Abstract
By the 1740’s, then, it was clear that the “constitution” of the United Netherlands was inadequate to the demands of external and internal crises alike. For honest men who were concerned more with the welfare of the state than with the scramble for places of wealth and influence there seemed to be no way to satisfy both Orangists and States-men. Loevestein remained adamantly anti-Orange, refused to countenance the promotion of a single Stadhouder for all of the provinces and continued to claim that, whatever its defects, theirs was the best of all possible republics. The Orangists continued to plot the course which could lead them to power again with the end of the second stadhouderless period which had begun so long before in 1702.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
On the Patriot movement and its terminology there is no special study but the Inaugural Lecture by E.H. Kossmann, In Praise of the Dutch Republic: some Seventeenth-Century Attitudes (London, 1963) offers some interesting suggestions. It seems that the supporters of William of Orange in the sixteenth century as well as the anti-Orangists of the early seventeenth century claimed the title for themselves, e.g. Oldenbarnevelt’s last words on the scaffold: “Men, don’t believe that I am a traitor. I have acted honestly and piously as a good patriot and such shall I die”. The Loevestein followers of De Witt after 1650 monopolized the term as “good” patriots. “In the eighteenth century, of course, it obtained the status of a party symbol. … A late eighteenth century patriot is obviously an anti-Orangist reformer. Yet in the middle of the eighteenth century it had been once again the Orangists who, after nearly fifty years (1702–1747) of political impotence, made a bid for their ancient title of honor. This clearly reveals their willingness to lay less emphasis on dynastic loyalty, but soon they were so manifestly put on the defensive as to have to resign themselves to calling their party that of the ‘old-fashioned’ Patriots’” Kossmann, p. 11). Colenbrander (Patriottentijd, I, p. 56 n.) gives 1756 as one of the first references to the Republicans as Patriots. In 1747–48 the “orangedemocrats” called themselves “patriots” but the Regents were “les vrais patriotes”. See also the references below for the use made of the term by Jan Wagenaar (p. 78) and Adriaan Kluit (p. 252).
For the general course of events in this revolutionary period consult A.G.N., VIII, chaps. I and III; P.J. Blok, Gesch. v.h. Ned. Volk. III3, pp. 442ff.; P. Geyl, Revolutiedagen in Amsterdam, Prins Willem IV en de Doelistenbeweging (‘s-Gravenhage, 1936). For a contemporary account of great importance, see J, Wagenaar, Vaderlandsche Historie, XX and the appropriate volumes of the Nederlandsche Jaarboeken.
Blok, Gesch. v.h. Ned. Volk, III3, pp. 427, 447. On the Van Harens, cf. A. Stakenburg, Onno Zwier Van Haren: De Geuzen (Santpoort, 1943), pp. 1–47
Blok, Gesch. v.h. Ned. Volk, III3, pp. 427, 447. On the Van Harens, cf. A. Stakenburg, Onno Zwier Van Haren: De Geuzen (Santpoort, 1943), pp. 165–171 (bibliography).
Cf. E. Luzac, Essai sur la liberté de produire ses sentiments (1749), p. 122, on role of Van Harens in 1747. See also, Verzameling van Gedichten van, voor, en tegen W.v. Haren (Utrecht, 1742).
For Bentinck’s life and activities see D’Ailly, Willem Bentinck v. Rhoon (Leiden, 1898)
C. van Huffei, Willem Bentinck v. Rhoon, zijn persoonlijkheid en leven (‘s-Gravenhage, 1923).
I. Vijlbrief, Van Anti-Aristocratie tot Démocratie, p. 127. Also see N.J.J. de Voogd, De Doelistenbeweging te Amsterdam in 1748 (Utrecht, 1914).
Cf. Bolingbroke’s Idea of a Patriot King (1747).
Wagenaar, V.H. XX, pp. 128–9.
Blok, p. 459.
Wagenaar, V.H., XX, pp. 136–42.
The situation of the oligarchy in Friesland was unusually strong, owing in part to the institution of the hornleger as the unit of property which enabled its owner to be represented in the States of the province. On the hornleger and its influence on the politics of Friesland, see W.W. van der Meulen, Coert Lambertus van Beijma, een Bijdrage tot de Kennis van Frieslands Geschiedenis Tijdens den Patriottentijd (Leeuwarden, 1894), p. 29ff.
Wagenaar, V.H., XX, p. 216.
Ibid., p. 227ff.
Blok, Gesch. v.h. Ned. Volk, III3, 474.
Cf. Geyl, Demoeratische Tendenties in 1672, and Wagenaar, XX, 270.
