# Protestant Exiles from France/Book Second - Chapter 2

Layout 2
Chapter II.
THE FIRST MARQUIS DE RUVIGNY AND HIS ENGLISH RELATIONS.
The Marquis De Ruvigny was “a nobleman of accomplishment and ability and a Protestant from sincere conviction.” — Anderson’s Life of Lady Russell, among “Memorable Women.”
The first member of the House of Ruvigny known to English society was Rachel, daughter of Daniel de Massue, Seigneur de Ruvigny (in Champagné), and grand-daughter of Nicolas de Massue, Seigneur de Renneval (in Picardy.) She was born in Paris in 1603, and was presented for baptism at Charenton by the Duchesse de Sully and her son. In 1634, being the widow of a gentleman of La Perche, Elysée de Beaujeu, Sieur de la Maisonfort, she won the heart and hand of an English nobleman, Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, whose landed property was in the County of Southampton, now called Hampshire. In the Parish Register of Titchfield the following entry was made:— “August, 1634, Maried, the right honorable the Earle of Southton, in France, ye 18t day of this month.” The young countess was a zealous believer in the Protestant religion, and a lady of great personal attractions and moral excellence. The Earl had sown his wild oats on the turf. A letter dated March 20 (1634), reports, “The Earl of Southampton (they say) has lost a great deal of money lately at the horse race at Newmarket; he has license to travel for three years, and has gone in all haste to France.” His exemplary life after this catastrophe was, in all probability, largely due to the influence of the good countess. We may say that if he had not married la belle et vertueuse Huguenotte (as Rachel de Ruvigny was called), he himself would not have been immortalized in history as “the wise and virtuous Earl of Southampton.” In Evans’ Catalogue of Engraved Portraits, the following picture is included:— “Rachel Frances de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton, whole length, in the clouds, leaning on a sphere, skull under her feet, folio, fine, painted by Vandyke, engraved by Ardell.”
The Countess died in 1637, leaving two daughters. Elizabeth became the first wife of Edward Noel, afterwards Earl of Gainsborough. The younger daughter, Rachel, married, first, Francis, LordVaughan, and secondly, The Honourable William Russell. The latter couple were styled Lady Vaughan and Mr. Russell— until, through the death of an elder brother, William became Lord Russell and heir-apparent of the Earl of Bedford. Every one has heard of Rachel, Lady Russell, widow of the patriot and martyr, William Lord Russell.
As Lord Southampton was married a second and a third time, it might have been thought that his intimacy with the Ruvigny family cooled down to the intercourse of mere acquaintanceship. But such was not the case. The children of his first wife were his heiresses — their only surviving half-sister being, in right of her mother, rich and independent. A great man with Elizabeth and Rachel was their mother’s brother, Henri, Marquis de Ruvigny. He is the person whom Lady Russell, in her celebrated letters, calls “my Uncle Ruvigny,” and whom she characterizes as having been “as kind a relation, and as zealous tender a friend as ever any body had.”
This Henri de Massue, Seigneur de Ruvigny, was the Countess of Southampton’s only brother. The registry of his birth has not been found. As he lived to have a son who was styled Le Sieur de La Caillemotte, it is conjectured that he was the child of his father’s second wife, and that he must have been born in 1610. However, his niece, Rachel, believed his age in 1685 to be “several years past fourscore;” and when he died in 1689 it was said of him by Pastor Du Bosc, that he had passed far beyond the boundary of human life which the Ninetieth Psalm assigns to the most vigorous. He was an active public man to the last, so that it was not any symptom of dotage that occasioned the mistake regarding his age, if it was a mistake. And it is quite possible that La Dame de La Caillemotte, though only his step-mother, settled upon him the estate, to which her own honorary title belonged. My opinion is that the old Seigneur’s first wife, whose maiden name was Madelaine Pinot, was the mother of both Rachel and Henri, Henri being the eldest child and born about 1600.
​The Messieurs Haag state that the old Seigneur Daniel de Massue de Ruvigny was Governor of the Bastile. But as the Duc de Sully was Governor, I suppose that the Seigneur De Ruvigny was Lieutenant-Governor; at least Sully must have been a friend and patron, for (as already stated) the Duchesse and her son were the baptismal sponsors of his daughter Rachel. The old Seigneur married, first, Madelaine Pinot; and, secondly, Madelaine de Fontaine, Dame de La Caillemotte; he died in 1611. His widow survived till 1636. To her Henri owed the superintendence of his education, and probably Sully, who had been a successful soldier in his youth, took an interest in him. At all events Henri Seigneur De Ruvigny became a soldier, and he first appears to public view as an officer of the French Guards at the siege of La Rochelle in 1627. He was one of those Huguenots who served in the Royal Armies, and whose case I have discussed in the Historical Introduction (Section I.). Though a very strong Protestant in religion, he differed from the Huguenots of La Rochelle in politics, but practically agreed with the majority of his co-religionists, who for several years had declined to take up arms against Louis XIII. Ruvigny’s principle was that the king as his master should be obeyed, and should as a man be conciliated. And while service against the Huguenot confederates is a part of his recorded services, it is but a small part. [See Haag’s “La France Protestante.”]
When the English Auxiliaries, under the Duke of Buckingham, disembarked on the Isle of Rhé, they immediately invested the fortress of St. Martin, and its fall seemed to be probable. At length a brave officer in the garrison, who proved to be the Seigneur De Ruvigny, at the peril of his life, conveyed a message to the king, representing the extremity to which they were reduced. The consequence was, that (by order of Cardinal Richelieu, who acted both as prime minister and as commander-in-chief) reinforcements were thrown into the fortress, and Buckingham and his forces sailed back to England on November 16th. La Rochelle now had only itself to rely on. The garrison bravely held out till the 28th October 1628, and the king and the cardinal made a triumphant entry into the city on the 1st of November. Ruvigny was in active service during the whole siege on the side of royal authority.
The Duchy of Mantua having become vacant by the death of Duke Vincenzo, the Due de Nevers, whom the King of France put forward, assumed the title of Duke of Mantua, and took possession of the territory. Ferdinand II., Emperor of Germany, in combination with Philip IV. of Spain, espoused the claims of the Duke of Guastalla, and besieged Casale. The Duke of Savoy joined these confederates, and opposed the march through his dominions of the French army that set out to raise the siege. Ruvigny was in this expedition, which was commanded by the King of France himself. The great event was the forcing of the Pass of Suza on the 6th of March 1629. Three barricades were carried by storm, there being at the head of the attack above a hundred princes, lords, and gentlemen volunteers, who followed the forlorn hope. The success was complete, and the Duke of Savoy agreed to the Treaty of Suza.
Whether Ruvigny returned with Louis on April 28th, or with another detachment under Richelieu soon after, does not appear. At any rate it was again his painful duty to be in arms at home against his co-religionists. Privas was taken, and burnt tc the ground. Alais capitulated, and was dismantled. Peace between the King and the Protestants was established on the 27th June, along with the re-establishment of liberty of conscience and freedom of worship, and a pardon for the Huguenot commanders, the two brothers, Henri, Due de Rohan, and Benjamin Rohan, Baron de Soubise. This treaty was the Edict of Nismes, dated July 1629, the revocation of which was included in the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685.
In the year 1630, the Duke of Savoy having proved faithless, Ruvigny took part in the conquest of Savoy. He is next mentioned in 1633 among the officers of the French army which reduced Lorraine and expelled the contumacious Duke Charles from his dominions.
His public employments for the next ten years are not recorded. As to his private life, his heart was drawn towards England in 1634 by his sister’s marriage to the Earl of Southampton, and many influential friendships resulted during the next half-century. Another private friendship also moulded his career. The brilliant Viscount Turenne, who at the beginning of the new reign was made a Marshal, esteemed him as an officer, and delighted in his society. It was no ordinary acquaintanceship. The intimacy was noted, and ultimately handed down to ​posterity, by the classical St. Evremond, as a model of friendship, a confidence of forty years’ duration.
