of European politics. The league of Augsburg (1686), which
followed the revocation of the edict of Nantes, placed Orange
League of Augsburg.
at the head of the resistance to French domination.
The league was formed by the emperor, Spain, Sweden,
the United Provinces and by several German states.
In England William and Mary were looked upon as the natural
successors to the throne on the death of James II., and William
kept up close relations with the malcontents in Church and
State, who disliked the arbitrary and papistical policy of his
father-in-law. But with the birth of a prince of Wales the
situation was changed, and William determined to intervene
actively in English affairs. His opportunity came when Louis
XIV., having declared war against the Empire, had invaded the
Palatinate. The opposition of Amsterdam to an English
Revolution
of 1688.
expedition, in the absence of danger from the side of
France, was overcome. The Revolution of 1688
ensued, and England became, under William’s strong
rule, the chief member of the Great Coalition against
French aggression. In the Grand Alliance of 1689–1690 he was
accused of sacrificing Dutch to English interests, but there
can be no doubt that William loved his native country better
than his adopted one, and was a true patriot. If the United
Provinces suffered in prosperity through their close relations
The Grand Alliance.
with and subordination to Great Britain during a
long series of years, it was due not to the policy of
William, but to the fact that the territory of the
republic was small, open to attack by great military
powers, and devoid of natural resources. The stadholder’s
authority and popularity continued unimpaired, despite of
his frequent absences in England. He had to contend, like his
predecessors, with the perennial hostility of the burgher aristocracy
of Amsterdam, and at times with other refractory town
councils, but his power in the States during his life was almost
autocratic. His task was rendered lighter by the influence and
ability of Heinsius, the grand pensionary of Holland,
William and Heinsius.
a wise and prudent statesman, whose tact and moderation
in dealing with the details and difficulties of internal
administration were conspicuous. The stadholder
gave to Heinsius his fullest confidence, and the pensionary on
his part loyally supported William’s policy and placed his
services ungrudgingly at his disposal (see Heinsius).
The conduct of the war by the allies was far from successful.
In 1690 (July 1st) Waldeck was defeated by Luxemburg at
Fleurus; and the Anglo-Dutch fleet was so severely
handled by Tourville (10th July) off Beachy Head
that for two years the command of the sea remained
War with France.
in the possession of the French. A striking victory off Cape la
Hogue (29th of May 1692) restored, however, supremacy to
the allies. On land the combined armies fared ill. In 1691
the French took Mons, and in 1692 Namur, in which year after
a hard-fought battle William was defeated at Steenkirk and in
1693 at Neerwinden. But William’s military genius never shone
so brightly as in the hour of defeat; he never knew what it was
to be beaten, and in 1695 his recapture of Namur was a real
triumph of skill and resolution. At last, after long negotiations,
exhaustion compelled the French king to sign the peace of
Peace of Ryswick.
Death of William III.
Ryswick in 1697, in which William was recognized
by France as king of England, the Dutch obtaining
a favourable commercial treaty, and the right to
garrison the Netherland barrier towns. This peace, however, did
no more than afford a breathing space during which Louis XIV.
prepared for a renewal of the struggle. The great question of
the Spanish succession was looming in all men’s eyes, and
though partition treaties between the interested
powers were concluded in 1698 and 1700, it is practically
certain that the French king held himself little bound
by them. In 1701 he elbowed the Dutch troops
out of the barrier towns; he defied England by recognizing
James III. on the death of his father; and it was clear
that another war was imminent when William III. died in
1702.
In 1672 the stadholdership in five provinces had been made hereditary in the family of the prince of Orange, but William died childless, and the republican burgher party was strong enough to prevent the posts being filled up. William had wished that his cousin, Count John William Stadholderless Government. Friso of Nassau, stadholder of Friesland and Groningen, should succeed him, but his extreme youth and the jealousy of Holland against a “Frisian” stood in the way of his election. The result was a want of unity in counsel and action among the provinces, Friesland and Groningen standing aloof from the other five, while Holland and Zeeland had to pay for their predominance in the Union by being left to bear the bulk of the charges. Fortunately there was no break of continuity in the policy of the States, the chief conduct of affairs remaining, until his death in 1720, in the capable and tried hands of the grand pensionary Heinsius, who had at his side a number of exceptionally experienced and wise counsellors—among these Simon van Slingeland, for forty-five years (1680–1725) secretary of the council of state, and afterwards grand pensionary of Holland (1727–1736), and Francis Fagel, who succeeded his father in 1699 as recorder (Griffier) of the States-General, and held that important office for fifty years. The tradition of William III. was thus preserved, but with the loss of the firm hand and strong personality of that great ruler the United Provinces were relegated to a subordinate place in the councils of the nations, and with the gradual decadence of its navy the Dutch republic ceased to rank as a power to be reckoned with.
In the War of the Spanish Succession, which broke out in 1702, Dutch troops took part in the campaigns of Marlborough and Eugene, and had their share in winning the great victories of Blenheim (1704), Ramillies (1706), Oudenarde (1708) and Malplaquet (1709). At the peace of War of the Spanish Succession. Utrecht, concluded in 1713, the interests of the Netherlands were but half-heartedly supported by the English plenipotentiaries, and the French were able to obtain far more favourable terms than they had the power to exact. But they were compelled to abandon all claim to the Spanish Netherlands, which were formally handed over to the United Provinces, as trustees, to be by them, after the conclusion of a satisfactory barrier treaty, given up to the emperor, and be known henceforth as the Austrian Netherlands. The peace of Utrecht taught the Dutch that the great powers around them, while ready to use their resources for Treaty of Utrecht. war, would not scruple to abandon them when they wanted peace; they, therefore, determined henceforth to stand clear of all foreign complications. With 1713 the influence of the United Netherlands upon European politics comes almost to an end.
The ruling party in the States took an active part in securing George I. on the throne of England; and they succeeded in coming to an agreement both with France and with Austria over the difficulties connected with the barrier towns, and were thus able in tranquillity to concentrate Peace policy. their energies upon furthering the interests of their trade. Under the close oligarchical rule of the patrician families, who filled all offices in the town councils, the States of Holland, in which the influence of Amsterdam was dominant, and which in their turn exercised predominance in the States-General, became more and more an assembly of “shopkeepers” whose policy was to maintain peace for the sake of the commerce on which they thrived. For thirty years after the peace of Utrecht the Provinces kept themselves free from entanglement in the quarrels of Ostend East India Company. their neighbours. The foundation of the Ostend East India Company (see Ostend Company), however, by the emperor Joseph II. in 1723, at once aroused the strong opposition of the Amsterdam merchants who looked upon this invasion of their monopoly with alarm, and declared that the Ostend Company had been set up in contravention to the terms of Article V. of the treaty of Münster. In maintaining this position the States had the support of England, but it was not until 1731 that they succeeded in obtaining the suppression of the company by consenting to