Wagenaar, V.H., XX, 271–77. The reference to these Amsterdammers as the “worthy offsprings of Bato” is reminiscent of the use of antiquity in Hooft’s play of the same name. The idea recurs in the 1780s in various pamphlets in which Bato is mentioned. Cf. W.B.S. Boeles, De Patriot J.H. Swildens (Leeuwarden, 1884), p. 149 n. The original source of the poem “Vrijheidstaavers aan den Aemstel” is in a pamphlet, Verzameling van Aanspraaken, Requesten, en andere Politicque Stukken, … p. 30 (5de aanspraak, 19 Aug. 1748); this collection is chock full of the Batavians, Claudius Civilis, Privileges and patriots. “Wagenaar, V.H., XX, 288.
A.G.N., VIII, 12.
One of the Doelisten, Ockers, has this to say shortly after the departure of William IV: “What have we gained now that the Prince is Stadhouder? The Amsterdammers have already been had by His Highness; he has changed the government according to his own lights, and for the rest, everything is wrong; His Highness has not restored the citizen to his rights; first His Highness said that before he agreed to a free Military Council, he would rather not be Stadhouder, and after that he did it anyway, which is neither reasonable nor princely”. (Cited in De Voogd, De Doelistenbeweging, p. 209).
Blok, Gesch. v.h. Ned. Volk, III3, 482.
One of the few important results of the efforts of William IV to use these great powers to good effect was the Proposal of 1751 for the institution of a limited portofranco for the Republic. This document put forth the advanced ideas of the mid-century on free trade and the encouragement of commerce by the state. All of the later writers on economics in the Republic used this Proposal as a starting point for their own interpretations and recommendations. See now J. Hovy, Het Voorstel van 1751 tot Instelling van een beperkt Vrijhavenstelsel in de Republiek (Groningen, 1966).
Vijlbrief, Van Anti-Aristocratie, p. 133.
On the connection to the past, see the articles by P. Geyl, “Democratische Tendenties in 1672” and “Revolutiedagen te Amsterdam (Aug.–Sept. 1748)”. One difference in 1748 was the greater ease in the relations between the democrats or popular leaders like Raap and the Orthodox Calvinists and other immediate supporters of Orange. Geyl (“Democr. Tend.,” p. 305) cites Petrus Valkenier on the opposition to such popular movements in 1672.
Quoted in P. Geyl, De Wittenoorlog: een Pennestrijd in 1757 (Amsterdam, 1953), p. 66. The various pamphlets on Raap were collected in Praaltoneel van Nederlands Wonderen, 7 vols. (Embden [?]), esp. Vol. V; cf. Knuttel, Catalogus. …
Het Gedrag der Stadhoudersgezinden verdedigt ([N.P.], 1754).
Elie Luzac (1721–96) is a figure whom we will meet time and time again in the forefront of enlightened thought in the Netherlands. He was fantastically prolific and his works would fill a small library. For his biography and bibliography, see Brugman’s article in N.N.B.W., I, cols. 1287–90; cf. also E.H. Kossmann, Verlieht Conservatisme: over Elie Luzac (Groningen, 1966). The family Luzac is also interesting for it shows how close relatives could be increasingly divided by the political developments of the Eighteenth Century. While Elie became one of the chief spokesmen for the Orange cause, Jean Luzac (1746–1807) supported the Patriots. Jean was a classicist who assisted in editing the Gazette de Leyde and was named Professor of Greek and Fatherland’s History at Leiden (1785) where his Inaugural address was on “Erudition in a Free State”. To the more democratic wing of the Patriots he seemed conservative, but in 1787 he supported professors who refused to swear to the old constitution. He was removed as Professor of Fatherland’s History in 1796 because he was considered too dangerous an aristocrat and only restored to honor in 1802.
See the article by Slijper in N.N.B.W., I, cols. 1290–98, as well as the articles on Etienne Luzac there. For the connections between the Luzacs and Johan Valckenaer, their relative by marriage and outspoken democratic Patriot, see J.A. Sillem, Het Leven van Mr. Johan Valckenaer (1759–1821) (Amsterdam, 1883).
Verantwoording wegens den uitgaaf van het boekje tot tytel voerende: Het gedrag der Stadhouders-gesinden verdedigt ([N.P.]), 1754.
But Luzac did comment at least on the events, their causes and effects in his defense of his publishing La Mettrie’s L’Homme Machine in 1748. Cf. Essai sur la liberté de produire ses sentiments (“Au Pays libre, pour le bien public”, 1749), p. 122ff.
Het Gedrag, pp. 20, 25.
Ibid., p. 33.
Ibid.
See J. Marx, „Elie Luzac et la pensée éclairée“, in Documentatieblad — Werkgroep 18 e eeuw, nr. 11–12 (Juni, 1971), pp. 74–105.
For the diplomatic background, see H.T. Colenbrander, De Patriottentijd: Hoofdzakelijk naar Buitenlandsche Bescheiden, 3 vols. (s’-Gravenhage, 1897–1899), Vol. I, chap. II; J.S. Bartstra Jr., Vlootherstel en legeraugmentatie 1770–1780 (Assen, 1957), chap. I.
See A.C. Carter, The Dutch Republic in Europe in the seven years war, (London, 1971).
