III. This remonstrance not satisfying the Gomarists, they opposed to it a contra-remonstrance, which gained them the name of Contra-Remonstrants. As these disputes gave the States a good deal of uneasiness, they enjoined the Divines to deliver their thoughts of the most proper means to put an end to them. The Remonstrants proposed a Toleration; the Contra-Remonstrants, a national Synod, in which they were sure of a majority. Both these opinions were laid before the States, who declared for a toleration: this was the cause gained to the Arminians; but the Gomarists were favoured by the People, and grew very factious. The Grand-Pensionary, imagining that by making themselves masters of the election of the ministers, the States would insensibly appease these troubles, proposed the revival of an obsolete regulation, made in the year 1591, by which the magistrates and consistory were each to nominate four persons, who should chuse a Minister, to be afterwards presented to the body of Magistrates, who might receive or reject him.

This motion was agreed to by the States, to the great mortification of the Contra-Remonstrants: they complained that the States had exceeded their power. Hence arose a grand contest who ought to be Judge in ecclesiastical matters. The Arminians said it belonged to the Civil Magistrate to decide them: the Gomarists maintained that the clergy alone had that power. They separated themselves from the communion of the Remonstrants[72], took possession of the churches by force, stirred up seditions, wrote libels, and deposed the Arminian Ministers. In other churches the Contra-Remonstrants were driven out as madmen and rioters. These violences gave rise to schisms, some joining the old Ministers, and others the new.

It was at this time of confusion Grotius was nominated Pensionary of Rotterdam, and ordered to go over into England. It is imagined[73] he had secret instructions to get the King and the principal divines of the kingdom to favour the Arminians, and approve of the States conduct. He had several conferences with his Majesty on that subject. At his return to Holland he found the divisions increased. Barnevelt and he had the direction of the States proceedings in this matter; and he was appointed to draw up an edict which might restore tranquility. It was approved by the States, and is as follows.

IV. "Whereas great dissentions and disputes have arisen in the Churches of this Country, on occasion of different explanations of some passages of Holy Writ, which speak of Predestination and what relates to it; and these contentions having been carried on with so much heat, that some Divines have been accused of teaching directly, or at least indirectly, that God has created some men to damn them; that he has laid certain men under a necessity of sinning; that he invites some men to salvation to whom he has resolved to deny it; other Divines are also charged with believing that mens natural strength or works may operate their salvation. Now these doctrines tending to the dishonour of God and the Christian reformation, and being contrary to our sentiments, it has appeared to us highly necessary, from a regard to the honour and glory of God, and for the peace and harmony of the state, to condemn them. For these causes, after having weighed the matter, and long examined it with much conscience and circumspection, employing the authority which belongs to us as rightful Sovereign, and agreeable to the example of the Kings, Princes, and Cities which have embraced the Reformation, we have ordained, and by these presents ordain, that in the interpretation of the passages of Scripture above-mentioned every one give diligent heed to the admonition of St. Paul, who teaches that no one should desire to know more than he ought; but to think soberly, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith; and agreeable to what the Holy Scriptures every-where set forth, that salvation is of God alone, but our destruction is of ourselves. Wherefore in the explanation of the Scripture, as often as occasion shall offer, the Pastors shall declare to the people, and instil into the minds of all under their care, that men are not indebted for the beginning, the progress, and the completion of their salvation, and even of faith, to their natural strength, or works, but to the sole grace of God in Jesus Christ our Saviour; that we have not merited it; that God has created no man to damn him; that God has not laid us under a necessity of sinning, and that he invites no man to be saved, to whom he has resolved to deny salvation. And, though in the universities, in conversation, and in those places where the Scriptures are expounded, passages may be treated of which relate to predestination and what depends on it, and it may come to pass, as hath happened formerly, and in our own times, to learned and good men, that persons may give into these extremes and absurdities which we disapprove and have forbidden; our will is, that they be not proposed publicly from the pulpit to the people. But as to those who in relation to such passages only believe and teach that God hath from all eternity chosen to salvation, from the mere motion of his will, through Jesus Christ our Saviour and Redeemer, those who by grace which they have not merited, and by the operation of the Holy Spirit, believe in Jesus Christ our Lord, and by free grace given them persevere in the faith to the end, we will that they be not molested on that account, nor pressed to embrace other sentiments, or teach other doctrine; for we judge these truths sufficient for salvation; and proper for the instruction of Christians. We moreover ordain, that all Pastors, in expounding the other articles of the Christian faith, make use of explanations agreeable to the word of God, to what is commonly received in the reformed churches, and what has been taught in those of this country, which we have maintained and protected, and now maintain and protect; that they exercise Christian charity; and that they avoid greater divisions: for in this manner, we judge, they ought to act for the good of the State and the Church, and the restoration of her tranquility."

