In Dutch historiography, the Second Stadtholderless Period () was the period between the death of stadtholder William III on 19 MarchThis is the date from the Gregorian calendar that was followed at the time in the Dutch Republic; according to the Julian calendar, still used in England at the time, the date of death was March 8 1702, and the appointment of William IV as stadtholder and captain general in all provinces of the Dutch Republic on 2 May 1747. During this period the office of stadtholder was left vacant in the provinces of Holland, Zeeland, and Utrecht, though in other provinces that office was filled by members of the House of Nassau-Dietz (later called Orange-Nassau) during various periods. During the period the Republic lost its status as a great power and its primacy in world trade. Though its economy declined considerably, causing deindustrialization and deurbanization in the maritime provinces, a rentier-class kept accumulating a large capital fund that formed the basis for the leading position the Republic achieved in the international capital market. A military crisis at the end of the period caused the fall of the States-Party regime and the restoration of the Stadtholderate in all provinces. However, though the new stadtholder acquired near-dictatorial powers, this did not improve the situation.
Background
Historiographical note The terms First Stadtholderless Period and Second Stadtholderless Period became established as terms of art in Dutch historiography during the 19th century, the heyday of nationalistic history writing, when Dutch historians wistfully looked back on the glory days of the Dutch Revolt and the Dutch Golden Age and were looking for scapegoats for "what went wrong" in later years. Partisans of the new royal house of Orange-Nassau, like Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, who were indeed continuing the traditions of the Orangist party during the Republic, recast that history as a heroic narrative of the exploits of the stadtholders of the House of Orange (the Frisian stadtholders from the House of Nassau-Dietz, though the forebears of the House of Orange-Nassau, were less prominently featured). Anybody who had stood in the way of those stadtholders, like the representatives of the States Party, eminently fitted the role of villains in these romantic stories. Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Hugo Grotius, and Johan de Witt, though not actually demonized, got decidedly shorter shrift than from later historians. The lesser-known regents of later years even fared worse. John Lothrop Motley, who introduced Americans to the history of the Dutch Republic in the 19th century, was strongly influenced by this point of view. (1977), Patriots and Liberators. Revolution in the Netherlands 1780–1813, New York: Vintage books, , pp. 17ff.
The general gist of the narrative was that as long as the stadtholders led the country, all was well, whereas when such heroic figures were replaced with the humdrum regents, the ship of state inexorably drifted to the cliffs of history. Superficially, the Orangist historians seemed to have a point, because both stadtholderless periods arguably ended in disaster. The negative connotation of the term therefore seemed well deserved. However, other historians put question marks next to the causal process that the Orangists postulated.
However this may be, some scholars have asked whether an emotionally and politically loaded term like this is still appropriate as a historical label in the task of historical periodization. Apart from the fact that long-persisting use in common parlance has established such a right to exist, that question may be answered in the affirmative, because as it turns out, the absence of a stadtholder was indeed a (positively perceived) principle of the constitution of the Republic in these historical periods. It was the cornerstone of De Witt's "True Freedom", the ideological underpinning of his States-Party regime during the first period, and would be revived as such during the second period. The renowned 19th-century Dutch historian Robert Fruin (who cannot be accused of overly Orangist sympathies) uses the (in his view arguably more appropriate) term "stadtholderless regime" for the periods, to emphasize the fact that we are not just concerned with a label, but that there was something in the historical situation that gives the historical circumscription "stadtholderless period" meaning.cf. Fruin, passim
The stadtholderate of William III
The popular revolt in reaction to the French invasion of 1672, during the Franco-Dutch War, had overturned the States-Party regime of Grand Pensionary Johan de Witt (ending the First Stadtholderless Period) and swept William III of Orange into power. He was appointed stadtholder in Holland and Zeeland in July 1672 and received powers that went far beyond those of his predecessors. His position was made impregnable when the States-General of the Netherlands authorized him in September 1672 to purge the city governments of major Holland cities from regents of the States Party, and replace them with adherents of the Orangist faction. His political position was further consolidated when the office of stadtholder was made hereditary for his putative descendants in the male line in Holland and Zeeland in 1674 (the office was made hereditary for the descendants of the House of Nassau-Dietz in Friesland and Groningen in 1675, apparently in an attempt to check dynastic encroachments from Holland on Frisian sovereignty).
