Letter and that the Lord old Burgomaster Van Opmeer had said that the said Lords Hooft and Hop had done nothing without order but 't is also true that that Order could not qualifie the said Lords Hooft and Hop during the said deliberation to be present in the Assembly since by reason and very ancient custome in such a case all those who had participated in the same matter yea also all the Lords deputed of that City ought to have absented themselves if the Lords the Members of the Assembly had insisted thereon But it is said the Lords Hooft and Hop were not particularly named in the said Letter of the Count D'Avaux none but the Lords of Amsterdam being therein expressed and when the Lord Councellor Pensionary said to them that on the day of the writing of the said Letter they had been at the house of the said Embassadour they proved they were then elsewhere It were in truth to be wished that when they would make known matters of that nature to Members of the Government for their discharge they should then declare the truth thereof without any colouring it is true that the said Lords Hooft and Hop are not mentioned in the said Letter by name and that therein is onely exprest Messieurs D'Amsterdam the Lords of Amsterdam but it is also true that what in the Letter of the said Embassadour is mentioned must have been transacted by these Lords of Amsterdam who had spoke with the said Lord Embassadour of France since those who had not spoken with the said Embassadour by the name of Messieurs d'Amsterdam the Lords of Amsterdam who had told him thus as is express'd in the Letter could not be comprehended Now it is true and acknowledged as well by the Lords of Amsterdam as by the Lords Hooft and Hop that the same Lords Hooft and Hop were the same who had spoken with the Lord Embassadour and I know none that shall justly judge but will find a difference therein whether the said Lord Embassadour in the aforesaid Letter should have named the said Lords Hooft and Hop or that he should say the Lords of Amsterdam had told me thus when it must be construed from the acknowledgment of the said Lords that the said Lords Hooft and Hop were the same who at that time were with him and spoke with him without being able to name any others and although it be true that the said Lords Hooft and Hop when the Lord Pensionary Councellor asked them if on the Sunday when the Letter was written they had not been at his house they answered in the Negative and could prove themselves to have been elsewhere but it is also true the said Lord Pensionary was mistaken in the day and that the said Lords acknowledged to have been the day before namely Saturday with the said Lord Embassadour and spoke to him as he expresly hath mentioned it in the said Letter and I leave it to your judgment whether in this they proceeded with the required sincerity when they carp at the mis-expression of the day when the truth of their speaking to the Embassadour and the time thereof and their own confession may consist together When now the resolution of the Lords the States and the practice thereon succeeding expresly infer that those whose affair was in deliberation before the Assembly ought to absent during those deliberations and that by the confession as well of the Lords of Amsterdam as of the said Lords Hooft and Hop it appeareth that they are the same who had spoke with the said Embassadour and that it is therefore their case that is in debate and that the said Lords took the power to be present notwithstanding many of the Members were of judgment that they should conform to the aforesaid resolution and practice and I judge that all impartial men will adjudge that act of theirs in thus staying in the Assembly a very great disrespect shewed to their Sovereign Power there lawfully assembled and informing themselves and debating concerning actions not onely in themselves unlawfull but also in the highest punishable and said by them to have been acted And that the other Members of their Lordships assembly had great reason to complain of them and to resent the wrong done them by the Lords of Amsterdam depending on their own authority as if they were not tied to the foresaid resolutions nor any practice ensuing thereon Concerning the third point to wit the sealing up of the aforesaid Papers the aforesaid Lords Burgomasters and Common-council of Amsterdam have as little reason to complain as they have concerning the shutting of the doors beforementioned or the required absence of the Lords Hooft and Hop but that this may the better appear we must of necessity touch somewhat nearer the matter giving occasion to that resolution of theirs for Sealing up the foresaid Papers which was this that their Lordships perceived out of the forementioned Letter of the said Embassadour that what was written was not to a private friend to whom a man might write his sentiment as he pleased but that it was writ to the King his Master to whom he was obliged to give an exact account of all his negotiations and whom he ought not nor could abuse and writ to him of several matters concerning which he said to have treated with the Lords of Amsterdam and that he judged them of such importance that to the end the King his Master might also be informed thereof he sent that Letter with an express Post by one of his own domesticks so that what is charged on the Lords of Amsterdam was not founded on a supposition or on the saying of a third person but on the Letter of an Embassadour writ to his King to whom he is obliged to give an account of all his Negotiations and not of that which was related to him by a third person or what he learned accidentally but of something that himself in person had treated with the said Lords of Amsterdam also in person and whereon he expected farther order in answer from the said King his Master I need not Sir acquaint you with the duty of an Embassadour as well known unto your self as to any other for although the Character given them which they may make use of in not dealing too strictly just with those to whom they are sent they are not by common reason therefore dispensed from giving to their Principals an exact true and faithfull account to the utmost of their power of all their transactions and intelligence gained especially in the most essential parts thereof And therefore that the Count D'Avaux who hath so many years performed the function of an Embassadour and that with so general approbation of all men who if I may so say hath been educated under the tuition of the late Count D'Avaux who hath gained the repute throughout the World to have been one of the greatest Masters in matters of Negotiations and Treaties and who fully understood the
