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 held private meetings with the Deputies of some towns, with design to procure a majority in the assembly 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 assembly of the States of Holland without being required, and carried it to the assembly 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 passed according to his fancy and caprice.
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 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 asserted 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 assigned for their subsistance in paying the new soldiers.
That he pretended these soldiers ought to serve even against the States-General and against Prince Maurice.
That he wanted to prevail with the cities to make a new union.
That he held conferences with a foreign Ambassador.
That he was concerned in the deputation sent to the Brille to oppose Prince Maurice.
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 accused the States-General, as well as Prince Maurice, of evil designs.
That he maintained, they ought to be resisted, and the revenue and forces of the State employed against them.
That he said the disbanding the new soldiers would increase the boldness of the Disaffected, and the disorders in the State; that the ordinary troops were not sufficient; that the members of the province of Holland would abundantly succour such as did not obey the States-General; that he suffered himself to be deputed to Utrecht to offer his assistance to the States and the City; that this deputation was ordered only by a few Nobles, three Deputies of Cities, and some Deputies to the States of Holland, who had no instructions on that subject from their Constituents.
That his acknowledged design, and that of those deputed to Utrecht, was to engage the States to require the ordinary soldiers to obey the States of Utrecht, in prejudice of the obedience due to the States-General.
That he carried Letters of Barnevelt, which had not been read in the assembly of the States of Holland, declaring, that the soldiers ought to obey the States, and oppose whatever might be done against them.
That he had combined with Ledemberg in the measures to be taken for preventing the new soldiers from being disbanded by 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.