, taking with it all
its impedimenta, to a new position as strong as the former.
There, under Berwick, who was sent to replace Villars, it
watched the movements of the Allies. These resumed, indeed,
the siege of Mons [which surrendered on the 20th of October].
… But this was the solitary result of the victory."
Colonel G. B. Malleson,
Prince Eugene of Savoy,
chapters 10-11.
ALSO IN:
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Marlborough,
chapters 66-83 (volumes 4-5).
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapters 5-6.
J. W. Gerard,
Peace of Utrecht,
chapters 17-19.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D, 1709.
The Barrier Treaty with England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
The last campaigns of Marlborough.
"As soon as it became clear that the negotiations [at
Gertruydenberg] would lead to nothing, Eugene and Marlborough
at once began the active business of the campaign. …
Marlborough began … with the siege of Douai, the possession
of which would be of the greatest importance to him. … In
spite of Villars' boasts the French were unable to prevent the
capture of Douai. … The campaign of 1710 was full of
disappointment to Marlborough. He had hoped to carry the war
into the heart of France. But after Douai fell, Villars so
placed his army that [Marlborough] … was obliged to content
himself with the capture of Bethune, St. Venant, and Aire.
Heavy rains and a great deal of illness among his troops
prevented further operations. Besides this, his energy was
somewhat paralysed by the changes which had taken place in
England," where the Duchess of Marlborough and the Whig party
had lost the favor of the Queen, and the Tory opponents of
Marlborough and the war had come into power.
L. Creighton,
Life of Marlborough,
chapters 15-16.
"In 1711, in a complicated series of operations round Arras,
Marlborough, who was now alone, Eugene having been recalled to
Vienna, completely outgeneraled Villars and broke through his
lines. But he did not fight, and the sole result of the
campaign was the capture of Bouchain at the cost of some
16,000 men, while no serious impression was made on the French
system of defence. … Lille had cost 14,000; Tournay a number
not exactly mentioned, but very large; the petty place of Aire
7,000. How many, malcontent Englishmen might well ask
themselves, would it cost before Arras, Cambrai, Hesdin,
Calais, Namur, and all the rest of the fortresses that studded
the country, could be expected to fall? … Marlborough had
himself, so to speak, spoilt his audience.
{2295}
He had given them four great victories in a little more than
five years; it was perhaps unreasonable, but certainly not
unnatural, that they should grow fretful when he gave them
none during nearly half the same time. … The expense of the
war was frightening men of all classes in England, and,
independently of the more strictly political considerations,
… it will be seen that there was some reason for wishing
Marlborough anywhere but on or near the field of battle. He
was got rid of none too honourably; restrictions were put upon
his successor Ormond which were none too honourable either;
and when Villars, freed from his invincible antagonist, had
inflicted a sharp defeat upon Eugene at Denain, the military
situation was changed from one very much in favour of the
allies to one slightly against them, and so contributed beyond
all doubt to bring about the Peace of Utrecht."
G. Saintsbury,
Marlborough,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
G. B. Malleson,
Prince Eugene of Savoy,
chapter 12.
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3).
See, also,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1713-1714.
The Treaties of Utrecht.
Cession of the Spanish Provinces to the House of Austria.
Barrier towns secured.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1713-1715.
Second Barrier Treaty with England.
Barrier arrangements with France and the Emperor.
Connected with the other arrangements concluded in the
treaties negotiated at Utrecht, the States, in 1713, signed a
new Barrier Treaty with England, "annulling that of 1709, and
providing that the Emperor Charles should be sovereign of the
Netherlands [heretofore the 'Spanish Provinces,' but now
become the 'Austrian Provinces'], which, neither in the whole
nor in the part, should ever be possessed by France. The
States, on their side, were bound to support, if required, the
succession of the Electress of Hanover to the throne of
England. … By the treaty concluded between France and the
States, it was agreed that … the towns of Menin, Tournay,
Namur, Ypres, with Warneton, Poperingen, Comines and Werwyk,
Fumes, Dixmuyde, and the fort of Knokke, were to be ceded to
the States, as a barrier, to be held in such a manner as they
should afterwards agree upon with the Emperor." In the
subsequent arrangement, concluded with the Emperor in 1715,
"he permitted the boundary on the side of Flanders to be fixed
in a manner highly satisfactory to the States, who sought
security rather than extent of dominion. By the possession of
Namur they commanded the passage of the Sambre and Meuse;
Tournay ensured the navigation of the Scheldt; Menin and
Warneton protected the Leye; while Ypres and the fort of
Knokke kept open the communication with Fumes, Nieuport and
Dunkirk. … Events proved the barrier, so earnestly insisted
upon, to have been wholly insufficient as a means of defence
to the United Provinces, and scarcely worth the labour and
cost of its maintenance."
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
chapter 11 (volume 3).
(NETHERLANDS: Holland): A. D. 1713-1725.
Continued Austro-Spanish troubles.
The Triple Alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance.
The Alliance of Hanover.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1729-1731.
The Treaty of Seville.
The second Treaty of Vienna.
The Ostend Company abolished.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1731-1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1743.
The War of the Austrian Succession: Dutch Subsidies and Troops.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743; and 1743-1744.
NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1744.
Invasion by the French.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.
NETHERLANDS: (The Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1745.
The War of the Austrian Succession: Battle of Fontenoy.
French conquests.
In the spring of 1745, while events in the second Silesian War
were still threatening to Frederick the Great (see AUSTRIA: A.
D. 1744-1745), his allies, the French, though indifferent to
his troubles, were doing better for themselves in the
Netherlands. They had given to Marshal de Saxe, who commanded
there, an army of 76,000 excellent troops. "As to the Allies,
England had furnished her full contingent of 28,000 men, but
Holland less than half of the 50,000 she had stipulated; there
were but eight Austrian squadrons, and the whole body scarcely
exceeded 50,000 fighting men. The nominal leader was the young
Duke of Cumberland, but subject in a great measure to the
control of an Austrian veteran, Marshal Konigsegg, and obliged
to consult the Dutch commander, Prince de Waldeck. Against
these inferior numbers and divided councils the French
advanced in full confidence of victory, and, after various
movements to distract the attention of the Allies, suddenly,
on the 1st of May, invested Tournay. … To relieve this
important city, immediately became the principal object with
the Allies; and the States, usually so cautious, nay, timorous
in their suggestions, were now as eager in demanding battle.
… On the other hand, the Mareschal de Saxe made most skilful
dispositions to receive them. Leaving 15,000 infantry to cover
the blockade of Tournay, he drew up the rest of his army, a
few miles further, in an excellent position, which he
strengthened with numerous works; and his soldiers were
inspirited by the arrival of the King and Dauphin, who had
hastened from Paris to join in the expected action. The three
allied generals, on advancing against the French, found them
encamped on some gentle heights, with the village of Antoin
and the river Scheldt on their right, Fontenoy and a narrow
valley in their front, and a small wood named Barre on their
left. The passage of the Scheldt, and, if needful, a retreat,
were secured by the bridge of Calonne in the rear, by a tête
de pont, and by a reserve of the Household Troops. Abbatis
were constructed in the wood of Barre; redoubts between Antoin
and Fontenoy; and the villages themselves had been carefully
fortified and, garrisoned. The narrow space between Fontenoy
and Barre seemed sufficiently defended by cross fires, and by
the natural ruggedness of the ground: in short, as the French
officers thought, the strength of the position might bid
defiance to the boldest assailant.
{2296}
Nevertheless, the Allied chiefs, who had already resolved on a
general engagement, drove in the French piquets and outposts
on the 10th of May, New Style, and issued orders for their
intended attack at daybreak. … At six o'clock on the morning
of the 11th, the cannonade began. The Prince of Waldeck, and
his Dutch, undertook to carry Antoin and Fontenoy by assault,
while the Duke of Cumberland, at the head of the British and
Hanoverians, was to advance against the enemy's left. His
Royal Highness, at the same time with his own attack, sent
General Ingoldsby, with a division, to pierce through the wood
of Barre, and storm the redoubt beyond it." Ingoldsby's
division and the Dutch troops were both repulsed, and the
latter made no further effort. But the British and
Hanoverians, leaving their cavalry behind and dragging with
them a few field pieces, "plunged down the ravine between
Fontenoy and Barre, and marched on against a position which
the best Marshals of France had deemed impregnable, and which
the best troops of that nation defended. … Whole ranks of
the British were swept away, at once, by the murderous fire of
the batteries on their left and right. Still did their column,
diminishing in numbers not in spirit, steadily press forward,
repulse several desperate attacks of the French infantry, and
gain ground on its position. … The battle appeared to be
decided: already did Marshal Konigsegg offer his
congratulations to the Duke of Cumberland; already had
Mareschal de Saxe prepared for retreat, and, in repeated
messages, urged the King to consult his safety and withdraw,
while it was yet time, beyond the Scheldt." The continued
inactivity of the Dutch, however, enabled the French commander
to gather his last reserves at the one point of danger, while
he brought another battery to bear on the head of the
advancing British column. "The British, exhausted by their own
exertions, mowed down by the artillery in front, and assailed
by the fresh troops in flank, were overpowered. Their column
wavered—broke—fell back. … In this battle of Fontenoy (for
such is the name it has borne), the British left behind a few
pieces of artillery, but no standards, and scarce any
prisoners but the wounded. The loss in these, and in killed,
was given out as 4,041 British, 1,762 Hanoverians, and only
1,544 Dutch; while on their part the French likewise
acknowledged above 7,000." As the consequence of the battle of
Fontenoy, not only Tournay, but Ghent, likewise, was speedily
surrendered to the French. "Equal success crowned similar
attempts on Bruges, on Oudenarde, and on Dendermonde, while
the allies could only act on the defensive and cover Brussels
and Antwerp. The French next directed their arms against
Ostend, … which … yielded in fourteen days. … Meanwhile
the events in Scotland [the Jacobite rebellion—see SCOTLAND:
A. D. 1745-1746] were compelling the British government to
withdraw the greater part of their force; and it was only the
approach of winter, and the retreat of both armies into
quarters, that obtained a brief respite for the remaining
fortresses of Flanders."
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 26 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 52 (volume 6).
J. G. Wilson,
Sketches of Illustrious Soldiers: Saxe.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
French conquest of the Austrian provinces.
Humiliation of Holland.
The Stadtholdership restored.
"In the campaign in Flanders in 1746, the French followed up
the successes which they had achieved in the previous year.
Brussels, Antwerp, Mons, Charleroi, Namur, and other places
successively surrendered to Marshal Saxe and the Prince of
Conti. After the capture of Namur in September, Marshal Saxe,
reuniting all the French forces, attacked Prince Charles of
Lorraine at Raucoux [or Roucoux], between Liege and Viset, and
completely defeated him, October 11; after which both sides
went into winter quarters. All the country between the Meuse
and the sea was now in the power of France, Austria retaining
only Luxemburg and Limburg. … Ever since the year 1745 some
negociations had been going on between France and the Dutch
for the reestablishment of peace. The States-General had
proposed the assembling of a Congress to the Cabinet of
Vienna, which, however, had been rejected. In September 1746,
conferences had been opened at Breda, between France, Great
Britain, and the States-General; but as Great Britain had
gained some advantages at sea, the negociations were
protracted, and the Cabinets of London and Vienna had
endeavoured to induce the Dutch to take a more direct and
active part in the war. In this state of things the Court of
Versailles took a sudden resolution to coerce the
States-General. A manifest was published by Louis XV. April
17th 1747, filled with those pretexts which it is easy to find
on such occasions: not, indeed, exactly declaring war against
the Dutch Republic, but that he should enter her territories
'without breaking with her'; that he should hold in deposit
the places he might conquer, and restore them as soon as the
States ceased to succour his enemies. At the same time Count
Löwendahl entered Dutch Flanders by Bruges, and seized in less
than a month Sluys, Ysendick, Sas de Gand, Hulst, Axel, and
other places. Holland had now very much declined from the
position she had held a century before. There were indeed many
large capitalists in the United Provinces, whose wealth had
been amassed during the period of the Republic's commercial
prosperity, but the State as a whole was impoverished and
steeped in debt. … In … becoming the capitalists and
money-lenders of Europe, they [the Dutch] had ceased to be her
brokers and carriers. … Holland was no longer the entrepôt
of nations. The English, the Swedes, the Danes, and the
Hamburghers had appropriated the greater part of her trade.
Such was the result of the long wars in which she had been
engaged. … Her political consideration had dwindled equally
with her commerce. Instead of pretending as formerly to be the
arbiter of nations, she had become little more than the
satellite of Great Britain; a position forced upon her by fear
of France, and her anxiety to maintain her barriers against
that encroaching Power. Since the death of William III., the
republican or aristocratic party had again seized the
ascendency. William III.'s collateral heir, John William
Friso, had not been recognised as Stadtholder, and the
Republic was again governed, as in the time of De Witt, by a
Grand Pensionary and greffier. The dominant party had,
however, become highly unpopular.
{2297}
It had sacrificed the army to maintain the fleet, and the
Republic seemed to lie at the mercy of France. At the approach
of the French, consternation reigned in the provinces. The
Orange party raised its head and demanded the re-establishment
of the Stadtholdership. The town of Veere in Zealand gave the
example of insurrection, and William IV. of Nassau-Dietz, who
was already Stadtholder of Friesland, Groningen and
Gelderland, was ultimately proclaimed hereditary Stadtholder,
Captain-General and Admiral of the United Provinces. William
IV. was the son of John William Friso, and son-in-law of
George II., whose daughter, Anne, he had married. The French
threatening to attack Maestricht, the allies under the Duke of
Cumberland marched to Lawfeld in order to protect it. Here
they were attacked by Marshal Saxe, July 2nd 1747, and after a
bloody battle compelled to recross the Meuse. The Duke of
Cumberland, however, took up a position which prevented the
French from investing Maestricht. On the other hand, Löwendahl
Bergen-op-Zoom by assault., July 16th." The following spring
(1748), the French succeeded in laying siege to Maestricht,
notwithstanding the presence of the allies, and it was
surrendered to them on the 7th of May. "Negociations had been
going on throughout the winter, and a Congress had been
appointed to meet at Aix-la-Chapelle, whose first conference
took place April 24th 1748." The taking of Maestricht was
intended to stimulate these negotiations for peace, and it
undoubtedly had that effect. The treaties which concluded the
war were signed the following October.
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 3, chapter 12,
part 4, chapter 1.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1746-1787.
The restored Stadtholdership.
Forty years of peace.
War with England and trouble with Austria.
The razing of the Barriers.
Premature revolutions.
In their extremity, when the provinces of the Dutch Republic
were threatened with invasion by the French, a cry for the
House of Orange was raised once more. "The jealousies of
Provincial magistratures were overborne, and in obedience to
the voice of the people a Stadholder again arose. William of
Nassau Dietz, the heir to William III., and the successor to a
line of Stadholders who had ruled continuously in Friesland
since the days of Philip II., was summoned to power. …
William IV. had married, as William II. and William III. had
done, the daughter of a King of England. As the husband of
Anne, the child of George II., he had added to the
consideration of his House; and he was now able to secure for
his descendants the dignities to which he had himself been
elected. The States General in 1747 declared that both male
and female heirs should succeed to his honours. The
constitution was thus in a measure changed, and the
appointment of a hereditary chief magistrate appeared to many
… to be a departure from the pure ideal of a Republic. The
election of the new Stadholder brought less advantage to his
people than to his family. He could not recall the glorious
days of the great ancestors who had preceded him. Without
abilities for war himself, and jealous of those with whom he
was brought in contact, he caused disunion to arise among the
forces of the allies. … When the terms at Aix La Chapelle
restored their losses to the Dutch and confirmed the
stipulations of previous treaties in their favour, it was felt
that the Republic was indebted to the exertions of its allies,
and not to any strength or successes of its own. It was well
for the Republic that she could rest. The days of her
greatness had gone by, and the recent struggle had manifested
her decline to Europe. … The next forty years were years of
peace, … When war again arrived it was again external
circumstances [connected with the war between England and her
revolted colonies in America] that compelled the Republic to
take up arms. … She … contemplated, as it was discovered,
an alliance with the American insurgents. The exposure of her
designs drew on her a declaration of war from England, which
was followed by the temporary loss of many of her colonies
both in the East and West Indies. But in Europe the struggle
was more equally sustained. The hostile fleets engaged in 1781
off the Dogger Bank; and the Dutch sailors fought with a
success that made them claim a victory, and that at least
secured them from the consequences of a defeat. The war indeed
caused far less injury to the Republic than might have been
supposed. … When she concluded peace in 1783, the whole of
her lost colonies, with the one exception of Negapatam, were
restored to her. But the occasion of the war had been made use
of by Austria, and a blow had been meanwhile inflicted upon
the United Provinces the fatal effect of which was soon to be
apparent. The Emperor Joseph II. had long protested against
the existence of the Barrier: and he had seized upon the
opportunity to undo by an arbitrary act all that the blood and
treasure of Europe had been lavished to secure. 'The Emperor
will hear no more of Barriers,' wrote his minister; 'our
connection with France has made them needless': and the
fortresses for which William III. had schemed and Marlborough
had fought, were razed to the ground [1782]. Holland, unable
at the moment to resist, withdrew her garrisons in silence;
and Joseph, emboldened by his success, proceeded to ask for
more [1784]. The rectification of the Dutch frontiers, the
opening of the Scheldt, and the release for his subjects from
the long-enforced restrictions upon their trade did not appear
too much to him. But the spirit of the Dutch had not yet left
them. They fired at the vessels which dared to attempt to
navigate the Scheldt, and war again appeared imminent. The
support of France, however, upon which the Emperor had relied,
was now given to the Republic, and Joseph recognized that he
had gone too far. The Barrier, once destroyed, was not to be
restored; but the claims which had been put forward were
abandoned upon the payment of money compensation by the
States. The feverous age of revolution was now at hand, and
party spirit, which had ever divided the United Provinces, and
had been quickened by the intercourse and alliance with
America during the war, broke out in an insurrection against
the Stadholder [William V.], which drove him from his country,
and compelled him to appeal to Prussian troops for his
restoration. Almost at the same time, in the Austrian
provinces, a Belgic Republic was proclaimed [1787], the result
in a great degree of imprudent changes which Joseph II. had
enforced. The Dutch returned to their obedience under
Prussian threats [and invasion of Holland by an army of 30,000
men—September, 1787], and Belgium under the concessions of
Leopold III. But these were the clouds foreshadowing the
coming storm, beneath whose fury all Europe was to tremble."