The date of Louis XIV.’s accession was May 14, 1643. Cardinal Mazarin was appointed prime minister. In 1644 Ruvigny raised a regiment of infantry, at the head of which he served in the Italian campaign of that year. I cannot find any historical mention of such a campaign, but the Count of Harcourt had successes in Italy in 1645, in which year Ruvigny was promoted to the rank of marechal-de-camp and colonel-general (probably equivalent to the British rank of major-general). During this year his name occurs for the first time in English history. Mazarin amused the English ambassador with hopes that a French contingent would be sent to assist Charles I. against the parliamentary forces. The ambassador, Lord Jermyn, accordingly wrote to the English Court that a body of 5000 men, said to be actually raised under the command of Ruvigny, would be embarked for Pendennis. Lord Clarendon, having mentioned that several letters were received in England regarding the day of their probable landing, adds:— “After all this, it is as true that there was never a man at this time levied or designed for that expedition. Only the name of Ruvigny (because he was of the religion and known to be a good officer) had been mentioned in some loose discourse by the cardinal, as one who would be very fit to command any troops which might be sent into England for the relief of the king.”
In 1647 the Baron of Ruvigny married Marie, daughter of Pierre Tallemant and Marie de Rambouillet, a lady who, like himself, was in later life a welcome member of English society. His feelings were further gratified this year by the gift of a cavalry regiment which bore his name, and with which he served in Flanders. He was again in the field in 1648 under the command of the great Prince of Condé, and was present at the taking of Ypres, and at the famous victory of Lens. He also served in September under the Marshal De Rantzau at the recapture of Furnes.
As if to show the ignorance of those who impute all the civil wars in France to the Huguenots, the feuds in the royal family now came to a height. Several Bourbon princes were in the front of the revolt, and Turenne was, for a brief period, seduced to lead their troops. This was in 1649. Ruvigny’s service this year was in Flanders, under the Count of Harcourt. He shared in the check which the French suffered before Cambray, and in the compensating success at Condé, which was carried in two days. The Prince of Condé, though the natural head of the insurgents, had obeyed the importunate request of the Queen Regent to defend her authority. This he did with success, but with outspoken contempt for the duty; and being evidently a ringleader of disaffection, he was imprisoned in the castle of Vincennes in 1651. His hatred of the Prime Minister, already sufficiently intense, was of course confirmed; and although Mazarin in person set him at liberty the next year, the prince was not conciliated. For the sake of harmony, at the approaching majority of Louis XIV. (at the age of fourteen), Mazarin retired to Cologne. But Condé, believing him to be still consulted as Prime Minister, was so far from being reconciled to the Court that he revived the civil war. Accordingly the Cardinal, escorted by the Marshal d’Hocquincourt with 6000 men, joined the king in spite of the rebels. Turenne had returned to loyalty, and was installed in the chief command of the royal army. It was the glory of Condé that he nearly made Louis, Mazarin, and the whole court his prisoners in April 1652. But Turenne coming to the relief of Hocquincourt, the prince’s squadrons were defeated at Blesneau. Ruvigny fought under Turenne in this spirited and skilful action, and in the engagements that rapidly ensued. Condé retired towards Paris, and his troops were again defeated by Turenne’s army at the battle of Etampes. At a gate of Paris, the Porte St. Antoine, Turenne was unsuccessful; but the capital soon received the Court back to itself by capitulation. The Huguenots were on the royal side in this quarrel. Ever after the pacification concluded between Louis XIII. and the great and gallant Protestant, Le Due de Rohan, the Huguenots were all royalists. Ruvigny, who had already shown great talents for business and for negotiation, was the Protestant political chief, on the side of the Government, in this Civil War of the Fronde. He had for some years enjoyed the good opinion of the Prime Minister.
​Here we may introduce the brief history of Tancred de Rohan. The great Duc de Rohan had fallen at the battle of Rheinfeldt in 1638. His daughter Marguerite thus became the greatest heiress in France, and it was hoped that she would marry a Protestant of noble family. The young lady was forward to declare that she would give her hand to no suitor but a prince of royal blood and of a reigning family. She, nevertheless, was surrounded with admirers. In the midst of her pride, her mother announced to her that she was not the heiress. The Dowager’s disclosure was, that having observed how her husband was always exposed to Popish plots, she had concealed from him, as well as from the public, the fact of the birth of a son and heir. This concealment, she said, had prevented the abduction of the infant by the Roman Catholics. The mother’s story had this confirmation, that she had handed over an infant boy, whom she called her son and named Tancred, to be educated by Monsieur La Metairie at his remote chateau. When Marguerite heard this story, she at once resolved to take into her counsel some man of sense and dexterity. Among her admirers was one, whom Benoist describes as “a gentleman of a very handsome person, full of wit, courage, and business talent, a very considerable person at court, and with every prospect of making a large fortune for himself through the good-will of Cardinal Mazarin.” This was Henry, Lord of Ruvigny. He entered into the lady’s views (though, it is said, he had some trouble in dissuading her from the rough remedy of assassination), and the alleged brother was removed, unknown to the Dowager, to the care of a burgess of Leyden, to be brought up as a man of rank. It is said that Ruvigny believed himself to be the accepted suitor of Marguerite. But though the fair one forgot her vow as to royal lineage, she unexpectedly announced that she was affianced to the Marquis De Chabot. The court at once secondéd her in her sudden resolution, as the new favourite was a Roman Catholic. The young lady was unmoved by the dissuasive expostulation of her mother and her pastors. Ruvigny took up the tone of one who had been accepted and discarded, but could make no impression. He then formally threatened to transfer Tancred to her mother’s charge. Marguerite told Chabot, whose agent forthwith ran a race to Leyden with the Duchess’s messengers. The latter arrived first, and consigned Tancred to the care of a magistrate. The youth was, with proper precautions, conveyed to Paris, and the Duchess endeavoured to introduce him to society. At the same time, she laid proofs of his paternity and legitimacy before the Parliament of Paris. While the case was pending, the Protestant community was ready to believe Tancred to be the ducal heir, while all the Roman Catholics sided with the heiress. It clearly appeared that the late Duke considered his daughter to be an only child, and had never been aware of the existence of a son: and the Duchess’s apology for her alleged concealment of his birth being considered frivolous and unreal, the Parliament decided in favour of the daughter. This conclusion was spoken of by the Duchess as being the mere consequence of dictation from the ruling powers. In the hope, therefore, of getting the decree reconsidered and reversed, she persuaded Tancred to fight on the side of the Parliament in the civil war. The young man was wounded in a sortie, and was carried to Vincennes, where he died. The mother and daughter were reconciled after the lapse of some years, but neither of them again breathed the name of Tancred de Rohan.
Although Mazarin, not to hinder the pacification, again retired, and was formally excluded from the king’s councils, yet that Prime Minister, without either negotiation or opposition, came back in February 1653, and coolly resuming the reins of government, held them without molestation till his death. On the 10th of the preceding July, Ruvigny had been promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-General. The Prince of Condé joined the enemies of his country, and served in Flanders in 1653 as generalissimo of the Spaniards. Ruvigny served there under Turenne and Le Ferté. He is mentioned in connection with three sieges, Vincennes (in Picardy) and Rhetel (both of which were recovered from the enemy), and Mouzon, which capitulated after a blockade of fourteen days. His last campaign was in 1654, also in Flanders.
Abundance of occupation at home had been provided for the Lord of Ruvigny. It was far from his own wish to retire from military service. But Mazarin had represented to him that as a Protestant he could not hope for any higher promotion, and therefore urged him to accept an office which would give him a residence at the court of Louis XIV., amid general deference due to his rank and character, and with ​occasional opportunities of showing his capacity as a politician. He was also elevated to the rank of a Marquis.
One of the Lords constantly resident at the Court of Louis XIV. was called the Deputy-General of the Reformed Churches, or Agent for the Huguenots. He was the representative of the Protestants. All their requests and complaints were presented to the king by his hands, unless at his request he was permitted to introduce an occasional deputation. A salary of 1000 pistoles per annum (£458, 6s. 8d. sterling) was attached to the office. In the summer of 1653 it became vacant by the death of the Marquis d’Arzilliers, who had discharged its duties for nine years with much dignity and efficiency.