Highness's party to have a conference concerning the taking of the Ship La Regle otherwise named the Terms of Amsterdam which the French had taken before the Road of Alicant from under the protection of the Flag of this State under pretence that it was an Algerine Ship That those deputed Lords were glad to hear the complaints of Amsterdam against France but there were others more foreseeing wherein that expedient failed them it was truth and the Lords of Amsterdam have been necessitated to acknowledge it that among others they had spoken with one Lord deputed to the Generality from the Province of Guelderland to bring that conference about and it is also true that endeavours have been used for such a conference and that the holding of that conference hath been declined not that it was suspected for as yet there was no such suspicion of the Lords of Amsterdam but onely for that they did not yet know wherefore a complaint should be made to the Lord Embassadour since the remedy on the complaint was to be sought not here but in France and that in France we had an Embassadour who might there move the said complaints and prosecute the same remedy so that that intreague which the said Lord Embassadour in the foresaid Letter said that the said Lords of Amsterdam had continued with him to bring the States General to deliberate concerning the aforesaid measures was in truth a business contrived by the Lords of Amsterdam and which they also confessed and avowed The Second matter contained in the Letter was that the aforesaid first expedient failing the Lords of Amsterdam would make use of another means which by their vigilance succeeded in place of the first which was on occasion of a complement of congratulation which the Lords the States General had to make unto him the Lord Embassadour on the Birth of the Lord Duke of Anjou and that they the said Lords of Amsterdam had informed the Lords deputed from the Province of Friesland City and Countrey of the whole matter and had obliged the said Lords to speak to him on the same manner as the deputed from Amsterdam should have spoken to him if the deputation had been compleat The Lords of Amsterdam also must acknowledge that they had given notice of the design to the Deputies of the Province of Friesland City and Countrey viz. under pretence of that conference to speak of the foresaid measures they were to take in case Spain should decline the acceptance of any of the Equivalents before the end of January I cannot also conceal from you that I suppose my self to be sufficiently informed that the day before the said complement of congratulation was to have been made some Members of Holland came to the Councellor Pensionary of Holland and asked him if the Lords appointed to perform that complement should propose any other matters than the said complement saying that they were informed that under pretence thereof they were to speak of other matters 'T is also true what the said Letter also mentioneth that after the performance of that complement there was spoken also concerning the taking the aforesaid measures and what further is mentioned concerning the same in the foresaid Letter excepting onely that in the Letter is contained that the Lords the Deputies of Friesland City and Countrey did first begin the discourse concerning the taking the foresaid measures and that the deputed Lords who made that complement say that the discourse was first mentioned by the said Lord Embassadour of France and that after they were all risen in order to depart In the foresaid Letter it followeth that the Lords of Amsterdam about an hour after came to speak with the said Lord Embassadour informing him of the endeavours which by them had been used as also that in the Generality no deliberation was had concerning any matter concerning which no Memorial had been presented And the Lords of Amsterdam have been necessitated to acknowledge that at the same time they had been at the house of the said Embassadour and acquainted him that in the Generality there was no deliberation upon any matters not contained in a Memorial The said Lord Embassadour addeth further that the said Lords of Amsterdam had moreover said that when a Minister spoke with Deputies those Deputies then resolved together whether what was said to them should be proposed as a point of deliberation and that they had the promise of Friesland City and Countrey that they would be of advice that thereof should be made a point of deliberation and would therein also vote with the Lord deputed from Holland in case those in fear of his Highness should be of another sentiment and that those of Amsterdam said that notwithstanding all precautions they durst not assure themselves that thereof would be made a point of deliberation And Sir you know that the Heer of Werckendam who had performed the aforesaid complement of congratulation having communicated to the Lord Councellor Pensionary of Holland what the said Lord Embassadour in the said conference had said concerning the taking of the aforesaid measures the said Heer of Werckendam and Lord Councellor Pensionary