# Protestant Exiles from France/Volume 2 - Historical Introduction - section IV

Layout 2
Section IV.
THE VARIEGATED POLICY OF JAMES II., AND WILLIAM AND MARY’S FRIENDSHIP TOWARDS THE REFUGEES.
The date of the accession of James, Duke of York, to the British throne, is 6th February 1685. This king looked on the refugees with an evil eye, and was eager to listen to accusations against them. A rumour being put in circulation that they favoured the Duke of Monmouth’s rebellion, the leading members of the Thorp-le-Soken French church formally offered their services, goods and lives to “Sa Majesté Jacques Second, Roy d’Angleterre, d’Ecosse, France et Irlande, Defenseur de la Foy,” &c. Their written declaration of loyalty had the following signatures:— Jean Severin [ministre], Jean de l’Estrilles de la Clide, Daniel Olivier, Roquier Puiechegut, Pontardant, Planeq, De la Porte, Samuel de Courcelles, Jean Sionneau, P. Potier, Maria, Bonnet, Messien, Benjamin Turquain. Dated 21st June 1685.
For political reasons King James could not discontinue his late brother’s hospitality; and from his subsequent scheme of toleration, the Huguenots could not be omitted. Hut Henry Savile, now established at home as Vice-Chamberlain, knew the king’s antipathies, and wrote (in July 1685), “I am of opinion that the next two or three months will be so very critical as to our affairs, that it will be seen within ​that compass of time whether England can in any degree be a sanctuary for distressed Protestants.”
The notorious Jeffries, who had been continued in office as Chief-Justice, was made Lord Chancellor on Sept. 28, as the reward of his recent cruelties. One of his chaplains bore the French Protestant name of Beaulieu or De Beau lieu; but as in 1685 he was rector of Whitchurch (Oxfordshire), we have reason to believe that he did not attend his patron in public, or share in the odium of the Chief-Justice and the Lord Chancellor.
In October of the first year of James the Second, Louis XIV. revoked the Edict of Nantes. Great numbers of refugees came over, and a collection in the churches, which had to be authorised by the Lord Chancellor’s brief, could not be refused. Jeffries did what he could to gratify the king’s private wishes, first by putting off the collection as long as he could, and then by requiring conformity to the English ceremonies from the refugees as the condition of receiving their individual shares of the fund. The multitudes who left the inhospitable gate without relief while this embargo lasted have made sufficient impression on the national memory to convince us that those refugees who declared their indifference as to the English liturgical disputes did not represent the majority of their brethren.
In the end of 1685 the Marquis de Bonrepaus was sent from France as a special envoy to entice back the industrious refugees. He was ostentatiously welcomed by the king, but failed in his overtures to the exiles as a body. In the following May he reported the embarkation for France of 253 of the industrial classes; and with them were 27 naval officers and 354 sailors. A letter in the Ellis Correspondence of two years’ later date summarises the envoy’s ill success and its cause in the following concise sentence:— “London, 24th July 1686. — The French king is said to be inviting back his subjects from all parts, especially the handicraft part of them, whose departure is said to have much prejudiced his revenue, and promiseth them his toleration; though it doth not appear they are forward to believe that an Order of Council can preserve what the Edict of Xantcs could not.” In a despatch with regard to the aforesaid embarkation, dated 5th May 1686, Bonrepaus writes:— “The King of England, who looks upon the fugitives as his enemies (qui regarde ces fugitifs comme ses ennemis), took no heed of the complaints made to him upon the subject.”
A complaint of an opposite kind met with attention. On May 8th, 1686, the French Ambassador formally complained of the translation into the English language of Claude’s “Plaintes des Protestans.” By order of the King in Council, copies, both of the original and of the translation, were burnt in the city of London by the common hangman before the Royal Exchange. The indignation of the people was tremendous; and the Ambassador Barillon in his despatch hinted that Louis XIV. must regard such demands as inexpedient for the future, the feeling of the nation never having been so greatly roused since James’s accession.
The Pasteur Claude (formerly of Charenton, and a refugee in Holland), had published anonymously the pamphlet entitled, “Les Plaintes des Protestans Cruellement Oprimés dans le Royaume de France.” The title-page of the English translation was, “An Account of the Persecutions and Oppressions of the Protestants in France. Printed in the year 1686;” this was a quarto pamphlet, which was reprinted in a tract of a pocket size at Edinburgh, entitled, “An Account of the Persecutions and Oppressions of the French Protestants, to which is added, The Edict of the French King prohibiting all publick exercise of the Pretended Reformed Religion in his kingdom, wherein he recalls and totally annuls the perpetual and irrevocable Edict of King Henry the IV., his grandfather, given at Nantes, full of most gracious concessions to Protestants. With the Form of Abjuration the revolting Protestants are to subscribe and swear to. Printed by G. M., Anno Dom. 1686.” [The printer was George Mosman, or Mossman.] A new translation appeared in 1707; it was a pocket volume entitled, “A short Account of the Complaints and Cruel Persecutions of the Protestants in the Kingdom of France. London: Printed by W. Redmayne, 1707.” There is a long Preface, which informs us regarding the former translation, “The translator for some regard he had to those times, when the enemies of our holy religion were in great credit, did designedly omit several matters of fact, and them the most important to the cause of the refugees; insomuch, that above the fourth part of it was cut off in the translation; though the translator fared ne’er the better for it.” I have compared the two translations, and I find that the pamphlet of 1686 was quite a faithful abridgement, there being only two omissions of any length, viz. (1st), an Account of the original Edict of Nantes, showing the internal evidence for its perpetual obligation, and (2d) the detailed protest at the end, fitted to impress ​sovereigns and statesmen — otherwise the abridgement is not material, as will appear from the following extracts in parallel columns:—
| Page 34, (1686). There are three things very remarkable in this whole affair. The first is, that as long as they have been only on the way, the true authors of the Persecution have not concealed themselves, but the king, as much as they could. ’Tis true, the Decrees, Edicts, and Declarations, and other things, went under the name of His Majesty, but at the request of the agents and factors for the clergy. And whilst they were busied in these matters, the king declared openly his intention of maintaining the Edicts, and ’twas abuses which he designed to correct. | Page 144, (1707). There are three things remarkable in the conduct of this whole affair. The first is, that as long as they were only on the way, the true authors of the Persecution did not conceal themselves, but alway studied to conceal the king as much as they could. ’Tis true, the Decrees, Edicts, and Declarations, and such other things, went still under the name of His Majesty, but on the request of the agents or Syndics of the clergy. And whilst they were busied in these matters, the king declared openly his intention of maintaining the Edict itself, and that ’twas only the abuses and contraventions of it, which he designed to correct. |
