Deliberations on the last petition of the so-called delegates, dated 13 December 1653. The director-general and council consider that their last reply and order of yesterday, which was communicated to the remonstrants by the fiscal, was quite sufficient and should have been obeyed by them as good subjects should do, and that they should not have addressed themselves again with the name and title of "assembly." But, whereas the remonstrants have again considered it advisable to submit another petition with distortions and falsehoods for the director and council to answer, the director-general and council first understood it to be their duty not to excuse anyone, but to judge. Therefore they have declared the gathering to be illegal, not only because the hamlets of Breuckelen, Amesfoort and Midwout have no judicial authority, as the remonstrants incorrectly allege, but also because the director-general and council have declared and do declare the present gathering unlawful and an absolute conventicle for having assumed the name of "delegates from the province of New Netherland," which they are not, as has been said before, and for not having been called together or convened by the director-general and council. By virtue of their commission they assert that no one in this country is authorized to convene a general assembly, except they who represent their High Mightinesses and the noble lords-directors.
No less distorted is what the remonstrants add: that the aforesaid villages have been invited by the mayors and schepens with the knowledge of the director-general. That may be, but it was certainly not done with his consent and approval. In the same vein, the present conventicle assembled "with the knowledge of the director-general and council" because the mayors and schepens and the English delegates from the villages of Gravesande, Middelburgh and Vlissingen, meeting at the house of Pieter Wolfersz on 27 November last, invited the director-general and some councillors, through Mayor Crygier and Ensign George Bacxter, to a breakfast or reception, at which the mayors, schepens and English delegates announced to the director-general and councillors present, through their speaker or spokesman, in the most insulting manner possible that on the 10th day of next month they would assemble and the director might do what he pleases and prevent what he could. If this is called previous knowledge, then indeed the delegates from the aforesaid villages have been summoned by the mayors and schepens with the knowledge of the director-general and council, who, however, assert that it is the duty of the honorable director-general, as president, and not of the mayors and schepens, to convene a general assembly and to summon delegates from the respective colonies and villages.
The point "that natural law gives to all men the right to assemble for the welfare and protection of their freedom," requires proof or further explanation. The director-general and council think that the authorities are thereto commissioned, but not all men in general because it would cause disorder. Therefore the lords-directors resolved, with the knowledge and consent of their High Mightinesses, to appoint the director-general and council, giving them extensive authority for the preservation and protection of the privileges, freedom and property of the Company and the good inhabitants, and, if necessary for the convening of an assembly of their subjects; however, this authority was not conferred on the mayors and schepens, much less on all men. If anyone of the remonstrants believes himself personally, or his colony, village or settlement, injured or wronged with respect to their privileges, freedom or property, the director-general and council, upon receipt of a proper remonstrance and relevant evidence, are duty-bound and inclined to maintain everyone in his property, rights privileges and freedoms to the best of their ability and knowledge. However, the director-general and council are obliged to oppose such manners and ways of assembling and such injuries, insults and affronts offered to the government, and to mete out punishment to the authors and leaders thereof in due time, unless satisfaction is received.
Concerning the petition itself, "Whereas the delegates etc. . . Let it serve as an answer that for the aforesaid reasons, stated above repeatedly, the director-general and council cannot declare the so-called assembly legal nor can they reply further in detail to a remonstrance submitted in this manner.
That the remonstrants then add, "to be willing to admit, with due respect, such persons" to the assembly whom "your honors find favorable" and to allow them "to share in and advise on all business brought before it," continuing with a threat "to protest against everyone, etc. in case of refusal," shows an attitude creating great misgivings in the minds of the director-general and council; however, they shall commend that for the present to God and their superiors, except to say that they are better informed concerning their authority, commission and instructions than the remonstrants, and that they also believe it is unnecessary to require the good will or the permission of subjects concerning how, when and under what circumstances to appear in any assembly, because they are pro tempore authorized and commissioned by God and their high authorities, to propose and direct all public business conforming to their commission and instructions, but not to help promote and advise on the affairs of a self-created, illegal assembly.
In conclusion, the director-general and council prevent no one from writing to our high authorities or to our noble lords- directors, as long as one keeps within the bounds of proper respect and truth; however, they think the remonstrants have no authority to write as representatives of this province. Therefore, the remonstrants are once more and for the last time referred to the last decision and ordered not to assemble again.