Shortly after Wagenaar’s death, his brother-in-law, Huisinga Bakker, published Het Leeven van Jan Wagenaar benevens eenige brieven van en aan denzelven (Amsterdam, 1776). This forms the foundation for any study of his activities and was the main source for the biographical detail in the only work devoted to Wagenaar as historian: R.J. Castendijk, Jan Wagenaar en zijn „ Vaderlandsche Historie“ (Schiedam, 1927).
„Koffy-huis-praatje …“in Verzameling van Historische en Politike Tractaaten, voorheen uitgegeven door den historieschrijver Jan Wagenaar, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1779–1780), Vol. II, pp. 1–36. This “Collection” contains most of Wagenaar’s pamphlets.
„De Patriot of Politike Bedenkingen over den Staat der Vereenigde Nederlanden, in ‘t jaar MDCCXLVII” in Verzameling, II, pp. 37–274.
Ibid., pp. 88–90.
Ibid., p. 106ff.
Castendijk, p. 22f.
AU in Verzameling, I.
Amsterdam in zijne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenissen, … (Amsterdam, 1760–67), 4 vols.
Vaderlandsche Historie, I, xxxiv. The position taken here is in marked contrast to the earliest versions of the States theory of Francken in 1587 and De Groot in 1610. There the emphasis was on static continuity for “upwards of eight hundred years”. Here there is the understanding that the past was different, even radically different, but that that does not preclude development or evolution of new relations and institutions to meet new conditions. Some of this new flexibility may result from Wagenaar’s ability and willingness to use recent scholarship which had begun to cast a fresh light on the earliest history of the Dutch. In Volume I, e.g., Wagenaar relies heavily on G. van Loon, Aloude Hollandsche Histori (‘s-Gravenhage, 1734). On the influence of Van Loon and his contemporaries, see below pp. 201–2.
Ibid., I, xxxix. This is a striking departure from the orthodox view in the seventeenth century. That what resulted from the actions of William I should lead to an entirely new form of government, presumably thus breaking with the pre-Revolt past, was dangerous to those who claimed the protection of that past.
Cf. Geyl, Wittenoorlog, pp. 112–13. On the question of the titles to be accorded William and his successors, see Verzameling, II, 351 n., where Grotius is called upon for the translation of heerschappij into Imperium rather than dominium to support the lesser role of the Stadhouder. Behind this argument over imperial titles, a long history stretched back to the republican Rome; cf. R. Koebner, Empire (New York, 1965).
See now H. Gerlach, Het Proces legen Oldenbarnevelt en de ‘Maximen in den Staef (Haarlem, 1965).
Het Karakter van den Raad-Pensionaris Jan de Wit en zijne Factie (‘s-Gravenhage, 1757). For the full titles and bibliographical details of these contributions to the war, see Geyl, Wittenoorlog, esp. pp. 145–152.
Geyl, Wittenoorlog, 9.
Het Egt en Waar Karakter, in Verzameling, II, 275–354.
Ibid., pp. 339ff., 346, 349.
Ibid., pp. 351–352; cf. S.I. Wiselius, Staatkundige Verlichting der Nederlanderen (Brussel, 18282), p. 220.
Cf. Geyl, Het Stadhouderschap in de Partijliteratuur onder De Witt (Amsterdam, 1947), pp. 34–35 and below, p. 183 on Prof. Van der Marck and the further use of this phrase.
For Burman’s life, see N.N.B. W., IV, cols. 358–361; also see J. Hartog, Uit de Dagen der Patriotten (Amsterdam, 1896), pp. 1–49.
Geyl, Wittenoorlog, pp. 43, 122.
Lofbazuyn van Marten van Roshem; Vrijmoedige Aanmerkingen over de Zedige Beproeving; Aanhangsel: Onderzoek van DeZugt: all in Verzameling, II. (First and Second Trumpet of Praise; Outspoken Comments; Appendix. …)
De Zugt van den Heere Raadpensionaris Johan de Witt, tot zyn Vaderland en deszelfs Vrijheid. …
Wittenoorlog, p. 74. As Geyl points out in a long note here, Luzac merely has to cite the Deduction of 1587 to complete his use of the official theory of the State promulgated by Francken.
See above, p. 37 for the discussion of Huber’s contributions.
Wagenaar, Verzameling, II, pp. 434ff.
Luzac, Het Oordeel over R.P.J. de Witt; Wagenaar, Tweede Lofbazuyn van M. van Roshetn.
De Witten-Oorlog, p. 112.
Castendijk, Wagenaar, p. 29.
N.N.B.W., IV, col. 360 65 „Vrijheid, Vroomheid, Vriendschap, Vrede, en Verdrag“.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1973 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leeb, I.L. (1973). The Revolution of 1747 and the Stadhouderate. In: The Ideological Origins of the Batavian Revolution. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2493-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2493-8_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-247-5157-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2493-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive