A few days after Grotius' arrest, his wife presented a pet.i.tion, praying that she might have leave to stay with her husband till the end of the process. This grace was refused: she was not even permitted to see him; and having asked to speak to him in presence of his guards, they were so hard-hearted, as to deny even this slight favour.

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 ill.u.s.trious 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[83] Du Maurier says the three prisoners were arrested the 22d of August; others a.s.sure us it was the 24th. La Neuville, Le Clerc. But it is evident from what Grotius says himself, Ep. 104, that it was the 29th.

[84] Le Clerc.

[85] Mercure Francois, an. 1617.

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 ill.u.s.trious 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 a.s.sisted 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 a.s.sessors; 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 a.s.sembly 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.

The Arminians wanted to leave Dort; but an order from the States-General obliged them to stay. Their five articles were condemned; and Episcopius and the other Arminian ministers deposed, and declared guilty of corrupting religion, breaking the unity of the Church, and occasioning great scandal. The Synod's sentence was approved by the States-General on the second of July, 1619. The same day the Arminian Ministers who had been detained at Dort, were banished, or imprisoned: they were deprived of their employments, and the effects of several were confiscated. They continued to a.s.sert the irregularity of this Council; and the Bishop of Meaux observes, that they employed the same arguments which the Protestants use against the Roman-Catholics concerning the Council of Trent.

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 a.s.sembly 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 const.i.tuents 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 pa.s.sed 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 n.o.bility 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 princ.i.p.al 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 a.s.semblies; 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[86] Grotius, Apology, c. 15.

[87] La Neuville, lib. 3. c. 16.

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 Amba.s.sador extraordinary to Holland, ordering him to repair thither, immediately, and join Du Maurier the Amba.s.sador 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 dispa.s.sionate; 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 States made answer on the nineteenth of December following, that they would act with all the lenity and clemency which justice and the safety of the State would permit; and that they hoped the King would leave it to their prudence.

The French Amba.s.sadors 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 Amba.s.sador was informed, that sentence had been pa.s.sed the Day before, and that Barnevelt was to be executed that day. He went immediately to the a.s.sembly 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 Francois_: "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 gla.s.s. 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 pa.s.sed 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[88] Apology, c. 15.

[89] See Du Maurier, Le Va.s.sor, La Neuville, Le Clerc.

[90] Hist. de la mere & du fils, t. 2. p. 380.

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 pet.i.tion 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 a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sistance 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 pet.i.tion 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 pet.i.tioned[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 pa.s.sage related by Selden[93]. When Grotius was arrested, some who bore him ill-will, prevailed with Carleton, Amba.s.sador from Great Britain at the Hague, to make a complaint against his book _Of the Freedom of the Ocean_: the Amba.s.sador 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 G.o.d, 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 princ.i.p.al 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 held private meetings with the Deputies of some towns, with design to procure a majority in the a.s.sembly of the States of Holland.

That without the orders of the States of Holland, Utrecht, and Overyssel, he ventured to make an act in the name of those provinces, in the house of John Barnevelt, protesting against what the Deputies of the other provinces might do, and declaring they would be the cause of the disorders that the Synod might produce; which act he read in the a.s.sembly of the States of Holland without being required, and carried it to the a.s.sembly of the States-General.

That he made eight Deputies of the cities send back the letter of the States-General for the convocation of the Synod.

That he wrote to the King of France in the name of the States of Holland, informing him that the name of the States-General was falsly made use of in the Letters for convoking the Synod, and desiring his Majesty not to suffer his subjects to attend the Synod, and to protect Holland against the other provinces.

That, by the counsel of Barnevelt, he bestirred himself to get Ministers to come to the Synod who were of the new opinion.

That he embroiled the Republic in order to get every thing pa.s.sed according to his fancy and caprice.

That he a.s.sisted 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 by the advice of John Barnevelt he held private meetings with the Deputies of some towns, whose deliberations were carried to the States of Holland, to serve for the model of their resolutions.

That he was concerned in the odious decree of the 4th of August, 1617, permitting the cities of Holland to raise new troops for their defence, and to require of them an oath of fidelity to those cities.

That he gave it as his opinion, the city of Rotterdam should raise those soldiers.

That he also advised the city of Delft to raise them; that he wanted to lay the expence of these new levies on the Generality.

That he a.s.serted these new soldiers were not obliged to obey the States-General, if their orders were contrary to those of the cities.

That he sent back the French auxiliaries in order to employ the money a.s.signed for their subsistance in paying the new soldiers.