This Edict was too favourable to the Arminians not to give great offence to the Contra-Remonstrants. They complained that it misrepresented their sentiments[74] in order to render them odious, and that not only it wanted the approbation of the Cities, but had not even been sent to them: from whence they concluded that no regard was to be paid to it.

The States were very desirous that the King of Great Britain and the English Bishops should be satisfied with the manner in which they had explained themselves in the Edict: they were the more anxious as they had reason to believe James unfavourable to the Arminians[75]. However the King, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of England allowed the doctrine of the Edict to be orthodox, and equally distant from Manicheism and Pelagianism: the only thing which gave the King some pain, was, to see the Civil Magistrate assume a right of making decrees in matters of religion[76].

V. This Edict served but to increase the troubles, by driving the Gomarists, against whom it was levelled, into despair. The riots which had already happened, and which they hourly apprehended, made the Grand Pensionary Barnevelt propose to the States of Holland, that the magistrates of the Cities of the Province should be impowered to raise troops for the suppression of the rioters, and the security of their towns. Dort, Amsterdam, and three others of the most favourable to the Gomarists, protested against this step, which they regarded as a kind of declaration of war against the Contra-Remonstrants. Barnevelt's motion was, nevertheless, agreed to, and on the fourth of August, 1617, the States issued a placard accordingly.

He had entertained a mortal enmity for several years against the Grand Pensionary[77], who concluded the truce in 1609 without his concurrence. Hitherto he had stifled his revenge for want of a proper opportunity of executing it; but it blazed openly on occasion of this decree of the States, which he considered as Barnevelt's act. He accused him of labouring to diminish his authority: found fault with the Edict: that was made to engage the two parties to live in peace; declared publicly for the Gomarists, assisted at divine service only in their churches, and forbad the soldiers to obey the States when they would employ them to appease the riots. Some towns, however, levied men in consequence of the States decree, whether they suspected their garrisons, or thought there was no other way to suppress the enterprises of the rioters. The Contra-Remonstrants seeing themselves powerfully protected by Prince Maurice, separated from the communion of the Arminians in 1617.

