A day or two later there was an interview between the French envoys and Count Lewis William, for whose sage, dispassionate, and upright character they had all a great respect.  It was their object—­in obedience to the repeated instructions of the French king—­to make use of his great influence over Prince Maurice in favour of peace.  It would be better, they urged, that the stadholder should act more in harmony with the States than he had done of late, and should reflect that, the ratification being good, there was really no means of preventing a peace, except in case the King of Spain should refuse the conditions necessary for securing it.  The prince would have more power by joining with the States than in opposing them.  Count Lewis expressed sympathy with these views, but feared that Maurice would prefer that the ratification should not be accepted until the states of the separate provinces had been heard; feeling convinced that several of those bodies would reject that instrument on account of the clause relating to religion.

Jeannin replied that such a course would introduce great discord into the provinces, to the profit of the enemy, and that the King of France himself—­so far from being likely to wish the ratification rejected because of the clause—­would never favour the rupture of negotiations if it came on account of religion.  He had always instructed them to use their efforts to prevent any division among the States, as sure to lead to their ruin.  He would certainly desire the same stipulation as the one made by the King of Spain, and would support rather than oppose the demand thus made, in order to content the Catholics.  To be sure, he would prefer that the States should wisely make this provision of their own accord rather than on the requisition of Spain, but a rupture of the pending negotiations from the cause suggested would be painful to him and very damaging to his character at Rome.

On the 2nd November the States-General gave their formal answer to the commissioners, in regard to the ratification.

That instrument, they observed, not only did not agree with the form as promised by the archdukes in language and style, but also in regard to the seal, and to the insertion and omission of several words.  On this account, and especially by reason of the concluding clause, there might be inferred the annulment of the solemn promise made in the body of the instrument.  The said king and archdukes knew very well that these States-General of free countries and provinces, over which the king and archdukes pretended to no authority, were competent to maintain order in all things regarding the good constitution and government of their land and its inhabitants.  On this subject, nothing could be pretended or proposed on the part of the king and archdukes without, violation of formal and solemn promises.