History of the Reign of Philip the Second, King of Spain Part 37 (2/2)
Yet all were not to be thus silenced. Egmont's countess still continued unwearied in her efforts to excite a sympathy in her lord's behalf in all those who would be likely to have any influence with the government.
Early in 1568 she again wrote to Philip, complaining that she had not been allowed so much as to see her husband. She implored the king to take her and her children as sureties for Egmont, and permit him to be removed to one of his own houses. If that could not be, she begged that he might at least be allowed the air of the castle, lest, though innocent, his confinement might cost him his life. She alludes to her miserable condition, with her young and helpless family, and trusts in the king's goodness and justice that she shall not be forced to seek a subsistence in Germany, from which country she had been brought to Flanders by his father the emperor.[1131] The letter, says a chronicler of the time, was not to be read by any one without sincere commiseration for the writer.[1132]
The German princes, at the same time, continued their intercessions with the king for both the n.o.bles; and the duke of Bavaria, and the duke and d.u.c.h.ess of Lorraine, earnestly invoked his clemency in their behalf.
Philip, wearied by this importunity but not wavering in his purpose, again called on Alva to press the trial to a conclusion.[1133]
Towards the end of April, 1568, came that irruption across the borders by Hoogstraten and the other lords, described in the previous chapter.
Alva, feeling probably that his own presence might be required to check the invaders, found an additional motive for bringing the trials to a decision.
On the sixth of May, the attorney-general presented a remonstrance against the dilatory proceedings of Egmont's counsel, declaring that, although so many months had elapsed, they had neglected to bring forward their witnesses in support of their defence. He prayed that a day might be named for the termination of the process.[1134]
[Sidenote: SENTENCE OF DEATH.]
In the latter part of May, news came of the battle won by Louis of Na.s.sau in the north. That now became certain which had before been only probable,--that Alva must repair in person to the seat of war, and a.s.sume the command of the army. There could be no further delay. On the first of June, a decree was published declaring that the time allowed for the defence of the prisoners had expired, and that no evidence could henceforth be admitted.[1135] The counsel for the accused loudly protested against a decision which cut them off from all means of establis.h.i.+ng the innocence of their clients. They had abundant testimony at hand, they said, and had only waited until the government should have produced theirs. This was plausible, as it was in the regular course for the prosecuting party to take precedence. But one can hardly doubt that the wary lawyers knew that too little was to be expected from a tribunal like the Council of Blood to wish to have the case brought to a decision. By delaying matters, some circ.u.mstance might occur,--perhaps some stronger expression of the public sentiment,--to work a favorable change in the mind of the king. Poor as it was, this was the only chance for safety; and every day that the decision was postponed was a day gained to their clients.
But no time was given for expostulation. On the day on which Alva's decree was published, the affair was submitted to the decision of the Council of Blood; and on the following morning, the second of June, that body--or rather Vargas and Del Rio, the only members who had a voice in the matter--p.r.o.nounced both the prisoners guilty of treason, and doomed them to death. The sentence was approved by Alva.
On the evening of the fourth, Alva went in person to the meeting of the council. The sentences of the two lords, each under a sealed envelope, were produced, and read aloud by the secretary. They were both of precisely the same import. After the usual preamble, they p.r.o.nounced the Counts Egmont and Hoorne to have been proved parties to the abominable league and conspiracy of the prince of Orange and his a.s.sociates; to have given aid and protection to the confederates; and to have committed sundry malepractices in their respective governments in regard to the sectaries, to the prejudice of the holy Catholic faith. On these grounds they were adjudged guilty of treason and rebellion, and were sentenced accordingly to be beheaded with the sword, their heads to be set upon poles, and there to continue during the pleasure of the duke; their possessions, fiefs, and rights, of every description, to be confiscated to the use of the crown.[1136] These sentences were signed only with the name of Alva, and countersigned with that of the secretary Pratz.[1137]
Such was the result of these famous trials, which, from the peculiar circ.u.mstances that attended them, especially their extraordinary duration and the ill.u.s.trious characters and rank of the accused, became an object of general interest throughout Europe. In reviewing them, the first question that occurs is in regard to the validity of the grounds on which the causes were removed from the jurisdiction of the _Toison d'Or_. The decision of the ”men of authority and learning,” referred to by the king, is of little moment considering the influences under which such a decision in the court of Madrid was necessarily given. The only authority of any weight in favor of this interpretation seems to have been that of the president Viglius; a man well versed in the law, with the statutes of the order before him, and, in short, with every facility at his command for forming an accurate judgment in the matter.