| The second is, that when they came to the last extremities, and to open force, then they have concealed themselves as much as they could, set forth the king at his full length. There was nothing heard but these kind of discourses. The king will have it so, the king has taken it in hand, the king proceeds further than the clergy desires. By these two means they have had the address to be only charged with the lesser part of the cruelties, and to lay the most violent and odious part at the king’s door. | The second is, that when they came to the last extremities, and to open force, then they concealed themselves as much as they could, but made the king appear at his full length. There was nothing heard but these kind of speeches, The king will have it so, the king has taken the matter in his own hand, the king carries it further than the clergy could have wished. By these two means they have had the address to be only charged with the lesser and milder part of the Persecution, and to lay the more violent and odious at the king’s door. |
| The third thing which we should remark is, that the better to obtain their ends, they have made it their business to persuade the king, that this work would crown him with glory — which is a horrid abuse of his credulity, an abuse so much the greater, by how much they would not have themselves thought the authors of this council. And when any particular person of them are asked this day, what they think of it, there are few of them but condemn it. | The third thing which we are to remark is, that the better to obtain their ends, they have made it their business to persuade the king, that this work would crown him with the highest glory, which is a most horrid abuse of his credulity, and an abuse so much the greater, by how much they would screen themselves from being thought the authors of this council. Hence, if any of them in particular be asked at this day what they think of it, there are few of them but will readily condemn it. |
| In effect, what more false an idea could they give to His Majesty of glory, than to make it consist in surprising a poor people, dispersed over all his kingdom, and living securely under his wings, and the remains of the Edict of Nants, and who could not imagine there were any intentions of depriving them of the liberty of their consciences, of surprising and overwhelming them in an instant, with a numerous army, to whose discretion they are delivered, and who tell them that they must, either by fair means or foul, become Roman Catholicks, this being the king’s will and pleasure. | Now, what falser idea of glory could they give than making consist in surprising a poor people defenceless and helpless, dispersed over all his kingdom, and living securely under his wings, and under the protection of the remains of the Edict of Nantes? And who could ever imagine there were any intentions of depriving them of the established liberty of their consciences, of surprising and overwhelming them in an instant with a numerous army to whose discretion they are delivered up, and who tell them roundly that they must, either by fair means or by foul, become Roman Catholics, for that such is the king’s will and pleasure? |
| What a falser notion of glory could they offer him, than the putting him in the place of God, making the faith and religion of men to depend upon his authority, and that henceforward it must be said in his kingdom, I don’t believe, because I am persuaded of it, but I believe, because the king would have me do it, which, to speak properly, is that I believe nothing, and that I’ll be a Turk or a Jew, or whatever the king pleases? | What falser notion of glory could they ever offer him, than the putting him thus in the place of God, nay even above God, in making the faith and religion of his subjects depend on his sole authority, and that henceforward it must be said in his kingdom, I believe not because I am persuaded, but I believe because the king will have me, let God say what he will, which, to speak properly, is that I believe nothing, and that I’ll be a Turk, a Jew, an Atheist, or whatever the king pleases? ​ |
| What falser idea of glory, than to force from men’s mouths, by violence and a long series of torments, a profession which the heart abhors, and for which one sighs night and day, crying continually to God for mercy! | What falser idea of glory, than to force from men s mouths, by violence and a long series of torments, a confession which the heart abhors, and for which they afterward sigh night and day, crying continually to God for mercy! |
| What glory is there in inventing new ways of persecutions, unknown to former ages, which indeed do not bring death along with them, but keep men alive to suffer, that they may overcome their patience and constancy by cruelties, which are above human strength to undergo? | What glory is there in inventing new ways of persecution, unknown to former ages, persecutions which indeed do not bring death along with them, but keep men alive to suffer, that their patience and constancy may be overcome by cruelties, which are above human strength to undergo! |
| What glory is there in not contenting themselves to force those who remain in his kingdom, but to forbid them to leave it, and keep them under a double servitude, viz., both of soul and body? | What glory is there in not contenting himself to force those who remain in his kingdom, but to prohibit also their leaving it, and so keep them under a double servitude both of soul and body? |
| What glory is there in keeping his prisons full of innocent persons who are charged with no other fault than serving God according to the best of their knowledge, and for this to be exposed to the rage of dragoons, or condemned to the gallics and executions on body and goods? Will these cruelties render His Majesty’s name lovely in his history to the Catholick or Protestant world? | What glory is there in stuffing his prisons full of innocent persons who are charged with no other crime than the serving God according to the best of their knowledge, and for this to be exposed either to the rage of the dragoons, or be condemned to the gallies, and suffer execution on body and goods? What falser idea of glory for the king than to make it consist in the abuse of his power, and to violate without so much as a shadow of reason his own word and royal faith, which he had so solemnly given and so often reiterated; and this, only because he can do it with impunity, and has to deal with a flock of innocent sheep that are under his paw and cannot escape him? And yet ’tis this which the clergy of France, by the mouth of the Bishop of Valence, calls a greatness and a glory that raises Louis XIV. above all other kings, above all his predecessors, and above time itself, and consecrates him for eternity? Tis what Monsieur Varillas calls “Labours greater and more incredible, without comparison, than those of Hercules!” ’Tis what Mr. Maimbourg calls an heroic action — “the heroical action (says he) that the king has just now done in forbidding, by his new Edict of October, the public exercise of the false leligion of the Galvinists, and ordering that all their churches be forthwith demolished!” Base unworthy flatterers! Most people suffer themselves to be blinded by the fumes of your incense? |
The concluding paragraph of the translation of 1686 is much abridged — it runs thus:—
“However, ’twill be no offence to God or good men to leave this writing to the world, as a protestation made before him and them against these violences, more especially against the Edict of 1685, containing the Revocation of that of Nants, it being in its own nature inviolable, irrevocable, and unalterable. We may, I say, complain, amongst other things, against the worse than inhumane cruelties exercised on dead bodies, when they are dragged along the streets at the horse-tails, and digged out, and denied sepulchres. We cannot but complain of the cruel orders to part with our children, and suffer them to be baptized and brought up by our enemies. But, above all, against the impious and detestable practice, now in vogue, of making religion to depend on the king’s pleasure, on the will of a mortal prince — and of treating perseverance in the faith with the odious name of rebellion. This is to make a God of man, and to run back into the heathenish pride and flattery among the Romans, or an authorising of atheism or gross idolatry. In fine, we commit our complaints and all our interests into the hands of that Providence which brings good out of evil, and which is above the understanding of mortals whose houses are in the dust.”
