A Tour Through the Batavian Republic/Letter XIV
LETTER XIV.
FROM the earliest periods of the republic to the present times, the city of Amsterdam has been distinguished for its invariable and faithful attachment to the cause of liberty. This passion has neither been enfeebled by commerce, nor debauched by wealth. It glowed with equal ardour when, in 1650, the burghers of Amsterdam repulsed William II. one of the most ambitious princes of the house of Orange, from the gates of their city; and when, in 1787, their descendants reluctantly submitted, obliged by imperious necessity, to the terms imposed on them by William V. supported by the arms of Prussia, and the intrigues and menaces of Great Britain.
The successful termination for the Orange party of the troubles which agitated Holland in 1787, subdued for a season the spirit of liberty in Amsterdam. The most eminent patriots were discharged from their employments, and declared incapable of ever serving the state[1]; and their offices were filled with men entirely devoted to the stadtholder. On the ruin of their cause, many persons of great abilities and integrity, who had distinguished themselves by their resolute opposition to the ambitious measures of the Prince of Orange, searing that their personal safeties would be endangered if they remained in Holland, or unable to brook the triumph of their adversaries, from whose resentments they had much to apprehend, and nothing to hope from their moderation, quitted their country, and fled into France[2]. The voluntary exile of some of their most determined, active, and enlightened opponents, facilitated the views of the stadtholderian party; and magistrates were appointed throughout the republic, and particularly in Amsterdam, on whose devotion to its interests the house of Orange could securely rely. The government of the United Provinces was soon modelled according to the wishes of the stadtholder; and the success with which he had vanquished his enemies, procured him, among the illiterate and unthinking, a short-lived popularity.
The events of the French revolution materially changed the situation of affairs in Holland. The Dutch patriots had always looked to the French government, whether monarchical or republican, for support against the encroachments of the stadtholder, and the malign influence which the cabinet of Great Britain possessed in the councils of the United Provinces. A firm and intimate alliance with Fiance was considered by that party as the only means by which the honour of the republic could be retrieved, and its affairs extricated from the pernicious administration of an individual, under the immediate control and direction of a rival government.
On the other hand, the stadtholder, who had invariably been averse to any connection with France, beheld with increased sentiments of aversion the old government of that country abolished, and a system from which he had more to apprehend established in its place. The states-general, the sovereigns of the republic, though much at the devotion of the Prince of Orange, did not entirely enter into his views on this subject, and cautiously avoided a war with France, until the arrogance and imprudence of the convention had rendered hostilities inevitable.
The partisans of the stadtholder, and the creatures of the government, entered with alacrity into a war, which favoured their views, and promised to gratify their resentments. But the majority of the Dutch nation, unpersuaded of the necessity of hostilities, or fearful of the consequences, coolly acquiesced in, rather than approved of, the violent measures of the government.
The more numerous part of the citizens of Amsterdam were decidedly averse, from animosity to the stadtholder, and other causes connected with their dislike of the Prince of Orange, to the war with France; and beheld first with secret satisfaction, and afterwards with open exultation, the victorious progress of the armies of that republic. But the magistrates were entirely devoted to the stadtholder; and their authority was employed to suppress the public voice. To prevent popular meetings, at which the wishes of the people might have been loudly expressed, an obsolete law was revived, by which the citizens were forbid to alienable for the discussion of public affairs, in a season of national distress. This ordinance was issued when the French were on the frontiers of the republic, and at a time when the most desperate measures, for the security of the United Provinces, were deliberated on by the stadtholder and his party.
In the month of October, 1794, when affairs were drawing near to a crisis, the stadtholder, accompanied by the Duke of York, repaired to Amsterdam, to concert, it was thought, with the regency of that city, the terrible measure of preventing the further progress of the French arms by an inundation of the country, as had been executed with success in 1672, when Lewis XIV. with a numerous and well-appointed army, was master of Utrecht, and threatened Amsterdam. The regency of the city, alarmed at the progress of the French, and corrupted or intimidated by the stadtholder, would probably have acceded to the inundation proposed, had not the burghers of Amsterdam received intimation that such a measure was in agitation, and expressed their resolute determination to oppose its execution by force, should the government rashly proceed with their design.
