# Protestant Exiles from France/Book Second - Chapter 5 - Section I

Layout 2
Chapter V.
LIEUTENANT-GENERAL LE MARQUIS DE MIREMONT, MAJOR-GENERAL LA MELONIERE, AND BRIGADIER PIERRE BELCASTEL.
I. Marquis de Miremont.
Armand de Bourbon, Marquis de Miremont, was born on the 12th of July 1656 at the Chateau de la Cate in Languedoc. He was a scion of the house of Bourbon-Malauze — a branch of the great Bourbon family, founded before the Protestant Reformation by Charles, batard de Bourbon, in the reign of Charles VIII.
Henri de Bourbon-Malauze, Vicomte de Lavedan (born 1544, died 1611), was the first conspicuous member of his family, a good and dashing officer, an enthusiastic Huguenot, and a personal friend of King Henri of Navarre, who was the royal chief of the legitimate Bourbons. He married Francoise de Saint-Exupery, daughter of Guy Seigneur de Miremont. Miremont was a fortress in Auvergne, which the Vicomte de Lavedan often gallantly defended against the royalist papists, and where he died, aged sixty-seven.
His son was Henri de Bourbon, Marquis de Malauze, who for very many years was eminent as a Huguenot military commander, but abjured, and died in 1647, aged eighty. By his wife, Marie (or Madeleine) de Chalons, Dame de La Case, he had one son and two daughters, who all stood firm to Protestantism. My readers are specially introduced to the family of the son, Louis de Bourbon, Marquis de Malauze (born 1607, died 1667), and of his second Marchioness. Henriette de Durfort, daughter of Guy Aldonce, Marquis de Duras, by Elizabeth de La Tour d’Auvergne.
Armand, Marquis de Miremont, was the second son of this family, which consisted of three sons and two daughters, His elder brother, Guy Henri, third Marquis de Malauze, abjured Protestantism in 1678 at Paris, and thus remained in France. Similar, though involuntary, was the destiny of the younger sister, Henriette, who was imprisoned in a convent, and, after a very long resistance, conformed to Romanism. The other daughter, Mademoiselle Charlotte de Malauze, was a Protestant refugee in England, where she died in 1732, aged seventy-four, and unmarried. The third brother, Louis, Marquis de La Case, was an ensign in King William’s Guards, and was killed at the Battle of the Boyne.
The Marquis de Miremont left France without molestation. He was sick at heart at the sight of the wrongs and cruelties inflicted on the Huguenots, and abandoned his native country for a foreign shore: Besides British hospitality, we must mention his relationship to the Earl of Feversham, as attracting him to England. This nobleman was Louis de Durfort, Marquis de Blancquefort in France, and a brother of Miremont’s mother, being a younger son of Guy, Marquis de Durfort. King Charles II. had made him Baron Duras in the English Peerage; and in 1677, by a special destination, he had succeeded to the earldom of his father-in-law, Sir George Sondes, Earl of Feversham. He had come over at the invitation of his comrade in foreign wars, James, Duke of York; and when his patron became King James, he was given the command of his army to oppose the Duke of Monmouth’s invasion. The Prince of Orange, who was pleased at the high spirit with which his royal father-in-law at first treated the French king, volunteered to take the command, saying that Monsieur Feversham, though a very brave and honest man, had no amount of experience adequate to the greatness of the emergency. The event proved this, although Monmouth’s expedition failed through intestine disorders. Dean Swift pronounces that Feversham was “a very dull old fellow.” Burnet says: “Both his brothers changing their religion, though he continued himself a Protestant, made that his religion was not much trusted to. He was an honest, brave, and good-natured man, but weak to a degree not easy to be conceived.” Separating private from public matters, we can understand that Miremont felt sure of a kind reception from his Uncle Feversham.
​The Marquis de Miremont’s pedigree was serviceable to him in all the fluctuations of English party feeling. Feversham obtained for him the protection of King James, and, at a later date, retained for him the smiles of Queen Anne during the closing years of her life, when most of the French refugees were out of favour at Court. To King William III. he was related through his maternal grandmother, La Marquise de Duras, who was a daughter of Elizabeth, Duchesse de Bouillon, and grand-daughter of William the First, of Orange.
Miremont was anxious to serve in the English army. Finding, however, that his brother refugees were afraid to be mixed up with the plans of a Popish King, he proposed to form them into a corps to go to Hungary, and fight under the Emperor of Germany against the Turks. King James, anxious to get rid of Protestant refugees, supported with all his influence this chivalrous project, which the rapid march of domestic events soon extinguished.
When King James’s army was being mustered to check the advance of the Prince of Orange, on “the third day of November the king gave order to the Lord Brandon, the Marquiss de Miremont, Collonel Slingsby, Sir John Holman, and the Earl of Salisbury, to raise each a Regiment of Horse.” This order was carried into effect immediately with wonderful expedition.
It was on the 10th of December that the king resolved to fly. Thereupon the Earl of Feversham, as commander-in-chief of the army, disbanded the 4000 men that were with him, and wrote to the Prince of Orange that there would be no more fighting, and virtually placed the whole army at his disposal. Oldmixon informs us that the Marquis of Miremont got his regiment together five hours thereafter, and told his officers that he thought it best to declare for the Prince of Orange. They all joined with him; whereupon he ordered all the Popish troopers to alight and quit their arms and cloaks, which fifteen of them did.
