The unhappy lady was fortunate in securing the services of Nicolas de Landas, one of the most eminent jurists of the country, and a personal friend of her husband. In her name, he addressed letters to several of the German princes, and to the Emperor Maximilian, requesting their good offices in behalf of her lord. He also wrote both to Alva and the king, less to solicit the release of Egmont—a thing little to be expected—than to obtain the removal of the cause from the Council of Blood to a court consisting of the knights of the Golden Fleece. To this both Egmont and Hoorne had a good claim, as belonging to that order, the statutes of which, solemnly ratified by Philip himself, guarantied to its members the right of being tried only by their peers. The frank and independent tone with which the Flemish jurist, himself also one of the order, and well skilled in the law, urged this claim on the Spanish monarch, reflects honor on his memory.
Hoorne's wife, also a German lady of high connection, and his step-mother, the countess-dowager, were unwearied in their exertions in his behalf. They wrote to the knights of the Golden Fleece, in whatever country residing, and obtained their written testimony to the inalienable right of the accused to be tried by his brethren.[1114] This was obviously a point of the last importance, since a trial by the Council of Blood was itself equivalent to a condemnation.
Several of the electors, as well as other princes of the empire, addressed Philip directly on the subject, beseeching him to deal with the two nobles according to the statutes of the order. Maximilian wrote two letters to the same purpose; and, touching on the brilliant services of Egmont, he endeavored to excite the king's compassion for the desolate condition of the countess and her children.[1115]
SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES.
But it was not foreigners only who interceded in behalf of the lords. Mansfeldt, than whom Philip had not a more devoted subject in the Netherlands, implored his sovereign to act conformably to justice and reason in the matter.[1116] Count Barlaimont, who on all occasions had proved himself no less stanch in his loyalty, found himself now in an embarrassing situation,—being both a knight of the order and a member of the Council of Troubles. He wrote accordingly to Philip, beseeching his majesty to relieve him from the[{357}] necessity of either acting like a disloyal subject or of incurring the reproaches of his brethren.[1117]
Still more worthy of notice is the interference of Cardinal Granvelle, who, forgetting his own disgrace, for which he had been indebted to Egmont perhaps as much as to any other person, now generously interceded in behalf of his ancient foe. He invoked the clemency of Philip, as more worthy of a great prince than rigor. He called to mind the former good deeds of the count, and declared, if he had since been led astray, the blame was chargeable on others rather than on himself.[1118] But although the cardinal wrote more than once to the king in this strain, it was too late to efface the impression made by former communications, in which he had accused his rival of being a party to the treasonable designs of the prince of Orange.[1119] This impression had been deepened by the reports from time to time received from the regent, who at one period, as we have seen, withdrew her confidence altogether from Egmont. Thus the conviction of that nobleman's guilt was so firmly settled in the king's mind, that, when Alva received the government of the Netherlands, there can be little doubt that Egmont was already marked out as the first great victim to expiate the sins of the nation. The arguments and entreaties, therefore, used on the present occasion to dissuade Philip from his purpose, had no other effect than to quicken his movements. Anxious to rid himself of importunities so annoying, he ordered Alva to press forward the trial, adding, at the same time, that all should be made so clear that the world, whose eyes were now turned on these proceedings, might be satisfied of their justice.[1120]
Before the end of December the attorney-general Du Bois had prepared the articles of accusation against Egmont. They amounted to no less than ninety, some of them of great length. They chiefly rested on evidence derived from the personal examination, sustained by information gathered from other quarters. The first article, which, indeed, may be said to have been the key to all the rest, charged Egmont with having conspired with William and the other banished lords to shake off the Spanish rule, and divide the government among themselves. With this view he had made war on the faithful Granvelle, had sought to concentrate the powers of the various councils into one, had resisted the Inquisition, had urged the meeting of the states-general, in short, had thwarted, as far as possible, in every particular, the intentions of the king. He was accused, moreover, of giving encouragement to the sectaries. He had not only refused his aid when asked to repress their violence, but had repeatedly licensed their meetings, and allowed them to celebrate their religious rites. Egmont was too stanch a Catholic to warrant his own faith being called into question. It was only in connection with the political movements of the country that he was supposed to have countenanced the party of religious reform. Lastly he was charged, not only with abetting the confederacy of the nobles, but with having, in conjunction with the prince of Orange and his associates, devised the original plan of it. It was proof of the good-will he bore the league, that he had retained in his [{358}]service more than one member of his household after they had subscribed the Compromise. On these various grounds, Egmont was declared to be guilty of treason.[1121]
The charges, which cover a great space, would seem at the first glance to be crudely put together, confounding things trivial, and even irrelevant to the question, with others of real moment.[1122] Yet they must be admitted to have been so cunningly prepared as to leave an impression most unfavorable to the innocence of the prisoner. The attorney-general, sometimes audaciously perverting the answers of Egmont,[1123] at other times giving an exaggerated importance to his occasional admissions, succeeded in spreading his meshes so artfully, that it required no slight degree of coolness and circumspection, even in an innocent party, to escape from them.
The instrument was delivered to Egmont on the twenty-ninth of December. Five days only were allowed him to prepare his defence,—and that too without the aid of a friend to support, or of counsel to advise him. He at first resolutely declined to make a defence at all, declaring that he was amenable to no tribunal but that of the members of the order. Being informed, however, that if he persisted he would be condemned for contumacy, he consented, though with a formal protest against the proceeding as illegal, to enter on his defence.
He indignantly disclaimed the idea of any design to subvert the existing government. He admitted the charges in regard to his treatment of Granvelle, and defended his conduct on the ground of expediency,—of its being demanded by the public interest. On the same ground he explained his course in reference to some of the other matters charged on him, and especially in relation to the sectaries,—too strong in numbers, he maintained, to be openly resisted. He positively denied the connection imputed to him with the confederates; declaring that, far from countenancing the league, he had always lamented its existence, and discouraged all within his reach from joining it. In reply to the charge of not having dismissed Backerzele after it was known that he had joined the confederates, he excused himself by alleging the good services which his secretary had rendered the government, more especially in repressing the disorders of the iconoclasts. On the whole, his answers seem to have been given in good faith, and convey the impression—probably not far from the truth—of one who, while he did not approve of the policy of the crown, and thought, indeed, some of its measures impracticable, had no design to overturn the government.[1124]