hat 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 pass 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;[1