On December 18th the Prince took possession of St. James’s Palace, and on the 20th he put the army into quarters, De Miremont’s Horse being sent to Aylesbury and Wendover. Miremont visited the Huguenot refugees in Switzerland to encourage them in succouring the Waldenses against the Duke of Savoy, and also in planning an irruption into their native provinces of Languedoc and Dauphiny. He collected money for them and infused so much spirit into their preparations that he had a share of the credit of causing the Duke of Savoy’s desertion from the French alliance.
To the celebrated St. Evremond we owe all the personal reminiscences of the Marquis de Miremont. This writer of fragmentary philosophy was a political refugee from France. He was a man of the world, and practically indifferent to religion; but he was no scoffer. He was hospitable to his refugee countrymen of the Protestant faith, who were grateful for his kindness and sympathy. To them he was an interesting relic of very old times, an ancient seigneur, Lord Galway’s senior by thirty-five years, and more than forty years older than Miremont. His conversation was delightful; in fact it was the only explicable cause of his brilliant reputation, which his writings could never have procured for him. King William was charmed by his society when in Holland, and renewed his friendship towards him in England. His Majesty was in the habit of visiting the Marquis de Miremont at his house in Brompton, and St. Evremond was, by royal command, very frequently invited to meet the king. A letter from the philosopher to the Marquis portrays some of Miremont’s characteristics. It appears that he took a large share in conversation, was an impatient listener, would interrupt a speaker with exclamations, and would often make a rather bold statement, adding, “Take my word for it.” Yet all were delighted with his ardour and honesty. At the time when this letter was written, he had gone to Flanders as Aide-de-camp to the king. It alludes to Lord ​Galway’s impressions of Ireland as a place of abode, and, therefore, was written probably in March or April 1692. I have attempted to translate it.
“My Lord, — An author is allowed to speak sententiously; so here is an aphorism from which you will not dissent, ‘On ne connoit bien le prix des choses, qu’ après les avoir perdues.' I speak from experience, from what I have lost in yourself. Since you left us, conversation languishes, disputation is dead, the combatants are in confusion. Neither rank nor merit receive distinction.
“People still to church can go, Where grave solid preachers speak, And the way to heaven show, In the Savoy or Les Grecs. But a religion brilliant, Brisk, animated, disputant, Beating ratiocinations, Off hath sailed from habitations.
“One misses not only familiar objects, but also familiar words. We miss that ‘fie! fie!’ so appropriately shutting up an antagonist; we miss that ‘bon! bon!’ which adroitly diverted us from what it was not desirable to hear. Then there was that expression, ‘fiez-vous à moi’ — that noble confidence which inspired listeners, and made it impossible to doubt bold propositions, which you generously advanced. We lose all such in losing you, and we hardly cherish the hope of again seeing them in use on your return.
“Through your example I was passing the time easily with things superfluous and often with things convenient. Your departure removes the example, and consigns me to my philosophy only, which does not suffice. A day will come when you will learn to make a good use of abundance; and you will change our suppers of new-laid eggs for lobsters and other recipes of your officers.
“Madame Mazarin would be inconsolable for your absence, were it not that her absence is so well made up to you. She thinks you happy to be near a king who has delicacy of taste for recreations, and the vigour of the virtues for great affairs.
“What an advantageous thing, Miremont, to be near a king, Who to renown from pleasure goes, Who reposes like a sage, And the exploits of heroes does, To be embalm'd through every age. May he (true patriots to please) Rejoice in constant victory; And as now he for turmoil to ease says good-bye, May he soon change triumphantly turmoil for ease.
“My Lord Galway does not content himself with his wish to tamper with your august house. His corruption has extended to Madame Mazarin and myself — in the shape of usquebaugh for Madame, and of Irish frieze for me. One may be constant without being uncivil. We have accepted the presents, but have held firmly by our integrity. And however strong the temptations presented to us by my Lord Galway expatiating on the attractions of Dublin, the plentiful crops, and the excellence of the fish, we shall not set the refugees the example of settling in that kingdom.
“Adieu, my Lord! I have been trying to enliven serious truths. Nothing can be so true as my regret for your absence, and my desire to see you again.
“Saint-Evremond.”
At the close of the war Miremont was promoted to be a Brigadier. In honour of the occasion, St. Evremond penned some rhymes, which I need not translate. The following is their “argument.” “The campaign is over — but why does he not return, that we may see each other, and sip our tea together? He stays by the King’s command. He is revered as a General. He is styled His Excellency. But he might picture the levee of friends at home who are inconsolable without him. Let him take leave of the magistrates and burgesses of Ghent on New Year’s day at the latest.”
In the beginning of 1699 the French refugee regiments were disbanded. One of these was the Marquis of Miremont’s dragoons, which English scribes sometimes designated Mermon’s regiment. Soon after the accession of Queen Anne, the Marquis was made a Major-General. A pension of £500 a-year was granted to him on the Irish establishment.