C. F. Johnstone,
Historical Abstracts,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 8 (volume 3).
F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century, period 4,
chapter 1, section 2,
and chapter 2, section 2 (volume 5).
{2298}
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
French conquests restored to Austria and to Holland.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1782.
Recognition of the United States of America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (APRIL).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1792-1793.
The Austrian provinces occupied
by the French revolutionary army.
Determination to annex them to the French Republic.
Preparations to attack Holland.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1702 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
and 1702-1703 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1793 (February-April).
French invasion of Holland.
Defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.
Recovery of Belgian provinces by the Austrians.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1793 (March-September).
The Coalition against Revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1794.
French conquest of the Austrian Provinces.
Holland open to invasion.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1794-1795.
Subjugation and occupation by the French.
Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.
Establishment of the Batavian Republic, in alliance with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1797.
Naval defeat by the English in the Battle of Camperdown.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1797.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 17\!7 (MAY-OCTOBER).
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1799.
English and Russian invasion.
Capture of the Dutch fleet.
Ignominious ending of the expedition.
Capitulation of the Duke of York.
Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1801.
Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.
A new Constitution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1802.
The Peace of Amiens.
Recovery of the Cape of Good Hope and Dutch Guiana.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806.
Final seizure of Cape Colony by the English.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and
Napoleon's Decrees.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806-1810.
The Batavian Republic transformed into the Kingdom of Holland.
Louis Bonaparte made King.
His fidelity to the country offensive to Napoleon.
His abdication.
Annexation of Holland to the French empire.
"While Bonaparte was the chief of the French republic, he had
no objection to the existence of a Batavian republic in the
north of France, and he equally tolerated the Cisalpine
republic in the south. But after the coronation all the
republics, which were grouped like satellites round the grand
republic, were converted into kingdoms, subject to the empire,
if not avowedly, at least in fact. In this respect there was
no difference between the Batavian and Cisalpine republic. The
latter having been metamorphosed into the kingdom of Italy, it
was necessary to find some pretext for transforming the former
into the kingdom of Holland. … The Emperor kept up such an
extensive agency in Holland that he easily got up a
deputation, soliciting him to choose a king for the Batavian
republic. This submissive deputation came to Paris in 1806, to
solicit the Emperor, as a favour, to place Prince Louis
[Napoleon's brother] on the throne of Holland. … Louis
became King of Holland much against his inclination, for he
opposed the proposition as much as he dared, alleging as an
objection the state of his health, to which certainly the
climate of Holland was not favourable; but Bonaparte sternly
replied to his remonstrance—'It is better to die a king than
live a prince.' He was then obliged to accept the crown. He
went to Holland accompanied by Hortense, who, however, did not
stay long there. The new king wanted to make himself beloved
by his subjects, and as they were an entirely commercial
people, the best way to win their affections was … not to
adopt Napoleon's rigid laws against commercial intercourse
with England. Hence the first coolness between the two
brothers, which ended in the abdication of Louis. I know not
whether Napoleon recollected the motive assigned by Louis for
at first refusing the crown of Holland, namely, the climate of
the country, or whether he calculated upon greater submission
in another of his brothers; but this is certain, that Joseph
was not called from the throne of Naples to the throne of
Spain, until after the refusal of Louis. … Before finally
seizing Holland, Napoleon formed the project of separating
from it Brabant and Zealand, in exchange for other provinces,
the possession of which was doubtful: but Louis successfully
resisted this first act of usurpation. Bonaparte was too
intent on the great business in Spain, to risk any commotion
in the north, where the declaration of Russia against Sweden
already sufficiently occupied him. He therefore did not insist
upon, and even affected indifference to the proposed
augmentation of the territory of the empire. … But when he
got his brother Joseph recognized, and when he had himself
struck an important blow in the Peninsula, he began to change
his tone to Louis. On the 20th of December [1808] he wrote to
him a very remarkable letter, which exhibits the unreserved
expression of that tyranny which he wished to exercise over
all his family in order to make them the instruments of his
despotism. He reproached Louis for not following his system of
policy, telling him that he had forgotten he was a Frenchman,
and that he wished to become a Dutchman. Among other things he
said: … 'I have been obliged a second time to prohibit trade
with Holland. In this state of things we may consider
ourselves really at war. In my speech to the legislative body
I manifested my displeasure; for I will not conceal from you,
that my intention is to unite Holland with France.
{2299}
This will be the most severe blow I can aim against England,
and will deliver me from the perpetual insults which the
plotters of your cabinet are constantly directing against me.
The mouths of the Rhine, and of the Meuse, ought, indeed, to
belong to me. … The following are my conditions:—First, the
interdiction of all trade and communication with England.
Second. The supply of a fleet of fourteen sail of the line,
seven frigates and seven brigs or corvettes, armed and manned.
Third, an army of 25,000 men. Fourth. The suppression of the
rank of Marshals. Fifth. The abolition of all the privileges
of nobility, which is contrary to the constitution. Your
Majesty may negotiate on these bases with the Duke de Cadore,
through the medium of your minister; but be assured, that on
the entrance of the first packet-boat into Holland, I will
restore my prohibitions, and that the first Dutch officer who
may presume to insult my flag, shall be seized and hanged at
the main-yard. Your Majesty will find in me a brother if you
prove yourself a Frenchman; but if you forget the sentiments
which attach you to our common country, you cannot think it
extraordinary that I should lose sight of those which nature
has raised between us. In short, the union of Holland and
France will be, of all things, most useful to France, Holland
and the Continent, because it will be most injurious to
England. This union must be effected willingly, or by force.'
… Here the correspondence between the two brothers was
suspended for a time; but Louis still continued exposed to new
vexations on the part of Napoleon. About the end of 1809, the
Emperor summoned to Paris the sovereigns who might be called
his vassals. Among the number was Louis, who, however, did not
shew himself very willing to quit his states. He called a
council of his ministers, who were of opinion that for the
interest of Holland he ought to make this new sacrifice. He
did so with resignation. Indeed, every day passed on the
throne was a sacrifice to Louis. … Amidst the general
silence of the servants of the empire, and even of the kings
and princes assembled in the capital, he ventured to say:—'I
have been deceived by promises which were never intended to be
kept. Holland is tired of being the sport of France.' The
Emperor, who was unused to such language as this, was highly
incensed at it. Louis had now no alternative, but to yield to
the incessant exactions of Napoleon, or to see Holland united
to France. He chose the latter, though not before he had
exerted all his feeble power in behalf of the subjects whom
Napoleon had consigned to him; but he would not be the
accomplice of him who had resolved to make those subjects the
victims of his hatred against England. … Louis was, however,
permitted to return to his states, to contemplate the
stagnating effect of the continental blockade on every branch
of trade and industry, formerly so active in Holland.
Distressed at witnessing evils to which he could apply no
remedy, he endeavoured by some prudent remonstrances to avert
the utter ruin with which Holland was threatened. On the 23rd
of March, 1810, he wrote … [a] letter to Napoleon. …
Written remonstrances were not more to Napoleon's taste than
verbal ones at a time when, as I was informed by my friends,
whom fortune chained to his destiny, no one presumed to
address a word to him, except to answer his questions. … His
brother's letter highly roused his displeasure. Two months
after he received it, being on a journey in the north, he
addressed to Louis from Ostend a letter," followed in a few
days by another in which latter he said: "'I want no more
phrases and protestations. It is time I should know whether
you intend, by your follies, to ruin Holland. I do not choose
that you should again send a Minister to Austria, or that you
should dismiss the French who are in your service. I have
recalled my Ambassador, as I intend only to have a
Chargé-d'affaires in Holland. The Sieur Serrurier, who remains
there in that capacity, will communicate to you my intentions.
My Ambassador shall no longer be exposed to your insults.
Write to me no more those set phrases which you have been
repeating for the last three years, and the falsehood of which
is proved every day. This is the last letter I will ever write
to you as long as I live.' … Thus reduced to the cruel
alternative of crushing Holland with his own hands, or leaving
that task to the Emperor, Louis did not hesitate to lay down
his sceptre. Having formed this resolution, he addressed a
message to the legislative body of the kingdom of Holland,
explaining the motives of his abdication. … The French
troops entered Holland under the command of the Duke de
Reggio; and that Marshal, who was more King than the King
himself, threatened to occupy Amsterdam. Louis then descended
from his throne [July 1, 1810]. … Louis bade farewell to the
people of Holland in a proclamation, after the publication of
which he repaired to the waters of Toeplitz. There he was
living in tranquil retirement, when he learnt that his brother
had united Holland to the Empire [December 10, 1810]. He then
published a protest. … Thus there seemed to be an end of all
intercourse between these two brothers, who were so opposite
in character and disposition. But Napoleon, who was enraged
that Louis should have presumed to protest, and that in
energetic terms, against the union of his kingdom with the
empire, ordered him to return to France, whither he was
summoned in his character of Constable and French Prince.
Louis, however, did not think proper to obey this summons, and
Napoleon, faithful to his promise of never writing to him
again, ordered … [a] letter to be addressed to him by M.
Otto, … Ambassador from France to Vienna," saying: "'The
Emperor requires that Prince Louis shall return, at the
latest, by the 1st of December next, under pain of being
considered as disobeying the constitution of the empire and
the head of his family, and being treated accordingly.'"
M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
D. A. Bingham,
Marriages of the Bonapartes,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
T. C. Grattan,
History of the Netherlands,
chapter 22.
See, also,
FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1809.
The English Walcheren expedition against Antwerp.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1811.
Java taken by the English.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
{2300}
NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1813.
Expulsion of the French.
Independence regained.
Restoration of the Prince of Orange.
"The universal fermentation produced in Europe by the
deliverance of Germany was not long of spreading to the Dutch
Provinces.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
The yoke of Napoleon, universally grievous from the enormous
pecuniary exactions with which it was attended, and the
wasting military conscriptions to which it immediately led,
had been in a peculiar manner felt as oppressive in Holland,
from the maritime and commercial habits of the people, and the
total stoppage of all their sources of industry, which the
naval war and long-continued blockade of their coasts had
occasioned. They had tasted for nearly twenty years of the
last drop of humiliation in the cup of the vanquished—that of
being compelled themselves to aid in upholding the system
which was exterminating their resources, and to purchase with
the blood of their children the ruin of their country. These
feelings, which had for years existed in such intensity, as to
have rendered revolt inevitable but for the evident
hopelessness at all former times of the attempt, could no
longer be restrained after the battle of Leipsic had thrown
down the colossus of French external power, and the approach
of the Allied standards to their frontiers had opened to the
people the means of salvation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER) and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
From the Hansa Towns the flame of independence spread to the
nearest cities of the old United Provinces; and the small
number of French troops in the country at once encouraged
revolt and paved the way for external aid. At this period, the
whole troops which Napoleon had in Holland did not exceed
6,000 French, and two regiments of Germans, upon whose
fidelity to their colours little reliance could be placed.
Upon the approach of the Allied troops under Bulow, who
advanced by the road of Munster, and Winzingerode, who soon
followed from the same quarter, the douaniers all withdrew
from the coast, the garrison of Amsterdam retired, and the
whole disposable force of the country was concentrated at
Utrecht, to form a corps of observation, and act according to
circumstances. This was the signal for a general revolt. At
Amsterdam [November 15], the troops were no sooner gone than
the inhabitants rose in insurrection, deposed the Imperial
authorities, hoisted the orange flag, and established a
provisional government with a view to the restoration of the
ancient order of things; yet not violently or with cruelty,
but with the calmness and composure which attest the exercise
of social rights by a people long habituated to their
enjoyment. The same change took place, at the same time and in
the same orderly manner, at Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Delft,
Leyden, Haarlem, and the other chief towns; the people,
everywhere, amidst cries of 'Orange Boven' and universal
rapture, mounted the orange cockade, and reinstated the
ancient authorities. … Military and political consequences
of the highest importance immediately followed this
uncontrollable outbreak of public enthusiasm. A deputation
from Holland waited on the Prince Regent of England and the
Prince of Orange, in London: the latter shortly after embarked
on board an English line-of-battle ship, the Warrior, and on
the 27th landed at Scheveling, from whence he proceeded to the
Hague. Meantime the French troops and coast-guards, who had
concentrated at Utrecht, seeing that the general effervescence
was not as yet supported by any solid military force, and that
the people, though they had all hoisted the orange flag, were
not aided by any corps of the Allies, recovered from their
consternation, and made it general forward movement against
Amsterdam. Before they got there, however, a body of 300
Cossacks had reached that capital, where they were received
with enthusiastic joy: and this advanced guard was soon after
followed by General Benkendorf's brigade, which, after
travelling by post from Zwoll to Harderwyk, embarked at the
latter plage, and, by the aid of a favourable wind, reached
Amsterdam on the 1st December. The Russian general immediately
advanced against the forts of Mayder and Halfweg, of which he
made himself master, taking twenty pieces of cannon and 600
prisoners; while on the eastern frontier, General Oppen, with
Bulow's advanced guards, carried Dornbourg by assault on the
23d, and, advancing against Arnheim, threw the garrison, 3,000
strong, which strove to prevent the place being invested, with
great loss back into the town. Next day, Bulow himself came up
with the main strength of his corps, and, as the ditches were
still dry, hazarded an escalade, which proved entirely
successful; the greater part of the garrison retiring to

Nimeguen, by the bridge of the Rhine. The French troops,
finding themselves thus threatened on all sides, withdrew
altogether from Holland: the fleet at the Texel hoisted the
orange flag, with the exception of Admiral Verhuel, who, with
a body of marines that still proved faithful to Napoleon,
threw himself with honourable fidelity into the fort of the
Texel. Amsterdam, amidst transports of enthusiasm, received
the beloved representative of the House of Orange. Before the
close of the year, the tricolour flag floated only on
Bergen-op-zoom and a few of the southern frontier fortresses;
and Europe beheld the prodigy of the seat of war having been
transferred in a single year from the banks of the Niemen to
those of the Scheldt."
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 82 (volume 17).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1814 (May-June).
Belgium, or the former Austrian provinces and Liege, annexed
to Holland, and the kingdom of the Netherlands created.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1815.
The Waterloo campaign.
Defeat and overthrow of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1816.
Accession to the Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
Belgian revolt and acquisition of independence.
Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
Siege of Antwerp citadel.
"In one sense the union" of Belgium with Holland, in the
kingdom of the Netherlands created by the Congress of Vienna,
"was defensible. Holland enjoyed more real freedom than any
other Continental monarchy; and the Belgians had a voice in
the government of the united territory. But, in another sense,
the union was singularly unhappy. The phlegmatic Dutch
Protestant was as indisposed to unite with the light-hearted
Roman Catholic Belgian as the languid waters of the Saone with
the impetuous torrent of the Rhone. Different as were the
rivers, they met at last; and diplomatists probably hoped that
Dutch and Belgians would similarly combine.
{2301}
These hopes were disappointed, and the two people, incapable
of union, endeavoured to find independent courses for
themselves in separate channels. The grounds of Belgian
dislike to the union were intelligible. Belgium had a
population of 3,400,000 souls; Holland of only 2,000,000
persons. Yet both countries had an equal representation in the
States-General. Belgium was taxed more heavily than Holland,
and the produce of taxation went almost entirely into Dutch
pockets. The Court, which was Dutch, resided in Holland. The
public offices were in Holland. Four persons out of every five
in the public service at home were Dutchmen. The army was
almost exclusively commanded by Dutchmen. Dutch professors
were appointed to educate the Belgian youths in Belgian
schools, and a Dutch director was placed over the Bank of
Brussels. The Court even endeavoured to change the language of
the Belgian race, and to substitute Dutch for French in all
judicial proceedings. The Belgians were naturally irritated.
… On the 2nd of June, the States-General were dissolved; the
elections were peacefully concluded; and the closest observers
failed to detect any symptoms of the coming storm on the
political horizon. The storm which was to overwhelm the union
was, in fact, gathering in another country. The events of July
[at Paris] were to shake Europe to the centre. 'On all sides
crowns were falling into the gutter,' and the shock of
revolution in Paris was felt perceptibly in Brussels. Nine
years before the States-General had imposed a mouture, or tax
upon flour. The tax had been carried by a very small majority;
and the majority had been almost entirely composed of Dutch
members. On the 25th of August, 1830, the lower orders in
Brussels engaged in a serious riot, ostensibly directed
against this tax. The offices of a newspaper, conducted in the
interests of the Dutch, were attacked; the house of the
Minister of Justice was set on fire; the wine and spirit shops
were forced open; and the mob, maddened by liquor, proceeded
to other acts of pillage. On the morning of the 26th of August
the troops were called out and instructed to restore order.
Various conflicts took place between the soldiers and the
people; but the former gained no advantage over the rioters,
and were withdrawn into the Place Royale, the central square
of the town. Relieved from the interference of the military,
the mob continued the work of destruction. Respectable
citizens, dreading the destruction of their property,
organised a guard for the preservation of order. Order was
preserved; but the task of preserving it had converted
Brussels into an armed camp. It had placed the entire control
of the town in the hands of the inhabitants. Men who had
unexpectedly obtained a mastery over the situation could
hardly be expected to resign the power which events had given
to them. They had taken up their arms to repress a mob;
victors over the populace, they turned their arms against the
Government, and boldly despatched a deputation to the king
urging the concession of reforms and the immediate convocation
of the States-General. The king had received the news of the
events at Brussels with considerable alarm. Troops had been at
once ordered to march on the city; and, on the 28th of August,
an army of 6,000 men had encamped under its walls. The
citizens, however, represented that the entrance of the troops
would be a signal for the renewal of the disturbances; and the
officer in command in consequence agreed to remain passively
outside the walls. The king sent the Prince of Orange to make
terms with his insurgent subjects. The citizens declined to
admit the prince into the city unless he came without his
soldiers. The prince, unable to obtain any modification of
this stipulation, was obliged to trust himself to the people
alone. It was already evident that the chief town of Belgium
had shaken off the control of the Dutch Government. The king,
compelled to submit to the demands of the deputation, summoned
the States-General for the 13th of September. But this
concession only induced the Belgians to raise their demands.