VI. Amsterdam, almost as powerful singly as all Holland, favoured the Gomarists, and disapproved of the Toleration which the States wanted to introduce. These resolved therefore to send a Deputation to that city, in order to bring them over to their sentiments. The Deputies were Grotius, Adrian Mathenes, Hugo Musius, and Gerard Deich. April 21, 1616, they received their instructions to go to Amsterdam; on the morrow they left the Hague, and arriving the same day at Amsterdam, sent to desire the oldest Burgomaster to assemble the Town Council: they were told, the Council would meet the 23d at three in the afternoon. They employed this interval in removing a calumny spread by the Contra-Remonstrants, that they were sent to change the religion. One of the City-Secretaries waited on them to conduct them to the Council Chamber, and being come there, Grotius, as spokesman, said, "That Sovereigns had a right to watch over the proceedings of the Church; that the States had no intention but to protect the reformed religion; that they ardently desired the city of Amsterdam would agree with them in all that might relate to the government of the Church and mutual toleration; that the revival of the regulation of 1591, which gives the Magistrates a right to chuse the Ministers, after being examined and found well affected to the reformed religion, was of great service, by preventing the troubles which followed the elections; of which there were several recent instances: that mutual toleration was necessary when the difference in opinion regarded only points not fundamental; that it had always been practised by the reformed churches from the time of Calvin's reformation; that it was more necessary in the doctrine of Predestination, as this was a matter of great difficulty; that the first reformers, though of different sentiments, tolerated one another; that Bullinger and Melancton were tolerated by Beza and Calvin; that James I. King of Great Britain, had advanced in his writings, that the two opposite opinions concerning Predestination might be maintained without danger of damnation; that Gomar himself declared Arminius had not erred in fundamental points; that after the conference in 1611, the Ministers of the two parties promised to the States of Holland to live in peace; that the points controverted were not necessary to salvation, that they were very difficult, that they never had been determined, either in the ancient, or the reformed church; that the decisions of the councils held in the church on occasion of Pelagianism enjoined only a belief, that men are corrupted and have need of grace, and that the beginning of grace is from God; that even the church of Rome permitted the Doctors of different parties to dispute on these points; that it was not necessary to call a synod to examine them, because the authority of a Sovereign is sufficient in matters where only the preventing of schism for things unnecessary to salvation, is in question; that the Sovereign has a right to suppress disorders that arise in the church; that the business was not a change of religion, but the hindrance of schism; that the King of Great Britain and the Canton of Bern had justified the use of this right by examples; that if the utility of a synod to inform the Sovereign what he ought to do on such occasions should be maintained, it were easy to answer, that it is not necessary to assemble a synod to know that men must tolerate one another when their opinions differ concerning points not necessary to salvation; that this was a truth acknowledged by Calvin, Beza, Whittaker, Junius, Casaubon, Du Moulin, in fine by the most famous Ministers, whose authority is at least equivalent to that of a synod; that as the question was not about a point of heresy, there was reason to apprehend the division would be increased by calling a synod, so great was the ferment of mens minds; that, besides, the moderate party in such synod would not be the most numerous; that perhaps the Ecclesiastics would seek to diminish the sovereign authority; that they might make decisions which could not be enforced without throwing the Republic into the greatest confusion; that therefore, previous to the convocation of a synod, mens minds ought to be prepared by gentle methods; that the decree made in 1614 by the States of Holland, to which the city of Amsterdam made some difficulty of submitting, was neither partial, nor injurious to the reformed churches; that it was resolved on after mature reflexion, and was in itself agreeable to sound doctrine; that the reasonable men among the Contra-Remonstrants had nothing to apprehend, since the deposition of some Ministers was entirely owing to their attempts to introduce schism; that the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants, not differing in essential points, ought to tolerate one another, and agree on what they should preach; that if a Toleration were not admitted, they must depose such as would not submit to the decision that might be given, or introduce two churches, either of which steps would trouble the State, whereas a Toleration would restore tranquility and union, and favour the assembling of an impartial synod that might labour with success to restore peace to the church."

The Senate, after hearing this Speech, made answer, that they would take it into consideration: and on the twenty-fifth of April the Burgomasters visited the Deputies, and told them, they would send to the States of Holland to acquaint them with their sentiments. Grotius, who perceived his discourse had not gained the Senate, replied, that if the Senate would mention their difficulties, the Deputies of the States would endeavour to resolve them. The Burgomasters answered, that the Senate did not intend to grant them a new audience; adding, that as there was reason to apprehend some alteration in religion, it was their opinion, that in the present circumstances a synod ought to be assembled; and that the city of Amsterdam could not receive the Edict of 1614, without endangering the Church, and risking the ruin of her trade. The Deputies wanted to answer, but were refused to be heard. Grotius drew up in writing an account of all that passed in this deputation, and presented it to the States at his return[78]. He flattered himself for a while with the hopes of some good effect from his deputation[79]: and the disappointment chagrined him so much, that he was seized with a violent fever, which had well nigh carried him off. It appeared plainly by the blood taken from him that melancholy was the occasion of his disorder. He was removed to Delft[80], where he found himself better. As he was forbid to do anything which required application, he wrote to Vossius that he was very desirous to see him for a few days, or at least a few hours; that it would be the means of restoring his health, since conversation with true friends is the best remedy against melancholy. He employed the time of his recovery in examining himself on the part he had acted in the present disputes; and the more he reflected on it, the less reason he found for blushing or repentance. He foresaw the danger he incurred; but his resolution was taken, not to change his conduct, and to refer the event to Providence.

VII. The States of Holland, wholly employed in seeking ways to compound matters, had come to a resolution on the twenty-first of February, 1617, that certain wise and learned men should be chosen to draw up a Rule or Formula, to which the Ministers of the two parties should be obliged to conform; that nothing should be advanced in it contrary to the doctrine of the reformed Churches; that it should be shewn to Prince Maurice, and, after having his opinion, presented to the States, that they might examine what was most for God's honour, the people's safety, and the Nation's tranquillity.

