The Life and Death of John of Barneveld, Advocate of Holland, 1619-23 | Page 4

of the State makes the
country indefensible, and therefore invites the enemy to invade it. And
this Barneveld had done, who had turned the Union, religion, alliances,
and finances upside down by his proceedings.
Certainly if every constitutional minister, accused by the opposition
party of turning things upside down by his proceedings, were assumed
to be guilty of deliberately inviting a hostile invasion of his country,
there would have been few from that day to this to escape hanging.
Constructive treason could scarcely go farther than it was made to do in
these attempts to prove, after his death, that the Advocate had, as it was
euphuistically expressed, been looking towards the enemy.
And no better demonstrations than these have ever been discovered.
He died at the age of seventy-one years seven months and eighteen
days.
His body and head were huddled into the box upon which the soldiers
had been shaking the dice, and was placed that night in the vault of the
chapel in the Inner Court.
It was subsequently granted as a boon to the widow and children that it
might be taken thence and decently buried in the family vault at
Amersfoort.
On the day of the execution a formal entry was made in the register of
the States of Holland.
"Monday, 13th May 1619. To-day was executed with the sword here in
the Hague, on a scaffold thereto erected in the Binnenhof before the
steps of the great hall, Mr. John of Barneveld, in his life Knight, Lord
of Berkel, Rodenrys, &c., Advocate of Holland and West Friesland, for
reasons expressed in the sentence and otherwise, with confiscation of
his property, after he had served the State thirty-three years two months
and five days since 8th March 1586.; a man of great activity, business,
memory, and wisdom--yes, extraordinary in every respect. He that
stands let him see that he does not fall, and may God be merciful to his
soul. Amen?"

A year later-on application made by the widow and children of the
deceased to compound for the confiscation of his property by payment
of a certain sum, eighty florins or a similar trifle, according to an
ancient privilege of the order of nobility--the question was raised
whether he had been guilty of high-treason, as he had not been
sentenced for such a crime, and as it was only in case of sentence for
lese-majesty that this composition was disallowed. It was deemed
proper therefore to ask the court for what crime the prisoner had been
condemned. Certainly a more sarcastic question could not have been
asked. But the court had ceased to exist. The commission had done its
work and was dissolved. Some of its members were dead. Letters
however were addressed by the States- General to the individual
commissioners requesting them to assemble at the Hague for the
purpose of stating whether it was because the prisoners had committed
lese-majesty that their property had been confiscated. They never
assembled. Some of them were perhaps ignorant of the exact nature of
that crime. Several of them did not understand the words. Twelve of
them, among whom were a few jurists, sent written answers to the
questions proposed. The question was, "Did you confiscate the property
because the crime was lese-majesty?" The reply was, "The crime was
lese-majesty, although not so stated in the sentence, because we
confiscated the property." In one of these remarkable documents this
was stated to be "the unanimous opinion of almost all the judges."
The point was referred to the commissioners, some of whom attended
the court of the Hague in person, while others sent written opinions. All
agreed that the criminal had committed high-treason because otherwise
his property would not have been confiscated.
A more wonderful example of the argument in a circle was never heard
of. Moreover it is difficult to understand by what right the high
commission, which had been dissolved a year before, after having
completed its work, could be deemed competent to emit afterwards a
judicial decision. But the fact is curious as giving one more proof of the
irregular, unphilosophical, and inequitable nature of these famous
proceedings.

CHAPTER XXII

.
Grotius urged to ask Forgiveness--Grotius shows great Weakness--
Hoogerbeets and Grotius imprisoned for Life--Grotius confined at
Loevestein--Grotius' early Attainments--Grotius' Deportment in
Prison--Escape of Grotius--Deventer's Rage at Grotius' Escape.
Two days after the execution of the Advocate, judgment was
pronounced upon Gillis van Ledenberg. It would have been difficult to
try him, or to extort a confession of high-treason from him by the rack
or otherwise, as the unfortunate gentleman had been dead for more than
seven months.
Not often has a court of justice pronounced a man, without trial, to be
guilty of a capital offence. Not often has a dead man been condemned
and