CHAPTER VII.

TRIAL AND IMPRISONMENT OF GROTIUS.  HIS ESCAPE FROM PRISON.

1618-1621.

While the Synod of Dort continued its sittings, Prince Maurice and his party were actively employed in increasing the popular ferment against Barneveldt, Grotius and Hoogerbetz; in collecting evidence of the designs and practices of which they were accused, and in framing the legal proceedings against them in such a manner as was most likely both to procure their conviction, and to persuade the public of their guilt.

We have mentioned that their confinement took place on the 20th of August 1618, and that they were removed from the Hague, the original place of their imprisonment, to the Castle of Louvestein.  On the 19th November, the States General, at the instigation of Prince Maurice, nominated twenty-six commissioners for their trial.  All the prisoners objected both to the jurisdiction of the commissioners, and to that of the States General; and asserted that the States of Holland were their only competent judges.  They observed, at the same time, that many of the judges were notoriously prejudiced against the Arminians.

[Sidenote:  Trial and Imprisonment of Grotius.]

The act of accusation contained many general charges, and many averments of particular facts, supposed to substantiate them.  It was alleged against the prisoners, that they had disturbed the established religion of the United Provinces; that, in direct contradiction of the articles of union, they had asserted the right of each province to decide for itself in matters of religion; that they had set up the authority and interests of the States of Holland and West Friesland against those of the States General; that they were the authors of the Insurrection at Utrecht; had levied, in opposition to the orders of government, the attendant soldiers; had raised jealousies between the Prince and several of the Provincial States, and between these and the States General; and that, by their habitual conduct, they had become public disturbers of the tranquillity of the republic, and councillors and practisers of schemes hostile to its welfare.

[Sidenote:  CHAP.  VII. 1618-1621.]

The Commissioners proceeded to the trial of Barneveldt.  Uniformly protesting against the competency of the tribunal, Barneveldt defended himself with great firmness and ability.  He controverted every article of the accusation, and concluded his defence, by a long and pathetic enumeration of the services, which he had rendered to the republic; and of the numerous actions, by which he had shewn his attachment to Prince William and Prince Maurice:—­he proved that it had been principally owing to him, that the Stadtholderate had been conferred on the latter.  He admitted that he had suspected the Prince of designs hostile to the constitution of the United Provinces, and had opposed the Prince in every measure, which appeared to have such a tendency; but he asserted that he never had resorted to means which the laws or constitution of the Provinces did not warrant.  His arguments were unanswerable; but Prince Maurice was determined on his ruin; and the Commissioners were wholly subservient to the prince’s views:  they accordingly passed unanimously a sentence of death upon Barneveldt.