They had hitherto only asked for reforms: they now demanded
independence, the dissolution of the union, and the
independent administration of Belgium. The revolution had
originally been confined to Brussels: it soon extended to
other towns. Civic guards were organised in Liege, Tournay,
Mons, Verviers, Bruges, and other places. Imitating the
example of Brussels, they demanded the dissolution of the
union between Holland and Belgium. The troops, consisting of a
mixed force of Dutch and Belgians, could not be depended on;
and the restoration of the royal authority was obviously
impossible. On the 13th of September the States-General met.
The question of separation was referred to them by the king;
and the Deputies leisurely applied themselves to its
consideration, in conformity with the tedious rules by which
their proceedings were regulated. Long before they had
completed the preliminary discussions which they thought
necessary the march of events had taken the question out of
their hands. On the 19th of September fresh disturbances broke
out in Brussels. The civic guard, attempting to quell the
riot, was overpowered; and the rioters, elated with their
success, announced their intention of attacking the troops,
who were encamped outside the city walls. Prince Frederick of
Orange, concluding that action was inevitable, at last made up
his mind to attack the town. Dividing the forces under his
command into six columns, he directed them, on the 23rd of
September, against the six gates of the city. … Three of the
columns succeeded, after a serious struggle, in obtaining
possession of the higher parts of the city; but they were
unable to accomplish any decisive victory. For four days the
contest was renewed. On the 27th of September, the troops,
unable to advance, were withdrawn from the positions which
they had won. On the following day the Lower Chamber of the
States-General decided in favour of a dissolution of the
union. The crown of Belgium was evidently dropping into the
gutter; but the king decided on making one more effort to
preserve it in his family. On the 4th of October he sent the
Prince of Orange to Antwerp, authorising him to form a
separate Administration for the southern provinces of the
kingdom, and to place himself at the head of it. …
Arrangements of this character had, however, already become
impossible. On the very day on which the prince reached
Antwerp the Provisional Government at Brussels issued an
ordonnance declaring the independence of Belgium and the
immediate convocation of a National Congress. …
{2302}
On the 10th of October, the Provisional Government, following
up its former ordonnance, issued a second decree, regulating
the composition of the National Congress and the
qualifications of the electors. On the 12th the elections were
fixed for the 27th of October. On the 10th of November the
Congress was formally opened; and on the 18th the independence
of the Belgian people was formally proclaimed by its
authority. … On the 4th of November the Ministers of the
five great Continental powers, assembled in London at the
invitation of the King of Holland, declared that an armistice
should immediately be concluded, and that the Dutch troops
should be withdrawn from Belgium. The signature of this
protocol, on the eve of the meeting of the National Congress,
virtually led to the independence of the Belgian people, which
the Congress immediately proclaimed."
S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
It still remained for the Powers to provide a king for
Belgium, and to gain the consent of the Dutch and Belgian
Governments to the territorial arrangements drawn up for them.
The first difficulty was overcome in June, 1831, by the choice
of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg to be king of Belgium. The
second problem was complicated by strong claims on both sides
to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. The Conference solved it by
dividing the disputed territory between Belgium and Holland.
The Belgians accepted the arrangement; the King of Holland
rejected it, and was coerced by France and England, who
expelled his forces from Antwerp, which he still held. A
French army laid siege to the citadel, while an English fleet
blockaded the river Scheldt. After a bombardment of 24 days,
December, 1832, the citadel surrendered; but it was not until
April, 1839, the final Treaty of Peace between Belgium and
Holland was signed.
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-1852,
chapters 24-25 and 29.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
Peaceful years of the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland.
Constitutional and material progress.
The contest of Catholics and Liberals in Belgium.
"After winning its independence (1830) Belgium has also been
free to work out its own career of prosperous development.
King Leopold I. during his long reign showed himself the model
of a constitutional sovereign in furthering its progress. The
first railway on the continent was opened in 1835 between
Brussels and Malines, and its railway system is now most
complete. Its population between 1830 and 1880 increased by
more than one-third, and now is the densest in all Europe,
numbering 5,900,000 on an area only twice as large as
Yorkshire. … When Napoleon III. seized on power in France
all Belgians feared that he would imitate his uncle by seizing
Belgium and all land up to the Rhine; but the close connection
of King Leopold [brother of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort]
with the English royal house and his skilful diplomacy averted
the danger from Belgium. The chief internal trouble has been
the strife between the liberal and clerical parties. In 1850
there were over 400 monasteries, with some 12,000 monks and
nuns, in the land, and the Liberals made strenuous efforts for
many years to abolish these and control education; but neither
party could command a firm and lasting majority. In the midst
of these eager disputes King Leopold I. died (1865), after
seeing his kingdom firmly established in spite of ministerial
crises every few months. His son Leopold II. has also been a
constitutional sovereign. In 1867 the Luxemburg question
seemed to threaten the Belgian territory, for Napoleon III.
had secretly proposed to Bismarck that France should take
Belgium and Luxemburg, as well as all land up to the Rhine, as
the price of his friendship to the new German Confederation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.
… Again in 1870 the Franco-German war threw a severe strain
on Belgium to guard its neutrality, but after Sedan this
danger vanished. The strife between the liberal and clerical
parties went on as fiercely in Belgium as in France itself,
and after the rise and fall of many ministries the Liberals
succeeded in closing the convents and gaining control over
State education. The constitution is that of a limited
monarchy with responsible ministers, Senate, and Chamber of
Deputies. The electorate up to 1884 was limited to citizens
paying 42 francs a year in direct taxes, but in 1884 it was
extended by the clerical party acting for once in connection
with the radicals." (On the revised constitution of 1893 see
below: 1892-1893.) In the kingdom of the Netherlands
(Holland), King William, after he had been forced to recognize
Belgian independence, "abdicated [1840] in favour of his son.
The latter soon restored a good understanding with Belgium,
and improved the finances of his kingdom; so the upheavals of
1848 caused no revolution in Holland, and only led to a
thorough reform of its constitution. The Upper House of the
States-General consists of members chosen for nine years by
the estates or councils of the provinces, those of the lower
house by electors having a property qualification. The king's
ministers are now responsible to the Parliament. Liberty of
the press and of public worship is recognised. The chief
questions in Holland have been the reduction of its heavy
debt, the increase of its army and navy, the improvement of
agriculture and commerce, and the management of large and
difficult colonial possessions." Holland "has to manage
28,000,000 subjects over the seas, mostly in Malaysia. She
there holds all Java, parts of Borneo, Sumatra, Timor, the
Moluccas, Celebes, and the western half of New Guinea; in
South America, Dutch Guiana and, the Isle of Curaçoa. It was
not till 1862 that the Dutch at a great cost freed the slaves
in their West Indian possessions [viz., the islands of
Curaçoa, Aruba, St. Martin, Bonaire, St. Eustache, and Saba];
but their rule in Malaysia is still conducted with the main
purpose of securing revenue by means of an oppressive labour
system. The Dutch claims in Sumatra are contested by the
people of Acheen in the northern part of that great island."
J. H. Rose,
A Century of Continental History,
chapter 43.
"The politico-religious contest between Catholics and Liberals
exists to a greater or less degree in all Catholic countries,
and even in Protestant ones possessing, like Prussia, Catholic
provinces: but nowhere is political life more completely
absorbed by this antagonism than in Belgium, nowhere are the
lines of the contest more clearly traced. … In order
thoroughly to grasp the meaning of our politico-religious
strife, we must cast a glance at its origin. We find this in
the constitution adopted by the Congress after the Revolution
of 1830.
{2303}
This constitution enjoins and sanctions all the freedom and
liberty which has long been the privilege of England, and of
the States she has founded in America and Australia. A free
press, liberty as regards education, freedom to form
associations or societies, provincial and communal autonomy,
representative administration—all exactly as in England. How
was it that the Congress of 1830, the majority of whose
members belonged to the Catholic party, came to vote in favour
of principles opposed, not only to the traditions, but also
the dogmas of the Catholic Church? This singular fact is
explained by the writings of the celebrated priest and author,
La Mennais, whose opinions at that time exercised the greatest
influence. La Mennais's first book, 'L'Essai sur
l'indifference en Matière de Religion,' lowered all human
reasoning, and delivered up society to the omnipotent guidance
of the Pope. This work, enthusiastically perused by bishops,
seminarists, and priests, established the author as an
unprecedented authority. When, after the year 1828, he
pretended that the Church would regain her former power by
separating herself from the State, retaining only her liberty,
most of his admirers professed themselves of his opinion. …
Nearly all Belgian priests were at that time La Mennaisiens.
They accepted the separation of Church and State, and, in
their enthusiastic intoxication, craved but liberty to
reconquer the world. It was thus that Catholics and Liberals
united to vote for Belgium the constitution still in existence
after a half-century. In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI., as Veuillot
tells us, 'hurled a thunderbolt at the Belgian constitution in
its cradle.' In a famous Encyclical, since incessantly quoted,
the Pope declared, ex cathedrâ, that modern liberties were a
plague, 'a delirium,' from whence incalculable evils would
inevitably flow. Shortly afterwards, the true author of the
Belgian constitution, La Mennais, having been to Rome in the
vain hope of converting the Pope to his views, was repulsed,
and, a little later, cast out from the bosom of the Church.
The separation was effected. There was an end to that 'union'
of Catholics and Liberals which had overthrown King William
and founded a new political order in Belgium. It was not,
however, till after 1838 that the two parties distinctly
announced their antagonism. … The Liberal party is composed
of all who, having faith in human reason and in liberty, fear
a return to the past, and desire reforms of all sorts. …
When Catholics are mentioned as opposed to Liberals, it is as
regards their political, not their religious opinions. The
Liberals are all, or nearly all, Catholics also; at all events
by baptism. … The Catholic party is guided officially by the
bishops. It is composed, in the first place, of all the
clergy, of the convents and monasteries, and of those who from
a sentiment of religious obedience do as they are directed by
the bishop of the diocese and the Pope, and also of genuine
Conservatives, otherwise called reactionists—that is to say,
of those who consider that liberty leads to anarchy, and
progress to communism. This section comprises the great mass
of the proprietors and cultivators of the soil and the country
populations. … We see that in Belgium parties are divided,
and fight seriously for an idea; they are separated by no
material, but by spiritual interests. The Liberals defend
liberty, which they consider menaced by the aims of the
Church. The Catholics defend religion, which they look upon as
threatened by their adversaries' doctrines. Both desire to
fortify themselves against a danger, non-existent yet, but
which they foresee. … The educational question, which has
been the centre of the political life of the country during
the last two years, deserves expounding in detail. Important
in itself, and more important still in its consequences, it is
everywhere discussed with passion. Primary education was
organized here in 1842, by a law of compromise adopted by the
two parties, thanks to M. J. B. Nothomb, one of the founders
of the Belgian Constitution, who died recently in Berlin,
where he had been Belgian Minister for a space of upwards of
forty years. This law enacted that every parish should possess
schools sufficient for the number of children needing
instruction; but it allowed the 'commune' to adopt private
schools. The inspection of the public schools and the control
of the religious teaching given by the masters and mistresses,
was reserved to the clergy. Advanced Liberals began to clamour
for the suppression of this latter clause as soon as they
perceived the preponderating influence it gave the priests
over the lay teachers. The reform of the law of 1842 became
the watchword of the Liberal party, and this was ultimately
effected in July, 1879; now each parish or village must
provide the schools necessary for the children of its
inhabitants, and must not give support to any private school.
Ecclesiastical inspection is suppressed. Religious instruction
may be given by the ministers of the various denominations, in
the school buildings, but out of the regular hours. This
system has been in force in Holland since the commencement of
the present century. Lay instruction only is given by the
communal masters and mistresses; no dogmas are taught, but the
school is open to the clergy of all denominations who choose
to enter, as it is evidently their duty to do. This system,
now introduced in Belgium, has been accepted, without giving
rise to any difficulties, by both Protestants and Jews, but it
is most vehemently condemned by the Catholic priesthood. …
In less than a year they have succeeded in opening a private
school in every commune and village not formerly possessing
one. In this instance the Catholic party has shown a
devotedness really remarkable. … At the same time in all the
Churches, and nearly every Sunday, the Government schools have
been attacked, stigmatized as 'écoles sans Dieu' (schools
without God), to be avoided as the plague, and where parents
were forbidden to place their children, under pain of
committing the greatest sin. Those who disobeyed, and allowed
their children still to frequent the communal schools, were
deprived of the Sacraments of the Church. They were refused
absolution at confession, and the Eucharist, even at Easter.
All the schoolmasters and mistresses were placed under the ban
of the Church, and the priests often even refused to pronounce
a blessing on their marriage. It is only lately that, contrary
instructions having been received from Rome, this extreme step
is now very rarely resorted to. The Liberal majority in the
House has ordered a Parliamentary inquiry—which is still in
progress, and the results of which in this last six months,
fill the columns of our newspapers—in order to ascertain by
what means the clergy succeed in filling their schools. … As
a natural consequence of the excessive heat of the conflict, the
two parties end by justifying the accusations of their
adversaries.
{2304}
The Liberals become anti-religionists, because religion
is—and is daily becoming more and more—anti-liberal; and the
Catholics are afraid of liberty, because it is used against
their faith, which is, in their opinion, the only true and the
necessary foundation of civilization. … The existence in
Belgium of two parties so distinctly and clearly separated,
offers, however, some compensation: it favours the good
working of Parliamentary government."
E. de Laveleye,
The Political Condition of Belgium
(Contemporary Review, April, 1882),
pages 715-724, with foot-note.
NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1876-1890.
The founding of the Congo Free State.
See CONGO FREE STATE.
NETHERLANDS: (Holland, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands):
A. D. 1887.
Revision of the Constitution.
The constitution of 1848 (see above), in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, was revised in 1887, but in a very conservative
spirit. Attempts to make the suffrage universal, and to effect
a separation of church and state, were defeated. The suffrage
qualification by tax-payment was reduced to ten guilders, and
certain classes of lodgers were also admitted to the
franchise, more than doubling the total number of voters,
which is now estimated to be about 290,000. All private
soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the regular army are
excluded from the franchise. The upper chamber of the States
General is elected as before by the Provincial States, but its
membership is raised to fifty. The second chamber, consisting
of one hundred members, is chosen directly by the voters. In
the new constitution, the succession to the throne is
definitely prescribed, in the event of a failure of direct
heirs. Three collateral lines of descent are designated, to be
accepted in their order as follows: 1. Princess Sophia of
Saxony and her issue; 2. the descendants of the late Princess
Marian of Prussia; 3. the descendants of the late Princess
Mary of Wied. The late king of the Netherlands, William III.,
died in 1890, leaving only a daughter, ten years old, to
succeed him. The young queen, Wilhelmina, is reigning under
the regency of her mother.
The Statesman's Year-book, 1894.
ALSO IN:
The Annual Register, 1887.
Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887.
NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1892-1893.
The revised Belgian Constitution.
Introduction of plural Suffrage.
A great agitation among the Belgian workingmen, ending in a
formidable strike, in 1890, was only quieted by the promise
from the government of a revision of the constitution and the
introduction of universal suffrage. The Constituent Chambers,
elected to perform the task of revision, were opened on the
11th of July, 1892. The amended constitution was promulgated
on the 7th of September, 1893. It confers the suffrage on
every citizen twenty-five years of age or over, domiciled in
the same commune for not less than one year, and not under
legal disqualification. The new constitution is made
especially interesting by its introduction of a system of
cumulative or plural voting. One supplementary vote is
conferred on every married citizen (or widower), thirty-five
years or more of age, having legitimate issue, and paying at
least five francs per annum house tax; also on every citizen
not less than twenty-five years old who owns real property to
the value of 2,000 francs, or who derives an income of not
less than 100 francs a year from an investment in the public
debt, or from the savings bank. Two supplementary votes are
given to each citizen twenty-five years of age who has
received certain diplomas or discharged certain functions
which imply the possession of a superior education. The same
citizen may accumulate votes on more than one of these
qualifications, but none is allowed to cast more than three.
On the adoption of the new constitution, the Brussels
correspondent of the "London Times" wrote to that journal;
"This article, which adds to manhood suffrage as it exists in
France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and
the Australian colonies, the safeguard of a double and triple
suffrage accorded to age, marriage, and paternity, as well as
to the possession of money saved or inherited, or of a
profession, will constitute one of the distinguishing marks of
the new Belgian Constitution. As it reposes upon the just
principle that votes must be considered in reference to their
weight rather than to their numbers, it has had the effect of
putting an immediate end to the violent political crisis which
disturbed the country. It has been accepted without much
enthusiasm, indeed, but as a reasonable compromise. The
moderates of all classes, who do not go to war for abstract
theories, think that it has a prospect of enduring." An
attempt to introduce proportional representation along with
the plural suffrage was defeated. The constitution of the
Senate raised questions hardly less important than those
connected with the elective franchise. Says the correspondent
quoted above: "The advanced Radical and Socialist parties had
proposed to supplement the Chamber, the political
representation of the territorial interests of the country, by
a Senate representing its economic interests. The great social
forces—capital, labour, and science—in their application to
agriculture, industry, and commerce, were each to send their
representatives. It may be that this formula, which would have
made of the Belgian Senate an Assembly sui generis in Europe,
may become the formula of the future. The Belgian legislators
hesitated before the novelty of the idea and the difficulty of
its application. This combination rejected, there remained for
the Senate only the alternative between two systems—namely,
to separate that Assembly from the Chamber by its origin or
else by its composition. The Senate and the Government
preferred the first of these solutions, that is to say direct
elections for the Chamber, an election by two degrees for the
Senate, either by the members of the provincial councils or by
specially elected delegates of the Communes. But these
proposals encountered from all the benches in the Chamber a
general resistance." The result was a compromise. The Senate
consists of 76 members elected directly by the people, and 26
elected by the provincial councils. The term of each is eight
years. The Senators chosen by the councils are exempted from a
property qualification; those popularly elected are required
to be owners of real property yielding not less than 12,000
francs of income, or to pay not less than 1,200 francs in
direct taxes. The legislature is empowered to restrict the
voting for Senators to citizens thirty years of age or more.