​The peroration of the original contained more details, and the protestation was ambassadorial both in form and in tone, thus:—
“But in the meanwhile, and till it shall please God in his mercy to bring that happy event to pass, lest we should be wanting to the justice of our cause, we desire that this Account, which contains our Just Complaints, may serve for a Protestation before heaven and earth against all the violences we have suffered in the Kingdom of France. Against all the arrests, declarations, edicts, regulations, and all other ordinances of what nature soever, which our enemies have caused to be published to the prejudice of the Edict of Nantes. Against all sort of Acts, signatures, or verbal declarations expressing an abjuration of our — and the profession of the Romish — religion, which fear, torture, and a superior power have extorted from us or from our brethren. Against the plunder that has been already, or shall hereafter be, committed of our goods, houses, effects, debts, trusts, rents, lands, inheritances, and revenues, common or private, either by way of confiscation or by any other way whatsoever, as unjust, treacherous, and violent, committed only by a superior power in full peace, contrary both to reason and the laws of nature and the rights of all society, and injurious to all mankind. But especially we protest against the edict of the 18th of October 1685, containing the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, as a manifest abuse of the King’s justice, authority, and royal power, since the Edict of Nantes was in itself inviolable and irrevocable, above the reach of any human power, designed for a standing agreement and concordat between the Roman Catholics and us, and a fundamental law of the realm, which no authority on earth has power to infringe or annul. We protest likewise against all the consequences which may follow such a revocation, against the extinction of the exercise of our religion throughout the whole Kingdom of France, against all the ignominies and cruelties committed upon dead bodies by depriving them of Christian burial and exposing them in the fields to be devoured by ravenous beasts, or dragging them ignominiously through the streets upon hurdles — against the taking away children by force, and the orders given to fathers and mothers to cause them to be baptised and educated by Romish priests. But above all, we protest against that impious and abominable position, which is now-a-days made the general rule in France, by which religion is made to depend on the pleasure and despotic power of a mortal prince, and perseverance in the faith branded with the names of Rebellion and Treason — which is to make of a man a god, and tends to the introducing and authorising of Atheism and Idolatry. We protest moreover against all manner of violent and inhuman detaining of our brethren in France, whether in prisons, gallies, or monasteries, or any other confinements, to hinder them from leaving the kingdom, and going to see in foreign countries that liberty of conscience they cannot enjoy in their own — which is the utmost pitch of brutish cruelty and hellish iniquity. Lastly, we protest against whatsoever we may of right protest against, and declare that such is our meaning that things not expressed be comprehended under those that are here expressed. We most humbly supplicate all Kings, Princes, Sovereign Lords, States and Nations, and generally all persons of what condition soever, to be graciously pleased that these our lawful and indispensable protestations, which in the simplicity and sincerity of our hearts we are obliged to make and do make accordingly, may serve, before God and before them, as a standing testimony for us and our posterity, for the preservation of our rights and for the discharge of our consciences.”
Cotemporary news and reflections concerning this book are worth quoting. John Evelyn wrote as to 5th May 1686:— “This day was burnt in the Old Exchange, by the common hangman, a translation of a book written by the famous Monsieur Claude, relating only matters of fact concerning the horrid massacres and barbarous proceedings of the French King against his Protestant subjects, without any refutation of any facts therein; so mighty a power and ascendant here had the French Ambassador, who was doubtless in great indignation at the pious and truly generous charity of all the nation for the relief of those miserable sufferers who came over for shelter.” Sir John Kramston (in his Autobiography, Camden Society imprint, page 228), writes:— “The French King, having taken away all the edicts of his predecessors giving liberty to those subjects of different religion (called commonly Hugonets), required all to conform to the Roman Catholic religion by a certain day, and having pulled down their churches, enforcing many to mass, banishing the ministers and compelling the laity to conform, many got away, leaving behind them their estates. At first he let some go on those terms, which afterwards he refused; and if he took them flying, he sent them to the gallics, and used unheard-of cruelties, so that thousands got away into Switzerland, the Low Countries, and into England. Some having escaped thus, a narrative or history of the persecution was writ and printed, both in French and English, which the French Ambassador complained of to the King and Council, and obtained an order for burning a copy both of the French and English, which was done on Friday, the 8th of May 1686, at the Exchange in London, by the hangman; yet had his Majesty granted a Brief and great collections made for relief of such French Protestants as fled hither (for religion) for protection.”
​Sir John Bramston added, “But this book, it seems (for I have not yet seen it) had in it expressions scandalous, as the Ambassador said, to his Majesty the King of France; and indeed, if so, it was fitly burned, for all kings ought to be careful of the honour and dignity of kings and princes.” To this his editor, the late Lord Braybrooke (1845) replies: “This remark might have been spared, as it is obvious that the king in this proceeding lost sight of the honour and dignity due to himself.”
The facts as to the long and pitiless persecutions of French Protestants, now proved to be historical, seemed so improbable to the logical mind of the benevolent Philip Henry, that he hesitated as to believing. He wrote in May 1686 to his son Matthew: “The Collection for y$^e$ Fr. Prot. hath not reacht us yet, but I suppose is coming. I saw the Narrative, and could not chuse but think that things were made the worst of, for though 1 know what manner of spirit the (French Popish) people are of, there were some passages that would hardly consist with meer Humanity.” [He was, however, an admirer of the refugees, as to whom he said, “God hath given us a home, when so many better than we have not where to lay their head, having no certain dwelling-place.”]
The last translation of Claude’s Les Plaintcs des Protestans had a special preface, in which the pretence that after the Revocation persecution had ceased is refuted. At least three editions of this translation appeared. The third edition, printed in 1708, was remarkable for disclosing the name of the translator thus:—
| “The Printer to “Mr. Hilary Reneu. “Sir, — I humbly desire you to excuse the liberty I take of pu-ting your name to a new edition of an anonymous piece which I had printed for you twice already. The two first impressions (tho’ deprived of the advantage of your name, which your modesty had all along concealed) have been so well received by the Publick, that I hope a Third (which I undertake at my own expence), when recommended by the character of its Author, will leave me no room to repent of my design — the rather because this Book is extremely necessary in all Protestant States, and especially in that Part of Great Britain formerly called Scotland, as being a preservative against the wiles of the emissaries of France and Rome. — I am, and always shall remain, Sir, your most humble servant, “W. Redmayne.” | “L’Imprimeur à “Monsieur Hillaire Reneu. “Monsieur, — Je vous suplie ne trouver pas mauvais la liberté que j’ai pris de publier sous votre nom un Livre Anonime que j’ai déjà imprimé pour vous deux fois. Les deux premières Editions (nonobstant le défaut de votre nom que votre morlestie a caché) ont ête si bien receuës du Public, que j’ose espèrer que cette troisième Edition (que j’entreprend de faire à mes depens), étant soutenu de votre nom, ne me donnera pas sujet de me repentir de mon entreprise, d’autant que ce Livre est très necessaire dans tous les Etats Protestans, et particulièrement dans cette partie de la Grande Bretagne ci-devant apellée Ecosse, pour servir de Preservatif contre la seduction des Emissaires de Rome et de France. — Je suis et serai toujours, Monsieur, Votre très-humble serviteur, “G. Redmayne.” |
King James lavishly provided his printer, Henry Hills, with Papistical propagandist work, part of which was the issuing of translations of French pamphlets, denying the whole history of the sufferings of the Protestants of France. Bishop Bossuet’s contribution to the stock of lies was published with the title: “A Pastoral Letter from the Lord Bishop of Meaux to the New Catholics of his diocess, exhorting them to keep their Easter, and giving them necessary advertisements against the false pastoral letters of their ministers, with Reflections upon the pretended persecution.” This publication called forth two replies, one of which, as to disputed statements of fact, was very short, and was in these words: —
“There can be but two aims, as I apprehend, in dispersing this letter among us; one, to persuade us that there is no such persecution of Protestants in France as is pretended; the other, that the reasons upon which such multitudes are proselyted to the Church of Rome, or those at least which Monsieur Meaux gives in this letter, are so convincing as to oblige the rest of the world to follow their example.