In consequence of this resolution Grotius prepared a writing to be presented to Prince Maurice, importing, That the States were desirous the ministers should teach a doctrine agreeable to that of the Reformed Churches, and that those who departed from it should be proceeded against in the way of Church Censure, or even by the Civil Magistrate; that the five Articles of the Remonstrants doctrine should be examined in a Synod of Holland, and the decision carried to a Synod of all the Provinces; that previous to its meeting, the Sovereignty of each Province in things sacred should be settled; that no definition should be fixed without an unanimous content; that if they could not agree they should endeavour to convene a General Council of the Reformed Churches; that in the mean time a severe Edict be published against rioters and the authors of defamatory libels; that the ministers be charged not to treat one another abusively; that after the holding of the Council they should examine what was proper to be added to the Union of Utrecht concerning the authority of the Provinces in matters of Religion.

The States-General, entirely devoted to Prince Maurice, determined, in spite of the States of Holland, to convoke a national Synod in Holland itself, at Dort. The Provinces of Holland, Utrecht, and Overyssel protested against this resolution: Barnevelt was so thunderstruck by it, that he wanted to resign his place of Grand Pensionary: But Holland, who needed more than ever the counsels of such an experienced Minister, sending a Deputation to beseech him not to abandon the Republic in times of so much difficulty[81], he thought it his duty to yield to the intreaties of his masters, and resumed the functions of his office.

VIII. Prince Maurice of Nassau, however, who saw with the utmost displeasure several Cities, agreeable to the permission granted them by the particular States, levy a new Militia without his consent, engaged the States-General to write to the Provinces and Magistrates of those Cities, enjoining them to disband the new levies, which were styled the Attendant Soldiers: but the particular States, who looked on themselves as sovereigns, and the Cities, who thought themselves obliged to obey only the orders of the States of their Province, paid no attention to the Letters of the States General[82]. The Prince considering this conduct as a Rebellion, concerted with the States-General that he should march in person with the troops under his command, to get these soldiers who were levied irregularly, disbanded; that he should depose the Arminian magistrates, and turn out the Ministers of their party.

The Prince accordingly set out, accompanied by the Deputies of the States-General, in the year 1618. Beginning with the Province of Gueldres, he removed from the Senate of Nimeguen all who were known or suspected to favour Arminianism; and turned out the Ministers, obliging them instantly to leave the town. At Overyssel he met with no opposition. In Arnheim there was a numerous garrison of Attendant Soldiers; but the Prince having intelligence in the place, got into it by night: and the soldiers seeing themselves betrayed, laid down their arms. Some Senators were deposed, and the Secretary of the Council banished the City.

The States of Holland, knowing that the Prince was to treat Utrecht in the same manner, sent thither Grotius, and Hoogerbetz, Pensionary of Leyden. Their instructions bore, first that they should consider and resolve on some method of opposing the commission given by the States-General to Prince Maurice: secondly, that they should consult in what manner the union between the particular States of the Provinces might be strengthened, for their mutual aid and assistance.

IX. The Prince of Orange's revenge was not yet satisfied: that was the name Maurice went by after the death of his brother Philip William, which happened at Brussels February 21, 1618. The destruction of the Grand Pensionary he had resolved on. In an extraordinary assembly of eight persons, who called themselves the States-General, he got an Ordonnance passed, without any previous information, as Grotius complained afterwards; importing, that Barnevelt, Grotius, and Hoogerbetz should be taken into custody.

Accordingly on the 29th[83] of August, 1618, as Barnevelt was in the court of the Castle of the Hague[84] returning home from the Assembly of the States of Holland, one of the Prince of Orange's guards, attended with some soldiers, commanded him, in the name of the States-General, to follow him: He was carried to a room in the Castle, and there confined. The Prince had sent to acquaint Grotius and Hoogerbetz that he wanted to speak with them: they immediately came, and were arrested.

The same day was published the following Placard: "Messieurs the States-General desire to acquaint all persons, that to avert the great peril which threatened the United Provinces, and restore and establish in the said Provinces harmony, peace, and tranquillity, they have caused to be imprisoned John de Barnevelt, Advocate-General of Holland and West Friesland, Romulus Hoogerbetz, and Hugo Grotius, it having been discovered and made manifest that they were the first authors of the insurrection at Utrecht, and of an attempt which would have been not only highly prejudicial to the country and Province, but to several other Cities. For these causes they have ordered, that the said three persons be arrested and confined in the Castle of the Hague, till they give an account of the administration of their offices." This Placard was without any signature.