{2305}
The members of the Chamber of Representatives are apportioned
according to population and elected for four years, one half
retiring every two years. The Senate and Chamber meet annually
in November, and are required to be in session for at least
forty days; but the King may convoke extraordinary sessions,
and may dissolve the Chambers either separately or together.
In case of a dissolution, the constitution requires an
election to be held within forty days, and a meeting of the
Chambers within two months. Only the Chamber of
Representatives can originate money bills or bills relating to
the contingent for the army. The executive consists of seven
ministries, namely of Finance, of Justice, of Interior and
Instruction, of War, of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, of
Foreign Affairs, of Agriculture, Industry and Public Works.
The King's Privy Council is a distinct body.
----------NETHERLANDS: End----------
NEUCHATÊL: Separation from Prussia.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
NEUENBERG: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
NEUSTRIA.
See AUSTRASIA.
NEUTRAL GROUND, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
NEUTRAL NATION, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.
NEUTRAL RIGHTS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
----------NEVADA: Start--------
NEVADA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.
Acquisition from Mexico.
Silver discoveries.
Territorial and State organization.
"Ceded to the United States at the same time, and, indeed, as
one with California [see MEXICO: A. D. 1848], this region of
the Spanish domain had not, like that west of the Sierra
Nevada, a distinctive name, but was described by local names,
and divided into valleys. In March following the treaty with
Mexico and the discovery of gold, the inhabitants of Salt Lake
valley met and organized the state of Deseret, the boundaries
of which included the whole of the recently acquired Mexican
territory outside of California, and something more." But
Congress, failing to recognize the state of Deseret, created
instead, by an act passed on the 9th of September, 1850, the
Territory of Utah, with boundaries which embraced Nevada
likewise. This association was continued until 1861, when the
Territory of Nevada was organized by act of Congress out of
western Utah. Meantime the discovery in 1859 of the
extraordinary deposit of silver which became famous as the
Comstock Lode, and other mining successes of importance, had
rapidly attracted to the region a large population of
adventurers. It was this which had brought about the separate
territorial organization. Three years later the young
territory was permitted to frame a state constitution and was
admitted into the Union in October, 1864.
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 20: Nevada, page 66.
----------NEVADA: End--------
NEVELLE, Battle of (1381).
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
NEVILLE'S CROSS, OR DURHAM, Battle of.
A crushing defeat suffered by an army of the Scots, invading
England under their young king, David Bruce, who was taken
prisoner. The battle was fought near Durham, October 17, 1346.
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 25 (volume 3).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
NEW ALBION, The County Palatine of.
By a royal charter, witnessed by the Deputy-General of
Ireland, at Dublin, June 21, 1634, King Charles I. granted to
Sir Edmund Plowden and eight other petitioners, the whole of
Long Island ("Manitie, or Long Isle"), together with forty
leagues square of the adjoining continent, constituting the
said domain a county palatine and calling it New Albion, while
the island received the name of Isle Plowden. "In this
document the boundaries of New Albion are so defined as to
include all of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and
Pennsylvania embraced in a square, the eastern side of which,
forty leagues in length, extended (along the coast) from Sandy
Hook to Cape May, together with Long Island, and all other
'isles and islands in the sea within ten leagues of the shores
of the said region.' The province is expressly erected into a
county palatine, under the jurisdiction of Sir Edmund Plowden
as earl, depending upon his Majesty's' royal person and
imperial crown, as King of Ireland.'" Subsequently, within the
year 1634, the whole of the grant was acquired by and became
vested in Plowden and his three sons. Sir Edmund, who died in
1659, spent the remainder of his life in futile attempts to
make good his claim against the Swedes on the Delaware and the
Dutch, and in exploiting his magnificent title as Earl
Palatine of New Albion. The claim and the title seem to have
reappeared occasionally among his descendants until some time
near the close of the 18th century.
G. B. Keen,
Note on New Albion.
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
J. Winsor, editor, volume 3, pages 457-468).
ALSO IN:
S. Hazard,
Annals of Pennsylvania,
pages 36-38 and 108-112.
NEW AMSTERDAM.
The name originally given by the Dutch to the city of New
York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1634; and 1653.
Also the name first given to the village out of which grew the
city of Buffalo, N. Y.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
----------NEW BRUNSWICK: Start--------
NEW BRUNSWICK:
Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.
See NORUMBEGA;
also, CANADA: NAMES.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1621-1668.
Included in Nova Scotia.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1713.
Uncertain disposition by the Treaty of Utrecht.
See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1820-1837.
The Family Compact.
See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1854-1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
A. D. 1854-1866.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1867.
Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
----------NEW BRUNSWICK: End--------
NEW CÆSAREA, OR NEW JERSEY.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
NEW CARTHAGE.
The founding of.
See CARTHAGENA, THE FOUNDING OF.
NEW CASTILE.
See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.
{2306}
----------NEW ENGLAND: Start--------
NEW ENGLAND.
[Footnote: The greater part of New England history is given
elsewhere, as the history of the several New England states,
and is only indexed in this place, instead of being repeated.]
NEW ENGLAND:
The Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
NEW ENGLAND:
The Norumbega of early geographers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
First coasted by Sebastian Cabot.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1524.
Coasted by Verrazano.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1602-1607.
The voyages of Gosnold, Pring and Weymouth.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
Embraced in the region claimed as Acadia by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.
Coast explored by Champlain.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
Embraced in the grant to the North Virginia Company
of Plymouth.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1607-1608.
The Popham Colony on the Kennebec.
The fruitless venture of the Plymouth Company.
See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1614.
Named, mapped and described by Captain John Smith.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The voyage of the Mayflower and the planting of Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
Incorporation of the Council for New England,
successor to the Plymouth Company.
Its great domain and its monopoly of the Fisheries.
"While the king was engaged in the overthrow of the London
company [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624], its more loyal rival
in the West of England [the Plymouth company, or North
Virginia branch of the Virginia company] sought new
letters-patent, with a great enlargement of their domain. The
remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and the rights of
English commerce could delay for two years, but not defeat,
the measure that was pressed by the friends of the monarch. On
the 3d of November, 1620, King James incorporated 40 of his
subjects—some of them members of his household and his
government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English
nobility—as 'The Council established at Plymouth, in the
county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and
governing New England in America.' The territory, which was
conferred on them in absolute property, with unlimited powers
of legislation and government, extended from the 40th to the
48th degree of north latitude, and from the Atlantic to the
Pacific. The grant included the fisheries; and a revenue was
considered certain from a duty to be imposed on all tonnage
employed in them. The patent placed emigrants to New England
under the absolute authority of the corporation, and it was
through grants from that plenary power, confirmed by the
crown, that institutions the most favorable to colonial
independence and the rights of mankind came into being. The
French derided the action of the British monarch in bestowing
lands and privileges which their own sovereign, seventeen
years before, had appropriated. The English nation was
incensed at the largess of immense monopolies by the royal
prerogative; and in April, 1621, Sir Edwin Sandys brought the
grievance before the house of commons. … But the parliament
was dissolved before a bill could be perfected. In 1622, five
and thirty sail of vessels went to fish on the coasts of New
England, and made good voyages. The monopolists appealed to
King James, and he issued a proclamation, which forbade any to
approach the northern coast of America, except with the leave
of their company or of the privy council, In June, 1623,
Francis West was despatched as admiral of New England, to
exclude such fishermen as came without a license. But they
refused to pay the tax which he imposed, and his ineffectual
authority was soon resigned."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 1, chapter 13 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
C. Deane,
New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 9).
Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
Brief Narration
(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2).
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
The grants made by the Council for New England.
Settlements planted.
Nova Scotia, Maine and New Hampshire conferred.
Captain John Mason, a native of King's Lynn, in Norfolk,
became governor of Newfoundland in 1615. "While there he wrote
a tract entitled 'A Brief Discourse of the Newfoundland,' and
sent it to his friend Sir John Scot of Edinburgh, to peruse,
and to print if he thought it worthy. It was printed in the
year 1620. … In the spring or summer of 1621, Mason returned
into England, and immediately found proof of the effect of his
little tract. … Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of
Stirling, immediately sought him out. He had been appointed
Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Prince Henry, honored with
Knighthood, and was Master of Requests for Scotland. He
invited Mason to his house, where he discussed with him a
scheme of Scotch colonization, and he resolved to undertake
settling a colony in what is now Nova Scotia. He begged Mason
to aid him in procuring a grant of this territory from the
Council for New England, it being within their limits. Mason
referred him to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, one of the Council and
their Treasurer. The king readily recommended Alexander to
Gorges, and Gorges heartily approved the plan. In September,
1621, Alexander obtained a Royal Patent for a tract of land
which he called New Scotland, a name attractive to his
countrymen. This must have been gratifying to Mason, who had
urged Scotch emigration in his tract printed only a year
before. The Council for New England, established in November,
1620, was now granting and ready to grant to associations or
to individuals parcels of its vast domain in America. … The
second patent for land granted by the Council was to Captain
John Mason, bearing date March 9, 1621-2. It was all the land
lying between the Naumkeag and the Merrimac rivers, extending
back from the sea-coast to the heads of both of these rivers,
with all the islands within three miles of the shore. Mason
called this Mariana. This tract of territory lies wholly
within the present bounds of Massachusetts. We now arrive at a
period when Mason and Gorges have a joint interest in New
England.
{2307}
On the 10th of August, 1622, the Council made a third grant.
This was to Gorges and Mason jointly of land lying upon the
sea-coast between the Merrimac and the Kennebec rivers,
extending three-score miles into the country, with all islands
within five leagues of the premises to be, or intended to be,
called the Province of Maine. Thus was the territory destined
seven years later to bear the name of New Hampshire, first
carved from the vast domain of New England, whose boundaries
were fixed by the great circles of the heavens. Thus was Capt.
Mason joint proprietor of his territory afterwards known as
New Hampshire, before a single settler had built a cabin on
the Pascataqua. Captain Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando,
was authorized to give the grantees possession of this new
Province. Great enthusiasm on the subject of colonization now
prevailed in England, extending from the king, through all
ranks. … Before the year 1622 closed, the Council issued
many patents for land, in small divisions, to persons
intending to make plantations. Among the grants, is one to
David Thomson and two associates, of land on the Pascataqua.
The bounds and extent of this patent are unknown. Only the
fact that such a patent was granted is preserved. … The
Council for New England, in view of the many intended
settlements, as well as the few already made, now proposed to
set up a general government in New England. Captain Robert
Gorges, recently returned from the Venetian wars, was
appointed Governor, with Captain Francis West, Captain
Christopher Levett, and the governor of New Plymouth as his
Council. Captain Gorges arrived here the middle of September,
1623, having been preceded some months by Captain West, who
was Vice-Admiral of New England as well as Councillor. Captain
Levett came as late as November. … The next year, 1624, war
between England and Spain broke out, and drew off for a while
Gorges and Mason from their interests in colonization. Gorges
was Captain of the Castle and Island of St. Nicholas, at
Plymouth, a post that he had held for thirty years; and he was
now wholly taken up with the duties of his office. Mason's
services were required as a naval officer of experience. …
In 1626 England plunged into a war with France, without having
ended the war with Spain. Captain Mason was advanced to be
Treasurer and Paymaster of the English armies employed in the
wars. There was no time now to think of American colonization.
His duties were arduous. … In 1629 peace was made with
France, and the war with Spain was coming to an end. No sooner
were Gorges and Mason a little relieved from their public
duties than they sprang at once to their old New England
enterprise. They resolved to push forward their interests.
They came to some understanding about a division of their
Province of Maine. On the 7th of November, 1629, a day
memorable in the history of New Hampshire, the Council granted
to Mason a patent of all that part of the Province of Maine
lying between the Merrimac and Pascataqua rivers; and Mason
called it New Hampshire, out of regard to the favor in which
he held Hampshire in England, where he had resided many years.
… This grant had hardly been made when Champlain was brought
to London, a prisoner, from Canada, by Kirke. The French had
been driven from that region. Gorges and Mason procured
immediately a grant from the Council of a vast tract of land
in the region of Lake Champlain, supposed to be not only a
fine country for peltry, but to contain vast mineral wealth.
The Province was called Laconia on account of the numerous
lakes supposed or known to be there, and was the most northern
grant hitherto made by the Council. The patent bears date
November 17, 1629, only ten days later than Mason's New
Hampshire grant. … For the purpose of advancing the
interests of Gorges and Mason in Laconia as well as on the
Pascataqua, they joined with them six merchants in London, and
received from the Council a grant dated November 3, 1631, of a
tract of land lying on both sides of the Pascataqua river, on
the sea-coast and within territory already owned by Gorges and
Mason in severalty. This patent, called the Pascataqua Patent,
covered, on the west side of the river, the present towns of
Portsmouth, New Castle, Rye and part of Greenland; on the east
side, Kittery, Eliot, the Berwicks, and the western part of
Lebanon."
C. W. Tuttle,
Captain John Mason
(Prince Society Publications, 1887),
pages 12-24.
ALSO IN:
S. F. Haven,
Grants under the Great Council for New England
(Lowell Institute. Lecture: Early History of Massachusetts,
pages 127-162).
J. P. Baxter, editor,
Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine
(Prince Society Publications 1890).
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, page 397, foot-note.
See, also,
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1629.
The Dorchester Company and the royal charter to
the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The new patent to Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS:
A. D. 1623-1629 PLYMOUTH COLONY.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629-1630.
The immigration of the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay with their charter.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
The pioneer settlements in Connecticut.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
Dissolution of the Council for New England and partitioning
of its territorial claims by lot.
"The Council for New England, having struggled through nearly
fifteen years of maladministration and ill-luck, had yielded
to the discouragements which beset it. By the royal favor, it
had triumphed over the rival Virginia Company, to be
overwhelmed in its turn by the just jealousy of Parliament,
and by dissensions among its members. The Council, having, by
profuse and inconsistent grants of its lands, exhausted its
common property, as well as its credit with purchasers for
keeping its engagements, had no motive to continue its
organization. Under these circumstances, it determined on a
resignation of its charter to the king, and a surrender of the
administration of its domain to a General Governor of his
appointment, on the condition that all the territory, a large
portion of which by its corporate action had already been
alienated to other parties [see above: A. D. 1621-1631],
should be granted in severalty by the king to the members of
the Council. Twelve associates accordingly proceeded to a
distribution of New England among themselves by lot; and
nothing was wanting to render the transaction complete, and to
transfer to them the ownership of that region, except to oust the
previous patentees, of whom the most powerful body were
colonists in Massachusetts Bay. To effect this, Sir John
Banks, Attorney-General, brought a writ of 'quo warranto' in
Westminster Hall against the Massachusetts Company. …
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
{2308}
It seemed that, when a few more forms should be gone through,
all would be over with the presumptuous Colony. … But …
everything went on as if Westminster Hall had not spoken. 'The
Lord frustrated their design.' The disorders of the mother
country were a safeguard of the infant liberty of New
England."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 10.
In the parcelling of New England by lot among the members of
the Council, the divisions were:
(1) Between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, to William Alexander.
(2) From Pemaquid to Sagadahoc,
in part to the Marquis of Hamilton.
(3) Between the Kennebec and Androscoggin; and
(4) from Sagadahoc to Piscataqua, to Sir F. Gorges.
(5) From Piscataqua to the Naumkeag, to Mason.
(6) From the Naumkeag round the sea-coast,
by Cape Cod to Narragansett, to the Marquis of Hamilton.
(7) From Narragansett to the half-way bound, between that and
the Connecticut River, and 50 miles up into the country,
to Lord Edward Gorges.
(8) From this midway point to the Connecticut River, to the
Earl of Carlisle.
(9 and 10) From the Connecticut to the Hudson,
to the Duke of Lennox.
(11 and 12) From the Hudson to the limits of the
Plymouth Company's territory, to Lord Mulgrave.
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
History of the United States,
volume 1, page 337, foot-note.
ALSO IN:
T. Hutchinson,
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 1, pages 48-50.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636.
Providence Plantation and Roger Williams.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636;
and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1639.
The first American constitution.
The genesis of a state.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1641.
Public Registry laws.
See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.
"The region extending from the bounds of Rhode Island to the
banks of the Hudson was at the time of the colonization held

in strips of territory mainly by three tribes of the natives,
who had long had feuds among themselves and with other tribes.
They were the Narragansetts, the Mohegans, and the Pequots.
The Mohegans were then tributaries of the Pequots, and were
restive under subjection to their fierce and warlike
conquerors, who were estimated to number at the time 1,000
fighting men. … The policy of the whites was to aggravate
the dissensions of the tribes, and to make alliance with one
or more of them. Winthrop records in March, 1631, the visit to
Boston of a Connecticut Indian, probably a Mohegan, who
invited the English to come and plant near the river, and who
offered presents, with the promise of a profitable trade. His
object proved to be to engage the interest of the whites
against the Pequots. His errand was for the time unsuccessful.
Further advances of a similar character were made afterwards,
the result being to persuade the English that, sooner or
later, they would need to interfere as umpires, and must use
discretion in a wise regard to what would prove to be for
their own interest. In 1633 the Pequots had savagely mutilated
and murdered a party of English traders, who, under Captain
Stone, of Virginia, had gone up the Connecticut. The Boston
magistrates had instituted measures to call the Pequots to
account, but nothing effectual was done. The Dutch had a fort
on the river near Hartford, and the English had built one at
its mouth. In 1636 several settlements had been made in
Connecticut by the English from Cambridge, Dorchester, and
other places. John Oldham, of Watertown, had in that year been
murdered, while on a trading voyage, by some Indians belonging
on Block Island. To avenge this act our magistrates sent
Endicott, as general, with a body of 90 men, with orders to
kill all the male Indians on that island, sparing only the
women and little children. He accomplished his bloody work
only in part, but after destroying all the corn-fields and
wigwams, he turned to hunt the Pequots on the main. After this
expedition, which simply exasperated the Pequots, they made a
desperate effort to induce the Narragansetts to come into a
league with them against the English. It seemed for a while as
if they would succeed in this, and the consequences would
doubtless have been most disastrous to the whites. The scheme
was thwarted largely through the wise and friendly
intervention of Roger Williams, whose diplomacy was made
effective by the confidence which his red neighbors had in
him. The Narragansett messengers then entered into a friendly
league with the English in Boston. All through the winter of
1637 the Pequots continued to pick off the whites in their
territory, and they mutilated, tortured, roasted, and murdered
at least thirty victims, becoming more and more vindictive and
cruel in their doings. There were then in Connecticut some 250
Englishmen, and, as has been said, about 1,000 Pequot
'braves.' The authorities in Connecticut resolutely started a
military organization, giving the command to the redoubtable
John Mason, a Low-Country soldier, who had recently gone from
Dorchester. Massachusetts and Plymouth contributed their
quotas, having as allies the Mohegans, of whose fidelity they
had fearful misgivings, but who proved constant though not
very effective. Of the 160 men raised by Massachusetts, only
about 20, under Captain Underhill,—a good fighter, but a
sorry scamp,—reached the scene in season to join with Mason
in surprising the unsuspecting and sleeping Pequots in one of
their forts near the Mystic. Fire, lead, and steel with the
infuriated vengeance of Puritan soldiers against murderous and
fiendish heathen, did effectively the exterminating work.