Like the present French House of Commons or Chamber of Deputies, Protestant assemblies in France, being representative institutions, necessarily consisted of deputies, or members (as we would call them). But the office of Deputy-General was a novelty ordered by the king in 1601, when Henry IV., considering that a “political assembly” had sat too long, commanded them to separate. In intimating that command to the national or “spiritual” synod which met in May of that year at Gergeau, he softened his peremptoriness by adding, “he however would permit them one or two deputies near his royal person, who should upon all occasions tender him their complaints and requests, and in order that they might nominate and appoint them, another political assembly in this current year would be permitted.” A canon was framed forthwith, enacting and declaring that a National Synod should be called every three years by express warrant from the king, and that a political assembly should be convened in anticipation of each of those triennial spiritual courts, at which assembly the business should be to collect and arrange appeals and complaints concerning the churches’ temporalities, and to elect two Lords Deputies General to be residents at court. By this regulation the Reformed Churches had a perpetual representation established near the King, and hence the name “Deputy-General” (Deputé-General, abbreviated into D. G.).
We must pass on to 1653, when the office was offered to the Marquis de Ruvigny. Louis XIII. had abolished the political assemblies, and during the latter years of his reign the National Synods elected the Deputies-General. Louis XIV., introducing more alterations, had taken the nomination into his own hands. In his reign there were no longer two, but only one lord at Court, called “The Deputy-General of the Reformed Churches” (or “Agent pour les Huguenots”).
The first synod summoned by Louis XIV. was in December 1644, about eighteen months after his accession. It is well known that Cardinal Mazarin was wonderfully tolerant, and any such disposition was practically strengthened by his value for the alliance with England under Oliver Cromwell. But though the reverse of a persecutor, the Cardinal did not foster Protestant synodical action. The year 1653 came and no second National Synod was yet thought of. In that year the Lord Deputy General (the Marquis d’Arzilliers) whom the king had appointed in 1644 (as Louis had bluntly acquainted the Synod then sitting at Charenton), after holding the office (without the form of re-election) for three times the regular term of three years departed this life. His Majesty was again advised to assume the power of nomination, and the following patent was drawn up [see Quick’s Synodicon]:—
“This third day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and fifty-three, the King, residing then in Paris, and being to provide a Deputy-General for his subjects of the Pretended Reformed Religion — that office being lately vacant through the death of the Lord ​Marquis d’Arzilliers; — After that his Majesty had cast his eyes upon many of his subjects, he judged that he could not better fill it up than with the person of the Marquis De Ruvigny, Lieutenant-General of his armies, who is a professor of the said Pretended Reformed Religion, and endowed with many good and laudable qualities, and who has given signal testimonies of his fidelity and affection on divers occasions, and of his abilities and capacity for his Majesty’s service; And his Majesty condescending to the humble petition of his said subjects of the Pretended Reformed Religion, he has chosen and appointed the said Lord De Ruvigny to be the Deputy-General of those of the said Pretended Reformed Religion, and is well pleased that he reside near his person, and follow his Court in the said quality, and to present to his Majesty their petitions, narrations, and most humble complaints, that he may take such course therein as he shall judge convenient for the benefit of his service and for the relief and satisfaction of his said subjects of the Pretended Reformed Religion. In testimony whereof his said Majesty has commanded me to expedite this present writ to the said Lord De Ruvigny, which he was pleased to sign with his own hands, and caused to be countersigned by me his Councillor and Secretary of State, and of his commandments.
(Signed)“Louis. (Countersigned)“Phelypeaux.”
The Protestants, during the enforced suspension of National Synods, could not be informed of this appointment; a royal announcement, however, was sent to the Consistory of Charenton. Ruvigny himself sent a copy of his Commission to the Provincial Synod of Burgundy, sitting at Lyons, — to whom he also addressed the following letter:—
“Gentlemen, — The king, having honoured me with the General Deputation of the Reformed Churches of his kingdom, has thought good to inform you thereof in his letter which I send you. It will show you his intentions; and by what I now write you will be informed of my own sentiments, of which time will give you more ample knowledge. His Majesty has chosen me in order to give me an employment which has respect both to his service and to yours. I believe that I shall not find it difficult to acquit myself well in this double duty, to which I feel myself obliged by my conscience. I know by experience both the king’s good-will towards you, and your fidelity in his service. I shall use every endeavour to provide that you receive the effects of his affection, and that he may be persuaded that you are incapable of any failure in the obedience which you owe to him. Upon that I shall base all my administrations, assuring you that I will devote all my time to ensure the success of your righteous resolution, and that I shall reckon myself well employed if I am able to make you aware that I am, Gentlemen, your very humble and very affectionate servant,
“Ruvigny.”
Paris, 22d August 1653.
One of Ruvigny’s first actions as Deputy-General was to obtain the restoration of liberty of worship to the Protestants of Vals. He was sent to Vals for this purpose with full powers from the Government. The Proprietor had interdicted their worship, and the inhabitants had appealed to the Intendant, who, taking an opportunity of inflicting private revenge on the lord of the soil, had told the people to retake by force what had been taken from them by force. Whereupon the Protestants had flown to arms, and a battle was imminent, when the Court interposed. But for the almost unprecedented circumstance of the Intendant taking the side of the Protestants, their own Deputy-General would not have been the envoy. Ruvigny ordered both sides to be disbanded, which was done. He then issued and registered a deed of amnesty; and thereafter the question as to the Protestant right of worship in Vals being submitted to arbitration, the right was confirmed.
In 1658 the Provincial Synods, by correspondence with one another, concocted a Memorial and sent a deputation to the king. It was Ruvigny’s business to obtain an audience, and with great difficulty he succeeded. On the 18th February, the Marquis de la Forêt (of the province of Poitou), as the head of the deputation, was permitted to address His Majesty, and to put into his hand the Cahier or portfolio of grievances. The Cardinal, who gave a separate audience, would receive only two deputies, of whom the spokesman was Pastor De L’Angle of Rouen; but his reception of them was flattering. He reminded them of his past appreciation of the loyalty and integrity of the Protestants by giving them many offices under Government, and he assured them of continued good-will.
​On the 10th November 1659, by the king’s warrant, a National Synod assembled once more. Its place of meeting was Loudun in Anjou. The Royal Commissioner, the aged Lord de Magdelaine, was however ordered to announce that this was the last National Synod. Accordingly, though the Synod at its dissolution, 10th January 1660, left matters in the usual train for the calling of another triennial synod, the Rev. John Quick, the English compiler of the “Synodicon in Galliâ Reformatâ,” ends his list of twenty-nine synods thus:— “The next National Synod was appointed to be held in the city of Nismes, but when that will be, Peloni Palmoni, the wonderful numberer, can only and most certainly inform us.”
The appointment of Ruvigny was largely dwelt upon in the Commissioner’s speech. Lord de Magdelaine said:—
“His Majesty commanded me to tell you that immediately upon the death of the Lord D’Arzilliers, who exercised the office of Deputy-General, he appointed the Lord De Ruvigny to succeed him, and to take care of your concerns at Court. Yet his Majesty would not constrain you by mere necessity to have recourse to him only, if for some other medium of communication you have arguments of sufficient strength. Although his Majesty has good grounds to believe that you are well content with the nomination of the Lord Ruvigny, because of those good offices he has already done you, as His Majesty is with all his other employments until now, yet I am ordered to declare to you that you are left at liberty to deliberate about the confirmation of him in this office of Deputy-General, that so after your debate upon it, His Majesty may provide as he shall think, good. If you admit him and desire his confirmation in this office, His Majesty will be very much pleased, hoping that he will continue to acquit himself worthily in it, that so being approved by you he may owe his establishment purely to your consent. In the last National Synod, His Majesty declared it to be his will that no Deputy-General should assist in it. Yet His Majesty, out of mere respect to the Lord De Ruvigny, allows him the use of the privilege to come to the Synod and vote in it at his pleasure, a privilege which has been ever enjoyed by his predecessors in this office.”
