Mansfeld, ashamed of the outrage, stepped forward to apologize for the conduct of his companions and to soothe the insulted prelate.  That personage, however, exasperated, very naturally, to the highest point, pushed him rudely away, crying, “Begone, begone! who is this boy that is preaching to me?” Whereupon, Mansfeld, much irritated, lifted his hand towards the ecclesiastic, and snapped his fingers contemptuously in his face.  Some even said that he pulled the archiepiscopal nose, others that he threatened his life with a drawn dagger.  Nothing could well have been more indecent or more cowardly than the conduct of these nobles upon this occasion.  Their intoxication, together with the character of the victim, explained, but certainly could not palliate the vulgarity of the exhibition.  It was natural enough that men like Brederode should find sport in this remarkable badgering of a bishop, but we see with regret the part played by Hoogstraaten in the disgraceful scene.

The prelate, at last, exclaiming that it appeared that he had been invited only to be insulted, left the apartment, accompanied by Noircarmes and the Viscount of Ghent, and threatening that all his friends and relations should be charged with his vengeance.  The next day a reconciliation was effected, as well as such an arrangement was possible, by the efforts of Egmont, who dined alone with the prelate.  In the evening, Hoogstraaten, Culemburg, and Brederode called upon the Bishop, with whom they were closeted for, an hour, and the party separated on nominal terms of friendship.

This scandalous scene; which had been enacted not only before many guests, but in presence of a host of servants, made necessarily a great sensation throughout the country.  There could hardly be much difference of opinion among respectable people as to the conduct of the noblemen who had thus disgraced themselves.  Even Brederode himself, who appeared to have retained, as was natural, but a confused impression of the transaction, seemed in the days which succeeded the celebrated banquet, to be in doubt whether he and his friends had merited any great amount of applause.  He was, however, somewhat self-contradictory, although always vehement in his assertions on the subject.  At one time he maintained—­after dinner, of course—­that he would have killed the Archbishop if they had not been forcibly separated; at other moments he denounced as liars all persons who should insinuate that he had committed or contemplated any injury to that prelate; offering freely to fight any man who disputed either of his two positions.

The whole scene was dramatized and represented in masquerade at a wedding festival given by Councillor d’Assonleville, on the marriage of Councillor Hopper’s daughter, one of the principal parts being enacted by a son of the President-judge of Artois.  It may be supposed that if such eminent personages, in close connexion with the government, took part in such proceedings, the riot must have been considered