Hundreds of the savages, in their maddened frenzy of fear and
dismay, were shot or run through as they were impaled on their
own palisades in their efforts to rush from their blazing
wigwams, crowded within their frail enclosures. The English
showed no mercy, for they felt none. … A very few of the
wretched savages escaped to another fort, to which the
victorious English followed them. This, however; they soon
abandoned, taking refuge, with their old people and children,
in the protection of swamps and thickets. Here, too, the
English, who had lost but two men killed, though they had many
wounded, and who were now reinforced, pursued and surrounded them,
allowing the aged and the children, by a parley, to come out.
{2309}
The men, however, were mostly slain, and the feeble remnant of
them which sought protection among the so-called river
Indians, higher up the Connecticut, and among the Mohawks,
were but scornfully received,—the Pequot sachem Sassacus,
being beheaded by the latter. A few of the prisoners were sold
in the West Indies as slaves, others were reduced to the same
humiliation among the Mohegans, or as farm and house servants
to the English. … But the alliances into which the whites
had entered in order to divide their savage foes were the
occasions of future entanglements in a tortuous policy, and of
later bloody struggles of an appalling character. … In all
candor the admission must be made, that the Christian white
men … allowed themselves to be trained by the experience of
Indian warfare into a savage cruelty and a desperate
vengefulness."
G. E. Ellis,
The Indians of Eastern Massachusetts
(Memorial History of Boston, volume 1, pages 252-254).
"More than 800 [of the Pequots] had been slain in the war, and
less than 200 remained to share the fate of captives. These
were distributed among the Narragansets and Mohegans, with the
pledge that they should no more be called Pequots, nor inhabit
their native country again. To make the annihilation of the
race yet more complete, their very name was extinguished in
Connecticut by legislative act. Pequot river was called the
Thames, Pequot town was named New London."
S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
volume 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
G. H. Hollister,
History of Connecticut,
chapters 2-3.
G. E. Ellis,
Life of John Mason
(Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3).
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1638.
The purchase, settlement and naming of Rhode Island.
The founding of New Haven Colony.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.
The growth of population and the rise of towns.
The end of the Puritan exodus.
"Over 20,000 persons are estimated to have arrived in New
England in the fifteen years before the assembling of the Long
Parliament [1640]; one hundred and ninety-eight ships bore
them over the Atlantic; and the whole cost of their
transportation, and of the establishment of the plantation, is
computed at about £200,000, or nearly a million of dollars.
The progress of settlement had been proportionally rapid. …
Hingham was settled in 1634. Newbury, Concord, and Dedham were
incorporated in 1635. And from that date to 1643, acts were
passed incorporating Lynn, North Chelsea, Salisbury, Rowley,
Sudbury, Braintree, Woburn, Gloucester, Haverhill, Wenham, and
Hull. West of Worcester, the only town incorporated within the
present limits of the state was Springfield, for which an act
was passed in 1636. These little municipalities were, in a
measure, peculiar to New England; each was sovereign within
itself; each sustained a relation to the whole, analogous to
that which the states of our Union hold respectively to the
central power, or the constitution of the United States; and
the idea of the formation of such communities was probably
derived from the parishes of England, for each town was a
parish, and each, as it was incorporated, was required to
contribute to the maintenance of the ministry as the basis of
its grant of municipal rights. Four counties were erected at
this time: Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and Old Norfolk, all
which were incorporated in 1643. Each of the first three
contained eight towns, and Old Norfolk six."
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 8.
"Events in England had now [1640] reached a crisis, and the
Puritan party, rising rapidly into power, no longer looked to
America for a refuge. The great tide of emigration ceased to
flow; but the government of Massachusetts went on wisely and
strongly under the alternating rule of Winthrop, Dudley, and
Bellingham. The English troubles crippled the holders of the
Mason and Gorges grants, and the settlements in New
Hampshire—whither Wheelwright had gone, and where turbulence
had reigned—were gradually added to the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts. In domestic matters everything went smoothly.
There was some trouble with Bellingham, and Winthrop was again
made Governor [1642]. The oath of allegiance to the King taken
by the magistrates was abandoned, because Charles violated the
privileges of Parliament, and the last vestige of dependence
vanished. Massachusetts was divided into counties; and out of
a ludicrous contest about a stray pig, in which deputies and
magistrates took different sides, grew a very important
controversy as to the powers of deputies and assistants, which
resulted [1644] in the division of the legislature into two
branches, and a consequent improvement in the symmetry and
solidity of the political system."
H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 18.
See, also,
TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1655.
Colonizing enterprises of New Haven on the Delaware.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
The confederation of the colonies.
In May, 1643, "a confederacy, to be known as the United
Colonies of New England, was entered into at Boston, between
delegates from Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven on the one
hand, and the General Court of Massachusetts on the other.
Supposed dangers from the Indians, and their quarrels with the
Dutch of Manhattan, had induced the people of Connecticut to
withdraw their formal objections to this measure. Two
commissioners from each colony were to meet annually, or
oftener, if necessary; the sessions to be held alternately at
Boston, Hartford, New Haven, and Plymouth; but Boston was to
have two sessions for one at each of the other places. The
commissioners, all of whom must be church members, were to
choose a president from among themselves, and everything was
to be decided by six voices out of the eight. No war was to be
declared by either colony without the consent of the
commissioners, to whose province Indian affairs and foreign
relations were especially assigned. The sustentation of the
'truth and liberties of the Gospel' was declared to be one
great object of this alliance. All war expenses were to be a
common charge, to be apportioned according to the number or
male inhabitants in each colony. Runaway servants and fugitive
criminals were to be delivered up, a provision afterward
introduced into the Constitution of the United States; and the
commissioners soon recommended, what remained ever after the
practice of New England, and ultimately became, also, a
provision of the United States Constitution, that judgments of
courts of law and probates of wills in each colony should have
full faith and credit in all the others.
{2310}
The commissioners from Massachusetts, as representing by far
the most powerful colony of the alliance, claimed an honorary
precedence, which the others readily conceded. Plymouth,
though far outgrown by Massachusetts, and even by Connecticut,
had made, however, some progress. It now contained seven
towns, and had lately adopted a representative system. But the
old town of Plymouth was in decay, the people being drawn off
to the new settlements. Bradford had remained governor, except
for four years, during two of which he had been relieved by
Edward Winslow, and the other two by Thomas Prince. New Haven
was, perhaps, the weakest member of the alliance. Besides that
town, the inhabitants of which were principally given to
commerce, there were two others, Milford and Guilford,
agricultural settlements; Southold, at the eastern extremity
of Long Island, also acknowledged the jurisdiction of New
Haven, and a new settlement had recently been established at
Stamford. … The colony of Connecticut, not limited to the
towns on the river, to which several new ones had already been
added, included also Stratford and Fairfield, on the coast of
the Sound, west of New Haven. … The town of Southampton, on
Long Island, acknowledged also the jurisdiction of
Connecticut. Fort Saybrook, at the mouth of the river, was
still an independent settlement, and Fenwick, as the head of
it, became a party to the articles of confederation. But the
next year he sold out his interest to Connecticut, and into
that colony Saybrook was absorbed. … Gorges's province of
Maine was not received into the New England alliance, 'because
the people there ran a different course both in their ministry
and civil administration.' The same objection applied with
still greater force to Aquiday and Providence."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 10 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 1.
G. P. Fisher,
The Colonial Era,
chapter 8.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1644.
The chartering of Providence Plantation,
and the Rhode Island Union.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1651.
Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1650.
Adjustment of Connecticut boundaries with the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
The disputed jurisdiction in Maine.
The claims of Massachusetts made good.
See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of Quakers.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1657-1662.
The Halfway Covenant.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1664.
The protection of the Regicides.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
Under the Restored Monarchy.
The first collision of Massachusetts with the crown.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
The Union of Connecticut and New Haven by Royal Charter.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The Rhode Island charter, and beginning of boundary conflicts
with Connecticut.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675.
King Philip's War: Its causes and beginning.
"The Pokanokets had always rejected the Christian faith and
Christian manners, and their chief had desired to insert in a
treaty, what the Puritans always rejected, that the English
should never attempt to convert the warriors of his tribe from
the religion of their race. The aged Massassoit—he who had
welcomed the pilgrims to the soil of New England, and had
opened his cabin to shelter the founder of Rhode Island—now
slept with his fathers, and Philip, his son, had succeeded him
as head of the allied tribes. Repeated sales of land had
narrowed their domains, and the English had artfully crowded
them into the tongues of land, as 'most suitable and
convenient for them,' and as more easily watched. The
principal seats of the Pokanokets were the peninsulas which we
now call Bristol and Tiverton. As the English villages drew
nearer and nearer to them, their hunting-grounds were put
under culture, their natural parks were turned into pastures,
their best fields for planting corn were gradually alienated,
their fisheries were impaired by more skilful methods, till
they found themselves deprived of their broad acres, and, by
their own legal contracts, driven, as it were, into the sea.
Collisions and mutual distrust were the necessary consequence.
There exists no evidence of a deliberate conspiracy on the
part of all the tribes. The commencement of war was
accidental; many of the Indians were in a maze, not knowing
what to do, and disposed to stand for the English; sure proof
of no ripened conspiracy. But they had the same complaints,
recollections, and fears: and, when they met, they could not
but grieve together at the alienation of the domains of their
fathers. They spurned the English claim of jurisdiction over
them, and were indignant that Indian chiefs or warriors should
be arraigned before a jury. And, when the language of their
anger and sorrow was reported to the men of Plymouth colony by
an Indian tale-bearer, fear professed to discover in their
unguarded words the evidence of an organized conspiracy. The
haughty Philip, who had once before been compelled to
surrender his 'English arms' and pay an onerous tribute, was,
in 1674, summoned to submit to an examination, and could not
escape suspicion. The wrath of his tribe was roused, and the
informer was murdered. The murderers, in their turn, were
identified, seized, tried by a jury, of which one half were
Indians, and, in June, 1675, on conviction, were hanged. The
young men of the tribe panted for revenge: without delay,
eight or nine of the English were slain in or about Swansey,
and the alarm of war spread through the colonies. Thus was
Philip hurried into 'his rebellion;' and he is reported to
have wept as he heard that a white man's blood had been shed.
… What chances had he of success? The English were united;
the Indians had no alliance, and half of them joined the
English, or were quiet spectators of the fight: the English
had guns enough; few of the Indians were well armed, and they
could get no new supplies: the English had towns for their
shelter and safe retreat; the miserable wigwams of the natives
were defenceless: the English had sure supplies of food; the
Indians might easily lose their precarious stores. They rose
without hope, and they fought without mercy.
{2311}
For them as a nation there was no to-morrow. … At the first
alarm, volunteers from Massachusetts joined the troops of
Plymouth; on the twenty-ninth of June, within a week from the
beginning of hostilities, the Pokanokets were driven from
Mount Hope; and in less than a month Philip was a fugitive
among the Nipmucks, the interior tribes of Massachusetts. The
little army of the colonists then entered the territory of the
Narragansetts, and from the reluctant tribe extorted a treaty
of neutrality, with a promise to deliver up every hostile
Indian. Victory seemed promptly assured. But it was only the
commencement of horrors. Canonchet, the chief sachem of the
Narragansetts, was the son of Miantonomoh; and could he forget
his father's wrongs? Desolation extended along the whole
frontier. Banished from his patrimony where the pilgrims found
a friend, and from his cabin which had sheltered exiles,
Philip and his warriors spread through the country, awakening
their race to a warfare of extermination."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(author's last revision),
part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).
"At this time, according to loose estimates, there may have
been some 36,000 Indians and 60,000 whites in New England;
10,000 of the former fit for war, and 15,000 of the latter
capable of bearing arms. … At the outset, the Narragansetts,
numbering 2,000 warriors, did not actually second Philip's
resistance. But Canonchet, their sachem, might well remember
the death of his father Miantonomo [who, taken prisoner in a
war with the Mohegans, and surrendered by them to the English,
in 1643, with a request for permission to put him to death,
was deliberately returned to his savage captors, on advice
taken from the ministers at Boston—doomed to death without
his knowledge]. … No efforts at conciliation seem to have
been made by either party; for the whites felt their
superiority (were they not 'the Lord's chosen people?'); and
Philip knew the desperate nature of the struggle between
united and well-armed whites, and divided uncontrolled
savages; yet when the emergency came he met it, and never
faltered or plead from that day forth."
C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 1, chapter 40.
ALSO IN:
B. Church,
History of King Philip's War,
(Prince Society Publication 1867).
S. G. Drake,
Aboriginal Races of North America,
book 3.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (July-September).
King Philip's War: Savage successes of the Indian enemy.
Increasing rage and terror among the colonists.
The Nipmucks, into whose country Philip retreated, "had
already commenced hostilities by attacking Mendon. They
waylaid and killed Captain Hutchinson, a son of the famous
Mrs. Hutchinson, and 16 out of a party of 20 sent from Boston
to Brookfield to parley with them. Attacking Brookfield
itself, they burned it, except one fortified house. The
inhabitants were saved by Major Willard, who, on information
of their danger, came with a troop of horse from Lancaster,
thirty miles through the woods, to their rescue. A body of
troops presently arrived from the eastward, and were stationed
for some time at Brookfield. The colonists now found that by
driving Philip to extremity they had roused a host of
unexpected enemies. The River Indians, anticipating an
intended attack upon them, joined the assailants. Deerfield
and Northfield, the northernmost towns on the Connecticut
River, settled within a few years past, were attacked and
several of the inhabitants killed and wounded. Captain Beers,
sent from Hadley to their relief with a convoy of provisions,
was surprised near Northfield and slain, with 20 of his men.
Northfield was abandoned and burned by the Indians. … Driven
to the necessity of defensive warfare, those in command on the
river determined to establish a magazine and garrison at
Hadley. Captain Lathrop, who had been dispatched from the
eastward to the assistance of the river towns, was sent with
80 men, the flower of the youth of Essex county, to guard the
wagons intended to convey to Hadley 3,000 bushels of
unthreshed wheat, the produce of the fertile Deerfield
meadows. Just before arriving at Deerfield, near a small
stream still known as Bloody Brook, under the shadow of the
abrupt conical Sugar Loaf, the southern termination of the
Deerfield mountain, Lathrop fell into an ambush, and, after a
brave resistance, perished there with all his company. Captain
Moseley, stationed at Deerfield, marched to his assistance,
but arrived too late to help him. That town, also, was
abandoned, and burned by the Indians. Springfield, about the
same time, was set on fire, but was partially saved by the
arrival of Major Treat, with aid from Connecticut. Hatfield,
now the frontier town on the north, was vigorously attacked,
but the garrison succeeded in repelling the assailants.
Meanwhile, hostilities were spreading; the Indians on the
Merrimac began to attack the towns in their vicinity; and the
whole of Massachusetts was soon in the utmost alarm. Except in
the immediate neighborhood of Boston, the country still
remained an immense forest, dotted by a few openings. The
frontier settlements … were mostly broken up, and the
inhabitants, retiring towards Boston, spread everywhere dread
and intense hatred of 'the bloody heathen.' Even the praying
Indians, and the small dependent and tributary tribes, became
objects of suspicion and terror. … Not content with
realities sufficiently frightful, superstition, as usual,
added bugbears of her own. Indian bows were seen in the sky,
and scalps in the moon. The northern lights became an object
of terror. Phantom horsemen careered among the clouds, or were
heard to gallop invisible through the air. The howling of
wolves was turned into a terrible omen. The war was regarded
as a special judgment in punishment of prevailing sins. …
About the time of the first collision with Philip, the
Tarenteens, or Eastern Indians, had attacked the settlements
in Maine and New Hampshire, plundering and burning the houses,
and massacring such of the inhabitants as fell into their
hands. This sudden diffusion of hostilities and vigor of
attack from opposite quarters, made, the colonists believe
that Philip had long been plotting and had gradually matured
an extensive conspiracy, into which most of the tribes had
deliberately entered, for the extermination of the whites.
This belief infuriated the colonists, and suggested some very
questionable proceedings. … But there is no evidence of any
deliberate concert; nor, in fact, were the Indians united. Had
they been so, the war would have been far more serious. The
Connecticut tribes proved faithful, and that colony remained
untouched. Even the Narragansetts, the most powerful
confederacy in New England, in spite of so many former
provocations, had not yet taken up arms. But they were
strongly suspected of intention to do so, and were accused,
notwithstanding their recent assurances, of giving aid and
shelter to the hostile tribes."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 14.
ALSO IN:
R. Markham,
History of King Philip's War,
chapters 7-8.
G. H. Hollister,
History of Connecticut,
volume 1, chapter 12.
M. A. Green,
Springfield, 1636-1886,
chapter 9.
{2312}
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (October-December).
King Philip's War: The crushing of the Narragansetts.