The Moderator, the illustrious Daillé, replied:—
“If our churches were to choose for themselves, as the custom was, they could never make a more advantageous election. And we have cause enough to be thankful to His Majesty for granting us the liberty of deliberating about his confirmation in this office, without imposing upon us in this juncture any force or necessity.”
According to De Magdelaine’s official report, Ruvigny laid his commission (of 1653) on the table, stating at the same time that he had been nominated by the king without any solicitation on his part, and that he left himself in the hands of the Synod as to the question of his retaining the appointment any longer. Having also produced the correspondence which showed that his importunity had led the king and Cardinal Mazarin to summon this Synod, he withdrew. The Synod, having deliberated, resolved that no better nomination could have been made. He was called in and took his seat; and the resolution was intimated to him by the Moderator.
Then (to resume Quick’s narrative) the Synod formally appointed him to exercise the office of Deputy- General near His Majesty, administered the usual oath to him, granted him both a deliberative and a decisive vote like his predecessors, and returned to him the king’s writ. They also declared their satisfaction with the Deputy-General in letters to the king and to Cardinal Mazarin. To the latter they said that the Lord Marquis de Ruvigny’s commendable qualities and services obliged them to confirm him in his office. What the Marquis said and did in the Synod is not recorded; we only find him as a Teller in a Division. Perhaps he wrote the theological portion of the Synod’s letter to the king; it must have been a layman who referred His Majesty to the Proverbs of Solomon for a precept taken from the First Epistle of Saint Peter:—
“Sire, The wisest of kings, to his command of fearing God, joined that of honouring the king. These are two duties inseparably linked together. For kings in this world do in some sense hold the very place of God, and are his most lively portraitures on earth, and the steps and degrees of their throne do not raise them above the generality of mankind, but to draw them nearer heaven. These, Sire, are the fundamental maxims of our creed, which we learned in our infancy, and endeavour to practise during our whole life, and to devolve as an inheritance to our flocks.”
It is to this period that St. Evremond’s panegyric probably belongs — (the French editor at vol. i., page 450, informs us that the reference is to “Feu Monsieur le Marquis de Ruvigny, père du Comte de Galway.”):—
“If a prime minister or a favourite were looking for a companion at Court in whom he could thoroughly confide, and were to ask my advice, I would say that he could not select one more worthy than Monsieur De Ruvigny. You may discover in some other men more brilliant talents, or may be told of some actions of greater eclat than his; but, taking everything into account, and judging of men by their entire career, I know no man who claims greater esteem, and with whom one could for a longer time keep up a confidence without suspicion and a friendship without weariness. Whatever complaints may be made of the corruption of the present day, things are not so bad but that one may yet meet with faithful friends. But the most of these people of honour have such an indescribable rigidness about them, that really one would prefer the wiles of an impostor to such austere fidelity. I observe in these men, whom we in France call solid and essential, either a gravity which teases you, or a heaviness which fatigues you. Their good sense, however valued because on occasion it may be useful to you in business, comes forth day by day to mar your pleasure. You must manage people who embarass you when you see that you may require them. They will not fail you when you confide anything to them, and so they establish a claim to incommode you when you have nothing to confide. Monsieur De Ruvigny’s probity, while quite as strict as theirs for matters of confidence, has nothing in its train but what is unassuming and goodnatured in society. He is a trusty and agreeable friend, whose alliance is firm, whose intimacy is refreshing, whose conversation is uniformly sensible and satisfactory.”
England having latterly been regarded as a first-rate Protestant power, and Charles having been viewed with suspicion in his native country as half a Romanist, the French government resolved to send a Protestant envoy to compliment the king on his restoration. The Marquis De Ruvigny was selected as a most eligible nobleman, and brother-in-law of the Earl of Southampton. The Marquis had other acquaintances in England, among whom was the Countess-Dowager of Derby, née Charlotte de la Tremoïlle. Lady Derby wrote to her cousin and sister-in-law, the Duchess de la Tremoïlle, from London, 13th August 1660, “I shall be very glad if M. De Ruvigny comes; I was acquainted with him before; but I did not know he was so much attached to you; and I will do as you wish.”
Secretary Sir William Nicholas wrote, 24th August 1660, — “Monsieur De Ruvigny is coming as envoy from France.” Robert Covin, master of the ship Alliance, of Dieppe, petitioned “for an order for exemption from tonnage — is employed for transport of the horses, baggage, &c, of Monsieur De Ruvigny, a person of state lately come from France, and hath brought no other goods; such vessels are usually exempt from duty.” Secretary Nicholas again wrote on September 6, — “Monsieur De Ruvigny, French Envoy, has had several audiences.” Lady Derby wrote on the 22d, — “M. De Ruvigny has been twice to see me.”
About this time he seems to have been made a Privy Councillor, for in 1661 Daillé’s Exposition of 1st Timothy was published, dedicated to Monsieur De Ruvigny, as “Conseiller du Roi en ses conseils, Lieutenant-General de ses armées, et Deputé-General des Eglises Reformées de France auprès de sa Majesté.” In the year 1663, Charles II. presented him with £330 as “the King’s free gift to buy him a jewel.”
As Deputy-General he had the good opinion of his own pastor, the great Protestant divine, Jean Daillé of Charenton, who, in the dedicatory epistle just alluded to, assured him that he had earned the unanimous approbation of all their churches by his discharge of his office, in which it was required of him to be the mouthpiece of all their assemblies and people dispersed through France, and to lay before the king all their necessities and requests, and to be constantly soliciting the exercise of either the justice or the clemency of the monarch, and all this amid the frowning elements of malice and misapprehension.
Some insight into his duties as Deputy-General may be obtained by dipping into the Life of Pierre Du Bosc, pastor of Caen, in Normandy. This talented man and distinguished preacher was accused to the king in 1664 of haranguing indecently against the Romish confessional. Mazarin had then been dead for three years, and Louis being his own premier, by a letter de cachet (or sealed order), dated 2d April 1664, banished the pastor to Chalons. For his deliverance Du Bosc had to apply to ​the Marquis De la Vrillière and to the Lord Deputy-General. The reverend exile received the following letters from the Marquis De Ruvigny:—
I. Sir, — What I have done may have been reported to you, but no report can represent the affection that prompts me to serve you. I am extremely concerned that it has not produced the effect which your conduct deserved, and which we hoped to obtain from the king’s goodness. I say, “we;” for you have had good friends at Court, who have warmly espoused your interests, and who are more favourably heard than I. Yet, with all these endeavours, you are at Chalons still. It is true that your return may be hoped for, because the king is convinced of your innocence. I assure you, Sir, that when I am at Court. I will do all that you justly expect from a person who esteems you to the last degree, and who passionately desires the special comfort both of yourself and of your flock. — I am, &c.
II. Sir, — I received your last letter while I was at Fontainbleau for the purpose of petitioning for your return, which I thought quite certain, as I was witness to the Due de Montausier doing justice to your case before the king. I delayed my answer that I might have good news to tell you. But the king, who now knows your innocence regarding the things of which they accuse you, has postponed the marks of his favour for a month. I will then restate your case. Mr. Secretary Cognard has shown very great zeal for your interests, and will give you details. I pray God to help you with his benediction, and to send you soon what you merit. Nevertheless, be assured that I shall lose no time to make you experience that I am, with all my heart, &c.
III. Sir, — As I love not to give bad news, especially to people whom I esteem, I did not write to you the king’s answer in your case. He said to me, dryly enough, it was not yet time to speak to him about your case. I fear exceedingly that your merit is your crime, and that consequently your punishment will not end very soon. I pray God, who has given you strength to bear so vexatious a banishment, to bless our measures to his glory and your repose. I will see the Marquis De Louvoy, and I pray you to be persuaded that in everything that concerns you I will bestir myself with all the passion and all the care which can characterise one who esteems you to the last degree, &c.
IV. 15th October 1664. — Sir, — The letter which you wrote to the Marquis de la Vrilliére, and which he read to the king, has effected your return. You owe everything to your letter, and to his lordship who made such good use of it, and to his Majesty. When you come, you will hear the details of your business. I wish you all prosperity; and I am, &c.
The celebrated Due de St. Simon, whose published manuscripts are so precious to historians, being in age no older than a grandson to Ruvigny’s cotemporaries, could write of him only by hearsay. As to his personal appearance he may have been mistaken, but his information as to his public life and great reputation may be relied on. He says:—
“Ruvigny was a good but plain gentleman, full of sense, wisdom, humour, and probity, a strong Huguenot, but of eminent administrative powers, and great dexterity. These qualities, which had gained him great reputation among those of his religion, had procured him many important friends and much consideration in the world. The ministers and the principal nobles reckoned him as a friend, and were not indifferent to the circumstance being known that he reckoned them as his friends, and the most influential magistrates were eager to be so also. Under a very plain exterior, he was a man who knew how to ally straightforwardness with finesse, in his designs and arrangements. Yet his fidelity was so well known that he had secrets and deposits confided to him by the most distinguished persons. For a great number of years he was the deputy at Court of his religion; and the king often availed himself of the connections his religious creed gave him in Holland, Switzerland, England, and Germany for secret negotiations, where he served him very usefully.”
St. Simon does not mention Portugal. But in 1666, Ruvigny went to that court as Ambassador from France to be present at King Alphonso’s marriage, and also (according to one account) as General of the Naval Forces which conveyed the bride, the Princess of Nemours, to Lisbon. The probable reasons for such an honour being conferred on the Huguenot Marquis were that his appointment would be acceptable to Schomberg, and that he could bring back to the French court a lucid account of the extent of the king’s imbecility, and of the chances of his being superseded by his brother, Pedro, who ultimately did secure both his crown and his wife.
The year 1667 must be noted as the date of the death of Lord Southampton, the last Earl of the old Wriothesley family. By his death Lady Elizabeth Noel became heiress of Titchfield, where Rachel, Lady Vaughan, now a widow, lived as the guest of the Noels, though her inheritance was Stratton, in Hampshire, and Southampton House, London. The funeral of the Lord Treasurer was followed by ​great political changes in England. On the 23d May there was concluded a treaty of commerce with Spain, and on the 24th of August, peace with Holland. On the 31st of August, the Earl of Clarendon was dismissed. All these changes alarmed France so much, that on the 11th of September Ruvigny sought an audience with King Charles, having come over with instructions “to sound the disposition of the English Court, and to know whether, upon Clarendon’s being turned out, the king had not been prevailed on to quit the friendship of France and enter into a closer alliance with Spain.” The Marquis continued to hold communications with the English Court during this and the following year. In 1668, Claud Roux, Sieur de Marcilli, went to the Protestant courts of Europe, detailing all the injustice done to the Protestants of France, and declaring that Louis XIV. had vowed the ruin of the Huguenots. Unfortunately for himself, and for Ruvigny also, his visit to Charles II. was during the Marquis’s embassy in England. Marcilli made a great impression on Charles and on many Members of Parliament, and was allowed to leave England without molestation. Ruvigny obtained all these particulars in England, as well as information that Marcilli had gone to Switzerland. As an accredited servant of France, he sent home this intelligence, which led to the unfortunate man’s apprehension and execution in 1669. What can be said in Ruvigny’s defence amounts to this, (1st) that he did not believe that Louis had made any sanguinary vow; he afterwards told Burnet, “I was long deceived as to his feelings towards the Protestants, knowing he was not of a sanguinary disposition naturally, and knowing well how grossly ignorant he was on religious questions.” (2dly) Technically Marcilli was guilty of treachery; “ce scelcrat” Ruvigny called him. (Despatch, dated 29th May 1668.) In that age unauthorised communications with foreign potentates were regarded as more lawless and dangerous than they are now. (3dly) Marcilli’s schemes included both civil war and a plot against the life of the King of France. I may add in connection with the first of these excuses, that Ruvigny at this date did not despair of the French Protestants obtaining the lasting protection of Louis XIV. He was in the habit of warning the king that the furious and blind zeal of his confessor and of the provincial magistrates would drive out of him the generosity and equity which were natural to him. The odium of frequent oppressions and persecutions was always imputed to priests and bigoted advisers, and not to the king, who was believed to be tolerant and humane. Religion was not a subject of which the gay monarch had any accurate knowledge, or for which he had any enthusiastic predilection; and the feuds of the Jesuits and Jansenists within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church were fitted to weaken his attachment to that body, and also to contradict the theory that there would be peace and unanimity if there were no Huguenot party in the kingdom. Personally the Protestant people commended themselves to the king by their honesty, industry, and talents.
Though Ruvigny’s head-quarters were in London, he occasionally paid visits to Paris when the interests of the Huguenots required them; for instance, in the winter of 1667, when “the most Christian king” was planning the suppression of the Mixed Chambers. These were courts of law presided over by a bench including some Protestant judges. As they had been established for the Protestant population by the Edict of Nantes, they were named Chambers of the Edict. On hearing of the ordinance for their abolition, all the provincial deputies of the churches rushed to Paris to the residence of the Lord-Deputy-General, who procured the king’s permission for their attendance at the Palace of the Tuileries. Accordingly, on the 27th of November 1667, Pastor Du Bosc was admitted to the royal closet to plead. The king listened very graciously, and persevering in dissimulation, replied to the following effect:—
“Ruvigny has already spoken to me of the affair which you have now represented to me, and has touched on some of the reasons which you have alleged. On your general interests I say nothing; I wait for the Commissioners’ report thereupon. As to the ordinance for the suppression of the chambers, it was a reform, not intended to prejudice those of your religion, but inaugurating a remodelled system, breathing within a new framework the same impartiality towards those of that religion.”
Du Bosc, being permitted to reply, said — “The question was not so much as to ​the fair proportion of judges as concerning the upholding of the Edict of Nantes. The abolition of the guaranteed chambers destroyed the integrity of the edict, and abandoned the professors of their religion to dismal forebodings.” The king agreed to suspend the execution of the ordinance, and to allow time for contriving some compromise. The deputies of the churches declined to be parties to tampering with the edict. After a protracted show of deliberation, the chambers were suppressed.
In 1669 William Russell, afterwards styled Lord Russell, married Lady Vaughan, née Lady Rachael Wriothesley, Ruvigny’s niece. In 1670 we have an indication of the Deputy-General’s zeal in a letter from Madame de Maintenon to her brother, D’Aubigné, Governor of Amersfort, in which she reproaches him for persecuting Protestants, a class of people “more wretched than culpable,” engulphed in “errors in which we ourselves were, and from which persecution would not have dragged us;” she concludes thus:— “I repeat, dear brother, let not Monsieur de Ruvigny have occasion to complain of you any more.” Re-union between Catholics and Protestants was the plausible shape, which, at this date, the hostile designs against Huguenots adopted. The scheme was to beguile Protestants into making concessions approxi mating to Romanism, and capable of illustrating the unreasonableness of any separation from the Church of Rome. The court knew that there were lukewarm Protestants who could be formed into a considerable party, and might break up the Reformed Church with internal controversy concerning essentials and non-essentials. The Marquis de Ruvigny won great praise by exposing this conspiracy, and warning the reformed leaders against it. There were two vacancies in the pastorate of the Temple of Charenton, and the court had been anxious to fill them with latitudinarian divines. Ruvigny, a member of the congregation (for that was the only temple allowed to Parisian Protestants), made great efforts to obtain the appointment of Pastor Du Bosc, and his advocacy met with much sympathy at court. The reason of its failure was very flattering to Du Bosc, namely, that the Archbishop of Paris took the trouble of seeking an audience from the king, whom he prevailed upon to veto such a formidable nomination. At length, through the good offices of Monsieur Caillard, the celebrated legal practioner, the Consistory of Charenton received the protection of government in making a free election, and Pastors Allix and Ménard were elected accordingly. In 1671 it is stated that the desolation of Protestant temples would have been even worse than it was, had it not been for Ruvigny’s frequent interpositions, in which all his own popularity at court, and all the influence of English fraternal sentiments towards the Huguenots were urged by him in pleading for justice and clemency towards Protestant worshippers. This year he presented a new representation and petition regarding the Edict of Nantes, being the second requéte-general. The Privy Council required that the usual conclusion of all public petitions, summing up the various items of wrong and remedy, should in this case be struck out, and that an indefinite prayer, for Royal protection, clemency, and charity should be substituted.
