Bassompierre tells us that “never was he more provoked to speak against anything than against this infamous treaty”, and that “his mind was so excited, that he was more than two hours in bed without being able to get to sleep, projecting a number of reasons which he wished to lay before the Council on the morrow against this affair.” But, when he rose in the morning, he reflected that perhaps, notwithstanding the King’s protestations to the contrary, he might have given authority to Du Fargis to sign the treaty, under the influence of the Queen-Mother, “who wished to make peace between her children,”[32] or of the cardinal, “who, seeing troubles increasing within the State, wished to make peace outside it,” and that, if they intended to ratify it, he would be only injuring himself to no purpose by denouncing it too warmly. He therefore decided to be on his guard and to watch carefully which way the wind was blowing; and when he went to see Richelieu, he “listened more than he spoke.” He did wisely, for “the Cardinal was very cautious and opened his mind but little, blaming only the levity, precipitation, and want of judgment shown by Du Fargis, who, he said, merited capital punishment for having concluded an affair of such consequence without instructions from the King.” It was the same at the Council, where “he perceived that everyone was more concerned to blame the workman than to demolish the work, and to discuss the means by which the treaty might be amended than to propose to disavow or break it.” This removed any doubt that he might have had that the Government desired peace with Spain, and that Du Fargis, though he had not obtained the terms desired, had been empowered to treat for it. He therefore begged the King to excuse him from expressing an opinion, and withdrew, as, being an honest man, he refused to associate himself with a treaty whose existence Richelieu had only the previous evening authorised him to deny. Richelieu, both at the time and afterwards, declared positively that this peace was not of his making. This, in a sense, is true. It was Père Bérulle, of the Oratory, who had some time before become the _directeur_ of the Queen-Mother’s conscience, and the Spanish faction to whom the credit--or rather discredit--of it belonged. It was they who had instigated Du Fargis to begin negotiations with the Court of Madrid, and it was the hope of striking a better bargain with this irresponsible diplomatist that had caused Philip suddenly to revoke the powers which he had given to Mirabello, his Ambassador in France. But when the treaty, which had been signed on New Year’s Day, 1626, reached Paris in the middle of January, Du Fargis was not recalled or disavowed. The matter was [Illustration: FRANÇOIS, SEIGNEUR DE BASSOMPIERRE, MARQUIS D’HAROUEL. From a contemporary print.]