"The attitude of the powerful Narragansett tribe was regarded
with anxiety. It was known that, so far from keeping their
compact to surrender such enemies of the English as should
fall into their hands, they had harbored numbers of Philip's
dispersed retainers and allies. While the Federal
Commissioners were in session at Boston [October], Canonchet,
sachem of the Narragansetts, came thither with other chiefs,
and promised that the hostile Indians whom they acknowledged
to be then under their protection should be surrendered within
ten days. But probably the course of events on Connecticut
River emboldened them. At all events, they did not keep their
engagement. The day for the surrender came and went, and no
Indians appeared. If that faithless tribe, the most powerful
in New England, should assume active hostilities, a terrible
desolation would ensue. The Commissioners moved promptly. The
fifth day after the breach of the treaty found them
reassembled after a short recess. They immediately determined
to raise an additional force of 1,000 men for service in the
Narragansett country. They appointed Governor Winslow, of
Plymouth, to be commander-in-chief, and desired the colony of
Connecticut to name his lieutenant. The General was to place
himself at the head of his troops within six weeks, 'a solemn
day of prayer and humiliation' being kept through all the
colonies meanwhile. … Time was thus given to the
Narragansetts to make their peace 'by actual performance of
their covenants made with the Commissioners; as also making
reparation for all damages sustained by their neglect
hitherto, together with security for their further fidelity.'
… It is not known whether Philip was among the Narragansetts
at this time. Under whatever influence it was, whether from
stupidity or from confidence, they made no further attempt at
pacification. … The Massachusetts troops marched from Dedham
to Attleborough on the day before that which had been
appointed by the Commissioners for them to meet the Plymouth
levy at the northeastern corner of the Narragansett country.
The following day they reached Seekonk: A week earlier, the
few English houses at Quinsigamond (Worcester) had been burned
by a party of natives; and a few days later, the house of
Jeremiah Bull, at Pettyquamscott, which had been designated as
the place of general rendezvous for the English, was fired,
and ten men and five women and children, who had taken refuge
in it, were put to death. … The place where the
Narragansetts were to be sought was in what is now the town of
South Kingston, 18 miles distant, in a northwesterly
direction, from Pettyquamscott, and a little further from that
Pequot fort to the southwest, which had been destroyed by the
force under Captain Mason forty years before. According to
information afterwards received from a captive, the Indian
warriors here collected were no fewer than 3,500. They were on
their guard, and had fortified their hold to the best of their
skill. It was on a solid piece of upland of five or six acres,
wholly surrounded by a swamp. On the inner side of this
natural defence they had driven rows of palisades, making a
barrier nearly a rod in thickness; and the only entrance to
the enclosure was over a rude bridge consisting of a felled
tree, four or five feet from the ground, the bridge being
protected by a block-house. The English [whose forces, after a
considerable delay of the Connecticut troops, had been all
assembled at Pettyquamscott on Saturday, December 18],
breaking up their camp [on the morning of the 19th] while it
was yet dark, arrived before the place at one o'clock after
noon. Having passed, without shelter, a very cold night, they
had made a march of 18 miles through deep snow, scarcely
halting to refresh themselves with food. In this condition
they immediately advanced to the attack. The Massachusetts
troops were in the van of the storming column; next came the
two Plymouth companies; and then the force from Connecticut.
The foremost of the assailants were received with a
well-directed fire," and seven of their captains were killed
or mortally wounded. "Nothing discouraged by the fall of their
leaders, the men pressed on, and a sharp conflict followed,
which, with fluctuating success, lasted for two or three
hours. Once the assailants were beaten out of the fort; but
they presently rallied and regained their ground. There was
nothing for either party but to conquer or die, enclosed
together as they were. At length victory declared for the
English, who finished their work by setting fire to the
wigwams within the fort. They lost 70 men killed and 150
wounded. Of the Connecticut contingent alone, out of 300 men
40 were killed and as many wounded. The number of the enemy
that perished is uncertain. … What is both certain and
material is that on that day the military strength of the
formidable Narragansett tribe was irreparably broken."
J. G. Palfrey,
Compendious History of New England,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
volume 1, chapter 10.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1676-1678.
King Philip's War: The end of the conflict.
"While the overthrow of the Narragansetts changed the face of
things, it was far from putting an end to the war. It showed
that when the white man could find his enemy he could deal
crushing blows, but the Indian was not always so easy to find.
Before the end of January Winslow's little army was partially
disbanded for want of food, and its three contingents fell
back upon Stonington, Boston, and Plymouth. Early in February
the Federal Commissioners called for a new levy of 600 men to
assemble at Brookfield, for the Nipmucks were beginning to
renew their incursions, and after an interval of six months
the figure of Philip again appears for a moment upon the
scene. What he had been doing or where he had been, since the
Brookfield fight in August, was never known. When in February,
1676, he reappeared, it was still in company with his allies
the Nipmucks, in their bloody assault upon Lancaster. On the
10th of that month at sunrise the Indians came swarming into
the lovely village.
{2313}
Danger had already been apprehended, the pastor, Joseph
Rowlandson, the only Harvard graduate of 1652, had gone to
Boston to solicit aid, and Captain Wadsworth's company was
slowly making its way over the difficult roads from
Marlborough, but the Indians were beforehand. Several houses
were at once surrounded and set on fire, and men, women, and
children began falling under the tomahawk. The minister's
house was large and strongly built, and more than forty people
found shelter there until at length it took fire and they were
driven out by the flames. Only one escaped, a dozen or more
were slain, and the rest, chiefly women and children, taken
captive. … Among the captives was Mary Rowlandson, the
minister's wife, who afterward wrote the story of her sad
experiences. … It was a busy winter and spring for these
Nipmucks. Before February was over, their exploit at Lancaster
was followed by a shocking massacre at Medfield. They sacked
and destroyed the towns of Worcester, Marlborough, Mendon, and
Groton, and even burned some houses in Weymouth, within a
dozen miles of Boston. Murderous attacks were made upon
Sudbury, Chelmsford, Springfield, Hatfield, Hadley,
Northampton, Wrentham, Andover, Bridgewater, Scituate, and
Middleborough. On the 18th of April Captain Wadsworth, with 70
men, was drawn into an ambush near Sudbury, surrounded by 500
Nipmucks, and killed with 50 of his men; six unfortunate
captives were burned alive over slow fires. But Wadsworth's
party made the enemy pay dearly for his victory; that
afternoon 120 Nipmucks bit the dust. In such wise, by killing
two or three for one, did the English wear out and annihilate
their adversaries. Just one month from that day, Captain
Turner surprised and slaughtered 300 of these warriors near
the falls of the Connecticut river which have since borne his
name, and this blow at last broke the strength of the
Nipmucks. Meanwhile the Narragansetts and Wampanoags had
burned the towns of Warwick and Providence. After the
wholesale ruin of the great swamp fight, Canonchet had still
some 600 or 700 warriors left, and with these, on the 26th of
March, in the neighbourhood of Pawtuxet, he surprised a
company of 50 Plymouth men, under Captain Pierce, and slew
them all, but not until he had lost 140 of his best warriors.
Ten days later, Captain Denison, with his Connecticut company,
defeated and captured Canonchet, and the proud son of
Miantonomo met the same fate as his father. He was handed over
to the Mohegans and tomahawked. … The fall of Canonchet
marked the beginning of the end. In four sharp fights in the
last week of June, Major Talcott of Hartford slew from 300 to
400 warriors, being nearly all that were left of the
Narragansetts; and during the month of July Captain Church
patrolled the country about Taunton, making prisoners of the
Wampanoags. Once more King Philip, shorn of his prestige,
comes upon the scene. … Defeated at Taunton, the son of
Massasoit was hunted by Church to his ancient lair at Bristol
Neck and there," betrayed by one of his own followers, he was
surprised on the morning of August 12, and shot as he
attempted to fly. "His severed head was sent to Plymouth,
where it was mounted on a pole and exposed aloft upon the
village green, while the meeting-house bell summoned the
townspeople to a special service of thanksgiving. … By
midsummer of 1678 the Indians had been everywhere suppressed,
and there was peace in the land. … In Massachusetts and
Plymouth … the destruction of life and property had been
simply frightful. Of 90 towns, 12 had been utterly destroyed,
while more than 40 others had been the scene of fire and
slaughter. Out of this little society nearly 1,000 staunch men
… had lost their lives, while of the scores of fair women
and poor little children that had perished under the ruthless
tomahawk, one can hardly give an accurate account. … But …
henceforth the red man figures no more in the history of New
England, except as an ally of the French in bloody raids upon
the frontier."
J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
W. Hubbard,
History of the Indian Wars in New England,
edited by S. G. Drake, volume 1.
Mrs. Rowlandson,
Narrative of Captivity.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1684-1686.
The overthrow of the Massachusetts charter.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1687.
The overthrow of the Connecticut charter.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The consolidation of the "Territory and Dominion of
New England" under a royal governor-general.
"It was … determined in the Privy Council that Connecticut,
New Plymouth, and Rhode Island should be united with
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett
country, and be made 'one entire government, the better to
defend themselves against invasion.' This was good policy for
England. It was the despotic idea of consolidation. It was
opposed to the republican system of confederation. …
Consolidation was indeed the best mode of establishing in his
colonies the direct government which Charles had adopted in
November, 1684, and which James was now to enforce. … For
more than twenty years James had been trying his "'prentice
hand" upon New York. The time had now come when he was to use
his master hand on New England. … By the advice of
Sunderland, James commissioned Colonel Sir Edmund Andros to be
captain general and governor-in-chief over his 'Territory and
Dominion of New England in America,' which meant Massachusetts
Bay, New Plymouth, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett
country, or the King's Province. Andros's commission was drawn
in the traditional form, settled by the Plantation Board for
those of other royal governors in Virginia, Jamaica, and New
Hampshire. Its substance, however, was much more despotic.
Andros was authorized, with the consent of a council appointed
by the crown, to make laws and levy taxes, and to govern the
territory of New England in obedience to its sovereign's
Instructions, and according to the laws then in force, or
afterward to be established. … To secure Andros in his
government, two companies of regular soldiers, chiefly Irish
Papists, were raised in London and placed under his orders."
J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapter 9.
See, also,
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.
New York and New Jersey brought under the
governor-generalship of Andros.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.
{2314}
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689.
The bloodless revolution, arrest of Andros,
and proclamation of William and Mary.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War (the First Intercolonial War).
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
The charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.
Plymouth absorbed.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
The Salem Witchcraft madness.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
Suppression of colonial manufactures.
Oppressive commercial policy of England.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
Queen Anne's War (the Second Intercolonial War):
Border incursions by the French and Indians.
The final conquest of Acadia.
"But a few years of peace succeeded the treaty of Ryswick.
First came the contest in Europe over the Spanish succession,"
and then the recognition of "the Pretender" by Louis XIV.
"This recognition was, of course, a challenge to England and
preparations were made for war. William III. died in March,
1702, and was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his wife, and
daughter of James II. War was declared by England against
France, May 15th, 1702. The contest that followed is known in
European history as the War of the Spanish Succession; in
American history it is usually called Queen Anne's 'War; or
the Second Intercolonial War. On one side were France, Spain,
and Bavaria; on the other, England, Holland, Savoy, Austria,
Prussia, Portugal, and Denmark. It was in this war that the
Duke of Marlborough won his fame. To the people of New
England, war between France and England meant the hideous
midnight war-whoop, the tomahawk and scalping-knife, burning
hamlets, and horrible captivity. To provide against it, a
conference was called to meet at Falmouth, on Casco Bay, in
June, 1703, when Governor Dudley, of Massachusetts, met many
of the chiefs of the Abenaquis. The Indians, professing to
have no thought of war, promised peace and friendship by their
accustomed tokens. … But, as usual, only a part of the
tribes had been brought into the alliance," and some lawless
provocations by a party of English marauders soon drove the
Abenaquis again into their old French Alliance. "By August,
500 French and Indians were assembled, ready for incursions
into the New England settlements. They divided into several
bands and fell upon a number of places at the same time.
Wells, Saco, and Casco were again among the doomed villages,
but the fort at Casco was not taken, owing to the arrival of
an armed vessel under Captain Southwick. About 150 persons
were killed or captured in these attacks." In February, the
town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, was destroyed, 47 of the
inhabitants were killed and 112 carried away captive. "On the
30th of July, the town of Lancaster was assailed, and a few
people were killed, seven buildings burned, and much property
destroyed. These and other depredations of war-parties along
the coasts filled New England with consternation. … It was
… resolved to fit out an expedition for retaliation, and as
usual the people of Acadia were selected to expiate the sins
of the Indians and Canadians. Colonel Benjamin Church was put
in command of 550 men, 14 transports, and 36 whale-boats,
convoyed by three ships of war. Sailing from Boston in May,
1704," Church ravaged the lesser French settlements on the
Acadian coast, but ventured no attack on Port Royal. "In 1705,
450 men under Subercase—soldiers, Canadian peasants,
adventurers, and Indians, well armed, and with rations for
twenty days, blankets and tents—set out to destroy the
English settlements in Newfoundland, marching on snow-shoes.
They took Petit Havre and St. John's, and devastated all the
little settlements along the eastern coast, and the English
trade was for the time completely broken up. Subercase was
made Governor of Acadia in 1706. The following spring New
England sent Colonel March to Port Royal with two regiments,
but he returned without assaulting the fort. Governor Dudley
forbade the troops to land when they came back to Boston, and
ordered them to go again. Colonel March was ill, and Colonel
Wainwright took command; but after a pretence of besieging the
fort for eleven days he retired with small loss, the
expedition having cost Massachusetts £2,200. In 1708 a council
at Montreal decided to send a large number of Canadians and
Indians to devastate New England. But after a long march
through the almost impassable mountain region of northern New
Hampshire, a murderous attack on Haverhill, in which 30 or 40
were killed, was the only result. … In 1709 a plan was
formed in England for the capture of New France by a fleet and
five regiments of British soldiers aided by the colonists. But
a defeat in Portugal called away the ships destined for
America, and a force gathered at Lake Champlain under Colonel
Nicholson for a land attack was so reduced by sickness—said
to have resulted from the poisoning of a spring by
Indians—that they burned their canoes and retreated. The next
year, Nicholson was furnished with six ships of war, thirty
transports, and one British and four New England regiments for
the capture of Port Royal. Subercase had only 260 men and an
insufficient supply of provisions." He surrendered after a
short bombardment, "and on the 16th of October the starving
and ragged garrison marched out to be sent to France. For the
last time the French flag was hauled down from the fort, and
Port Royal was henceforth an English fortress, which was
re-named Annapolis Royal, in honor of Queen Anne."
R. Johnson,
History of the French War,
chapter 8.
"With a change of masters came a change of names. Acadié was
again called 'Nova Scotia'—the name bestowed upon it by James
I. in 1621; and Port Royal, 'Annapolis.'"
R. Brown,
History of the Island of Cape Breton, letter 8.
ALSO IN:
P. H. Smith,
Acadia,
pages 108-111.
See, also,
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1722-1725.
Renewed war with the northeastern Indians.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
{2315}
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.
King George's War (the Third Intercolonial War):
Hostilities in Nova Scotia.
"The war that had prevailed for several years between Britain
and Spain [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], inflicted upon the
greater number of the British provinces of America no farther
share of its evils than the burden of contributing to the
expeditions of Admiral Vernon, and the waste of life by which
his disastrous naval campaigns were signalized. Only South
Carolina and Georgia had been exposed to actual attack and
danger. But this year [1744], by an enlargement of the hostile
relations of the parent state, the scene of war was extended
to the more northern provinces. The French, though professing
peace with Britain, had repeatedly given assistance to Spain;
while the British king, as Elector of Hanover, had espoused
the quarrel of the emperor of Germany with the French monarch;
and after various mutual threats and demonstrations of
hostility that consequently ensued between Britain and France,
war [the War of the Austrian Succession] was now formally
declared by these states against each other.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and after.
The French colonists in America, having been apprized of this
event before it was known in New England, were tempted to
improve the advantage of their prior intelligence by an
instant and unexpected commencement of hostilities, which
accordingly broke forth without notice or delay in the quarter
of Nova Scotia. … On the island of Canso, adjoining the
coast of Nova Scotia, the British had formed a settlement,
which was resorted to by the fishermen of New England, and
defended by a small fortification garrisoned by a detachment
of troops from Annapolis. … Duquesnel, the governor of Cape
Breton, on receiving intelligence of the declaration of war
between the two parent states, conceived the hope of
destroying the fishing establishments of the English by the
suddenness and vigor of an unexpected attack. His first blow,
which was aimed at Canso, proved successful (May 13, 1744).
Duvivier, whom he despatched from his headquarters at
Louisburg, with a few armed vessels and a force of 900 men,
took unresisted possession of this island, burned the fort and
houses, and made prisoners of the garrison and inhabitants.
This success Duquesnel endeavoured to follow up by the
conquest of Placentia in Newfoundland, and of Annapolis in
Nova Scotia; but at both these places his forces were
repulsed. In the attack of Annapolis, the French were joined
by the Indians of Nova Scotia; but the prudent forecast of
Shirley, the governor of Massachusetts, had induced the
assembly of this province, some time before, to contribute a
reinforcement of 200 men for the greater security of the
garrison of Annapolis; and to the opportune arrival of the
succour thus afforded the preservation of the place was
ascribed. … The people of New England were stimulated to a
pitch of resentment, apprehension, and martial energy, that
very shortly produced an effort of which neither their friends
nor their enemies had supposed them to be capable, and which
excited the admiration of both Europe and America. … War was
declared against the Indians of Nova Scotia, who had assisted
in the attack upon Annapolis; all the frontier garrisons were
reinforced; new forts were erected; and the materials of
defence were enlarged by a seasonable gift of artillery from
the king. Meanwhile, though the French were not prepared to
prosecute the extensive plan of conquest which their first
operations announced, their privateers actively waged a
harassing naval warfare that greatly endamaged the commerce of
New England. The British fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia
were interrupted; the fishermen declared their intention of
returning no more to their wonted stations on that coast; and
so many merchant vessels were captured and carried into
Louisburg in the course of this summer, that it was expected
that in the following year no branch of maritime trade would
be pursued by the New England merchants, except under the
protection of convoy."
J. Grahame,
History [Colonial] of the United States,
book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
P. H. Smith,
Acadia,
pages 123-128.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.
King George's War.
The taking of Louisburg.