The Pasteur Du Bosc, in the eloquence of whose pleadings the king delighted, was frequently in Paris taking a leading part in drawing up petitions and remonstrances, which he could not always prevail on Ruvigny to present to the wayward monarch. Again that pastor, for sermons preached in the Temple at Charenton, seemed doomed to banishment. But the Deputy-General represented that the sermons were in perfect good taste, and Louis replied, “I believe you thoroughly.” Then Ruvigny ventured to ask, if there was no sealed order to be issued. The king replied, “No; there is none, and there shall be none. Tell Du Bosc to put his mind at rest.”
In the service of their churches the importunity of the Protestant Deputies drove Lord de la Vrillière out of all temper and patience. He declared that the Pastor of Caen was not a Lord Deputy-General, and yet that he was the real author of the petitions concerning grievances. He said further, that such a number of ecclesiastical deputies crowding into Paris was like a Synod — a political assembly met without license; and that the king wished no residents from their number near his court, except the Lord Deputy-General. Ruvigny hinted that his shoulders could not bear the whole burden. Du Bosc, who sometimes thought that the Marquis ought to speak better out, replied more strongly, and insisted that they were not transgressing the regular bounds — that they were bound to supply the Deputy-General with information about current events and cases, and that they now, as before, ​dutifully kept the rule of making the Deputy-General the medium of their communications with the king.
Thus a Deputy-General in the court of Louis XIV. was exposed to his royal master’s ill humour for being too busy, and to his co-religionists’ grumbling for not bestirring himself more. For a long time there was a monster petition, or Requéte-General, lying on the council-table unanswered. Ruvigny had not signed it until much pressed to do so. At last it had been presented. Weary of delay, the deputies resolved to print it, and Ruvigny did not object. For the offence of printing, two deputies were imprisoned. Ruvigny had to supplicate for their release. Then Du Bosc tried to get a new hearing by dressing up the Requéte-General in different words. This document was deposited with Ruvigny for presentation. He did present it, but waited long for a convenient time. This desultory work was interrupted by the Marquis being again sent to England. This brings us to the year 1674.
England had been led by France into unnatural warfare with Holland, war having been declared on the 17th March 1672. But it was inglorious from a military point of view, besides being originally and unchangeably unpopular with the House of Commons and the nation. In 1674 Parliament determined to stop the supplies. Ruvigny was sent to London to see if the inevitable peace between England and Holland could yet be prevented. Burnet says, that he was “a man of great practice in business and in all intrigues; he was still a firm Protestant, but in all other respects a very dexterous courtier, and one of the greatest statesmen in Europe. He had the appointment of an ambassador, but would not take the character, that he might not have a chapel, or mass said in it.” It is much to be deplored that the excellent Marquis was mixed up with the dirty work of bribery. But in those days most persons expected to be paid for everything they did; as Ralph Montague said to him, “In this world nobody does anything for nothing.” Money with other persons was the price of their abstaining from doing mischief; and this view suggests a more plausible defence of the corrupt system, which may have been Ruvigny’s defence. It was his great boast that he saved the French king’s money, and that a less dexterous ambassador would have spent three times more.
The Marquis, on his arrival in England, finding that the minds of Members of Parliament were made up, spent most of his time at court. One evening King Charles called him aside, and told him, with the strongest expressions of regret, that he had just signed a peace with the Dutch. “Sire,” replied Ruvigny, “what is done cannot be helped. But now I will show how faithfully I will serve your Majesty. My master will submit all his pretentions to you, for I doubt not that he will make you the arbiter and mediator of peace between him and Holland.” This plan gave “great joy” to Charles, and the French accepted his proffered mediation. Ruvigny also pressed him to give his parliament all satisfaction in points of religion, but the king gave to him, as formerly to Schomberg, an evasive answer, laying all the blame on la sottise de mon frère, the folly of his brother, James, Duke of York. The peace, which King Charles had signed, being in the interest of Spain, the Duke of York’s party took up the French interest strongly, according to Coleman’s Letters. Father Ferrier wrote from Paris to the Duke, that as to propositions which had regard to the Catholic religion, he must not treat with Monsieur Ruvigny. And Coleman writing to Father La Chaise, characterizes the old Marquis as “a very able man in his master’s service in things where religion is not concerned.”
We may suppose that Ruvigny often saw his relatives, the Russells; but the published letters of his niece mention him only once:— “1675. My uncle told Sir Harry Vernon yesterday he was un des incurables.” In 1676 he reported to Louis the following disagreeable truths:— “The king of England is in a manner abandoned by his ministers, even the most confidential. The Duke of York is entirely in your Majesty’s interest. All England is against your interests; and there is only the King and the Duke of York who embrace them with affection.” In May of that year a new French Ambassador was sent. Burnet says, “Ruvigny stayed but two years in England. For though he served his master’s interests but too well, yet the Popish party could not bear the want of a chapel in the ambassador’s house, so he was recalled.” His place of worship was the French Church in the Savoy, and his powers of negotiation were successfully employed in accommodating a difference between Richard Du Maresq, one of the ministers, and the Bishop of London (Dr. Compton), both being anxious for the mediation of their mutual friend.
He had been much missed by his co religionists at home. Remarking on his absence, Benoist notes that French ministers of State were really accessible to ​Ruvigny only; for if Protestant deputations were admitted to occasional audiences, all that Parisians could obtain was an unfavourable reply, while deputies from the country received rebuffs and threats. On his return to France, their religious grievances were not publicly discussed, partly because the politicians were occupied with the Anglo-French negotiations with Holland, and partly on account of Ruvigny’s bad health.
During Ruvigny’s residence in England, Lord Sunderland asked him to recommend a French Protestant tutor. This gave him an opportunity of serving an eminent scholar, Jean Rou, whose Memoirs are celebrated in Huguenot literature. Rou had compiled a series of accurate and interesting Chronological Tables on a large scale. Some of the plain facts thus chronicled being disagreeable to the Romanists, not only was it forbidden that Rou’s work should be printed, but Rou himself was arrested and imprisoned in the Bastile. In a short time he was set at liberty, to give him an opportunity of making alterations, which the government called corrections, in his work, before again bringing it to light. To a conscientious author this amounted to a total prohibition of the publication, and Rou was therefore advised to go abroad as a tutor. On Ruvigny’s recommendation he was installed at Althorpe in the spring of 1678 as tutor to Lord Spencer and his sister, while the parents, the Earl and Countess of Sunderland, statedly resided in London. A few months afterwards the Earl’s residence was at Paris, he having been appointed Ambassador. The father, thinking only of learning and accomplishments, was highly satisfied with Rou. But the mother, unwilling to hear any complaints against her son, and being chiefly anxious as to his bodily safety in play-hours, seemed to wish Rou to act as a nurse more than as a tutor; and taking advantage of the Earl’s absence from England, she wrote to Rou, enquiring if he disliked the boy, and concluding with a hint that he might resign his situation. He took the hint at once, and waited upon her ladyship at Whitehall to intimate his resignation, at the same time writing to Ruvigny to prepare him for seeing him in Paris. In reply, letters came both from Lord Sunderland and from Ruvigny urging him to retain his tutorship. The former, however, was intercepted by her ladyship, so that he had to guess at its contents from allusions contained in the latter, which was as follows:—
“Paris, 27th August 1678.