On the eve of the declaration of the European war in 1702, the French Protestants of the South rose against their persecutors. This civil war raged throughout Languedoc; the chain of mountains in that province, named The Cevennes, was the ​home and the battle-ground of the Protestant combatants, who, as mountaineers, were known as the Cevenols, and as warriors were nicknamed the Camisards. Determined to be rid both of the Inquisition and of the Dragoons, they did wonders under Roland and Cavalier (of the personal history and achievements of the latter I shall give a separate memoir). The Marquis de Miremont’s enthusiasm was again aroused, and his Queen and the government gave him encouragement, and substantial aid to the amount of £15,000. He issued appeals to his brother refugees in England and Ireland, and entered into negotiations with the States-General of Holland. The Dutch were to send their contingent under the command of Belcastel. From Cavalier’s book on the War in the Cevennes, we learn that in the beginning of 1703, Miremont communicated with Roland, who brought his letter to Cavalier. The substance of this letter was:— “The Queen being informed of your deplorable condition is resolved to send you some succours, and I myself will come to help you; and desire you in the meantime to behave with prudence.” Cavalier adds, “We sent him an answer with an account of the present state of our affairs, and in a short time after we received a second letter, which confirmed what he had written to us before. Afterwards he sent us an express, called Flotar, to know what measures he could take to come and succour us; having conferred together, we sent back the express with all the necessary instructions we could give him; he arrived safe in England, and gave the Queen an exact account of his journey, and we were assured by a third letter of speedy relief.”
As to the year 1703, we are informed by the annals, that of all the persons sent either by England or Holland, only Mr. David Flotard, the Marquis de Miremont’s messenger, penetrated into and returned from the Cevennes. He staid six whole days with the Cevenols — formally met the chief officers in a council, delivered Miremont’s message, and instructed them as to the signals which the British fleet would make, and how to answer them by other signals. Three French refugees accompanied Admiral Shovel’s fleet, and witnessed by their presence and signatures all the projects for aiding the Cevenols — namely, Messieurs Charles Portales, Paul la Billiere, and S. Tempié.
On receiving Miremont’s letters the Camisards resolved to stand on the defensive. But as the promised succour never came, this resolution did them harm.
“The third letter,” says Cavalier, “proved very prejudicial to us afterwards; for it was then that we were beginning to get the better over our enemies, and our remissness gave them time to take measures to stop our progress; the Court of France learned the secret, and stopped the communications. I do not pretend to blame Monsieur Miremont’s slowness, for I believe it was not his fault. Being inexperienced in such affairs, he was under the necessity of taking advice. And all his projects were as well known in the Court of France as m England, and this through some persons whom he had chosen for his counsellors. This is what is incident to princes who communicate their secrets to several persons. All our hopes of the fair promises the Marquis made us for the Queen vanished after delay of eighteen months; I believe it was not his fault, as I said before; for had he been able to fly with ten thousand men to the place we were in, I am sure he would have given no quarter to his relation’s [His Bourbon Majesty’s] troops.”
It was found impracticable to send succours to the Cevennes either by Holland and thence by land, or by landing troops on the coast of France. The Camisards blamed the calculating hesitation of the English, and the proverbial slowness of Dutch military counsels, and the winds, storms, clouds, and mists on the coasts, and in such remarks there was truth, more or less. As we candidly report this, it is only fair that we should also mention that some blame was considered due to the refugee warriors who had enlisted. The Right Hon. Richard Hill observed, “One Camisard in the Cevennes is worth a hundred of them out of France” (p. 491); “there is a great difference between the zeal of a Camisard in the coffee-houses of London and on the frontiers of Languedoc” (p. 386). The Marquis De Miremont was, therefore, destined to take his men to Piedmont, and there, under the orders of the Duke of Savoy, to watch his opportunity. Belcastel was to raise recruits in Switzerland, and thence to join the same Duke.
Miremont was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-General. Mr. Tucker wrote to Mr. Hill from London, 25th July 1704, “The Marquis De Miremont is like to have a commission to raise some Vaudois for you, wherewith he is not a little pleased, as you will easily believe.” The following appeared in the News-Letter of the 28th: — “Her Majesty has been pleased to sign a commission appointing the Marquis De Miremont Lieutenant-General of her Armies, and Commander-in-chief of her Forces, ​to be employed in Piedmont and the parts adjacent; the said forces are to consist of French refugees.”
Under date 4th August 1704, Luttrell records, “Four hundred French refugees, enlisted by the Marquis De Miremont, appeared in St. James’ Park, being all brisk young men, and were reviewed by her Majesty.” The Royal countenance did good, for by the month of September the number amounted to fifteen hundred. After this, Miremont was in Holland, raising men and forming projects. It appears that, in May 1705, he was ready to take the route for Piedmont, but if he went there he did not remain, as he returned to England in September 1705.
In the Marlborough Despatches there is a letter from the Duke to the Marquis De Miremont, dated from the “Camp of Herenthals, 29th Sept. 1705,” “acknowledging his letter of the 10th inst., as the first after a long interval, which circumstance proves the Marquis to be dissatisfied with him, which he would not have been, if he knew all the truth and the many difficulties which the Duke’s successful solicitations with the States had cost him.”