In defiance of the proclamation by which popular meetings were prohibited, a numerous and formidable body of the citizens of Amsterdam assembled to take into consideration the situation of the country, and to present a petition, or rather remonstrance, to the council of regency against the proposed inundation, and the admission of foreign troops into Amsterdam, which was a plan connected with the former measure. The remonstrants, in spite of the endeavours of the military, and civil magistrates, to disperse them, assembled with great regularity and order in the square before the stadthouse, and deputed three persons, one of whom was Visscher, the dismissed pensioner[3], to present their strong, but respectful petition to the regents. The magistrates refused at first to receive the petition, as it was contrary to their ordinance for the people to assemble; but the fear of exasperating the immense and irresistible multitude — which filled the avenues of the stadthouse, the square, and the adjacent streets, and maintained, during the conference of their deputies with the regents, a profound and terrible silence — by any unseasonable act of authority, subdued the legal scruples of the magistrates, and the remonstrance was read. The answer to the petitioners briefly stated, that the question of the expediency of inundating the country, to prevent the further progress of the French army, had not yet been discussed in the council, and no measures were taken respecting the admission of foreign troops into Amsterdam. With this reply the citizens were satisfied, and quietly dispersed, leaving, however, on the minds of the magistrates an impression of danger and resistance, which probably materially influenced their future operations.
The regents of Amsterdam, finding themselves too weak for the execution of the important measures which they proposed, displayed the extent of their disappointment and indignation by the rigorous steps which they adopted towards the persons who had taken an active part respecting the petition. Visscher and his colleagues who presented the remonstrance were privately apprehended, and sentenced to six years' imprisonment in the Rasp-house, with felons and malefactors. This was the last vindictive measure which was executed by the ancient magistracy of Amsterdam.
The citizens, undismayed by the imprisonment of their leaders, and encouraged by the advances of the French, continued to assemble, and now, without molestation, though their object was notoriously hostile to the stadtholderian party, formed themselves into regular corps for the protection of the city of Amsterdam. The officers commanding these corps were for the most part men who had been active in their opposition to the stadtholder in 1787, or were distinguished for their attachment to French principles.
From the capture of Nimeguen, and the subsequent passage of the Waal, extreme consternation seems to have palsied all the movements of the stadtholderian party. The British and German auxiliaries, though labouring under unspeakable disadvantages; from the inferiority of their numbers, and the rigour of the season, which deprived Holland of its natural means of defence, made a gallant resistance on the frontiers of the republic; but far from receiving any support from the interior, it was dubious whether they would not have to sustain on one side the attacks of an enraged people, while on the other they were pressed by a victorious enemy. In vain the stadtholder and the hereditary prince issued proclamation after proclamation, exhorting the Dutch to rise in a mass for the defence of their dear country[4], their religion, liberties, and ancient laws. These pathetic addresses to the nation were ridiculed or disregarded; and wherever torpor and inactivity did not possess men's minds, the spirit which prevailed was hostile to the government and its allies. — The disastrous retreat of the British army is too well known to be dwelt on here!
On the 16th of January, 1795, the English troops precipitately evacuated the province of Utrecht, the capital of which had capitulated the day before; and on the 20th of the same month a deputation of citizens from Amsterdam conducted General Pichegru with five thousand French troops into that city.
Early in the morning of this important day, the patriotic corps of Amsterdam took possession of the stadthouse, and mounted guard in the principal parts of the city. The tri-coloured flag was displayed from all the steeples of the town; the French cockade was universally worn; and the tree of liberty solemnly planted in the square before the stadthouse. So admirably had the whole business been arranged, that not the slightest tumult or confusion occurred; and, to use the words, of an intelligent eye-witness[5], which give a clearer idea than twenty sentences could do —- "it seemed on this occasion at Amsterdam as if it were fairtime."
On the day that the French entered Amsterdam two proclamations were issued; one from the patriots, styling themselves the revolutionary committee of Amsterdam, tending to tranquillise the minds of the citizens, and recommending several individuals to be chosen as provisional representatives; the other a proclamation of the representatives of the French people, assuring the Dutch that they should be treated as an independent nation, that persons and property should be protected, that the strictest military discipline should be observed by the republican army, and that the freedom of religious worship should suffer no restraint. They promised that the laws and customs of Holland should be provisionally maintained; and that the Batavian people alone, exercising that sovereignty which belonged to them, should have the power to alter and modify the constitution of their country[6].
