Wilkes was able moreover to gratify the absent governor-general with the intelligence—­of somewhat questionable authenticity however—­that the States were very “much terrified with these threats of the people.”  But Barneveld came down to the council to inquire what member of that body it was who had accused the States of violating the Earl’s authority.  “Whoever he is,” said the Advocate, “let him deliver his mind frankly, and he shall be answered.”  The man did not seem much terrified by the throat-cutting orations.  “It is true,” replied Wilkes, perceiving himself to be the person intended, “that you have very injuriously, in many of your proceedings, derogated from and trodden the authority of his Lordship and of this council under your feet.”

And then he went into particulars, and discussed, ‘more suo,’ the constitutional question, in which various Leicestrian counsellors seconded him.

But Barneveld grimly maintained that the States were the sovereigns, and that it was therefore unfit that the governor, who drew his authority from them, should call them to account for their doings.  “It was as if the governors in the time of Charles V.,” said the Advocate, “should have taxed that Emperor for any action of his done in the government.”

In brief, the rugged Barneveld, with threatening voice, and lion port, seemed to impersonate the Staten, and to hold reclaimed sovereignty in his grasp.  It seemed difficult to tear it from him again.

“I did what I could,” said Wilkes, “to beat them from this humour of their sovereignty, showing that upon that error they had grounded the rest of their wilful absurdities.”

Next night, he drew up sixteen articles, showing the disorders of the States, their breach of oaths, and violations of the Earl’s authority; and with that commenced a series of papers interchanged by the two parties, in which the topics of the origin of government and the principles of religious freedom were handled with much ability on both sides, but at unmerciful length.

On the religious question, the States-General, led by Barneveld and by Francis Franck, expressed themselves manfully, on various occasions, during the mission of Buckhurst.

“The nobles and cities constituting the States,” they said, “have been denounced to Lord Leicester as enemies of religion, by the self-seeking mischief-makers who surround him.  Why?  Because they had refused the demand of certain preachers to call a general synod, in defiance of the States-General, and to introduce a set of ordinances, with a system of discipline, according to their arbitrary will.  This the late Prince of Orange and the States-General had always thought detrimental both to religion and polity.  They respected the difference in religious opinions, and leaving all churches in their freedom, they chose to compel no man’s conscience—­a course which all statesmen, knowing the diversity of human opinions, had considered necessary in order to maintain fraternal harmony.”