“What he affirms in relation to the first, that not one among them had suffered violence either in person or goods, is so notorious a falsehood, that I must leave all those to believe him who can.”
gion almost identical with Protestantism. But in successive editions of Bossuet’s Fxposition some of these deceptions had to be omitted as tending to corrupt Catholics as much as to catch proselytes. When Dr. Wake called attention to these changes and contradictions, Bossuet replied that they were only literary emendations of plan and style. Accordingly the Nouvelle for June 1686 opened a sarcastic article with this sentence:— “On ecrit de Paris que M. de Meaux retranchera de la 2 Edition de sa Lettre Pastorale l’endroit ou il dit aux nouveaux Catholiques de son Dioceze qu’ils n’ont point souffert de violence en leurs biens ni en leurs personnes, et qu’il a ouï dire la même chose aux autres Evêques.” [They write from Paris that the Bishop of Meaux will retrench in the second edition of his Pastoral Letter the place where he tells the new converts of his diocese that they have not suffered any violence either in their goods or in their persons, and that he heard the other bishops say the same thing.] This ironical announcement was gravely contradicted by Bossuet himself, in a letter to his English vindicator, dated Meaux, 13th May 1687. Thereupon Dr. Wake wrote the following indignant reply, which, as setting forth the whole case, I copy for my readers’ benefit:—
“I cannot without confusion repeat what you would be thought to have written without blushing. But I must follow whither yourself have led me, and speak those things which (if you have yet any regard to your own dignity, any sense even of common Christianity itself) will certainly bring upon you the most sensible perplexity of mind and great confusion of face. In your Pastoral Letter to the new converts of your diocese you tell them, ‘I do not marvel, my dearest brethren, that you are returned in troops and with so great ease to the Church where your ancestors served God. Not one of you hath suffered violence either in his person or goods. Let them not bring you these deceitful letters (which are addressed from strangers transformed into pastors) under the title of Pastoral Letters to the Protestants of France that are fallen by the force of torments. So far have you been from suffering torments that you have not so much as heard them mentioned. You are returned peaceably to us; you know it.’
“This you now again confirm, as to what ‘has passed in the diocese of Meaux and several others, as you were informed by the Bishops your brethren and your friends (dont les evêques mes confrères et mes amis m’avoient fait le récit); and you do again assert, in the presence of God who is to judge the living and the dead, that you spoke nothing but the truth.’
“And believe me, my Lord, that God whom you call to witness has heard you; and will one day bring you to judgment for it.
“For tell me, good my Lord, — have those edicts which the king has published against the Protestants of France (and in which he involves not only his own subjects, but as far as he can, all the other Protestants of Europe) made any exception for the Diocese of Meaux? Have not their churches been pulled down — their ministers banished — their children ravished out of their bosoms — their sick forced into your hospitals, exposed to the rudeness of the magistrates and clergy — their shops shut up — their offices and employs taken from them — and all opportunities of the public service of God been precluded — there as well as in other places?
“See, my Lord, that black collection which Monsieur Le Fevre (Dr. of the Sorbonne) has lately published with the king’s privilege (Nouveau Recüeil de tout ce qui s’est fait pour et contre les Protestants en France, Paris 1686) of those edicts whereby, as he confesses, the Reformed have in effect been persecuted for these thirty years. Has your diocese escaped the rigour of but any one of these? Or is there nothing of violence either to men’s persons or goods in them?
“Your Lordship, I perceive by some of your private letters, is not a stranger to Monsieur Le Suer, and to whom I have had the honour for some years to be particularly known. Was he not driven from La Ferte, even before the Edict of Nantes was revoked? And was there nothing of violence in all this? Was that poor man forced to forsake all that he had, and seek for refuge in foreign countries, first in England, then in Holland, and did he yet (with his numerous family) suffer nothing neither in his person nor goods? And might I not say the ​same of the other ministers, his brethren in your diocese, were I as well acquainted with their conditions?
“Hut it may be you will expound yourself of those who remained behind and changed their religion. And can you in conscience say that they returned peaceably to you? Does a town that holds out as long as it can, and when it is just ready to be carried by storm, then capitulates, yield itself up peaceably to the will ot the conqueror? They saw desolation everywhere surround them; the fire was come even to their very doors. The dragoons were arrived at your own city of Meaux. Before they were quartered upon the poor people, you call them for the last trial to a conference. Here you appear moderate even beyond your own Exposition, and ready to receive them upon any terms. W hat should they now do? Change they must; the deliberation was only whether they should do it a few days sooner, and prevent their ruin, or be exposed to the merciless fury of these new converters. Upon this follows the effect you mention. When the dragoons stood armed to ruin them if they did not yield, then they returned in troops and with great ease to the Church where their ancestors served God.
“And yet after all, has no one, my lord, even of these suffered violence either in his person or goods? Judge, I pray you, by the extract I will here give you of a letter which I received in answer to my particular desires of being informed how things passed in your diocese:—
“‘It is true that the dragoons were not lodged in the diocese of Meaux, but they came to their doors; and the people being just ready to be ruined, yielded to their fears insomuch that, seeing afterwards the pastoral letter, they would not give any heed to it, saying, that seeing it was so visibly false in an article of such importance, it did not deserve to be believed by them in the rest. Only one gentleman of the bishopric of Meaux, Louis Segnier, Lord of Charmois (a relation of the late Chancellor’s of the same name), had the dragoons. ’Tis true that after he had signed, he was repaired in some part of the loss he had sustained. But it happened that he did not afterwards discharge the part of a good catholic. He was therefore put in prison, first in his own country, but, (it being impossible there to deprive him of all sort of commerce), to take him absolutely from it, he has since been transferred to the Tour of Guise, where he is at present. Two other gentlemen of the same country are also prisoners on the same account.’
“But there is an answer to your pastoral letter that goes yet further:— Answer to the Pastoral Letter of my Lord of Meaux (Amsterdam, chez Pierre Savoret, 1686). He tells you of Monsieur Monceau, a man of seventy-seven years of age, shut up in a convent; of the cruelties exercised upon two orphan children of Monsieur Mirat, the one but of nine, the other of ten years old, at La Fertè-sous-Jouarre. Nay, my Lord, he adds, how even your lordship (who in the conference appeared so moderate) in the visitation of your diocese three months after threatened them that would not go to mass, that continued to read their Protestant books, or to sing their Psalms. And will you yet say there has been nothing of violence in your diocese — you are returned peaceably to us, you know it?