The regents of Amsterdam resigned their offices, or were displaced, and Visscher, who scarcely two months before was sentenced to six years' imprisonment in the Rasp-house, was triumphantly liberated from his confinement, and placed, with the title of mayor, at the head of the magistracy of the city. For this arduous office he was well qualified by the situations which he had formerly filled with honour, and for the unimpeached integrity and patriotism of his character.
At this time a proclamation was issued to the French army by General Pichegru, prohibiting the troops, under pain of death, from committing any acts of plunder or disorder, and ordering them to treat the Dutch soldiers no longer as enemies, but as allies and brethren. The officers of the army were commanded to maintain the strictest discipline in their corps, and redress was freely promised to all individuals who should think themselves aggrieved by the republican troops. The French soldiers were impartially quartered on the inhabitants of Amsterdam: but it was permitted to those who did not choose to have the military in their own houses, to furnish them with lodgings elsewhere, provided (a most salutary regulation!) the soldiers, so disposed of, were not quartered in taverns or public houses.
In a few days, the provisional representatives of Holland commenced their sittings at the Hague. Peter Paulus, a man of great abilities and distinguished patriotism, who had rendered himself, in 1787, highly obnoxious to the stadtholderian party, was chosen president of the assembly, and commenced the meeting with a speech, replete with rational piety, candour, and moderation [7]. He congratulated the representatives on the event of the campaign, and in a strain of becoming humility and devotion, called their attention to the striking interposition of Divine Providence in behalf of the arms of France. He recommended a cordial union among themselves, and an oblivion of all former animosities and party dissensions, as the likeliest methods to ensure the prosperity of the country, and concluded with piously supplicating the blessing of Heaven on their counsels and measures.
The provisional representatives then proceeded to frame a declaration of the rights of men and citizens. The natural rights of man were defined to be, equality, liberty, safety, property, and resistance to oppression. Under these heads were severally included, the freedom of the press and of religious worship, the peaceful enjoyment of property legally acquired, and the right of suffrage either personally or by representation. The sovereignty was declared to reside in the entire people; and their right at all times to change their government, to reform it, or to establish another, was solemnly asserted. The offices of hereditary stadtholder, captain-general, and admiral-general of the republic, as contrary to the rights of man, were abolished; and all hereditary distinctions, as those of nobility or the equestrian order, were promiscuously abolished. Various colleges of magistracy and finance were suppressed; and a committee of public safety, a committee of finance, a military committee, and a committee of accounts, were provisionally appointed, until a definitive arrangement could be made on these subjects by representatives chosen by the whole nation.
- ↑ The Princess of Orange, who directed the negociations between the city of Amsterdam and the Duke of Brunswick, who commanded the Prussian army, declared, in a tone rather of insult than of clemency, that she spared the lives of the guilty through the generosity of her disposition, but required that they should be for ever incapable of holding any public employment. Among the persons thus dismissed were, Messrs. Block, Cammerling, De Witt, Toulon, and Van Foreest, deputies of Holland; Costerus, burgomaster of Woerden; De Lange, regent of Gonda; Giflaer, a man of uncommon eloquence and abilities, pensioner of Dort; Zeeberg and Van Casteelen, pensioners of Haerlem; Van Berkel and Visscher, pensioners of Amsterdam; Kempenaar, counsellor of Alkmaer; Abbema, Bicker, Van Leyden, and De Jonge, members of the regency of Amsterdam. Most of these citizens, who have survived the revolution, occupy distinguished situations under the new government, and enjoy the confidence and approbation of their countrymen.
- ↑ Among other fugitives of rank and consideration who at this period quitted Holland, were General Daendals and Admiral de Winter. On the breaking-out of the French revolution, they were employed in the republican armies; and Daendals bore the rank of general of division, and De Winter that of general of brigade, in the army which conquered Holland.
- ↑ Dismissed in 1787. See note, p. 276.
- ↑ I borrow this expression from one of the proclamations to which I allude.
- ↑ A merchant residing at Amsterdam, to whom I am under various obligations.
- ↑ See in the Appendix, the paper marked A.
- ↑ See in the Appendix the paper marked B.