Some days after these imprisonments, the Prince of Orange and the Deputies of the States-General made a tour through the towns of Holland. They had the power in their hands, and the Arminians were in the greatest consternation. The Prince met with no opposition to his designs: he deposed such magistrates as were relations or friends of the three illustrious prisoners, putting in their place others that were wholly devoted to him; and obliged some towns to receive a garrison, particularly Rotterdam. The Arminians had hitherto been the more powerful party there[85], and had excluded the Contra-Remonstrants from preaching in the great Church: but the Prince took that church from them, and gave it, with all the rest, to the Gomarists, leaving only two to the Arminians. He placed a garrison of an hundred men in the town and turned out and banished the Ministers who had distinguished themselves by their zeal for Arminianism, such as Vorstius, Utengobard, and Episcopius. Ledenberg, Secretary of Utrecht, hearing of these violences, was so terrified, that he made away with himself in prison.

X. The warmest opposers of a National Synod being disabled from giving any further obstruction, the States-General proceeded to the holding of it. The States of Holland, who in May, 1618, had renewed their protest against the convocation of a National Synod, frightened by the violences exercised against the three illustrious prisoners, at last gave their consent; and it met at Dort.

It was opened on the fifteenth of November, 1618, in the name of the States-General, who assisted at it by their Deputies; and was composed of about seventy Contra-Remonstrants, with only fourteen Arminians. John Bogerman, Minister of Leewarden in Friesland, was chosen President, and had with him four assessors; all five declared enemies of the Arminians. On the tenth of December the Remonstrants brought in a long Writing, containing their reasons for not acknowledging the Synod, as being an illegal assembly where the parties made themselves Judges, contrary to the laws of equity and the Canons of the Church. They further shewed, that most of those who composed the pretended synod were guilty of the schism complained of; that it was publickly notorious they were their declared enemies, and consequently incompetent judges. They afterwards proposed twelve conditions, without which they could not acknowledge the authority of the Synod, nor submit to any of its decisions. This paper put the Synod into a very ill humour. Next day the Arminians giving in a protest, it was censured, and a decree of the Deputies of the States-General ordered that the Synod should proceed, without regarding the protest.

XI. The Prisoners were not brought to their trial till after the rising of the Synod of Dort. Their confinement had caused great murmuring in the Province of Holland: for not only all honest men were persuaded of their innocence; but it was also evident that the sovereignty of the province of Holland had been openly violated. On the 29th of August, 1618, under the first surprise that an event of this nature must occasion, when it was mentioned in the Assembly of the States-General, the Deputies of the Province of Holland expressed great concern; they complained the rights of Holland had been invaded; adding, that they would ask their constituents what was to be done in such a melancholy and singular occurrence. The City of Rotterdam and some others made loud complaints: They acknowledged that if the three Prisoners were guilty of treason, or of unlawful correspondence with the Spaniards, they ought to be prosecuted; but maintained that they could not be legally tried but by the States of Holland, who alone were their Sovereigns. The Prince of Orange and the States-General found no way of putting a stop to the opposition of such Magistrates as were zealous for their Country, or friends to the Prisoners, but by deposing them. Nothing now remained to obstruct the Prince of Orange in his projects of revenge: The States of Holland, not being in a situation to hinder these violences, unwillingly left the management of this affair to the States-General: but were so much persuaded of the injustice done them, and the invasion made on their Sovereignty, that in the end of January 1619[86], notwithstanding the change of Deputies, they passed a Decree, importing that what had been done in the imprisonment of the Grand Pensionary, and the Pensionaries of Rotterdam and Leyden, should not be made a precedent for the future.