St. Simon makes the following allusion to the long conflict in the South of France:—
“The fanatics of Laguedoc and of Cevennes gave occupation to the troops, who cut up some of their squadrons from time to time, but without hurting them much in the main. Some Hollanders were surprised in the act of conveying to them both money and weapons with great promises of succour. Geneva also sustained them to the utmost of its power in a secret manner, and supplied them with preachers. What was most annoying was their correspondence with the population. Rochegude, a gentleman with an estate of from ten to twelve thousand livres per annum, was arrested, informed against by a Dutch officer, who was taken, and who, to save his own life, betrayed him, and promised to reveal many other things. It was to Rochegude that he and his comrades had received orders to apply, when in want of money, arms, or provisions. Besides, there were many other distinguished persons in those provinces who were among the most forward in the revolt, and who had been altogether unsuspected." (Vol. vii., p. 167, edit. 1853.)
The Lord of Rochegude here spoken of was not the illustrious refugee, Le Marquis de Rochegude, but a relative who, by conforming to Romanism, had obtained a gift of the forfeited estate. That he was not a convert is evident. It is to the Marquis, however, that we must now turn. He devoted himself to obtain the release of Protestant martyrs from the galleys of France, and obtained hearty help from Miremont.
Jacques de Barjac, Marquis de Rochegude, was the eldest son of Jean (or Charles) Barjac, Seigneur de Rochegude. His mother was Francoise d’Agoult, daughter of Hector, Lord of Montmaur and Bonneval, by Uranie de Calignon. His father died at Vevay in Switzerland, where he had been a refugee for only a few months. His two sisters were immured in a convent, from which they escaped to Switzerland after fourteen years’ detention. For the same period he and his younger brother were under the tutelage of the Jesuits. He also suffered imprisonment, but was at length released and joined the rest of the family. He was soon the only surviving son of a widowed mother, who had made an earlier escape from proselytizing tormentors, but not early enough to find her husband in life. On reaching Switzerland, the Marquis de Rochegude was immediately employed as a negotiator with foreign governments on behalf of the refugees in the cantons. At a later period he took up the case of the galley slaves.
One of his letters, in defence of the moral principles of the sufferers, alludes to his own life, and I therefore quote it here, although it is his last paper in order of time, being dated March 1713:—
“I should think myself wanting in due respect to the Potentates who have charged me with letters to the Queen in favour of the Confessors in the French Prisons and Galleys, if I should not make it appear that it is with injustice some people endeavour to brand as criminals and villains those very persons whom the Potentates are pleased to call their brethren, good and commendable Christians, and Confessors of the Faith.
“Every one knows that the violent persecutions against the Protestants of France has been attended with banishments, imprisonments, confinement on board of the galleys, tortures, and the most exquisite torments that were ever invented. Is there any occasion for proofs? About two hundred thousand witnesses, both without and within the kingdom of France, testify this truth. Let anybody enquire why the Protestant refugees left their country, their estates, their employments, and their relations? It was on no other score but to avoid persecutions, and obey God who commands us when we are persecuted in one place to fly to another. This is the ​crime of the confessors in question. Some of them were arrested as fugitives, others for having been in religious assemblies to pray to God in their own way, some for having been in the city of Orange to hear Protestant sermons, others for having served as guides to those who went out of the kingdom, all (in short) upon no other account but their religion, as may be seen by the general List. This truth is still more conspicuous by their perseverance in their sufferings for about twenty-five years past, in dungeons and on the galleys, rather than abjure their religion; though they have been constantly solicited to it, with promises not only of their liberty, but also of pensions and honours, and the king’s powerful protection. Does any government offer such great advantages to profligate villains?
“But here is the height of injustice! As their persecutors find it impossible to corrupt their faith or shake their firmness, either by promises or by torments, they and their emissaries endeavour to sully their good name by representing them as criminals, who disobeyed the king’s orders enjoining all his subjects to go to mass. At this rate there are abundance of criminals. I myself am one whom the king caused for some years to lie a close prisoner in gaols and dungeons, and whom he, at last, set at full liberty, of his own motion, or rather by a superior order of the King of kings, who holds in his hands the hearts of kings, and inclines them as he pleases. He did not grant the same favour to many others.
“Here is the disobedience — the not going, or not suffering one’s children to go to Mass, the not permitting a priest either to baptize or instruct them; in short, the endeavouring to serve God according to the dictates of one’s conscience. These are thought sufficient crimes to confine men either in prison or the galleys. Formerly this was accounted only stubbornness and obstinacy : now, it is downright rebellion, open revolt, and high treason. However, this was the crime of the primitive Christians, and of our Saviour himself, who was accused of being against the king, the laws, and the State; happy conformity. This is also the crime of this people of the Cevennes, that are condemned to the galleys. It is well known that they took up arms (wherein they were approved, encouraged, and supported) only to avoid being forced to go to Mass. . . .”
(Signed)“Rochegude.”
