the States of
Utrecht.

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.

That he wanted to make the ordinary garrison oppose the Deputies of the
States-General when their orders were contrary to those of the States of
Utrecht; threatening to stop their pay if they did otherwise.

That he advised the Bailly of Utrecht to obey only the Deputies of
Holland or the States of Utrecht.

That he conferred with the said Bailly on the means of hindering Prince
Maurice from introducing soldiers into Utrecht; which might have
occasioned much bloodshed in the city, and put the Prince and the
Republic in the greatest danger; and which gave rise to dissentions and
new treaties, contrary to the union of the provinces: whence the public
order in Church and State was disturbed, the finances of the State
exhausted, divisions arose between the States-General and the Provinces,
and the union was on the point of being broke.

For these causes the Judges appointed to try this affair, administring
justice in the name of the States-General, condemn the said Hugo Grotius
to perpetual imprisonment; and to be carried to the place appointed by
the States-General, there to be guarded with all precaution, and
confined the rest of his days; and declare his estate confiscated.
Hague, May 18, 1619."

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 th