The States-General, desirous of making an end of this affair, on the nineteenth of November, 1618, nominated twenty-six Commissioners, chosen from among the Nobility and Magistrates of the Seven Provinces, who were ordered to repair to the Hague to try the Prisoners. The Decree appointing these Judges mentioned that the Accused were taken into custody to secure the tranquillity of the Republic, to hinder the ruin of Religion and the destruction of the Union, and prevent disturbance and bloodshed: they were represented as ambitious men, who sought by secret practices to embroil the State: And to give some appearance of satisfaction to Holland, it was said in the Decree, that the States-General had issued it without prejudice to the rights of the Provinces. Care was taken to chuse for Judges the declared enemies of the Prisoners. Barnevelt objected to them; representing that he could not be tried by the States-General: but no regard was paid to his exceptions. Thus he was obliged to answer before incompetent judges, who were notoriously known to have sworn his ruin. He entered a protest, that his answering before them should not be construed an approbation of their infringement of the jurisdiction of Holland.

In fine, after many iniquitous steps, which will be more particularly mentioned in Grotius' trial, Barnevelt was condemned to be beheaded. The principal grounds[87] of his condemnation were, That he had disturbed religion; that he had advanced that each Province in its own jurisdiction might decide in matters of religion, without the other Provinces having a right to take cognizance of it; that he diverted the King of France from sending the Reformed ministers of his Kingdom to the Synod of Dort; preferred the interests of the particular States of Holland and West Friesland to those of the States-General; made use of the name of the States of Holland and West Friesland for holding conventicles and unlawful assemblies; occasioned the insurrection at Utrecht; authorised the levying of the Attendant Soldiers; slandered Prince Maurice, accusing him of aspiring to the sovereignty of the United Provinces; and that he received large sums from foreign Princes, which he concealed from the State.

XII. Lewis XIII. who had an affection for the United Provinces, with which he was connected by their common interest, beheld the domestic troubles of Holland with concern. The Prisoners, especially Barnevelt, whose merit was well known at the Court of France, were held by him in particular esteem. When he heard of their arrest he nominated Thumeri de Boissise his Ambassador extraordinary to Holland, ordering him to repair thither, immediately, and join Du Maurier the Ambassador in ordinary, in soliciting the States-General in favour of the Accused, and labouring to restore the public tranquillity.

December 12, 1618, they presented to the States-General a Writing from the King, asking that the prisoners might have justice done them; that their judges might be persons impartial and dispassionate; that the States would rather chuse mild, than rigorous measures: "And, said the Ministers, his Majesty will take for a high offence the little regard you pay to his counsels, his prayers, and his friendship, which for the future will be as much cooled as it was heretofore warm in your interest."

The French Ambassadors continued their solicitations[88]; but the answer made them March 23, 1619, must have left them no hope: it represented the Prisoners as turbulent men, suspected of very heinous crimes, and almost convicted of conspiring against the Republic, and projecting and attempting to destroy the Union and the State. This answer was certainly concerted with Prince Maurice, who was highly offended that the King of France should interest himself so much to save men whom he looked on as his declared enemies. Boissise quitted Holland, leaving Du Maurier alone to act in favour of the Accused. On Monday morning, May 13, 1619, the Ambassador was informed, that sentence had been passed the Day before, and that Barnevelt was to be executed that day. He went immediately to the Assembly of the States to get the execution suspended, but was refused audience: he wrote to the States, conjuring them by the regard they ought to have for the King his master, not to spill the blood of a Minister who had served them so faithfully; and, if they would not pardon him, to confine him to one of his country houses, his friends being bound for him; or banish him the country for ever. This Letter had no effect: their resolution was taken to destroy him. When the Grand Pensionary was informed of his sentence, he seemed less moved at it, than for the fate of Grotius and Hoogerbetz: he asked if they also were to die? adding, It would be great pity: they are still able to do great service to the Republic. The scaffold for his execution was erected in the court of the Castle at the Hague, facing the Prince of Orange's apartments. He made a short speech to the people, which is preserved in the Mercure François: "Burghers, said he, I have been always your faithful countryman: believe not that I die for treason; but for maintaining the Rights and Liberties of my Country." After this Speech the executioner struck off his head at one blow. It is affirmed that the Prince of Orange, to feast himself with the cruel pleasure of seeing his enemy perish, beheld the execution with a glass. The people looked on it with other eyes: for many came to gather the sand wet with his blood, to keep it carefully in phials: and the croud of those who had the same curiosity continued next day, notwithstanding all they could do to hinder them.