The martyrs had been sentenced to the galleys, both for the crime of “making profession of the pretended reformed religion,” and also in accordance with the Royal Declaration, dated 31st May 1685, “commuting the penalty of death into that of perpetual confinement, with hard labour in the galleys at Marseilles for the offence of going forth from the realm, and entering into any foreign service, or settling in any foreign country, without the king’s permission.” It had been hoped that the French government would have set them at liberty on the submission of Cavalier. But this hope having proved delusive, the Evangelic French Cantons of Switzerland agreed to give the Marquis de Rochegude the style and credentials of their Envoy to the King of Sweden and the other Protestant courts; this was in 1707. Two of this king’s replies were published, the first being addressed “To the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland.” The other was “To the King of Prussia;” — and the following is an extract from it:—
“We, Charles. Before we had received the letters, wherein your Majesty recommends to us the affair of the Marquis de Rochegude, he himself was arrived in our camp, and had given us a very particular account of the deplorable condition of his countrymen, who have been condemned to the galleys, and confined there so many years, for the sake of religion. Touched with a sense of their wretchedness, and at the prayer of the laudable cantons of Switzerland, we have ordered our Envoy at Paris to represent to the King of France how much we should be obliged to him for the enlargement and deliverance of those poor captives, whose only crime is that they have different sentiments of worship from those of the Church of Rome; and that we are persuaded he is too good and just, were he but thoroughly informed of their case, to suffer so many of his subjects, who are otherwise faithful to him, to groan under so undeserved and cruel afflictions. . . .
Charles.
“Alt Ranstat, Dec. 9, 1707.”
“C. Piper.”
The Duke of Marlborough wrote to Rochegude on the 16th January 1708, congratulating him on his success with the King of Sweden, and gave him a letter of introduction to the English court. The letter was dated from “Hague, 6th May 1708,” and addressed to the Prince of Denmark (consort of Queen Anne). It begins thus:— “Sir, The Marquis de Rochegude, who has been with the king of Sweden, to desire his intercession with the Court of France for the release of the Protestants out of the galleys, being desirous of giving the Queen and your Royal Highness a particular account of his negotiations on the subject, I would not omit paying my duty by him.”
Viewed with reference to the prospects of success, Rochegude’s object was ​three-fold: first, the liberation from the galleys of the victims of Revocation times; secondly, the identification of the insurgent Camisards with the sufferers under the previous persecution; and thirdly, the re-establishment of toleration, that Protestant worship might cease to be treasonable or illegal. He made a favourable impression upon the court and government of England, and upon all with whom he had intercourse. It seems certain that he derived much help from the Marquis de Miremont. A memorial was presented to the Godolphin ministry, proving that the Sovereign of England was entitled, by treaty, to insist on the perpetuity of the Edict of Nantes, and of the other Edicts of toleration, both those on which it was framed, and those by which it was confirmed. The satisfaction which Rochegude reaped from this visit may be inferred from the royal letter of which, on his departure, he was the bearer to the States-General of Holland:—
“High and Mighty Lords, our good Friends, Allies, and Confederates,
“Whereas we ought to be more careful in nothing (after the happy success wherewith it has pleased God to bless our arms in this just war) than to improve that assistance to the advancement of the honour of His Holy Name, by delivering those that are oppressed from their sufferings, and by maintaining the cause of the Protestant religion, we did in the last negotiations for peace give orders to our Ministers and Plenipotentiaries to endeavour, in our name, to procure all the good and relief that was possible for the Protestants of France, that when a general peace is established, they may not be left to groan under the calamities which they have so long suffered in galleys, prisons, &c.
“And as it is fit that the Protestant Powers should concur to support the interests of the said confessors, who are persecuted by reason of their adherence to our holy faith —
“We were willing to write to you on this subject, to acquaint you with our sentiments more expressly, and earnestly recommend to you the affair of the French Protestants, who are overwhelmed with all the calamities of an unjust and violent persecution. We persuade ourselves that your zeal, faith, piety and compassion are so great, that you take to heart as much as possible the oppressions of our Protestant brethren, having with pleasure seen the resolution you delivered upon it to the Marquis of Rochegude, who brings you this letter.
“We doubt not but you will join your efforts with ours, when occasion offers, to act effectually in favour of the French Protestants, that their persecution may be brought to an end, and that they may enjoy all the advantages that can be obtained for them. . . .
"Given at our court of Windsor, 20th July, 1709, in the eighth year of our reign,
“Anne R.”
“By Her Majesty’s Command, H. Boyle.”
On the 8th of April of this year Lord Feversham died. He had no children; the estate which he had in right of his wife descended to the heirs of her only sister, the Baroness Rockingham; and his money and personal property to his nephew and niece, the Marquis de Miremont and Mademoiselle de Bourbon, and to another nephew, the Earl of Lifford. We observe nothing for two or three years concerning the Marquis, except that he continued on the list of Lieutenant-Generals. His friend, Rochegude, appears again before long.
