The four principal cities of Brabant first came forward in formal
denunciation of the outrage. An elaborate and conclusive document was
drawn up in their name, and presented to the Regent. It set forth that
the recent proclamation violated many articles in the "joyous entry."
That ancient constitution had circumscribed the power of the clergy,
and the jealousy had been felt in old times as much by the sovereign as
the people. No ecclesiastical tribunal had therefore been allowed,
excepting that of the Bishop of Cambray, whose jurisdiction was expressly
confined to three classes of cases--those growing out of marriages,
testaments, and mortmains.

It would be superfluous to discuss the point at the present day, whether
the directions to the inquisitors and the publication of the edicts
conflicted with the "joyous entrance." To take a man from his house and
burn him, after a brief preliminary examination, was clearly not to
follow the, letter and spirit of the Brabantine habeas corpus, by which
inviolability of domicile and regular trials were secured and sworn to
by the monarch; yet such had been the uniform practice of inquisitors
throughout the country. The petition of the four cities was referred by
the Regent to the council of Brabant. The chancellor, or president judge
of that tribunal was notoriously corrupt--a creature of the Spanish.
His efforts to sustain the policy of the administration however vain.
The Duchess ordered the archives of the province to be searched for
precedents, and the council to report upon the petition. The case was
too plain for argument or dogmatism, but the attempt was made to take
refuge in obscurity. The answer of the council was hesitating and
equivocal. The Duchess insisted upon a distinct and categorical answer
to the four cities. Thus pressed, the council of Brabant declared
roundly that no inquisition of any kind had ever existed, in the
provinces. It was impossible that any other answer could be given, but