“Your letter, Sir, has truly surprised me, as containing news which I never could have anticipated. I saw Mademoiselle Rou yesterday, who can bear witness to the surprise which your letter gave me. This morning I have seen the Earl of Sunderland, and what has been done in your case is directly contrary to his wishes. He has expressed to me much esteem for your person, and he wishes you with all his heart to return to his son. As to this he himself writes to you, and I believe in a style which will render your refusal impossible. He has told me her ladyship’s reason for writing to you, which was that when her son’s lesson-hours were finished, you were not enough with him; otherwise you gave her great satisfaction. It is true that she loves her son more than herself, and that she often imagines that fatal accidents are sure to befal him when no one is near him. Such fancies are the affections of a mother, which sometimes go too far, yet there is a qualified and lenient judgment concerning them to which judicious people can bring themselves, — such people as both Lord Sunderland and yourself eminently are; and thus everything may be adjusted. Your honour is safe, your merit being known and appreciated. The imposed condition is only a little more assiduity, such as you already give, but which has not been as well known in the past as it will be in the future. If nothing better suggests itself, consent to this accommodation of the matter, as the Earl of Sunderland requests it of you. I am glad to hear that you have been detained in London by such a good resolution as that of calling on the Bishop of London. This highly becoming duty will allow time for your receiving our letters and for making everything up. Whatever be the issue, be assured, sir, that I esteem you to the utmost and that you may justly expect from me all the services that I am capable of rendering. — I am with truth and feeling, Sir, Your very humble and very affectionate servant,
No letter from Lord Sunderland having been delivered to him, Rou quitted England, and paid his respects to Ruvigny at Fontainebleau in the beginning of September.
We have not yet spoken of the domestic circle of the old Marquis and Marquise de Ruvigny. The children born to them were three sons and two daughters; but the daughters and the youngest son died in infancy or childhood. Two sons grew up, both of them soldiers, Henri, the young Marquis De Ruvigny, and Pierre, tin: Sicur de La Caillemotte. When these sons had to quit the parental roof, the Marquise adopted an orphan niece, Mademoiselle de Ciré. Rou gave much valued assistance in directing the more advanced portion of this young lady’s education.
Ralph Montague describes old Ruvigny as severely shaken by illness and the ​infirmities of age in 1678, and also disappointed at his diplomatic services not being rewarded by his son’s (the young Marquis’s) promotion, which had in the meantime been refused. However, in that year, or in 1679, young Henri was appointed Deputy-General at Court, his father being authorized to act also. The Peace of Nimeguen being concluded, there was time for church matters, and in 1680 the Romish priesthood renewed the war.
An Assembly of the Established clergy was held at Paris. These Divines, not content with the disabilities and deprivations already heaped on the Protestants, drew up a series of demands for the more complete suppression of Protestant liberties. The pastors had recourse to le vieux Deputé-General, whose state of health did not permit him to leave his house; and yet the king refused to hear any other deputation. The noble veteran accordingly wrote a manly and pathetic letter to Chancellor Le Tellier, which is a fair sample of his style of pleading:—
“Paris, 1st July 1680.
“My Lord, I would not presume to trouble you with a letter, if my infirmities did not detain me within doors. I shall during all my life bear to you the respect which I know to be your due, and in which none can be conscious of surpassing me. I hope, my lord, you will not take it ill that I employ this sheet of paper to convey a very humble petition, which I would have the honour of communicating in person were it not for my indisposition. I believed until now that the Established clergy were highly satisfied with all the proceedings hitherto taken against the subjects of the king who make profession of my religion, and that they could not find anything to do in the matter, except to return their thanks to His Majesty. But I learn that in their Assembly they have concocted a budget which contains several articles contrary to fidelity, to the Edicts, to Christian charity and to public tranquillity. I am, therefore, my Lord, under the necessity of requesting very humbly that you would make a representation to the effect, that it may please His Majesty to have no regard to such demands, and to give no judgment, before hearing our Deputies who are in waiting. These matters touch us so nearly, and to me they appear so important, that it seems to me that His Majesty’s sense of justice will not refuse us that favour. On such grounds, my Lord, I adjure you in the name of a numerous population, who desire nothing but life, and liberty to pray to God and to serve their master. These are very innocent desires; and you will clearly see that a people, who have their all at stake, ought to be studied more than they have hitherto been, and at least ought not to be driven to the extremity of desperation. Such will indubitably be the result if the king abandons them to the rigour and violence of enemies who are literally pitiless, and resemble the grave which is always receiving and never says, It is enough. I hope much better things from the equity and clemency of His Majesty; but if such hopes are disappointed, I shall be extremely pained, because it seems to me that the king’s service will receive much prejudice, and his subjects of my religion will believe themselves to be out of the pale of his royal protection. I pray God to give you a long and happy life. I am, with all imaginable respect, &c.
“Ruvigny.”
The resolute old Marquis had already foreseen that he might die in exile. He had received Letters Patent of Naturalization in England, whether as a testimony of regard offered by King Charles or solicited by himself as a provision for refuge from persecution, does not clearly appear. At any rate he discovered that his patent might be substantially serviceable and not merely complimentary. A letter to his favourite niece has been preserved, consigning the valuable document to secure custody. He writes:— “Je vous envoie aussi nos lettres de naturalité qui seront mieux entre vos mains qu’entre les miennes. Je vous prie, et Madame votre soeur aussi (Lady Elizabeth Noel), de les conserver. Elles peuvent servir, puisque il n’ y est rien de plus incertain que les evenements.” The date of that letter was January 1680. He probably was not surprised that his letter, sent to the Chancellor in July, resulted in nothing.
All pleading was in vain. The following year (1681) was the first year of the dragonnades. Madame de Maintenon, to secure her ascendency over the king, was the counsellor that Protestantism should be extinguished, and that by this holy work Louis the zealot should atone for the evil deeds of Louis the profligate. The Marquis de Louvois (Chancellor Le Tellier’s son) planned the mission of the dragoons into Poitou. Ruvigny seems to have hoped that the cruelties of these men might have disgusted Madame de Maintenon with Popery, she having been during a few girlish years a professed Protestant. He made his appeal to her; but her course had been already resolved upon. She wrote to the Comtesse de St. Geran (24th August 1681):— “Monsieur De Ruvigny wishes me to be Calvinist again in the depths of my heart; his head is as much turned by his religion as any minister’s (il est aussi entèté de sa religion qi’un ministre).” Ruvigny consequently tried to sap her influence with the king. She herself writes as to this:— “Ruvigny is intractable. He has informed the ​king that I was born a Calvinist and continued such until my coming to court. This compels me to approve things that are exceedingly repugnant to my feelings.” It is said that the king was startled by Ruvigny’s information. When Madame expressed some disapproval of the cruelties of the soldiery, his Majesty insinuated that in pleading for Huguenots she might be pleading for herself. She remonstrated no more. And whether she felt pity may be doubted by any one who reads her letter to her brother, telling him that the Protestants’ estates in Poitou would certainly be sold cheap, and advising him to buy largely.
One of the landed proprietors there, Charles Gourjault, Marquis de Venours, officially brought the outrages of the military before Ruvigny by letter. Primed with such facts, the writer’s son had been sent to Paris with a deputation, who instantly were ordered by the Jesuit-ridden court to go home as liars. Yet instructions had at the same time been sent to Poitou, desiring the infamous Marillac to be less impetuous. Marillac, full of insolence and resentment, immediately quartered twentyfive troopers upon the Marquis de Venours; on the day following, he sent a whole company to plunder and devastate; and then gangs of common thieves were allowed to glean. All the Protestants were similarly treated. And so old Venours wrote to the Deputy-General to intercede with the king. But the king backed his officers, and intercession failed. It may be asked why the king did not abolish the office of Deputy-General. The reason was that one refinement of Popish cruelty is so to contrive that it may seem that their victims are not sentenced without being heard in their own defence.
Many of the representations to the king were made by the young deputy-general. Some accounts speak of him as the person who told the king of Madame de Maintenon’s variations of creed. But as she says, “Ruvigny,” and not “young Ruvigny,” or “Monsieur Ruvigny le fils,” she must mean the old Marquis.