France was all but exhausted by the long war, and all the refugees thought that the allies would extort many concessions from her government, not only for territorial and political aggrandizement, but also in behalf of persecuted Protestants. But the advent of Harley and Bolingbroke to power in Britain changed the attitude of our government, so that instead of dictating the terms of peace, we as very humble servants of the French monarch gave the carte blanche to him. Astonished Frenchmen exclaimed, “Les Miracles de Londres!” The Marquis de Rochegude in great agitation hastened to London, and was graciously received at Windsor. He presented a memorial to our government, dated, “Windsor, 6th September 1711,” urging that an article in favour of the French Protestants who are in the galleys, prisons, convents, or other places of confinement, should be inserted in the preliminaries of the negotiations for peace, such being a matter rather of humanity than of religion. The Memorial was written in a fervid style, and asked, “Is it possible that there should not be one article in favour of the church so severely oppressed and persecuted in France? — an article which ought to be the preliminary of the preliminaries!” He suggested that the 4th Article of the Peace of Ryswick, regarding the Protestants of Germany, might be adopted and extended so as to embrace Protestants everywhere, the effect of which would be to recognise all Protestants of all nations as one corporate body. “A more particular care,” he added, “ought to be had of those who, for so long a time past suffer under oppression — not daring to own the true religion without exposing themselves to the galleys or gibbets. And this shews the necessity of re-establishing the Protestant religion in France, otherwise the galleys ​will ever be filled with Protestants, under pretence of their trespassing against the king’s orders, enjoining all his subjects to go to Mass.”
About the month of June 1712, the refugees memorialized Queen Anne to assert herself to be the guarantee of the French Edicts in their favour, as had been done by James I., Charles I., and William III., the two former having had their right of intervention recognized by the French kings. The memorial was so favourably received, that the Queen was graciously pleased to name and appoint the Marquis de Miremont to be a Commissioner at the Congress at Utrecht, “to act in concert with all the Plenipotentiaries of the Protestant Princes without exception, that they all may together consider of expedients to give satisfaction to the Protestants of France in the matter of religion, with all the most appropriate methods of relief, it being the Queen’s most ardent desire that this re-establishment should be made, than which she has nothing more at heart.” This commission was dated the 9th of June 1712.
One of the odious galleys happened to be at Dunkirk, and the treatment of its martyr crew contributed to call renewed attention to the case of all the captives. At the peace, Dunkirk was to be dismantled, and handed over to the Dutch ; but during the negotiations it was to be held by the English. In July 1712 the French garrison marched out, and Brigadier John Hill took possession with several English regiments, and a battalion of Scotch Guards. The French, however, retained the civil government, guarded the churchyards against Protestant burials, kept the harbour with their ships and galleys, and with two or three battalions of their marines — privateers having free egress and ingress, provided they did not bring English prizes. There were eighteen or nineteen martyrs in the convict galley, who naturally expected to be set at liberty under the jurisdiction of Great Britain. But Jack Hill told them that he had no orders concerning them. By his advice they sent a memorial to the British Secretary of State. This was reported to the French court, and they were forthwith loaded with chains, and marched off by land to Marseilles. They contrived to forward a second petition to London ; but the only immediate effect was the liberation of one of them, on the ground that he was a native of Jersey, and that his release was openly pressed for by the Bishop of London.
Another affecting note of recal to the “inexpressible miseries of the Poor Reformed Protestants in France,” was a letter to Queen Anne from the King of Prussia, “signed by order of the King on his death-bed,” urging her to defy all difficulties “at a time” when “she who bears the glorious title of Defender of the Faith, has reason to expect so much from the deference of the Most Christian King.” This letter was signed on the 21st of February 1713, and the king died four days afterwards.
The Marquis de Miremont held frequent consultations with the Protestant Plenipotentiaries — but all that could be done was, before the signing of the several treaties with France, to place a memorial in the hands of the Plenipotentiaries of France, desiring them earnestly “to be pleased to make such representations to the king their master, as that all the French Protestants may have the relief granted them which they have so long sighed for, and that they may be established in their rights and privileges in the matter of religion, and so enjoy entire liberty of conscience, — and those of them who are in prisons and galleys, or otherwise confined, may be set at liberty, so that those distressed people may have a share in the peace which Europe, in all appearance, is going to enjoy.” This memorial was delivered on the nth of April 1713.
The French court felt that some mark of gratitude was due to Queen Anne for her persistent quarrel with Marlborough, and for her personal encouragement of Bolingbroke in his Bourbon Jacobite counsels. The memorial was therefore acknowledged, by giving hopes that those Protestants in the galleys, whose imprisonment was of older date than the Camisard revolt, would be released, on the ground of her Majesty’s intercession on their behalf. As this was, at the best, a most inadequate reply to the memorial, Miremont, on the 26th of May following, lodged a protest, which the magistracy of Utrecht engrossed thus:—
“The Declaration in favour of the Reformed Churches of France, delivered to the venerable magistracy of the town of Utrecht by the most high and mighty lord, Armand de Bourbon, Marquis de Miremont, &c, empowered by a commission from Her Britannic Majesty (dated 9th June 1712) to negotiate what concerns the Reformed Religion in France, and to take care of the interests thereof, at the Congress of Utrecht.