were of advice that what in the aforesaid conference was moved must also be reported in the Assembly of the States And you also may remember that the Lord deputed from the City and Countrey and the Lord deputed from Friesland which had been present at the said conference being then absent from the Hague used very earnest endeavours to the end that the same might be made a matter of debate by the deputies of the States and that the Councellor Pensionary of Holland had insisted that the received and confirmed custome of their Highnesses Assembly must herein also be observed and that to that effect the Lord Embassadour must first present thereof a Memorial that in an orderly manner it might be known what in the aforesaid Conference hapned and what the true meaning was of the King of France from which those deputed Lords who assisted at that Conference somewhat differed It was also in the end resolved that the said Embassadour should be informed that in case he judged it needfull thereon to take a resolution that he would then without difficulty present the foresaid Memorial so that the contents of the said Letter in that matter agreed evidently with the truth The said Embassadour writeth further that the said Lords of Amsterdam had said that they desired the presentation of that Memorial not so much for to have a deliberation thereon in the Generality as to make appear the good intention of his Master for this State and that the knowledge they had thereof had already wrought considerable effects and that they hoped yet more thereof when that should be spread abroad That they had alledged to him that not to express the matter too plain and that it might appear that that proposition was made to no other end but to the advantage of the States General that some allays
other Members in matters of Peace wherein all the others cannot comprehend that one Member and I would that any one were found so understanding and sharp witted who should then tell me what a Government we had in this Countrey where was the Sovereign Power lodged and with whom men had to treat and contract and how far might extend the Capricios of one Member who designeth to distinguish it self from all the other Members each of which hath the same right with this Member and who esteem themselves as good Patriots of their Countrey as that one Member and to be as much inclined to Peace as that one separate Member and who would treat and contract with a Government constituted in that manner I will not now enter into the Examination whether and how far Members of the same Government may undertake to correspond with Ministers of Foreign Princes and how that is understood in this Republick but I will onely say that I have seen when the Queen of England in the year 1588. endeavoured to treat of Peace with Spain and that in that matter there was there in this Countrey no small disagreement in the Assembly of Holland that the Members thereof were not onely obliged to abstain from all correspondence but were also obliged to discover all what occurred to them even from that Queen or any one whomsoever of her Ministers notwithstanding we were in a very strict Allyance with her Majesty and had from her Majesty an actual assistence and had also two Councellors of her Majesty present in our Council of State to whom then the greatest part of the direction of Affairs was imparted but the matter is not whether any Member of the State keep correspondence with a Foreign Minister but whether it may be permitted to any Member of the Government whatsoever to keep such correspondences as are mentioned in the foresaid Letter It is further said that it was onely uncifered and which the Marquis de Grana had sent 't is true it was sent by the Marquis de Grana as having intercepted it and conceived the State to be so much concerned therein that it ought to know what was here contriving to the detriment of the Publick but the said Marquis de Grana whose uprightness some would question hath proceeded therein with that candour that he also sent hither the Key whereby he uncifered the Letter that it might appear by what Rule they uncifered the same and that it was impossible to feign the like as they now endeavour to make it suspected To which is added that the Lords deputed from Amsterdam to the Assembly of States having understood that the Lord Embassadour had some Proposals to make whereby the Peace in the Spanish Netherlands and between France and this State might be preserved and that he was desirous to confer with them concerning the same that they had made report thereof to the Lords their Principals with many circumstances who had especially charged them to have a nearer Conference with the Lord Embassadour concerning the same and oblige him to give notice thereof to the Members and especially to the Lord Councellor Pensionary of Holland as the Minister of the Lords the Nobles and that the said Lords deputed of the said City of Amsterdam had also given notice thereof to the said Lord Councellor Pensionary of Holland but hereon I will first ask wherefore the Lords deputed from Amsterdam were so scrupulous to hear and receive such Proposals of the said Embassadour if there had been nothing else to treat between them and that they charged the other Members who had no order from their Principals with the having visited the said Lord Embassadour and to have heard the said Proposals of him for they say that they were those who would have had that they should also speak to the other Members whereas before they had made no difficulty to speak to so many other Foreign Ministers without having had such special charge from their Principals and said with so much assurance even against the displeasure therein of the other Members they both should and would continue the said Conferences with the said Embassadour and notwithstanding the foresaid narration of that Conference is clearly