For it was now taken into consideration by the States’ government whether Aerssens was to remain at his post or to return.  Whether it was his wish to be relieved of his embassy or not was a question.  But there was no question that the States at this juncture, and in spite of the dangers impending from the Spanish marriages, must have an ambassador ready to do his best to keep France from prematurely sliding into positive hostility to them.  Aerssens was enigmatical in his language, and Barneveld was somewhat puzzled.

“I have according to your reiterated requests,” wrote the Advocate to the Ambassador, “sounded the assembly of My Lords the States as to your recall; but I find among some gentlemen the opinion that if earnestly pressed to continue you would be willing to listen to the proposal.  This I cannot make out from your letters.  Please to advise me frankly as to your wishes, and assure yourself in everything of my friendship.”

Nothing could be more straightforward than this language, but the Envoy was less frank than Barneveld, as will subsequently appear.  The subject was a most important one, not only in its relation to the great affairs of state, but to momentous events touching the fate of illustrious personages.

Meantime a resolution was passed by the States of Holland “in regard to the question whether Ambassador Aerssens should retain his office, yes or no?” And it was decided by a majority of votes “to leave it to his candid opinion if in his free conscience he thinks he can serve the public cause there any longer.  If yes, he may keep his office one year more.  If no, he may take leave and come home.  In no case is his salary to be increased.”

Surely the States, under the guidance of the Advocate, had thus acted with consummate courtesy towards a diplomatist whose position from no apparent fault of his own but by the force of circumstances—­and rather to his credit than otherwise—­was gravely compromised.

     ETEXT editor’s bookmarks: 

     Advanced orthodox party-Puritans
     Atheist, a tyrant, because he resisted dictation from the clergy
     Give him advice if he asked it, and money when he required
     He was not imperial of aspect on canvas or coin
     He who would have all may easily lose all
     King’s definite and final intentions, varied from day to day
     Neither kings nor governments are apt to value logic
     Outdoing himself in dogmatism and inconsistency
     Small matter which human folly had dilated into a great one
     The defence of the civil authority against the priesthood

THE LIFE AND DEATH of JOHN OF BARNEVELD, ADVOCATE OF HOLLAND

WITH A VIEW OF THE PRIMARY CAUSES AND MOVEMENTS OF THE THIRTY YEARS’ WAR

By John Lothrop Motley, D.C.L., LL.D.

The Life of John of Barneveld, v5, 1609-14