"Louisburg, on which the French had spent much money [see CAPE
BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745], was by far the strongest fort
north of the Gulf of Mexico. But the prisoners of Canso,
carried thither, and afterward dismissed on parole, reported
the garrison to be weak and the works out of repair. So long
as the French held this fortress, it was sure to be a source
of annoyance to New England, but to wait for British aid to
capture it would be tedious and uncertain, public attention in
Great Britain being much engrossed by a threatened invasion.
Under these circumstances, Shirley proposed to the General
Court of Massachusetts the bold enterprise of a colonial
expedition, of which Louisburg should be the object. After six
days' deliberation and two additional messages from the
governor, this proposal was adopted by a majority of one vote.
A circular letter, asking aid and co-operation, was sent to
all the colonies as far south as Pennsylvania. In answer to
this application, urged by a special messenger from
Massachusetts, the Pennsylvania Assembly … voted £4,000 of
their currency to purchase provisions. The New Jersey Assembly
… furnished … £2,000 toward the Louisburg expedition, but
declined to raise any men. The New York Assembly, after a long
debate, voted £3,000 of their currency; but this seemed to
Clinton a niggardly grant, and he sent, besides, a quantity of
provisions purchased by private subscription, and ten
eighteen-pounders from the king's magazine. Connecticut voted
500 men, led by Roger Wolcott, afterward governor, and
appointed, by stipulation of the Connecticut Assembly, second
in command of the expedition. Rhode Island and New Hampshire
each raised a regiment of 300 men; but the Rhode Island troops
did not arrive till after Louisburg was taken. The chief
burden of the enterprise, as was to be expected, fell on
Massachusetts. In seven weeks an army of 3,250 men was
enlisted, transports were pressed, and bills of credit were
profusely issued to pay the expense. Ten armed vessels were
provided by Massachusetts, and one by each of the other New
England colonies. The command in chief was given to William
Pepperell, a native of Maine, a wealthy merchant, who had
inherited and augmented a large fortune acquired by his father
in the fisheries; a popular, enterprising, sagacious man,
noted for his universal good fortune, but unacquainted with
military affairs; except as a militia officer. … The
enterprise … assumed something of the character of an
anti-Catholic crusade. One of the chaplains, a disciple of
Whitfield, carried a hatchet, specially provided to hew down
the images in the French churches.
{2316}
Eleven days after embarking at Boston [April, 1745], the
Massachusetts armament assembled at Casco, to wait there the
arrival of the Connecticut and Rhode Island quotas, and the
melting of the ice by which Cape Breton was environed. The New
Hampshire troops were already there; those from Connecticut
came a few days after. Notice having been sent to England and
the West Indies of the intended expedition, Captain Warren
presently arrived with four ships of war, and, cruising before
Louisburg, captured several vessels bound thither with
supplies. Already, before his arrival, the New England
cruisers had prevented the entry of a French thirty-gun ship.
As soon as the ice permitted, the troops landed and commenced
the siege, but not with much skill, for they had no engineers.
… Five unsuccessful attacks were made, one after another,
upon an island battery which protected the harbor. In that
cold, foggy climate, the troops, very imperfectly provided
with tents, suffered severely from sickness, and more than a
third were unfit for duty. But the French garrison was feeble
and mutinous, and when the commander found that his supplies
had been captured, he relieved the embarrassment of the
besiegers by offering to capitulate. The capitulation [June
17] included 650 regular soldiers, and near 1,300 effective
inhabitants of the town, all of whom were to be shipped to

France. The island of St. John's presently submitted on the
same terms. The loss during the siege was less than 150, but
among those reluctantly detained to garrison the conquered
fortress ten times as many perished afterward by sickness. In
the expedition of Vernon and this against Louisburg perished a
large number of the remaining Indians of New England,
persuaded to enlist as soldiers in the colonial regiments.
Some dispute arose as to the relative merits of the land and
naval forces, which had been joined during the siege by
additional ships from England. Pepperell, however, was made a
baronet, and both he and Shirley were commissioned as colonels
in the British army. Warren was promoted to the rank of rear
admiral. The capture of this strong fortress, effected in the
face of many obstacles, shed, indeed, a momentary luster over
one of the most unsuccessful wars in which Britain was ever
engaged."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 25 (volume 2).
"As far as England was concerned, it [the taking of Louisburg]
was the great event of the war of the Austrian succession.
England had no other success in that war to compare with it.
As things turned out, it is not too much to say that this
exploit of New England gave peace to Europe."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5).
"Though it was the most brilliant success the English achieved
during the war, English historians scarcely mention it."
R. Johnson,
History of the French War,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
T. C. Haliburton,
Historical and Statistical Account of Nova Scotia,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
R. Brown,
History of Cape Breton, letters 12-14.
S. A. Drake,
The Taking of Louisburg.
U. Parsons,
Life of Sir William Pepperell,
chapters 3-5.
F. Parkman,
The Capture of Louisbourg
(Atlantic Monthly, March-May, 1891).
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
King George's War: The mortifying end.
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
and restoration of Louisburg to France.
"Elated by their success [at Louisburg], the Provincials now
offered to undertake the conquest of Canada; but the Duke of
Bedford, to whom Governor Shirley's plan had been submitted,
disapproved of it, as exhibiting to the colonists too plainly
their own strength. … He therefore advised to place the
chief dependence on the fleet and army to be sent from
England, and to look on the Americans as useful only when
joined with others. Finally, the Whigs determined to send a
powerful fleet to Quebec, at the same time that an army should
attack Montreal, by the route of Lake Champlain; and so late
as April, 1746, orders were issued to the several governors to
levy troops without limitation, which, when assembled on the
frontiers, the king would pay. From some unknown cause, the
plan was abandoned as soon as formed. The general appointed to
the chief command was ordered not to embark, but the
instructions to enlist troops had been transmitted to America,
and were acted on with alacrity. Massachusetts raised 3,500
men to co-operate with the fleet, which, however, they were
doomed never to see. After being kept a long time in suspense,
they were dispersed, in several places, to strengthen
garrisons which were supposed to be too weak for the defenses
assigned them. Upward of 3,000 men, belonging to other
colonies, were assembled at Albany, undisciplined, without a
commissariat, and under no control. After the season for
active operations was allowed to pass away, they disbanded
themselves, some with arms in their hands demanding pay of
their governors, and others suing their captains. In addition
to this disgraceful affair, the Provincials had the
mortification to have a large detachment of their men cut off
in Lower Horton, then known as Minas, situated nearly in the
centre of Nova Scotia. The Canadian forces, which had traveled
thither to co-operate with an immense fleet expected from
France, determining to winter in that province, rendered it a
subject of continued anxiety and expense to Massachusetts.
Governor Shirley resolved, after again reinforcing the
garrison at Annapolis, to drive them from the shores of Minas
Basin, where they were seated; and in the winter of the year
1746, a body of troops was embarked at Boston for the former
place. After the loss of a transport, and the greatest part of
the soldiers on board, the troops arrived, and reembarked for
Grand Pré in the district of Minas, in the latter end of
December. … The issue was, that being cantoned at too great
distances from each other, La Corne, a commander of the
French, having intelligence of their situation, forced a march
from Schiegnieto, through a most tempestuous snow-storm, and
surprised them at midnight. After losing 160 of their men, in
killed, wounded and prisoners, the party were obliged to
capitulate, not, however, on dishonorable terms, and the
French, in their turn, abandoned their post. On the 8th of
May, 1749, peace was proclaimed at Boston [according to the
terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, concluded October 7,
1748], much to the mortification of the Provincials; Cape
Breton was restored to France; and Louisburg, which had
created so much dread, and inflicted such injuries on their
commerce, was handed over to their inveterate enemies, to be
rendered still stronger by additional fortifications. The
French also obtained the islands of St. Pierre and Michelon,
on the south coast of Newfoundland, as stations for their
fisheries." England reimbursed the colonies to the extent of
£183,000 for the expenses of their vain conquest of Louisburg,
and £135,000 for their losses in raising troops under the
orders that were revoked.
T. C. Haliburton,
Rule and Misrule of the English in America,
book 3, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. Hannay,
History of Acadia,
chapter 19.
S. G. Drake,
Particular History of the Five Years French and Indian War,
chapters 6-9.
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 5, chapter 10 (volume 5).
See, also,
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
{2317}
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1750-1753.
Dissensions among the colonies at the
opening of the great French War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany.
Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
The last Intercolonial, or French and Indian War,
and English conquest of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1761.
Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
Enforcement of the Sugar (or Molasses) Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1766.
The Stamp Act.
Its effects and its repeal.
The Stamp Act Congress.
The Declaratory Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765: and 1766.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767;
and 1767-1768.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre," and the removal of the troops.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1785.
The ending of Slavery.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781; 1769-1785; and 1774.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
Committees of Correspondence instituted.
The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The country in arms and Boston under siege.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1783.
The War of the Revolution.
Independence achieved.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL), to 1783.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1787-1789.
Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1808.
The Embargo and its effects.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1814.
Federalist opposition to the war with England.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1828.
Change of front on the tariff question.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824;
and 1828.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
The rise of the Abolitionists.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
The war for the Union.
See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL), and after.
----------NEW ENGLAND: End----------
NEW FOREST.
To create a new royal hunting ground in his English dominion,
William the Conqueror ruthlessly demolished villages, manors,
chapels, and parish churches throughout thirty miles of
country, along the coast side of Hampshire, from the Avon on
the west to Southampton Water on the east, and called this
wilderness of his making, The New Forest. His son William
Rufus was killed in it—which people thought to be a
judgment. The New Forest still exists and embraces no less
than 66,000 acres, extending over a district twenty miles by
fifteen in area, of woodland, heath, bog and rough pasture.
J. C. Brown,
Forests of England,
part 1, chapter 2, D.
NEW FRANCE.
See CANADA.
NEW GRANADA.
See COLOMBIAN STATES.
----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: Start--------
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1623-1631.
Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
First colonies planted.
The naming of the province.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.
The claims of Massachusetts asserted and defeated.
According to its terms, the Massachusetts patent embraced a
territory extending northward three miles beyond the
head-waters of the Merrimack, and covered, therefore, the
greater part of Mason's New Hampshire grant, as well as that
of Gorges in Maine. In 1641, when this fact had been
ascertained, the General Court of Massachusetts "passed an
order (with the consent of the settlers at Dover and
Strawberry-bank, on the Piscataqua), 'That from thenceforth,
the said people inhabiting there are and shall be accepted and
reputed under the Government of the Massachusetts,' etc. Mason
had died, and confusion ensued, so that the settlers were
mostly glad of the transfer. A long controversy ensued between
Mason's heirs and Massachusetts as to the right of
jurisdiction. The history of New Hampshire and Maine at this
period was much the same. In 1660, at the time of the
Restoration, the heirs of Mason applied to the
Attorney-General in England, who decided that they had a good
title to New Hampshire. The Commissioners who came over in
1664 attempted to re-establish them; but as the settlers
favored Massachusetts, she resumed her government when they
left. Mason's heirs renewed their claim in 1675, and in 1679
it was solemnly decided against the claim of the Massachusetts
Colony, although their grant technically included all lands
extending to three miles north of the waters of the Merrimack
river. John Cutt was the first President in New Hampshire, and
thenceforward, to the American Revolution, New Hampshire was
treated as a Royal province, the Governors and
Lieutenant-Governors being appointed by the King, and the laws
made by the people being subject to his revision."
C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 1, chapter 26.
ALSO IN:
G. Barstow,
History of New Hampshire,
chapters 2-5.
J. Belknap,
History of New Hampshire,
volume 1, chapters 2-9.
N. Adams,
Annals of Portsmouth,
pages 28-64.
See, also,
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.
{2318}
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1675.
Outbreak of the Taranteens.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War and the taking of Louisburg.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1749-1774.
Boundary dispute with New York.
The grants in Vermont, and the struggle of the
"Green Mountain Boys" to defend them.
See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany,
and Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
Committees of Correspondence instituted.
The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.
The end of royal government.
Adoption of a constitution.
Declaration of Independence.
The New Hampshire Assembly, called by Governor Wentworth, came
together June 12, 1775, in the midst of the excitements
produced by news of Lexington and Ticonderoga. Meantime, a
convention of the people had been called and was sitting at
Exeter. Acting on a demand from the latter, the assembly
proceeded first to expel from its body three members whom the
governor had called by the king's writ from three new
townships, and who were notorious royalists. "One of the
expelled members, having censured this proceeding, was
assaulted by the populace, and fled for shelter to the
governor's house. The people demanded him, and, being refused,
they pointed a gun at the governor's door; whereupon the
offender was surrendered and carried to Exeter. The governor
retired to the fort, and his house was pillaged. He afterwards
went on board the Scarborough and sailed for Boston. He had
adjourned the assembly to the 28th of September. But they met
no more. In September, he issued a proclamation from the Isles
of Shoals, adjourning them to April next. This was the closing
act of his administration. It was the last receding step of
royalty. It had subsisted in the province 95 years. The
government of New Hampshire was henceforth to be a government
of the people. … The convention which had assembled at
Exeter was elected but for six months. Previous to their
dissolution in November, they made provisions, pursuant to the
recommendations of congress, for calling a new convention,
which should be a more full representation of the people. They
sent copies of these provisions to the several towns, and
dissolved. The elections were forthwith held. The new
convention promptly assembled, and drew up a temporary form of
government. Having assumed the name of 'House of
Representatives,' they adopted a constitution [January, 1776],
and proceeded to choose twelve persons to constitute a
distinct and a co-ordinate branch of the legislature, by the
name of a Council." The constitution provided for no
executive. "The two houses assumed to themselves the executive
duty during the session, and they appointed a committee of
safety to sit in the recess, varying in number from six to
sixteen, vested with executive powers. The president of the
council was president of the executive committee. … On the
11th of June, 1776, a committee was chosen by the assembly,
and another by the council of New Hampshire, 'to make a
draught of a declaration of the independence of the united
colonies.' On the 15th, the committees of both houses reported
a 'Declaration of Independence,' which was adopted
unanimously, and a copy sent forthwith to their delegates in
congress."
G. Barstow,
History of New Hampshire,
chapter 9.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776.
The ending of Slavery.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence.
Peace with England.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1783.
Revision of the State constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1788.
Ratification of the Federal constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: End--------
----------NEW HAVEN: Start--------
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1638.
The planting of the Colony and the founding of the City.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1639.
The Fundamental Agreement.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1640-1655.
The attempts at colonization on the Delaware.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1643.
Progress and state of the colony.
The New England Confederation.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
{2319}
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1660-1664.
The protection of the Regicides.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1662-1664.
Annexation to Connecticut.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1666.
The migration to Newark, N.J.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1779.
Pillaged by Tryon's marauders.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779
WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.
----------NEW HAVEN: End--------
NEW HOPE CHURCH, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
----------NEW JERSEY: Start--------
NEW JERSEY:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1610-1664.
The Dutch in possession.
The Patroon colony at Pavonia.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614; and 1621-1646.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1620.
Embraced in the patent of the Council for New England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.
See NEW ALBION.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1635.
Territory assigned to Lord Mulgrave on the dissolution
of the Council for New England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
The attempted colonization from New Haven, on the Delaware.
The London merchants who formed the leading colonists of New
Haven, and who were the wealthiest among the pioneer settlers
of New England, had schemes of commerce in their minds, as
well as desires for religious freedom, when they founded their
little republic at Quinnipiac. They began with no delay to
establish a trade with Barbadoes and Virginia, as well as
along their own coasts; and they were promptly on the watch
for advantageous openings at which to plant a strong
trading-post or two among the Indians. In the winter of
1638-39, one George Lamberton of New Haven, while trafficking
Virginia-wards, discovered the lively fur trade already made
active on Delaware Bay by the Dutch and Swedes [see DELAWARE:
A. D. 1638-1640], and took a hand in it. His enterprising
townsmen, when they heard his report, resolved to put
themselves at once on some kind of firm footing in the country
where this profitable trade could be reached. They formed a
"Delaware Company," in which the Governor, the minister, and
all the chiefs of the colony were joined, and late in the year
1640 they sent a vessel into Delaware Bay, commanded by
Captain Turner, who was one of their number. Captain Turner
"was instructed by the Delaware Company to view and purchase
lands at the Delaware Bay, and not to meddle with aught that
rightfully belonged to the Swedes or Dutch. … But New
Haven's captain paid little heed to boundaries. He bought of
the Indians nearly the whole southwestern coast of New Jersey,
and also a tract of land at Passayunk, on the present site of
Philadelphia, and opposite the Dutch fort Nassau. … On the
30th of August, 1641, there was a Town-Meeting at New Haven,
which voted to itself authority over the region of the
Delaware Bay. The acts of the Delaware Company were approved,
and 'Those to whome the affaires of the towne is committed'
were ordered to 'Dispose of all the affayres of Delaware Bay.'
The first instalment of settlers had previously gone to the
Bay. Trumbull says that nearly fifty families removed. As they
went by New Amsterdam, Governor Kieft issued an unavailing
protest, which was met, however, by fair words. The larger
portion of the party settled in a plantation on Varkin's Kill
(Ferkenskill, Hog Creek?), near what is now Salem, New Jersey.
A fortified trading-house was built or occupied at Passayunk.
This was the era of Sir Edmund Plowden's shadowy Palatinate of
New Albion, and, if there is any truth in the curious
'Description,' there would seem to be some connection between
this fort of the New Haven settlers and Plowden's alleged
colony." The Dutch and the Swedes, notwithstanding their
mutual jealousies, made common cause against these New England
intruders, and succeeded in breaking up their settlements.,
The exact occurrences are obscurely known, but it is certain
that the attempted colonization was a failure, and that,
"slowly, through the winter and spring of 1643, the major part
of [the settlers] … straggled home to New Haven. … The
poverty and distress were not confined to the twoscore
households who had risked their persons in the enterprise. The
ill-starred effort had impoverished the highest personages in
the town, and crippled New Haven's best financial strength.
"Yet the scheme of settlement on the Delaware was not
abandoned. While claims against the Dutch for damages and for
redress of wrongs were vigorously pressed, the town still
looked upon the purchased territory as its own, and was
resolute in the intention to occupy it. In 1651 a new
expedition of fifty persons set sail for the Delaware, but was
stopped at Manhattan by Peter Stuyvesant, and sent back,
vainly raging at the insolence of the Dutch. All New England
shared the wrath of New Haven, but confederated New England
was not willing to move in the matter unless New Haven would
pay the consequent costs. New Haven seemed rather more than
half disposed to take up arms against New Netherland on her
own responsibility; but her small quarrel was soon merged in
the greater war which broke out between Holland and England.