and at large made appear even as if the said Lords Deputies had given to the States in the Assembly a full and perfect knowledge and information thereof whereas all those know who have been in that Assembly that the said Lords had given to the said Assembly not the least knowledge thereof what here and there they might by particular discourses have said to some one or other of the particular Members I know not it may be they may have to every one given such an overture thereof as they thought might serve their design You know Sir that the Lord Councellor Pensionary of Holland hath said more than once that the said Lords deputed had not in the least made him acquainted therewith but onely that the said Lord Embassadour had also said to him the Lord Councellor Pensionary in the aforesaid Visit that in case the Lords the States would treat to preserve the Peace in the Spanish Netherlands and leave his Majesty free to further his pretensions on Spain elsewhere and that they would engage themselves in such a case to afford no assistance to Spain that his Majesty would not be averse thereto and that the said Lord Councellor Pensionary of Holland had answered either to the said deputed Lords or to the said Lord Pensionary Hop that there could be no deliberation had concerning the same before a Memorial to that effect was presented and that it would occasion a very honourable name to this Republick with all Foreign Princes if we should so deal with those with whom we were in Allyance and you know Sir that the said Lord Pensionary of Holland hath also often declared that the said Lords deputed except that one time and in that manner had never given him any other information of the said overture of the said Treaties and Conferences The said Lord Pensionary of Holland hath not to my knowledge ever pretended that the Lords of Amsterdam were obliged to give him any account of what they did and it will therefore appear as strange to him as to any other that the said Lords did now appeal to the knowledge they should have given him thereof What is further said of the cutting off of correspondence with foreign Ministers I know that to have proceeded from the so much offending Conferences which the said Lords deputed had with the forementioned Lord Embassadour You also know Sir that the Lords of Amsterdam have explain'd themselves thereon to the Assembly in a manner so irreverently that all the Members thereof were thereat highly offended however none then knew or could surmise from whence that proceeded and what was then ordered concerning the discourse relating to the ship La Reigle and that on the 8th of January last the said Lords deputed had spoken with
him yet with that precaution that his Majesty should not thereby be forepromised than that his Master should not thereby be too much engaged and again that his Master might not be hindred to doe what he should judge best None can imagine that a Minister even in that Letter who hath such respect to his Master's interest and with those who seek to deal with him in that manner understandeth how to be able to Treat and yet in the said Letter to represent the truth that happened otherwise than it came to pass It is also worth observation that whereas the said Lord Embassadour in the aforesaid Memorial alledgeth that for the ordering of a Conference concerning the Ship La Regle he should not have used the conduct of which in the said Letter mention is made The Lords of Amsterdam on the contrary by their advice acknowledge and avow that conduct Secondly It is to be observ'd that the said Lord Embassadour by the foresaid Memorial alledgeth that the aforesaid Letter either through ignorance or malice was wrong uncifered and that therefore no credit was to be given to the same whereas the mentioned Embassadour in that Memorial yieldeth that he had writ what had passed concerning the Ship La Regle so as it was uncifered yea that he had written concerning the trouble of some of the Members of the State concerning the devastation of the open Countrey by which the mentioned Barrier would come to sink or vanish in the same manner as it is uncifered from whence necessarily must follow that the same cifers which in the rest were used also signifie the same Letters which they have signified in the said periods and how can any one be taken for an Impostor or Cozener who sendeth withall the Key wherewith he hath uncifered it and who mentioneth the A. B. C. and the other Letter which by Cifers have been signified which A. B. C. and those other Letters have as well been used in the passages spoken of the foresaid Ship La Regle and the aforesaid devastation of the aforesaid open Countrey as in the other passages wherein is carped he the said Lord Embassadour toucheth further in the foresaid Memorial on two passages which he saith are very maliciously turned to a wrong sense the first is the passage which in what is uncifered inferreth that the Lords of Amsterdam were but little moved concerning the pretended coming over of 135 for in the uncifering that number is used and it is true that some Lords of the Government have thought that by that was meant the coming over of the Heer Pensionary Heinsius since the same had as well writ from France as by word of mouth here reported that the State ought to put it self in a posture of Defence then the Peace would then in all likelihood follow and they must not suffer themselves to be amused by promises to neglect that which to the aforesaid defence was necessary and yet no man notwithstanding hath ever said much less the unciferer of the aforesaid Letter that that number designed the Heer Heinsius what malignity there might be herein I cannot conceive for true it is that the Lords deputed of the City of Amsterdam would never give credit to that nor to other advertisements thinking and always saying they were better informed and therein exprest