Thus fell that great Minister, who did the United Provinces as much service in the cabinet, as the Princes of Orange did in the field. It is highly probable that the melancholy end of this illustrious and unfortunate man, to whom the Dutch are partly indebted for their liberty, was owing to his steadiness in opposing the design of making Prince Maurice Dictator. But this is a question discussed by several writers[89], and foreign to our subject.

The French ministry discovered no resentment at the little attention paid by the States General to Lewis's solicitations. There is reason to think Barnevelt would have met with less cruel treatment, or at least that France would not have passed it over so easily, had Cardinal Richelieu, who was soon after Prime Minister, been then in place: for a book[90] ascribed to him censures the conduct of Messieurs de Luines, who were in power at that time, with regard to this affair.

XIII. Grotius's trial did not come on till five days after Barnevelt's execution. September 3, 1618, the fourth day after he was arrested, the Burgomasters of Rotterdam presented a petition to the Prince of Orange[91], setting forth, that they had heard with great grief that Grotius, Counsellor and Pensionary of Rotterdam, being at the Hague at the assembly of the States, was arrested by order of the States General; and representing to his Excellency that it was a breach of privilege, by which no Deputy could be arrested during the sitting of the States; and as they stood in need of Grotius's assistance and counsels, praying that he, as Governor of Holland and West-Friesland, would prevail with the States General to set him at liberty, and put him in the same situation he was in before his imprisonment, promising to guard him at Rotterdam or elsewhere, that he might be forthcoming to answer any charge brought against him by the States General. The Prince gave only for answer, that the affair concerned the States General. Their petition having had no effect, on the 10th of September, 1618, the city of Rotterdam sent a deputation to the States of Holland, praying that Grotius and the other persons accused might be tried according to the custom of the country. But the States themselves were under oppression.

Grotius's wife petitioned[92] for leave to continue with her husband whilst his cause was depending; but this favour was denied her. On his falling ill, she again pressed to be allowed to visit him, they had the cruelty to hinder her: she offered not to speak to him but in presence of his guards; this was also refused. Thus all the time of his confinement at the Hague, no one was permitted to see him, even when he lay dangerously ill.

We may judge to what length his enemies carried their blindness and fury, by the following passage related by Selden[93]. When Grotius was arrested, some who bore him ill-will, prevailed with Carleton, Ambassador from Great Britain at the Hague, to make a complaint against his book Of the Freedom of the Ocean: the Ambassador was not ashamed to maintain that the States ought to make an example of him, to prevent others from defending an opinion that might occasion a misunderstanding between the two nations. Carleton and his advisers were the dupes of this contemptible step: the States General paid no regard to his complaint. The proposal was shameful in itself. Could they think that it would be made a crime in Grotius to have written a book, dictated by his love to his country, and deserving a recompence from the States to whom it had been of great use in the dispute with England concerning the right of navigation?

At the first examination which Grotius underwent, he answered[94] that he was of the Province of Holland, Minister of a city of Holland; that he had been arrested on the territories of Holland; that he acknowledged no judges but that province, and was ready to justify all he had done. He maintained that the States General had no jurisdiction over him, and consequently could not nominate his Judges. He alledged also the privilege of the citizens of Rotterdam and demanded permission to set forth his reasons before the States of Holland and the States General; and that the validity of his objections might be determined by Judges of Holland. All these things were denied him. They insisted that he should plead: he protested against this violence; but this did not hinder them from proceeding against him, in contempt of all forms. He had been allowed the use of pen and ink[95], but, after his first examination, they were taken away.

The rigour and injustice, with which he and the other prisoners were treated, are scarce conceivable. He tells us, that when they knew they were bad, they chose that time to examine them; that they did not give them liberty to defend themselves; that they threatened, and teazed them to give immediate answers; and that they would not read over to them their examinations. Grotius having asked leave to write his defence, they allowed him for that purpose only five hours, and one sheet of paper. He was always persuaded, that if he would own he had transgressed, and ask pardon, they would set him at liberty: but as he had nothing to reproach himself with, he would never take any step that might infer consciousness of guilt. His wife, his father, brother, and friends approved of this resolution[96].

On the 18th of May, 1619, the Commissioners pronounced sentence against him, which we shall give at length.

"Whereas[97] Hugo Grotius, who was Pensionary of the Magistrates of Rotterdam, and at present a prisoner before the Commissaries appointed by the States General to try him, has acknowledged without being put to the torture.

