from Amsterdam and the five cities who acted with her.

On the same day Maurice was duly notified of the passage of the law. His
wrath was great. High words passed between him and the deputies. It
could hardly have been otherwise expected. Next-day he came before the
Assembly to express his sentiments, to complain of the rudeness with
which the resolution of 4th August had been communicated to him, and to
demand further explanations. Forthwith the Advocate proceeded to set
forth the intentions of the States, and demanded that the Prince should
assist the magistrates in carrying out the policy decided upon. Reinier
Pauw, burgomaster of Amsterdam, fiercely interrupted the oration of
Barneveld, saying that although these might be his views, they were not
to be held by his Excellency as the opinions of all. The Advocate, angry
at the interruption, answered him sternly, and a violent altercation,
not unmixed with personalities, arose. Maurice, who kept his temper
admirably on this occasion, interfered between the two and had much
difficulty in quieting the dispute. He then observed that when he took
the oath as stadholder these unfortunate differences had not arisen, but
all had been good friends together. This was perfectly true, but he
could have added that they might all continue good friends unless the
plan of imposing a religious creed upon the minority by a clerical
decision were persisted in. He concluded that for love of one of the two
great parties he would not violate the oath he had taken to maintain the
Reformed religion to the last drop of his blood. Still, with the same
'petitio principii' that the Reformed religion and the dogmas of the
Contra-Remonstrants were one and the same thing, he assured the Assembly
that the authority of the magistrates would be sustained by him so long
as it did not lead to the subversion of religion.

Clearly the time for argument had passed. As Dudley Carleton observed,