Here, the history of the Arminians, so far as it is connected with that part of the Life of Grotius to which our subject has hitherto led us, seems to close. We shall hereafter be called upon to resume it. 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.]