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 they had received, supplied their place; that the assembly was composed of the Deputies of Harlem, Delft, Leyden, Amsterdam, Goude, Rotterdam, Alcmaer, 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.