he 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 commiss