​“Forasmuch as nothing in this world ought to be more dear than the liberty of serving God according to the dictates of our consciences and the prescription of His word, therefore the Protestants of the Reformed Churches of France never wished for anything with greater ardour than the enjoyment of that sweet liberty, which has been ravished from them for above twenty-seven years, by the artifice of their enemies, who found means to obtain from the king, in October 1685, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
“We could have hoped that his Majesty would have been pleased to entertain more moderate thoughts in regard to us, and would, by reinstating us in our ancient privileges, have caused us to feel in our consciences (the seat of the strongest sensations) the sweetness of the so much desired Peace, which his Majesty is now making with the other Princes and Potentates of Europe. But how just soever these hopes were, we have the unhappiness to see them frustrated. Again, therefore, we most humbly supplicate his Majesty to commiserate the great number of families which, from his justice and royal clemency, solicit the most precious favour they ever can receive on earth. We most humbly supplicate his Majesty, even by the bowels of the Divine mercy, to put us in the same condition as we and our fathers were through the whole extent of his kingdom, that we may there, without molestation, exercise our religion, and give evidence to his Majesty of the strictest fidelity and the sincerest zeal.
“We supplicate his Majesty, with ardour and all imaginable respect, to permit us now humbly to protest, that we will never quit either the desire or the hope of obtaining from the equity and bounty of his Majesty, the re-establishment of all the grants for the exercise of our religion, which have been made to us by the kings, his glorious predecessors, and by his Majesty himself, — that those hopes and pretensions, so just and well-grounded, we shall never let go, and shall neither do such injustice to our consciences and to posterity, as to depart from rights confirmed by so many solemn declarations. And as in time past we have presented the necessary petitions and memorials, so with the profoundest possible respect we here solemnly protest to his Majesty, as before God, that any omissions relating to us and to our lawful interests, which have hitherto been made, or may be made use of in the future, ought not ever to be deemed an abandoning of our just demands, and ought not to prejudice in any manner the goodness of our cause and validity of our right, which shall always continue sacred with us.
“No Potentate having undertaken in this Congress the office of a Mediator, we the underwritten do, according to what is practised on such occasions, require the venerable Magistracy of the town of Utrecht to receive the Declaration above written, that it may serve for an Evidence. — Utrecht, May 26, 1713.
“Armand de Bourbon, m. d. Miremont.”
“We the Burgo-masters and Councillors of the Town of Utrecht do certify that His Excellency the Marquis de Miremont, in the quality above-mentioned and by virtue of his full power acknowledged and received by the Congress in our city, did put into our hands the declaration, whereof the Deed, carefully compared and found to agree with its duplicate deposited among our archives, is above-written. And whereas the aforesaid Lord desired that the said Deed may be deposited among our archives, to serve for a memorial and perpetual evidence when requisite, We have granted him his demand, and this present Deed under the seal of our town, and signature of our Secretary, Done at Utrecht, May 26th, 1713.”
The Marquis de Rochegude, who had been at Utrecht, returned to England and had an audience of Her Majesty. One day the queen sent for him, and said, “I pray you, Monsieur de Rochegude, send word to the poor galley-slaves that they shall be soon set at liberty.” This was the royal message according to a letter which he dispatched to Marseilles via Geneva, and which one of themselves has recorded. Out of three hundred, whom the order of the King of France seemed to design for liberation, about one hundred and thirty were discharged on the 17th June 1713. Thirty-six of that number went by sea to Villefranche and Nice, and thence by land through Turin and Geneva, to Frankfort. They then sailed to Cologne and Dort, journeyed to Rotterdam, and finally reached Amsterdam in safety. A deputation of twelve, of whom Jean Marteilhe was one, came to London to express the gratitude of the martyrs to the Queen of Great Britain. The Marquises de Miremont and de Rochegude presented them at Court, and the queen permitted them to kiss her hand. The Marquis de Miremont in their name, returned thanks to Her Majesty, who replied that she was rejoiced to see them at liberty, and that she hoped to procure the pardon of the Protestants still labouring in the galleys of France. In 1714 the remainder of the three hundred were set free. The whole of the sufferers were not liberated until the reign of George I., for it was only gradually that the French government could see how those, whom oppression had driven to arms, could be identified with persons arrested as criminals for religious non-conformity. While not refusing to Queen Anne a share of the credit, we must join with Haag in giving ​the chief praise to LES INFATIGABLES EFFORTS DU GENEREUX ROCHEGUDE.
Miremont passed the rest of his life as a private member of society. On the consolidation of the Hanoverian rule in Ireland, his pension was raised to £1000. Burn says that in 1740, upon the intercession of the Marquises of Miremont and Montandre, and other members, £150 per annum out of the Royal Bounty was settled on the church of Les Grecs — the old Savoy Chapel having fallen into hopeless disrepair, and its congregation having united with Les Grecs. This may be substantially correct, but the date is wrong. The Marquis de Miremont died in London at his apartment in Somerset House on the 23d February 1732, in his seventy-seventh year.