When this occurred, "concerted action on the part of the New
Englanders would have given New Holland to the Allies, and
extended New Haven's limits to the Delaware, without any one
to gainsay or resist. After the Commissioners [of the United
Colonies] declared for war, Massachusetts refused to obey,
adopted the role of a secessionist, and checked the whole
proceeding. New Haven, with whom the proposed war was almost a
matter of life and death, was justified in adverting to the
conduct of Massachusetts as 'A provoaking sinn against God,
and of a scandalous nature before men.' The mutinous schemes
of Roger Ludlow and of some New Haven malcontents complicated
the problem still more both for Connecticut and New Haven.
Finally, just as an army of 800 men was ready [1654] to march
upon New Amsterdam, tidings came of a European peace, and New
Haven's last chance was gone. But the town did not lose hope."
Plans for a new colony were slowly matured through 1654 and
1655, but "the enterprise was completely thwarted by a series
of untoward events," the most decisive of which was the
conquest of New Sweden by Stuyvesant in October, 1655. "But
the dream of Delaware was not forgotten."
C. H. Levermore,
The Republic of New Haven,
chapter 3, section 5.
ALSO IN:
S. Hazard,
Annals of Pennsylvania,
pages 57-178.
{2320}
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
The English occupation and proprietary grant to
Berkeley and Carteret.
The naming of the province.
The Newark immigration from New Haven.
"Before the Duke of York was actually in possession of his
easily acquired territory [of New Netherlands, or New
York—see NEW YORK: A. D. 1664], on the 23d and 24th of June,
1664, he executed deeds of lease and release to Lord John
Berkeley, Baron of Stratton, and Sir George Carteret, of
Saltrum in Devon, granting to them, their heirs and assigns,
all that portion of his tract 'lying and being to the westward
of Long Island and Manhitas Island, and bounded on the east
part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river, and hath
upon the west, Delaware bay or river, and extending southward
to the main ocean as far as Cape May, at the mouth of Delaware
bay; and to the northward, as far as the northernmost branch
of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is 41° 40' of
latitude, and crosseth over thence in a strait line to
Hudson's river, in 41° of latitude; which said tract of land
is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New Cæsarea,
or New Jersey.' The name of 'Cæsarea' was conferred upon the
tract in commemoration of the gallant defence of the Island of
Jersey, in 1649, by Sir George Carteret, then its governor,
against the Parliamentarians; but the people preferred the
English name of New Jersey, and the other was consequently
soon lost. The grant of the Duke of York from the crown
conferred upon him, his heirs and assigns, among other rights
appertaining thereto, that most important one of government;
the power of hearing and determining appeals being reserved to
the king; but, 'relying,' says Chalmers, 'on the greatness of
his connection, he seems to have been little solicitous to
procure the royal privileges conferred on the proprietors of
Maryland and Carolina,' whose charters conferred almost
unlimited authority. 'And while as counts-palatine they
exercised every act of government in their own names, because
they were invested with the ample powers possessed by the
prætors of the Roman provinces, he ruled his territory in the
name of the king.' In the transfer to Berkeley and Carteret,
they, their heirs and assigns, were invested with all the
powers conferred upon the duke. … Lord Berkeley and Sir
George Carteret, now sole proprietors of New Jersey, on the
10th February 1664, signed a constitution, which they made
public under the title of 'The Concessions and agreement of
the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, to and with all and every
of the adventurers, and all such as shall settle and plant
there.' … On the same day that this instrument was signed,
Philip Carteret, a brother to Sir George, received a
commission as governor of New Jersey. … The ship Philip,
having on board about 30 people, some of them servants, and
laden with suitable commodities, sailed from England in the
summer, and arrived in safety at the place now known as
Elizabethtown Point, or Elizabeth Port, in August of the same
year. What circumstance led to the governor's selection of
this spot for his first settlement, is not now known, but it
was, probably, the fact of its having been recently examined
and approved of by others. He landed, and gave to his embryo
town the name of Elizabeth, after the lady of Sir George. …
Governor Carteret, so soon as he became established at
Elizabethtown, sent messengers to New England and elsewhere,
to publish the concessions of the proprietors and to invite
settlers. In consequence of this invitation and the favorable
terms offered, the province soon received large additions to
its population."
W. A. Whitehead,
East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments
(New Jersey Historical. Society Collections.,
volume 1), period 2.
"In August, 1665, he [Governor Carteret] sent letters to New
England offering to settlers every civil and religious
privilege. Mr. Treat and some of his friends immediately
visited New Jersey. They bent their steps toward the New Haven
property on the Delaware Bay, and selected a site for a
settlement near what is now Burlington. Returning by way of
Elizabeth, they met Carteret, and were by him influenced to
locate on the Passaic River. … Early in the spring of 1666,
the remnant of the old New Haven, the New Haven of 1638, under
the leadership of Robert Treat and Mathew Gilbert, sailed into
the Passaic. … In June, 1667, the entire force of the little
colony was gathered together in their new abode, to which the
name 'Newark' was applied, in honor of Mr. Pierson's English
home. [Mr. Pierson was the minister at Branford, in the New
Haven colony, and his flock migrated with him to Newark almost
bodily.] The Fundamental Agreement was revised and enlarged,
the most notable expansion being the following article: 'The
planters agree to submit to such magistrates as shall be
annually chosen by the Friends from among themselves, and to
such Laws as we had in the place whence we came.' Sixty-four
men wrote their names under this Bill of Rights, of whom 23
were from Branford, and the remaining 41 from New Haven,
Milford, and Guilford. Most of them were probably heads of
families, and, in all the company, but six were obliged to
make their marks. … It seems to me that, after 1666, the New
Haven of Davenport and Eaton must be looked for upon the
banks, not of the Quinnipiac, but of the Passaic. The men, the
methods, the laws, the officers, that made New Haven Town what
it was in 1640, disappeared from the Connecticut Colony, but
came to full life again immediately in New Jersey. … Newark
was not so much the product as the continuation of New Haven."
C. H. Levermore,
The Republic of New Haven,
chapter 4, section 6.
ALSO IN:
Documents Relating to the Colonial History New Jersey,
volume 1.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673.
The Dutch reconquest.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.
The sale to new Proprietors, mostly Quakers, and
division of the province into East Jersey and West Jersey.
The free constitution of West Jersey.
In 1673 Lord Berkeley, one of the original proprietors, "sold
his one-half interest in the Province for less than $5,000.
John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, two English Quakers, were
the purchasers. A dispute arose between the new proprietors
about the division of their property, and William Penn, who
afterward became the founder of Pennsylvania, was chosen
arbitrator to settle the difficulty, and succeeded to the
satisfaction of all parties interested. Fenwick sailed from
London, in 1675, in the ship 'Griffith,' with his family and a
small company of Quakers. This was the first English vessel that
came to New Jersey with immigrants.
{2321}
The party sailed up the Delaware bay, and, entering a creek,
landed on its banks three miles and a half from the Delaware.
This creek, and the settlement founded on it, Fenwick named
Salem. This was the first English settlement permanently
established in West Jersey."
J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
History of New Jersey,
chapter 1.
In July, 1676, the province was divided, Philip Carteret
taking East Jersey, and the successors of Berkeley taking West
Jersey. "Thereupon, Carteret, by will, devised his plantation
of New Jersey to trustees to be sold for certain purposes, by
him stated, in 1681-2. … He had not a peaceable time.
Indeed, anything like constant peace was the lot of very few
of New Jersey's early Governors. Governor Andros, of New York,
disputed Carteret's authority; nay, failing by peaceable means
to gain his point, he sent a party of soldiers by night
[1678], who dragged Carteret from his bed, carried him to New
York, and there kept him close until a day was set on which he
was tried before his opponent himself in the New York Courts,
and three times acquitted by the jury, who were sent back with
directions to convict, but firmly each time refused. The
authority of Carteret was confirmed by the Duke of York, and
Andros was recalled. … The trustees of Sir George Carteret
could not make sale of East Jersey. After ineffectual attempts
at private sale they offered it at public auction, and William
Penn and eleven associates, most if not all Quakers, bought it
for £3,400. It was too heavy a purchase, apparently, for their
management. Each sold half his right to another, and so were
constituted the twenty-four Proprietors. They procured a deed
of confirmation from the Duke of York March 14th, 1682, and
then the twenty-four Lords Proprietors by sealed instrument
established a council, gave them power to appoint overseers,
and displace all officers necessary to manage their property,
to take care of their lands, deed them, appoint dividends,
settle the rights of particular Proprietors in such dividends,
grant warrants of survey, in fine, to do everything necessary
for the profitable disposition of all the territory. … The
new Proprietors were men of rank. William Penn is known to all
the world. With him were James, Earl of Perth, John Drummond,
Robert Barclay, famous, like Penn, as a Quaker gentleman, and
a controversialist for Quaker belief; David Barclay. … Each
Proprietor had a twenty-fourth interest in the property,
inheritable, divisible, and assignable, as if it were a farm
instead of a province. And by these means the estate has come
down to those who now own the property. … In New Jersey …
our Legislature has nothing at all to do with our waste or
unappropriated land. It all belongs to the Proprietors, to
those, namely, who own what are known as Proprietary rights,
or rights of Proprietorship, and is subject to the disposition
of the Board of Proprietors. … What is left in their control
is now [1884] of comparatively slight value."
C. Parker,
Address, Bi-Centennial Celebration of the
Board of American Proprietors of East New Jersey.
The division line between East Jersey and West Jersey, as
established by the agreement between the Proprietors, began at
Little Egg Harbor and extended northwestward to a point on the
Delaware river in 41 degrees of north latitude. "After this
line had been established, John Fenwick's interest in West
Jersey was conveyed to John Eldridge and Edmund Warner in fee,
and they were admitted into the number of proprietors. In
order to establish a government for the Province of West
Jersey, provisional authority was given to Richard Hartshore
and Richard Guy, residents of East Jersey, and to James Wasse,
who was sent especially from England to act on behalf of the
proprietors. These persons were commissioned on the 18th of
August, 1676, by Byllinge and his trustees, in conjunction
with Eldridge and Warner, and full power was given them to
conduct the affairs of the government in accordance with
instructions from the proprietors. Fenwick, who had founded a
settlement at Salem, refused to recognize the transfer of his
portion of the Province to Eldridge and Warner, and declared
himself to be independent of this new government. It therefore
became the first duty of the commissioners to settle this
difficulty. All efforts, however, for that purpose failed. The
original plan of the government was devised by William Penn
and his immediate associates. It was afterward approved by all
the proprietors interested in the Province, and was first
published on the 3d of March, 1676, as 'The Concessions and
Agreements of the proprietors, freeholders and inhabitants of
the Province of West Jersey in America.' This constitution
declared that no man or number of men on earth had power or
authority to rule over men's consciences in religious matters;
and that no person or persons within the Province should be in
any wise called in question or punished, in person, estate or
privilege, on account of opinion, judgment, faith or worship
toward God in matters of religion. … That all the
inhabitants of the Province should have the right to attend
court and be present at all proceedings, 'to the end that
Justice may not be done in a corner, nor in any covert
manner.' … The executive authority of the government was
lodged in the hands of commissioners, to be appointed at first
by the proprietors or a majority of them; but after the
further settlement of the Province they were to be chosen by
the resident proprietors and inhabitants, on the 25th of March
of each year. The first election for commissioners occurred in
1680. … One of the most remarkable features in this
instrument is the fact that no authority is retained by the
proprietary body. 'We put the power in the people,' was the
language of the fundamental law."
J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
History of New Jersey,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
W. A. Whitehead,
East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments,
pages 66-99.
Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New Jersey,
volume 1.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1674.
Final recovery by the English.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688.
Joined with New England under the Governorship of Andros.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.
Extinguishment of the Proprietary political powers.
Union of the two Jerseys in one royal province.
"In New Jersey, had the proprietary power been vested in the
people or reserved to one man, it might have survived, but it
was divided among speculators in land, who, as a body, had
gain, and not the public welfare, for their end. In April,
1688, 'the proprietors of East New Jersey had surrendered
their pretended right of government,' and the surrender had
been accepted.
{2322}
In October of the same year, the council of the proprietaries
of West New Jersey voted to the secretary-general for the
dominion of New England the custody of 'all records relating
to government.' Thus the whole province fell, with New York
and New England, under the government of Andros. At the
revolution, therefore [the English Revolution of 1688-89], the
sovereignty over New Jersey had reverted to the crown; and the
legal maxim, soon promulgated by the board of trade, that the
domains of the proprietaries might be bought and sold, but not
their executive power, weakened their attempts at the recovery
of authority, and consigned the colony to a temporary anarchy.
A community of husbandmen may be safe for a short season with
little government. For twelve years, the province was not in a
settled condition. From June, 1689, to August, 1692, East New
Jersey had apparently no superintending administration, being,
in time of war, destitute of military officers as well as of
magistrates with royal or proprietary commissions. They were
protected by their neighbors from external attacks: and there
is no reason to infer that the several towns failed to
exercise regulating powers within their respective limits. …
The proprietaries, threatened with the ultimate interference
of parliament in provinces 'where,' it was said, 'no regular
government had ever been established,' resolved to resign
their pretensions. In their negotiations with the crown, they
wished to insist that there should be a triennial assembly:
but King William, though he had against his inclination
approved triennial parliaments for England, would never
consent to them in the plantations. In 1702, the first year of
Queen Anne, the surrender took place before the privy council.
The domain, ceasing to be connected with proprietary powers,
was, under the rules of private right, confirmed to its
possessors, and the decision has never been disturbed. The
surrender of 'the pretended' rights to government being
completed, the two Jerseys were united in one province; and
the government was conferred on Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury,
who, like Queen Anne, was the grandchild of Clarendon.
Retaining its separate legislature, the province had for the
next thirty-six years the same governors as New York. It never
again obtained a charter: the royal commission of April 1702,
and the royal instructions to Lord Cornbury, constituted the
form of its administration. To the governor appointed by the
crown belonged the power of legislation, with consent of the
royal council and the representatives of the people. … The
freemen of the colony were soon conscious of the diminution of
their liberties."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. O. Raum,
History of New Jersey,
chapter 8 (volume 1).
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1711.
Queen Anne's War.
See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745: and 1745-1748.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775: 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1766-1774.
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774:
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776.
End of royal government.
Adoption of a State Constitution.
In the person of William Franklin, unworthy son of Benjamin
Franklin, New Jersey was afflicted, at the outbreak of the
Revolutionary struggle, with an arbitrary and obstinately
royalist governor. Finding the assembly of the colony
refractory and independent, he refused to convene it in 1774,
when the people desired to send delegates to the Continental
Congress. Thereupon a convention was held at New Brunswick;
and this body not only commissioned delegates to the general
Congress, but appointed a "general committee of
correspondence" for the Province. The committee, in May of the
following year, called together, at Trenton, a second
Provincial Convention, which took to itself the title of the
"Provincial Congress of New Jersey," and assumed the full
authority of all the branches of the government, providing for
the defense of the Province and taking measures to carry out
the plans of the Continental Congress. "Governor Franklin
convened the Legislature on the 16th of November, 1775. No
important business was transacted, and on the 6th of December
the Assembly was prorogued by the governor to meet on the 3d
of January, 1776, but it never reassembled, and this was the
end of Provincial legislation in New Jersey under royal
authority. … Though the Provincial Congress of New Jersey
had to a great extent assumed the control of public affairs in
the Province, it had not renounced the royal authority. … On
the 24th of June, a committee was appointed to draft a
constitution. … New Jersey was, however, not yet disposed to
abandon all hopes of reconciliation with the Crown, and
therefore provided in the last article of this constitution
that the instrument should become void whenever the king
should grant a full redress of grievances, and agree to
administer the government of New Jersey in accordance with the
constitution of England and the rights of British subjects.
But, on the 18th of July, 177[6] the Provincial Congress
assumed the title of 'The Convention of the State of New
Jersey,' declared the State to be independent of royal
authority, and directed that all official papers, acts of
Assembly and other public documents should be made in the name
and by the authority of the State." Before this occurred,
however, Governor Franklin had been placed under arrest, by
order of Congress, and sent to Connecticut, where he was
released on parole. He sailed immediately for England. "When
the State government was organized under the new constitution,
the Legislature enacted laws for the arrest and punishment of
all persons who opposed its authority."
J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
History of New Jersey,
chapters 10-11.
ALSO IN:
T. F. Gordon,
History of New Jersey,
chapter 12.
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Siege of Boston.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
{2323}
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1776-1778.
The battle ground of Washington campaigns.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776; 1776-1777; and 1778 (JUNE).
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1777-1778.
Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1779.
British raids from New York.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1778-1779.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1783.
The war on the Hudson, on the Delaware, and in the South.
Surrender of Cornwallis.
Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778, to 1783.
NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1787.
Ratification of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
----------NEW JERSEY: End----------
NEW MADRID, The capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
NEW MARKET, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
NEW MARKET (Shenandoah Valley), Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.
----------NEW MEXICO: Start----------
NEW MEXICO: Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
The American conquest and occupation by Kearney's expedition.
"While the heaviest fighting [of the Mexican War] was going on
in Old Mexico [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847], the Government
[of the United States] easily took possession of New Mexico
and California, by means of expeditions organized on the
remote frontiers. New Mexico was wanted for the emigration to
the Pacific. If we were to have California we must also have
the right of way to it. In the hands of the Spaniards, New
Mexico barred access to the Pacific so completely that the
oldest travelled route was scarcely known to Americans at all,
and but little used by the Spaniards themselves. If now we
consult a map of the United States it is seen that the
thirty-fourth parallel crosses the Mississippi at the mouth of
the Arkansas, cuts New Mexico in the middle, and reaches the
Pacific near Los Angeles. It was long the belief of statesmen
that the great tide of emigration must set along this line,
because it had the most temperate climate, was shorter, and
would be found freer from hardship than the route by way of
the South Pass. This view had set on foot the exploration of
the Arkansas and Red Rivers. But if we except the little that