“I must then descend to the last sort of conviction, and out of your own mouth you shall be judged. Your lordship will easily see what it is I mean. The copies of your own letters to Monsieur U., who was forced to fly from his country, and out of your diocese, upon the account of the persecution you now deny, and which were printed last year at Berne, in Switzerland (with the title, La Seduction Eludée, ou Lettres de Monsieur L’Evêque de Meaux à un de ses diocesains qui s’est sauvé de la Persecution), have sufficiently satisfied the world of your sincerity on this point.
“Your first letter is dated at Meaux, Oct. 17, 1685. In this, after having exhorted him to return to you, by assuring him, that he should find your arms open to receive him, you tell him, ‘That people ought not to please themselves that they suffer persecution, unless they are well assured that it is for righteousness’ sake.’ (It was too much to deny the persecution to one who was just escaped out of it, and therefore you thought it better to flourish upon it.) To this he replies, Jan. 28, 1686, ‘That he pleased himself so little in the persecution, that it was to avoid those places where it reigned, that according to the precept of the Gospel he was fled into another.’ And then he goes on to testify the just scandal which the persecution had given him against your religion. Your answer to this was of April 13, 1686, or rather not so much to this as to one he had sent about the same time to his lady, and wherein he had (it seems) again declared how scandalised he was at the Persecution. And here you enter in good earnest on the argument. Instead of denying the Persecution, you defend it. You cannot (you say) find where heretics and schismatics are excepted out of the number of those evil-doers, against whom St Paul tells us that God has armed Christian Princes. (Dites-moi en quel endroit de l'Ecriture les heretiques et les schismatiques sont exceptés du nombre de ces malfaiteurs, contre lesquels St Paul a dit que Dieu même a armé les Princes.)
“And here, my lord, I shall stop and not multiply proofs in a matter so clear as this. Only let me remember you that there is but ten days’ difference between the date of this and of your Pastoral Letter — too little a while to have made so great a change. But I suppose we ought to remember here (what you told us before of the manuscript copy of your Exposition) that these private letters were designed only for the instruction of a particular person, and not to be printed; whereas that other which you addressed to your diocese was intended to be published, and therefore required another turn.
“As for the Bishops your brethren and friends, who have, you say, affirmed the same thing, ​your lordship would do us a singular pleasure to let us know whether they were not some of those that approved your Exposition. It was a pity that they did not set their reverend names to your Pastoral Letter too. We should then have been abundantly convinced of their integrity, and that they are as fit to approve such tracts, as your lordship to write them. And he must be very unreasonable that would not have been convinced by their authority, that your Exposition gives as true an account of the doctrine of your Church as your Pastoral Letter does of the state of your diocese.
“You will excuse me, my lord, that I have insisted thus long upon these reflections. If you are indeed sensible of what you have done, no shame that can from hence arise to you will seem too much; and if you are not, I am sure none can be enough. I beseech God, whom you call to witness against your own soul, to give you a due sense of all these things; and then I may hope that you will read this with the same sentiments of sorrow and regret as I can truly assure you I have written it.”
Thus the flames which consumed Claude’s little book, and the falsehoods circulated in pamphlets, failed in the villainous design against the Protestants, and only contributed to display to fuller advantage the claims of the Huguenot refugees to British hospitality. The English people believed in the Persecution. But the great arguments by which they were convinced, were the living flesh, blood, and tongues of the refugees. A cotemporary English expositor of the Apocalypse remarked, concerning the Persecution, “at the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by the king of France:”—
“Nothing of that kind, since the heathen persecutions, did ever make a greater noise in the world to draw the like observation of all men after it, than the new acts of cruelty against the French Protestants, which made life appear more dreadful to them than present death and martyrdom. There was indeed all artifice used by the Ecclesiastics to conceal and disguise the truth of these proceedings, as if there had been no methods of force or violence heard of among them. But the vast multitudes, which poured themselves into all the neighbouring nations round about them, were a sufficient cloud of witnesses to all the world to confirm them in the certainty of it. And the miseries, to which they exposed themselves to get free from the force and violence which they were there under, are unquestionable assurances of the horrors of it.”
The Huguenot sailors, who returned to France on the invitation of Bonrepaus, had probably been starved through King James’s neglect; for it is recorded that at an early period of his reign he had prohibited the employment of their military officers. Yet, such was the benevolent and sympathetic feeling of the people of England, none of the refugee ministers or civilians had to complain of any visible tokens of royal displeasure.
Among the benefactors of the refugees the Earl of Bedford was conspicuous; to him the French Protestant Synodicon was dedicated. Rachel, Lady Russell, had the Huguenots constantly in her thoughts. In consulting about a tutor for her son, she writes (Jan. 7, 1686), “I am much advised, and indeed inclined, to take a Frenchman; so I shall do a charity, and profit the child also, who should learn French. Here are many scholars come over, as are of all kinds, God knows.” Sir William Coventry of Bampton, in Oxfordshire, died in the summer of 1686, and his will contained this important paragraph:— “I give and bequeath the sum of £2000 for the relief of poor French Protestants in this kingdom, and £3000 to be employed for the redemption of English captives in slavery in Turkey or Barbary, both which sums I will shall be paid to Dr. Henry Compton, now Bishop of London, and Dr. John Fell, now Bishop of Oxford, or the survivor of them, to whose pious care I recommend and entrust the disposition thereof.” [Richard Lower, F.R.S., an eminent London physician, left £500 to the French Protestant refugees. His will, dated 5th January 1691 (n.s.), and proved 9th February, contains this item:— “I give to the French Protestants, now in or near London, £500, to be distributed amongst such as shall need it most, by Dr. Freeman, minister of St Paul’s, Covent Garden, and by Dr. Tennison, minister of St Martin-in-the-Fields.”]
When as a step to Popish ascendency a Declaration of Liberty of Conscience was issued by the king, the Protestants felt that the interests of toleration were unsafe in such hands, and that its promotion ought to be delayed till a true friend and genuine promoter of toleration should arise. The Protestant Dissenters, having endured both mental and bodily suffering under the penal laws, found themselves in a perplexing difficulty, on account of the evident reasons for joy and congratulation upon the suspension of pains and penalties. But the great majority of their leaders, with singular sagacity and patriotism, came to the decision that, liberty of conscience being a boon belonging to man through the gift of God, they should use it, but ​would not formally or publicly thank the king for it. The French refugees were in a similar dilemma, besides having the desire to give every expression of gratitude to the king of the hospitable island for the national hospitality asked, accepted, and enjoyed by them. In order to promote just and thoughtful sentiments among them, Dr. Wake translated and published “A Letter from several French Ministers, fled into Germany upon account of the Persecution in France, to such of their Brethren in England, as approved the King’s Declaration touching liberty of conscience.” I am indebted to old Anthony a Wood for this transcript of the title-page; if my endeavours to find the pamphlet had been successful, I might have culled some interesting specimens of its contents.