The right of administration to his property was granted on the 28th inst. to his sister (praenobilis et honoranda faemina, Charlotte de Bourbon, called in the newspapers “the Lady Malauze”); for he left no will. She made up for her brother’s omission before her own death, which took place in Somerset House on the 15th of October following. Her last will and testament, translated from the French by Philip Crespigny, notary public, was duly registered, Josias Des Bordes, Esq., being her executor. She bequeathed to her nephew, the Marquis de Malauze, the residue, which she had reserved to herself, of her gift to him of estates in France, and also her rights to more ample estates. She left £20 to the French hospital of London, £100 to the poor, and (conditionally, on the realization of the three years’ arrears of her late brother’s pension), a sum of £400 to be invested for annual payments to the ministers of the French Church of the Savoy. If that church should ever cease to exist, then the £400 were to be spent in removing her own coffin, and the mortal remains of her late uncle, the Earl of Feversham, and of her two brothers, to Westminster Abbey. Her brother, Louis, Marquis de La Case, had been buried in St. James’, Westminster — and Miremont in the family vault in the Savoy Church. In the same vault she was to be interred, within a leaden coffin, encased in wood, surmounted with a brass plate, “on which shall be engraved my coat-of-arms as on my seal, with the addition of the supporters, which are two angels,” and the following inscription, “Here lies Charlotte de Bourbon, to whom God has given grace to be born, to live, and to die in His holy religion. Glory ever be for the same to the holy, blessed, and adorable Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.”
Except for her younger brother, the Marquis de La Case, the refugee lady’s aspirations as to Westminster Abbey were fulfilled. The register informs us: “The bodies of the said Earl of Feversham, Monsieur Armand de Bourbon, and Charlotte de Bourbon, being deposited in a vault in the [French Church] at the Savoy, were taken up, and interred, on the 21st day of March 1739 [1740, new style], in one grave, in the North Cross of the Abbey.”
* ↑ History of the Desertion (London, 1689), page 42.
* ↑ The army consisted of the following regiments:— Horse — Horse-Guards (3 troops), Royal Regiment, Queen’s Regiment, Earl of Peterborow’s, Sir John Fenwick’s, Lieutenant-General Werdens, Earl of Selkirk’s, late Hamilton’s, Princess of Denmark’s, Queen’s Dowager’s, Marquis de Miremont’s, Lord Brandon’s, Colonel Henry Slingsby’s, late Colonel Halman’s, and Earl of Salisbury’s. Dragoons — Royal Regiment, Queen’s Regiment, Princess' Regiment. Foot — 1st Regiment of Guards, Coldstream Regiment, Royal Regiment, Queen Dowager’s, Prince George’s, Holland Regiment, Queen’s, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, Princess of Denmark’s, late Colonel Nicholas’s, Earl of Bath’s, late Karl of Litchfield’s, Earl of Huntington’s, late Sir Edward Hales’s, Colonel Tufton’s, Colonel John Hales’s, Colonel MacElligot’s, Colonel Richard’s, late Colonel Gage’s, Duke of Newcastle’s, Colonel Skelton’s, Colonel Archibald Douglas’s. Scotch Forces — 1st, Troop of Horse-Guards; 2d, Regiment of Horse; 3d, Regiment of Foot-Guards; 4th, late Colonel Wachop’s; 5th, late Colonel Bochan’s; 6th, Earl of Dunmore’s Dragoons. Irish Forces — Lord Forbes’s, Colonel Hamilton’s, Colonel Butler’s Dragoons. “If all this army could not, or would not, maintain James II. in his irregular way of government, what Forces will be requisite to restore him against the Three Estates and the body of the nation?” — History of the Desertion, p. 110.
* ↑ Two of the London French Protestant Chapels.
* ↑ Cavalier’s “Memoirs of the Wars of the Cevennes,” second edition, page 172.
* ↑ Kemble’s State Papers, p. 422.
* ↑ This corrected account of the antecedents of the Marquis de Rochegude is chiefly obtained from Haag (Articles Barjac and Montmaur, and Errata of volume 1st, given in volume 9th, page 502.)
* ↑ For some account of Rochegude’s imprisonment and prisons, see Laval’s “History of the Reformed Church of France,” Appendix, p. 52.
* ↑ This was the official intelligence, published and believed in London. But Marteilhe’s account is that Jack Hill promised to write to Queen Anne, and advised the martyrs to wait quietly for a fortnight. During this time, however, he gave secret permission to the French commandant to convey them to Calais, concealed in the hold of a bark, which would not have got out of Dunkirk harbour, but for this written pass:— “Allow this boat, which is going to fish for my household, to have the harbour.— J. Hill.” [Hill was the brother of Lady Masham, and therefore a prominent ally of the French party in England.!
* ↑ Jean Marteilhe, one of the Martyrs in the galley which was at Dunkirk in 1712, and the author of the well-known book, “Mémoires d’un Protestant condamné aux galères de France pour cause de religion, écrits par lui-meme.” He was one of those who were set at liberty in 1713. A translation of his book has been published in London by the Religious Tract Society; with the title, “Autobiography of a French Protestant condemned to the galleys for the sake of his religion.”
* ↑ The Congregation of Les Grecs at one time worshipped in Hog’s Lane. Hogarth has given a representation of the old Chapel in Hog’s Lane in his picture of “Noon,” and the figure coming out of the chapel is said to have been a very good likeness of the Rev. Thomas Hervé, who was their minister from about 1727-1731. — Burn.
* ↑ A lady, named Catherine De Bourbon, received £36 a-year from the Royal Bounty Fund for French Protestants, till her death on the 23d October 1725. — Burn’s MSS.