The first was, likewise, chief of the finance department.  Most of the Catholic writers described him as a noble of loyal and highly honorable character.  Those of the Protestant party, on the contrary, uniformly denounced him as greedy, avaricious, and extremely sanguinary.  That he was a brave and devoted soldier, a bitter papist, and an inflexible adherent to the royal cause, has never been disputed.  The Baron himself, with his four courageous and accomplished sons, were ever in the front ranks to defend the crown against the nation.  It must be confessed, however, that fanatical loyalty loses most of the romance with which genius and poetry have so often hallowed the sentiment, when the “legitimate” prince for whom the sword is drawn is not only an alien in tongue and blood, but filled with undisguised hatred for the land he claims to rule.

Viglius van Aytta van Zuichem was a learned Frisian, born, according to some writers, of “boors’ degree, but having no inclination for boorish work”.  According to other authorities, which the President himself favored, he was of noble origin; but, whatever his race, it is certain that whether gentle or simple, it derived its first and only historical illustration from his remarkable talents and acquirements.  These in early youth were so great as to acquire the commendation of Erasmus.  He had studied in Louvain, Paris, and Padua, had refused the tutorship Philip when that prince was still a child, and had afterwards filled a professorship at Ingolstadt.  After rejecting several offers of promotion from the Emperor, he had at last accepted in 1542 a seat in the council of Mechlin, of which body he had become president in 1545.  He had been one of the peace commissioners to France in 1558, and was now president of the privy council, a member of the state council, and of the inner and secret committee of that board, called the Consults.  Much odium was attached to his name for his share in the composition of the famous edict of 1550.  The rough draught was usually attributed to his pen, but he complained bitterly, in letters written at this time, of injustice done him in this respect, and maintained that he had endeavored, without success, to induce the Emperor to mitigate the severity of the edict.  One does not feel very strongly inclined to accept his excuses, however, when his general opinions on the subject of religion are remembered.  He was most bigoted in precept and practice.  Religious liberty he regarded as the most detestable and baleful of doctrines; heresy he denounced as the most unpardonable of crimes.