The British people were tortured with apprehensions of impending religious tyranny and persecution during the three years and a half of King James’ regime. Their alarms were strengthened by their observation of events in France, consequent on the bloody fanaticism of Louis XIV., and viewed with evident satisfaction by James. Their thoughts found fit expression in the “Memorial from the English Protestants for their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange.” I quote the paragraphs which exhibit a parallel between France and England as to evil designs upon the Protestant people:—
“We need not remember your Highnesses, that these attempts and endeavours to subvert our liberty, in our religion and government, is a part of that general design that was formed and concluded on, many years since, in the most secret councils of the Popish Princes, chiefly managed by the Jesuits, to root out of all Europe the profession of the Protestant Reformed Religion and the Peoples’ liberties. We will not mention the notorious actual prosecutions of that Popish Resolution in several kingdoms and dominions, nor the treacherous falseness of those princes in their treaties, agreements, and oaths, nor the oppressions and bloodshed and all kinds of unrighteousness that have been practised by them in order to that general great design. The instance alone of the French King is enough to be named instead of all, because he hath owned and published to the whole world his part in that design, and by comparing the violences, banishments, and murders done upon the protestants at the same time by other Popish Princes (as they were able) with his public confessions of his long-laid design, we may make a true judgment of the whole.
“The French King by his Edict of 1685 hath declared that he entered into that design from his coming to his crown; and it appears by his Edict then prepared and agreed by his council of conscience, that all his renewed Edicts in the Protestants’ favour, his acknowledging and registering in Parliament their great services for him, and his advancement of many of them to the highest dignities, military and civil, in his kingdom, were done to flatter and deceive them. He calls God to be witness of his designs and resolutions at that time to abolish their religion by degrees, and that he only attended his fit opportunity for that great work, as it’s called by our King and by that Edict.
“In that interim of his seeming kindness to the Protestants, and solemn professions to them and [to] some of the Protestant princes, for the observing faithfully the Law and Edict of Nantes, that was like the French Protestants’ great charter, — there were all possible secret contrivances and practices to prepare for that great work, especially in England that hath long been the head of the Reformed Religion and the chief terror of the French King and [of] the Popish world. He shewed his fear of the people of England when he barbarously banished his now Majesty and the late king in their distress rather than displease Cromwell. He therefore applied his principal councils and endeavours to distract and weaken the Protestants of England, and to persuade and assist the late king covertly to increase and strengthen the Popish party. . . .
“It hath also been manifest to the world, that all kinds of devices and artifices that the Jesuits’ councils could invent were, about the same years, used to pervert the faith and religion of the United Provinces, or to betray them into the French King’s power, or at least a dependance upon him.
“’Tis now notorious to the world, that an agreement was made, between the French King and his late Majesty of England, to subdue and divide those Provinces, that they might no more be either a support or refuge for the Protestants. . . .
“Our late King and his ministers and counsellors concurred in all the secret practices and contrivances to weaken the power of the Protestants, and to suffer the greatness, glory, and terror of the French King to be advanced; but he durst never openly and avowedly join with him in the great work against the Protestant religion, for fear of his Protestant . subjects, he having deluded them with so many solemn protestations of his faithfulness to their religion and their liberty. The French King found, by experience, that the Parliament had prevailed with our King to break all the measures they had taken together for the destruction of the ​United Provinces, by obliging him to a separate peace with them, which had forced him to let fall his then spreading plumes, and in crafty ways to seek and solicit a truce. And therefore he durst not, during our King’s life, put in execution his great work that he declares had been so long in his heart, by torments, murders, and all sort of barbarous cruelties to suppress the professors and profession of the Reformed Religion, and entirely to raze and expunge the memory of it, as his edicts and practices now declare to be his intentions.
“The French King durst not throw off his disguise, and shew himself to be like a ravening wolf to his Protestant subjects, until our now King had publicly espoused the Popish design, which he had together with him long prosecuted in the dark; and until he had begun to invade the Protestant liberties and securities, putting the military power in Popish hands; and to demand the Parliament’s consent to a law (which they refused) to authorise him to make his Papists the guardians of the Protestants’ religion and lives.
“The French King then knew that the People of England were in no capacity to interpose in behalf of his Protestant subjects; and (as his Edict says) being by the truce without fear of disturbance he entirely applied himself to the great design; he sent his dragoons to destroy the poor Protestants' goods, and to torment their bodies with more cruelty and inhumanity than was ever practised since the Creation. He resolved for his glory (as his clergy told him) to show himself the first and most illustrious of the Church’s children, and the Extirpator of the Protestant Heresy, which (they told him) was a more solid and immortal title than he acquired by all his triumphs.
“He then prosecuted that work of extirpation, as Saul did, to strange countries, breathing out threatenings and slaughter. He sent to the Duke of Savoy and (as that court complains) persuaded and frighted that prince into a most unchristian and bloody decree, to compel the most ancient Protestants in the Valleys of Piedmont to become Papists forthwith; and they being faithful to their religion, that edict was pursued by ths help of his dragoons, and the harmless Protestants tormented and murdered more cruelly than the worst of vermin or serpents, until they were utterly destroyed and their country given to the Papists. That Court of Savoy seems still ashamed of that horrid wickedness, and says for their excuse, That the French King declared he would root out those Protestants by his own force, and possess the country, if the Duke would not have assisted therein.
“The suppression of the Protestants of England hath been always esteemed the principal part of the Popish design to extirpate the Protestant religion. And therefore all the Romish councils, policies, and industries, their conspiracies, poisoning, and massacres, have been long employed about it, and have perfectly gained our now King to serve their designs. They have united him with the French King, that their conjoined councils, treasures and strength may finish their work of bringing England to the obedience of their Church. It’s, many ways, evident that both the Kings are under the like conduct; and our King proceeds in the same methods against us, wherein the French King hath been successful to destroy the Protestants of his kingdom. His first attempt is to subvert our civil government and laws, and the freedom and being of our parliaments, just as the French King first invaded the supreme legal authority of France, which was vested in the Assembly of Estates, from whom alone he now derives his crown. Our King, in imitation of his brother of France, strives to bring all the offices and magistracy of the kingdom, that were legally of the people’s choice, to be solely and immediately depending on his absolute will for their being, whether they arise by our common law, or be instituted by statutes or charters. He endeavours, by various artifices, to bring the disposal of all the properties and estates of the people and their lives and liberties to be at his mere will, by a perversion of the instituted course of our Juries, and by Judges and a Chancellor fit for that purpose and every moment dependent on his will. He seeks to make his Proclamations and Declarations to have as much power over our laws as the French King’s Edicts. And after his example he establisheth a mercenary army to master and subdue the people to his will.
“If he can prevail in these things to overturn the civil government, then the liberty of the Protestant profession and of conscience in all forms, however seemingly settled by him, will be precarious. And he may as easily destroy it as the French King hath abolished the irrevocable edicts, treaties or laws of his kingdom, confirmed by his oath, which were as good security to those Protestant as any Magna Charta that our King can make for us, or any Act of a Convention (with the name of a Parliament) which is possible for him to hold in the state unto which he hath reduced the kingdom. Our King hath the same French copy by which he writ assuring the Protestants of grace and clemency, giving them promises of equal liberty of conscience with his Papists in preferring unto offices and employments those whom he resolves to suppress and ruin. . . .
