For Aerssens had done his best not only to produce a dangerous division in the politics of the Republic, but to force a rupture between the French government and the States.  He had carried matters before the assembly with so high a hand as to make it seem impossible to get rid of him without public scandal.  He made a parade of the official letters from the Queen-Regent and her ministers, in which he was spoken of in terms of conventional compliment.  He did not know, and Barneveld wished, if possible, to spare him the annoyance of knowing, that both Queen and ministers, so soon as informed that there was a chance of coming back to them, had written letters breathing great repugnance to him and intimating that he would not be received.  Other high personages of state had written to express their resentment at his duplicity, perpetual mischief-making, and machinations against the peace of the kingdom, and stating the impossibility of his resuming the embassy at Paris.  And at last the queen wrote to the States-General to say that, having heard their intention to send him back to a post “from which he had taken leave formally and officially,” she wished to prevent such a step.  “We should see M. Aerssens less willingly than comports with our friendship for you and good neighbourhood.  Any other you could send would be most welcome, as M. du Maurier will explain to you more amply.”

And to du Maurier himself she wrote distinctly, “Rather than suffer the return of the said Aerssens, you will declare that for causes which regard the good of our affairs and our particular satisfaction we cannot and will not receive him in the functions which he has exercised here, and we rely too implicitly upon the good friendship of My Lords the States to do anything in this that would so much displease us.”

And on the same day Villeroy privately wrote to the Ambassador, “If, in spite of all this, Aerssens should endeavour to return, he will not be received, after the knowledge we have of his factious spirit, most dangerous in a public personage in a state such as ours and in the minority of the King.”

Meantime Aerssens had been going about flaunting letters in everybody’s face from the Duc de Bouillon insisting on the necessity of his return!  The fact in itself would have been sufficient to warrant his removal, for the Duke was just taking up arms against his sovereign.  Unless the States meant to interfere officially and directly in the civil war about to break out in France, they could hardly send a minister to the government on recommendation of the leader of the rebellion.

It had, however, become impossible to remove him without an explosion.  Barneveld, who, said du Maurier, “knew the man to his finger nails,” had been reluctant to “break the ice,” and wished for official notice in the matter from the Queen.  Maurice protected the troublesome diplomatist.  “’Tis incredible,” said the French ambassador “how covertly Prince Maurice is carrying himself, contrary to his wont, in this whole affair.  I don’t know whether it is from simple jealousy to Barneveld, or if there is some mystery concealed below the surface.”