themselves even so far that in their turn giving their advice they feared not to say that although they were singular yet it sometimes happened that one alone might see as far and as much as all the rest 18. But I pray what is there in this Explication that is so remarkably malicious when the said Embassadour saith that the uncifering doth not infer that the Lords of Amsterdam were not a little allarmed at the pretended arrival of that Letter which saith that they onely sought to abuse them when as no man that I know hath drawn out of that period any thing or would charge on the Lords of Amsterdam as an offence that they were more or less credulous or scrupulous The Second period is that which speaketh of the Heer Paets and others well intentioned who had now again taken courage and joyned themselves to Amsterdam and who had said to their friends that they never had conceived that his Majesty would have done so much as was now done in Flanders with annexing the number 180. It is true the words have but small sense except onely that it might thereout be concluded that the same whom the Lord Embassadour in that period named or designed began again to appear encouraged thereto by the good which they never expected the King would have done or did And the said Embassadour saith not alone that that uncifering is false but confirmeth the same very sliff when by the aforesaid Memorial he saith that what is Cifered supposeth that all the well minded whom he there nameth good Republicans had reassumed courage that they had said to their friends that they never had conceived that his Majesty would doe so many things as he now did in favour of the good party but that is true that no man hath thought that there was a party so affixed to France and of which Amsterdam was the head and for which his Majesty would doe so many things of which no man had given the Government any knowledge either directly or indirectly and thence had also been no knowledge thereof if the said Lord Embassadour had not so clearly mentioned it in the foresaid Memorial and had placed the Lords of Amsterdam and the good Republicans together and in one place what offence it is to make such a Party in a State and that also with Foreigners is very well known and there be Capital Examples thereof to be produced out of the Register of the States which will also be shewn when the Matter shall be brought before the Judgment-seat What concerneth the last Point concerning the security which should be required of these of Amsterdam in particular I will speak thereof no more for that in my latter I have made ample mention thereof I will onely say that the said Lord Embassadour hath said by the said Memorial that he well knew particulars could not give it and that his Majesty never would have desired it and that yet the Lords of Amsterdam in their Information say That he the Lord Embassadour had often urged it from them yea so far that they denying it he should have exprest his displeasure whether this agreeth together judge ye I can do no better than to say that the Lords of Amsterdam have suffered themselves to be amused by deceitfull promises as the Priest of the Lord Embassadour well saith in his Note who by the said Memorial they would say to be such a simple fellow to those who are not acquainted with him but who hath a quite other reputation by those to whom he is in any manner known I will hencewith conclude and onely say that it needs must be a great grief to me and all good Patriots that the Lords of Amsterdam have used so ill a Conduct and taken so wrong a path and to so great a disadvantage of their Country as to put and maintain the same in a State without defence through their abstracting the said Levy and in that manner expose the same to the utmost danger on the Promise or Conditions of Peace which by the State could not be brought forth for that it depended on the approbation of Spain and which was declared by the Spanish Ministers here as also by the Minister of this State residing in Spain that it never would be agreed to by Spain let the event be what it will and that they draw their design with so great immoderation and presumption that therein they neither would spare their Country nor the good Inhabitants thereof and this obstinateness is so much the more to be admired for that it cannot be denied but that of two matters the one must be true that is that either the said Lord Embassadour by the foresaid Letter doth represent the truth of what had passed between him and the Lords of Amsterdam in which Case the said Lords of Amsterdam are notoriously guilty of Crimes Laesae Majestatis as is before demonstrated or that the aforesaid Lord Embassadour hath not represented matters according to truth in the foresaid Letter and hath not therein proceeded with them in that just manner which so important a matter required in which Case the said Lords of Amsterdam if they were such good and sincere Patriots as they pretend to be and would clear themselves of all Partiship of which the said Lord Embassadour maintaineth in the foresaid Letter they ought to shew their Resentment against those who so wrongfully and insinuatingly would make them to be suspected and finding themselves amused by deceitfull promises and under colour thereof endeavoured to make the Partiships they would at last join with their fellow-members and with such zeal and inclination as was fitting would concur to the establishing of those means which all their other fellow-members judge reasonable and necessary for the common desence without longer amusing themselves with those who create such intreagues to so great a detriment of the State chiefly since the said Lord Embassadour in his foresaid Memorial is convinced and clearly acknowledgeth that by the whole Government how there is a great inclination in a friendly manner to put a period to these differences by an Accommodation FINIS