“These matters of fact are self-evidences, and clearly show that our grievous oppressions by our king are the effects of the united councils of the Popish interest, whereof the French King is the Chief — that the conspiracy against true religion and liberties, that now appears in England, comprises all the Protestant Princes and States in Europe. England is only first attacked as the principal fortress of the Protestant profession. If the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland can be reduced into the pattern of the French King in government and religion, and the strength of them be united against any single Protestant State or Prince they shall think fit to assault (if they can by artifices keep the rest divided, which will not be hard for them), there is little hope of any long defence of such a State.
​“The French King seems not unwilling to have it known that the Popish design is genera! against all profession of the Protestant religion, though especially against England. He hath allowed the Bishop of Cosnaes’ speech to him at Versailles in 1685 to be published, who was authorized to be the mouth of the clergy of that kingdom; he magnifies the King for suppressing the Protestants of his own kingdom, and asks, what they may not yet expect. England (saith he) is just offering to your Majesty one of the most glorious occasions that you can desire; the Kirn^ of England, by the need which he icill have of succour and of the support of your arms to maintain him in the Catholic Faith, will make you quickly find occasion to give a protection worthy of yourself. We knew very well, before the French clergy declared it by that bishop, that the same head that contrived the perversion or destruction of so many millions of the Protestants in that kingdom, designed the ruin of the English religion and liberty. But it surprised us to see that speech published by the French King’s authority, and that our King should suffer the translation of it to pass freely in England and through the world. We thought it beneath the majesty of a King of England to be content that his subjects should be told that he was to come under the protection of a King of France, over whose kings and kingdom his ancestors had so often triumphed. But it seems nothing is to be esteemed inglorious that may serve the general Popish design of extirpating the Protestant profession.
“We need not put your Highnesses in mind, that the same speech acknowledges that the Popish councils and conspiracy against England intend the like ruin to the religion and freedom of the United Provinces. That bishop tells the king that he hath undertook the conquest of new countries, there to re-establish the prelacy, the religious worship and the altars — that Holland and Germany have been the theatre of his victories, only that Christ might triumph there (that is, that the Papists might trample upon the Protestants and their religion) — and this he speaks (as he says) in the very spirit of the Church, and signifies their hopes of success against the poor Protestants to be unbounded, saying, What may we not yet expect?”
Scotland felt the same forebodings. Sir Patrick Home wrote from Geneva, 17th May 1686 — “Our religion is now banished from France, all forced to change, and, when changed, yet cannot get out of the kingdom, especially the women and children; and now their grief and complaint is that they had delayed to fly in the beginning while they might, and had sit their time, out of a fancy that such things could never come to pass as have since. I wish others may take a lesson, if the case draw near them.” (Lady Murray’s Memoirs, p. 133.)
As we have touched upon Scotland, we may take notice of the contrast which that kingdom presented to view after the expedition and enthronement of the Prince of Orange. The contrast is well illustrated by the Act of the Scottish Parliament, entitled, An Act for a Contribution to the Irish and French Protestants, April 29, 1689, of which I quote the exordium:— “The Estates of this Kingdom taking to their serious consideration that there are many distressed Protestants fled out of Ireland and France into this Kingdom, for shelter and refuge, whose necessitous condition calls for the charitable supply of all good Christians. Therefore the Estates do grant warrand for a volunteer Contribution through the whole Kingdom, both in Paroch Churches and Meeting-houses, for the relief of these Protestants.”
“England,” says Michelet (speaking of her great deliverer William III.), “ought magnanimously to avow the part which our Frenchmen had in her deliverance. Amid chilling delay on the part of her people, William’s army was firm — and the Calvinistic element made it so, our Huguenots I mean — three French aides-de-camp — three infantry regiments, numbering 2250 men, a most redoubtable contingent, full of Turenne’s veterans, officers and gentlemen who in that holy war were thankful to serve in the ranks — a squadron of French cavalry — and many Huguenot officers distributed through other regiments. Here stood men, who had lost their all upon earth, who had no hearth but the ground overshadowed by the Orange flag, men who would have died over and over again rather than give way. With such a surrounding, hirelings and adventurers could not but march right on, when the right time, patiently expected, had come.”
The industry and varied accomplishments of the refugees had already been appreciated. Their grand qualifications to be soldiers in an European Protestant alliance now rose into view. It was therefore resolved to renew the invitation to the Huguenots of France. The following Declaration was issued (and was printed at London by Charles Bill and Thomas Newcomb, printers to the King and Queen’s most excellent Majesties) 1689:—
At the Court at Whitehall, 25th April 1689. Present,The King’s most excellent Majesty in Council. Present,H.R.H. Prince George of Denmark. :
| Lord President. | Earl of Fauconberg. |
| Lord Privy Seal. | Earl of Monmouth. |
| Duke of Norfolk. | Earl of Montagu. |
| Duke of Shonberg. | Earl of Marleborough. |
| Duke of Bolton. | Viscount Newport. |
| Lord Steward. | Viscount Lumley. |
| Lord Chamberlain. | Viscount Sydney. |
| Earl of Oxford. | Mr. Comptroller. |
| Earl of Shrewsbury. | Sir Henry Capell. |
| Earl of Bedford. | Mr. Vice-Chamberlain. |
| Earl of Bathe. | Mr. Speaker. |
| Earl of Maclesfeld. | Mr. Hampden. |
| Earl of Nottingham. | Mr. Boscawen. |
| Earl of Portland. | Mr. Harbord. |
“By the King and Queen. A Declaration for the encouraging of French Protestants to transport themselves into this kingdom.
“Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God to deliver our Realm of England and the subjects thereof, from the persecution lately threatening them for their religion, and from the oppression and destruction which the subversion of their laws and the arbitrary exercise of power and dominion over them had very near introduced, — We finding in our subjects a true and just sense hereof and of the miseries and oppressions the French Protestants lie under, — for their relief and to encourage them that shall be willing to transport themselves, their families, and estates, into this our kingdom, we do hereby declare, That all French Protestants that shall seek their refuge in, and transport themselves into, this our kingdom, shall not only have our royal protection for themselves, families, and estates within this our realm, but we will also do our endeavour in all reasonable ways and means so to support, aid, and assist them in their several and respective trades and ways of livelihood as that their living and being in this realm may be comfortable and easy to them.”
The biographies, of which this work is composed, show what a true friend of the refugees King William was. In his beneficence Queen Mary completely and practically sympathized; and her wisdom and thoughtfulness in this and all the other cares of her exalted station will appear all the more admirable when we observe, that at her death in 1694 she had not completed the thirty-third year of her life. The king’s admiration and employment of the French refugees explain a very large portion of the meaning of Defoe’s allusions in the following lines from “The True-born Englishman.”