At the readmission of the provinces that had been occupied by the French in 1672 to the Union after 1674 (they had been barred from the States General during their occupation), those provinces (Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel) had to pay a political price in the form of the so-called (government regulations) that William imposed on them. These may be compared to organic laws that gave him the right to appoint most officials on the provincial level in these provinces and to control the election of city magistrates and magistrates () in the countryside.Fruin, pp. 282–288
Many have erroneously interpreted these developments as the office of the stadtholder (at least in Holland and Zeeland) becoming monarchical. That would be a misunderstanding, however, even though the court of the stadtholder took on a decidedly princely aspect (as it had done under William's grandfather Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange). If William was a monarch at all, it was a constitutional one, with still sharply limited powers, formally and politically. The States-General remained sovereign in the Republic, the entity with which other states concluded treaties and made war or peace. The pretensions to sovereign supremacy of the provinces, however, as under the De Witt regime, were again replaced with the constitutional theory of Maurice, Prince of Orange, after his overturning of the regime of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt in 1618, in which the provinces were at least in certain respects subservient to the Generality.
The new, extended prerogatives of the stadtholder mostly regarded his powers of patronage and these enabled him to build a strong powerbase. But his power was in large manner checked by other centers of power, especially the States of Holland and the city of Amsterdam within that province. Especially that city was able to obstruct William's policies if they were perceived to conflict with its interest. But if they coincided William was able to forge a coalition that could override any opposition. This was demonstrated for instance in the summer months of 1688 when Amsterdam was persuaded to support the invasion of England, which later led to the Glorious Revolution and William and Mary's accession to the British thrones.
Nevertheless, these developments were a result of William's (and his friends, like Grand Pensionary Gaspar Fagel and William Bentinck) persuasive powers and skill in coalition building, not from his exercise of monarchical powers. Though commander-in-chief of the Republic, William could not simply order the invasion, but needed the authorization of the States-General and the States of Holland (who in practice held the strings of the public purse). On the other hand, the events of the 1690s helped to bring about a Grand Consensus in the Dutch Republic around the foreign policy, centered on opposing the designs of Louis XIV of France and maintaining (to that end) a close alliance with the former arch-enemy England, also when it became clear toward the end of William's life, that that country would after his death be governed by someone who would not necessarily put the interests of the Republic first (as William arguably did).
This grand consensus, however, was not the product of slavish sycophancy of courtiers, but of a genuine intellectual agreement in Dutch government circles that this was the right policy to follow, at least in the foreign policy field. It did not necessarily extend to the domestic policy field in all respects, and this may explain the course of events after William's sudden death in early 1702.
Succession to William III When he died, William was King of England (which included Wales), Scotland and Ireland. The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 firmly placed the succession in these kingdoms in the hands of his sister-in-law and cousin Anne. The succession to his other titles and offices was not that clear, however. As he was childless, William had to make provisions in his last will and testament to prevent any uncertainty. Indeed, he made John William Friso, Prince of Orange, head of the cadet branch of Nassau-Dietz of the family, his general heir, both privately and politically.
There was doubt as to whether he had the authority to dispose of the complex of titles and lands, connected with the title Prince of Orange, as he saw fit. As he undoubtedly knew, his grandfather Frederick Henry had made a (fee tail) in his will that established cognatic succession in his own line as the general succession rule in the House of Orange. This provision gave the succession to the male offspring of his eldest daughter Luise Henriette of Nassau in case his own male line would become extinct. (At the time Frederick Henry died his only son William II, Prince of Orange did not yet have a legitimate heir, so the entailment made sense at the time, if he wanted to prevent the inheritance from falling into the hands of distant relatives.) Such an entailment was quite common in aristocratic circles, to ensure the integrity of the inheritance. The problem was that an entailment in general view limits the power of the possessors of the entailed inheritance to dispose of it as they see fit. William probably intended to override this provision, but the entailment made his will vulnerable to dispute.
And disputed it was, on the ground that it clashed with Frederick Henry's entailment, by the beneficiary of that entailment, Luise Henriette's son Frederick I of Prussia. But Frederick was not the only person who contested William's will. Frederick Henry's entailment happened to be the last in a long line of entailments by previous holders of the title Prince of Orange, beginning with René of Châlon, who had founded the dynasty by willing the title to his nephew William the Silent, the progenitor of most of the claimants. René had made an entailment that gave the succession to the female line of his nephew, in case the male line would become extinct. This overruled the agnatic succession apparently prevailing before this time for the title. It is unclear who would inherit according to this rule, but apparently there was no claimant, basing himself on it. (The two eldest daughters of William the Silent, one of whom was married to William Louis, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg, the brother of John William Friso's ancestor, died without issue.)