His opinion seems to have mainly rested on the fact that, in the year 1473, a knight of the order, charged with a capital crime, submitted to be tried by the ordinary courts of law. But, on the other hand, some years later, in 1490, four knights accused of treason, the precise crime alleged against Egmont and Hoorne, were arraigned and tried before the members of the _Toison_. A more conclusive argument against Viglius was afforded by the fact, that in 1531 a law was pa.s.sed, under the Emperor Charles the Fifth, that no knight of the Golden Fleece could be arrested or tried, for any offence whatever, by any other body than the members of his own order. This statute was solemnly confirmed by Philip himself in 1550; and no law, surely, could be devised covering more effectually the whole ground in question. Yet Viglius had the effrontery to set this aside as of no force, being so clearly in contempt of all precedents and statutes. A subterfuge like this, which might justify the disregard of any law whatever, found no favor with the members of the order. Arschot and Barlaimont, in particular, the most devoted adherents of the crown, and among the few knights of the _Toison_ then in Brussels, openly expressed their dissent. The authority of a jurist like Viglius was of great moment, however, to the duke, who did not fail to parade it.[1138]
But sorely was it to the disgrace of that timid and time-serving councillor, that he could thus lend himself, and in such a cause, to become the tool of arbitrary power. It may well lead us to give easier faith than we should otherwise have done to those charges of peculation and meanness which the regent, in the heat of party dissensions, so liberally heaped on him.[1139]
But whatever may be thought of the rights possessed by the _Toison d'Or_ in this matter, there can be no doubt as to the illegality of the court before which the cause was brought;--a court which had no warrant for its existence but the will of Alva; where the judges, contrary to the law of the land, were foreigners; where the presiding officer was not even necessarily present at the trial of the causes on which he alone was to pa.s.s sentence.
[Sidenote: THE PROCESSES REVIEWED.]
If so little regard was paid to the law in the composition of this tribunal, scarcely more was shown to it in the forms of proceeding. On the present occasion it does not appear that any evidence was brought forward by the prisoners. And as we are in possession of only a small part of that which sustained the prosecution, it is not easy to form an opinion how far the parties were or were not guilty of the crime imputed to them; still less whether that crime, according to the laws of the land, amounted to treason.[1140] The gravest charge made, with any apparent foundation, was that of a secret understanding with the confederates. The avowed object of the confederates was, in certain contingencies, to resist the execution of a particular ordinance;[1141]
but without any design to overturn the government. This, by our law, could hardly be construed into treason. But in the Netherlands, in the time of the Spanish rule, the law may have been more comprehensive in its import; nor is it likely that the word ”treason” was limited in so explicit a manner as by the English statute-book under the Plantagenets.[1142]
We have information of a curious doc.u.ment of the time, that may throw light on the matter. Peter d'a.r.s.et, president of Artois, was one of the original members of the Council of Troubles, but had retired from office before the trial of the two lords. It may have been from the high judicial station he held in one of Egmont's provinces, that he was consulted in regard to that n.o.bleman's process. After an examination of the papers, he returned an answer, written in Latin, at great length, and with a purity of style that shows him to have been a scholar. In this, he goes over the whole ground of the accusation, article by article, showing the insufficiency of proof on every charge, and by argument and legal reference fully establis.h.i.+ng the innocence of the accused. The president's opinion, so independently given, we may readily believe, found too little favor with the duke of Alva to be cited as authority.[1143]
But even though it were true that the two lords, in that season of public excitement, had been seduced from their allegiance for a time, some charity might have been shown to men who had subsequently broken with their former friends, and displayed the utmost zeal in carrying out the measures of the government; a zeal in the case of Egmont, at least, which drew from the regent unqualified commendation.[1144] Something more might have been conceded to the man who had won for his sovereign the most glorious trophies of his reign. But Philip's nature, unhappily, as I have had occasion to notice, was of that sort which is more sensible to injuries than to benefits.
Under the circ.u.mstances attending this trial, it may seem to have been a waste of time to inquire into the legality of the court which tried the cause, or the regularity of the forms of procedure. The real trial took place, not in Flanders, but in Castile. Who can doubt that, long before the duke of Alva began his march, the doom of the two n.o.bles had been p.r.o.nounced in the cabinet of Madrid?[1145]
CHAPTER V.
EXECUTION OF EGMONT AND HOORNE.
The Counts removed to Brussels.--Informed of the Sentence.--Procession to the Scaffold.--The Execution.--Character of Egmont.--Fate of his Family.--Sentiment of the People.
1568.
On the second of June, 1568, a body of three thousand men was ordered to Ghent to escort the Counts Egmont and Hoorne to Brussels. No resistance was offered, although the presence of the Spaniards caused a great sensation among the inhabitants of the place, who too well foreboded the fate of their beloved lord.
<script>