We blame the king that he relies too much On strangers, Germans, Hugonots and Dutch, And seldom does his great affairs of State, To English councillors communicate. The fact might very well be answer’d thus: He has so often been betray’d by us, He must have been a madman to rely On English gentlemen’s fidelity. For (laying other arguments aside) This thought might mortify our English pride, That foreigners have faithfully obey’d him, And none but Englishmen have e’er betray’d him.
In this reign an end was put to the High Church endeavour to interdict the descendants of French Protestant refugees from being baptized and married by French pasteurs in their own churches. The Laudean theory was to compel them to be English. The rational and triumphant theory was to allow time to do its slow but certain work. The controversy as to marriages was now settled by a compromise, by which the members of French churches might be married in their own churches by their own pasteurs, provided that the banns had been published in their parish church. On 27th June 1695, such a marriage was registered in the Canterbury French Church, as their first marriage preceded by banns published in the parish church according to Act of Parliament.
On the 16th April 1696, a public Thanksgiving to Almighty God [“for discovering and disappointing a horrid and barbarous conspiracy of Papists and other traitorous persons to assassinate and murder His most gracious Majesty’s royal person, and for delivering this kingdom from an invasion intended by the French”] was observed. ​One of the prayers ordered to be printed and offered up on the occasion was the following:—
“O Lord our God, abundant in goodness and truth, whose mercies are over all Thy works! we beseech Thee to extend Thy compassion and favour to all mankind, more particularly to the Reformed Churches abroad, and especially to those who are still under persecution for truth and righteousness’ sake. Relieve them according to their several necessities. Be a shelter and defence to them from the fury of the oppressor; and in Thy good time deliver them out of all their troubles. And whatsoever they have lost for Thy sake, return it to them, according to Thy gracious promise, in the blessings of this and a better life. And we humbly beseech Thee to enlighten all those who are in darkness and error, and to give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth, that we may all become one Flock under the Great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, Jesus Christ, our blessed Saviour and Redeemer, to whom, with Thee, O Father, and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory for evermore. Amen!”
The frustration of the Assassination Plot, and of the embryo Invasion coupled with it, made Louis XIV. willing to promise in the Ryswick Treaty that he would acknowledge William as king of Great Britain, and that he would be no party to future attacks upon him. This concession, as well as the blessing of peace, was as advantageous to the refugees as to the British natives. But Louis denied our king’s right to prescribe to him how any of his own subjects should be treated; and thus the question of toleration to the Huguenots in France, and of the restoration of the estates and liberties of their brethren in exile, could not even be debated. Burnet says, " The most melancholy part of this Treaty was, that no advantages were got by it in favour of the Protestants of France. . . . It did not appear that the Allies could do more for them than to recommend them, in the warmest manner, to the king of France.”
Note.
In the years 1688-89, England was flooded with reprints of famous tracts in opposition to the principles, to the spirit, and to the aims of the Stuart Dynasty. Charles II. and James II. having been pensioners of Louis XIV., Great Britain had seemed to be gradually, and perhaps rapidly, becoming a province of France, and doomed to become, like France, the scene of an awful persecution of Protestants. Such being the circumstances, it seems surprising that the translation of Claude’s Plaintes des Protestants was not one of the seasonable reprints. This omission, however, was made up for, by the publication of a new quarto tract of 28 pages, entitled:— “Popish Treachery, or a Short and New Account of the Horrid Cruelties exercised on the Protestants in France, being a true Prospect of what is to be expected from the most solemn Promises of Roman Catholick Princes. In a letter from a gentleman of that nation to one in England, and by him made English. London, printed and are to be sold by Richard Baldwin, in the Old-Baily, 1689.” I give an extract from the Preface:—
“For the matters he here relates, there are thousands of other French Protestants now in England that confirm the truth of all. . . . I expose it, hoping it may give some seasonable information to our own people. For though most of them have heard much talk of a Persecution in France, and have generously and bountifully contributed their charity towards the relief of those miserable persecuted French Protestants who are come hither for refuge and succour, yet I have reason to believe that very few of them know anything of the cruel manner wherewith the barbarous and inhuman Papists have pursued that persecution.”
One more extract, page 19. “After they had in this manner dispersed so many families, ruined so many houses, made so many tears to be shed, and caused a general desolation, they at length made a public spectacle and divertisement thereof. The king’s players acted for many months together in Paris a comedy called Merlin Dragoon, in which the persecutors and the persecuted were the persons represented; and the court and people went in crowds to laugh and divert themselves at the oppressions and torments which the Protestants had suffered.”
* ↑ Burn, page 122.
* ↑ The youthful Fenelon was one of the Royal Missionaries employed to instruct in Popery those Huguenots who had been intimidated into verbal recantations of Protestantism. He knew quite well all about the persecutions, and corresponded with Bossuet as one who knew also. In fact, Fenelon made use of the apostasy of too many Huguenots under persecution as an argument against their religion. He wrote in March 1686 thus:— “The half-converted Huguenots are attached to their religion with a dreadful degree of obstinacy, but as soon as the rigour of punishment appears, all their pertinacity fails them. The ancient martyrs were humble, docile, intrepid, and incapable of dissimulation. The Huguenots are weak against power, obstinate against truth, and capable of all kinds of hypocrisy. If one wished to make them abjure Christianity, nothing more would be necessary than to show them a troop of dragoons.”
* ↑ An Answer to the Bishop of Condom (now of Meaux) his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, &c, to which are added Reflections on his Pastoral Letter, 1686; page 118.
* ↑ A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England. Part First, page 24, &c. , (London 1687.) Dr. William Wake (afterwards Archbi>hop of Canterbury) was well qualified to answer Bossuet, from personal acquaintance with French Protestants, and from having made researches in France regarding both them and their opponents. He possessed the gratitude of the French Protestant church for his long series of controversial pamphlets. A learned correspondent informs me that in the archives of Christ Church, Oxford, there are thirty one volumes of Wake’s correspondence, containing the originals of letters received by him and drafts of his replies. The French Church and its ministers being scattered at the date of his elevation to the see of Canterbury, their congratulations had to proceed from Switzerland — one address received by him was signed by Benedict Pictet of Geneva (1715) — another by Joh. Frid. Ostervald of Neufchatel (171 0).
* ↑ “The Judgment of God upon the Roman Catholic Church,” by Drue Cressener, D.D., Lond. 1689, page 137.
* ↑ Athenae Oxonienses, vol. ii. 1060 (Art. William Wake).
* ↑ "That is, in France, the Dukedom of Savoy, the Kingdom of Poland, and many others."
* ↑ '"Tis fit to see in that Edict, prepared as it’s published, the opinion they have of Protestants, that they are deemed uncapable of having any right to claim the benefit of the treaties, promises, or oaths, made to them by Papists."
* ↑ Michelet’s France au 17me. siècle, vol. xiii., p. 419.
* ↑ Pointer in his Chrnological History, says with unintentional quaintness: “Two Proclamations came out: I. To encourage French Protestants. 2. For prohibiting French goods.”