That he ventured to endeavour to overturn religion, to oppress and afflict the Church of God, and for that end advanced heinous things pernicious to the Republic, particularly, that each Province has singly a right to decree in matters of religion, and that the others ought not to take cognizance of the disputes which arise on this subject in a particular province; that against order, and the custom of the reformed churches, he endeavoured to get opinions received which are contrary to the doctrine of those churches, without being sufficiently examined; that he opposed the convocation of a National Synod in the name of the States General, though it was judged by the King of Great Britain, Prince Maurice, the majority of the nation, and the principal persons of the province of Holland, a necessary and certain remedy for the disorders which had crept into religion; that he advanced the convening a synod would be prejudicial to the right of sovereignty belonging to the province of Holland, unless the whole or the greater part of the province would consent to it.

That he assisted in so far changing the form of government, that those who complained of oppression were not admitted to be heard, and the Magistrates of cities disobeyed the orders they received.

That, on the 14th of May, 1618, he made an act with eight Deputies of cities, by virtue of which they were permitted to oppose what the States-General might do for accelerating the holding of the Synod; which act they wanted to get approved by the States of Utrecht; that he endeavoured to divert the Deputies of Utrecht from disbanding their new troops agreeable to the intention of the States of that province, by promising them assistance.

That he spoke against the States-General and against Prince Maurice in the assembly of the States of Utrecht; that he assisted the States of Utrecht in preparing their answer to Prince Maurice and the States General, by which they refused to acknowledge these Deputies as sent by the States-General, though they were in fact; that he held a conference with the Bailly of the city of Utrecht on the measures to be taken for resisting Prince Maurice if he should come to Utrecht to disband the new soldiers; and that he endeavoured to prevail with the States of Utrecht to have recourse to open force on this occasion.

Grotius, who enters into an examination of this sentence, charges it with many falsities: he maintains[98] that it makes him say several things which he constantly denied: and that he never acknowledged himself guilty. What is mentioned in the sentence concerning the deputation to Utrecht, he shews to be palpably false[99]. On the 20th of July, 1618, he acquaints us, certain Deputies to the States of Holland wanted to go home; that the assembly was summoned for the 24th; that some Deputies were indeed absent that day, but the Curators of the Republic of those Cities, agreeable to the order they had received, supplied their place; that the assembly was composed of the Deputies of Harlem, Delft, Leyden, Amsterdam, Goude, Rotterdam, Alcmaër, and the Nobles; that the Deputies of the other cities were summoned; that their absence could not stay the proceedings of the rest; that, excepting the Deputies of Amsterdam, all the others agreed to the deputation sent to Utrecht; that it was thrice approved; and that the Deputies at their return received the thanks of the States, who defrayed the expence of their journey.

Grotius complains that he was not examined on the tenth part of the facts specified in his sentence, that his examination was not read over to him; in fine, that he was no ways reprehensible, since in all he did, he exactly followed the orders of the States of Holland, or those of the city of Rotterdam[100], as the States and the City allowed; and that if he was to be tried, it ought to be by Judges of Rotterdam, according to the privileges of that city. Hoogerbetz was also condemned to perpetual banishment. The body of Ledemberg, Secretary of the States of Utrecht, who, as hath been said, put an end to his life in gaol, was affixed in the coffin to a gibbet. Moerbergen, Counsellor of Utrecht, had only his country-house, for his prison, because, suffering himself to be moved by the tears of his wife and children, he made a kind of submission bordering on those which they wanted to draw from Hoogerbetz and Grotius.

The Judges who condemned them were so ignorant of the laws, that they decreed penalties which are only enacted against persons convicted of high treason, yet omitted mentioning in the sentence that Grotius was guilty of that crime. They were told of this irregularity, and saw they were in the wrong: to remedy it, they declared, a whole year after the trial, without rehearing the cause, that their intention was to condemn Grotius and his accomplices as guilty of high-treason; which step was the more irregular[101], as delegated judges cannot, by law, add to their sentence after it is passed. This addition deprived Grotius's wife of the liberty of redeeming, at a moderate price, her husband's estate; a privilege which the law allows in all cases but those of treason. His estate was therefore confiscated: but by this he was no great loser. At that time he was very far from being rich: his father being alive, what properly belonged to him was only the savings of his salary and his wife's fortune.