In the same eventful 1681, a special deputation to the king, including the famous Pastor Claude, were on the road to Versailles. A messenger from the palace met them, and intimated that only the deputy-general would be received. The old Marquis accordingly waited on his Majesty, and the celebrated interview took place, which has been recorded by Burnet. The audience lasted several hours. He told the king how happy France had been for fifty years, as contrasted with former times, the toleration of the Protestants producing this internal tranquillity. Such relations with native Protestants prevented the Court of Rome from tyrannizing over France. The Protestants were a large part of the population, wealthy, industrious, and always ready to contribute to the revenue. His Majesty had been misinformed, if he expected them to change their religion at the royal bidding. On the contrary, multitudes would go out of the kingdom, and carry their wealth and industry to other countries. One result would be the shedding of much blood. Many would suffer, and others would be precipitated into desperate courses. Thus the most glorious of all reigns would be disfigured and defaced, and become a scene of blood and horror. The Marquis’s speech was chiefly occupied with minute statistical details, and numerous calculations and illustrations.
The king listened in silence all the time without making any remarks, or putting any questions; and then ended the audience by speaking to the following effect:— “I take your freedom in good part, as it flows from your zeal for my service. I believe all you tell me about the prejudice to my affairs that may be incurred. I think, however, that there will not be bloodshed. But I consider myself so indispensably bound to attempt the conversion of all my subjects, and the extirpation of heresy, that if the doing of it require that with one hand I must cut off the other, I shall not draw back.” Ruvigny went and told his friends they might now dread the worst; but he would not raise a civil war, which would have been a losing game, owing to the apathy of Britain and Holland. Burnet says, “He was much censured for this by some hot men among them, as having betrayed them to the court, but he was very unjustly blamed, as appeared by both his own conduct and by his son’s.”
The date of the audience is fixed by Benoist’s History. He informs us that it was the occasion when the king said that he would part with an arm for the privilege of converting all his subjects to the Romish Church — a phrase of which the clergy made good use in the Pastoral Letter, issued in the year following.
That Letter was drawn up by the Romish Clergy in 1682, and it was called L’Avertissement Pastoral. The court wished to enforce the opening of the ​Protestant pulpits to the prelates, to read and comment upon this Avertissement, which extolled Catholic unity, and denounced schismatical heresy. Against this indignity Ruvigny made strong representations, and the concession was granted that a full meeting of Consistory should receive the prelatic visitation on a Sabbath. It was managed by the pastors that public worship was not interrupted. The meeting of each consistory resolved itself into an episcopal visitation for delivering printed copies of the Avertissement, which were received with a polite protest against the intrusion, followed by some mild controversial conversation.
With regard to Ruvigny’s English relatives, we note that in 1678 his favourite niece took the title of Lady Russell, her noble husband having succeeded to the courtesy title of Lord Russell on the death of a brother. In March 1680, Lady Elizabeth Noel died, leaving one son and four daughters under the guardianship of Lord Russell. In the beginning of 1681 (the year in which Mr. Noel became Lord Noel of Titchfield), Ruvigny paid a visit to England. Lady Russell wrote under date, London, March, 1681, “My uncle Ruvigny has been indisposed with his phthisic; he has not supped here yet; what he will to-night I know not.” We have already seen how he was employed in Paris during the two following years. In the summer of 1683 he received a letter from Rachel, Lady Russell, imploring him to come over to England. Her patriotic husband was sentenced to be beheaded; King Charles was inexorable. There remained only the possibility that he might yield to her uncle’s importunity in a personal interview. Her letter found him most willing. This was his reply:—
“Paris, 14th July 1683.
“I am extremely impatient, my dear niece, to be beside you. The king arrived three days ago; he has graciously consented to my journey. If I could travel with the post I would soon be in London. I am buying horses, and I will make every exertion which my age will allow. May God console you and fortify you.
“Ruvigny.”
The Marquis’s journey did not take place. Barillon, the French Ambassador in England, undertook the duty of requesting for him an audience with the English king. The reply of Charles was first printed by Sir John Dalrymple, and it has been verified by Guizot, — “I do not wish to prevent Monsieur De Ruvigny from coming here, but my Lord Russell’s head will be off before he arrives.”
Dr. Burnet, having attended Lord Russell to the last, and being in uneasy relations with the court, at once set out on a visit to France. He chronicles his obligations to the old marquis, for introducing him to desirable French society, and particularly to Marshal Schomberg and the Due de Montausier. To the credit of the latter, he records how far he was from flattering Louis, “as all the rest did most abjectly.”
The death of Charles II. in February 1685, turned all eyes to England. Ruvigny congratulated King James on his accession, and received a very kind answer to his letter. He thought that a hopeful opportunity presented itself for obtaining the reversal of the attainder which lay on Wriothesley Russell, the only son of Lord Russell and his widowed niece. He wrote to her that he was coming over for that purpose. The politicians took alarm that some Bourbon diplomacy was on foot. Burnet being asked to take measures for preventing the Marquis’s visit to England, consulted with Lady Russell, and then wrote to him that his niece had indeed begged that journey of him when she hoped it might have saved her husband’s life, but she would not venture to request the journey on any other consideration, considering his great age, “some years past four score,” and her son being but a child. But nothing would deter the fond uncle. He came over and waited several times on the king, who treated him with great affability, but would give no promise as to young Russell. As to this business, Lady Russell left the following memorandum:—
“The Lord Treasurer (Hyde, Earl of Rochester) told me that my uncle had seemed to have set the effecting it much on his heart, and with the greatest kindness to me imaginable. I told my lord I believed it, and indeed the friendship was so surprising, his lordship knew very well the world imputed his coming over to England to some other cause, or at least thought he had been earnestly invited to it. For the last, I positively affirmed he had not been; but as to the first, it was too deep for me to judge of.”
“It was a great trouble to me to hear of the sad loss your dear friend sustained during his short stay in England. But, in some circumstances, to die is to live. And that voice from heaven runs much in my mind, which St. John heard in his vision of the last (as I think) and most extreme persecution which should befal the faithful servants of God before the final downfall of Babylon, ‘Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord from henceforth,” meaning that they were happy who were taken away before that terrible and utmost trial of the faith and patience of the saints.”
In a letter to Dr. Fitzwilliam, Lady Russell gives some details:
“A young lady my uncle Ruvigny brought with him falling ill of the small-pox, I first removed my children to Bedford House, then followed myself, for the quieting of my good uncle’s mind, who would have it so. From thence I brought my little tribe down to Woburn. And when I heard how fatal the end was of the young lady’s distemper, I returned myself to Bedford House to take my last leave (for so I take it to be) of as kind a relation and as zealous tender a friend as ever anybody had. To my uncle and aunt their niece was an inexpressible loss; but to herself death was the contrary. As most do, she died as she lived. As her body grew weak her faith and hope grew strong, comforting her comforters, and edifying all about her: even magnifying the goodness of God that she died in a country where she could in peace give up her soul to Him that made it. What a glorious thing, doctor, ’tis to live and die as sure as she did! I heard my uncle and aunt say, that in seven years she had been with them they could never tax her with a failure in her piety or worldly prudence; yet she had been roughly attacked, as the French Gazettes will tell you.”
The young lady’s death, of a disorder so fearfully contagious, precluded the Marquis from soliciting a farewell audience at court, but he wrote a letter in the French language to the king. The date of his return to France is preserved in Lady Russell’s endorsement of a copy of it, “My Uncle Ruvigny’s Letter to the King just before he left England, about September 28, 1685.” From this letter I quote only two sentences:—
“Sire, — As owing to a mournful event I may not present myself before your Majesty, I hope his Majesty will have the kindness to pardon me if I take the liberty of writing to him........ Sire, what I have asked rests solely on the esteem which you have for the memory of a great knight and Grand Treasurer of the late king, your brother. I have asked it again, being persuaded that an act of your clemency in favour of a lady, and a child four years of age, could produce in the feeling of the world, effects, &c, &c”
As to the Protestant churches of France, the remainder of the time between 1682 and the Revocation seems to have been spent in helpless dismay, except one or two despairing struggles, which Ruvigny could not support, foreseeing that many Protestant lives would be lost, and nothing gained. The temples of the Huguenots were being fast demolished, and the King’s information was, that conversions to the Romish persuasion had previously dispersed their congregations. That he might be better informed, many congregations met for public worship upon the ruins of their temples. And a long apologetic letter was written to His Majesty (dated July 1683) beginning thus:— “Sire, Your most humble subjects of the Protestant religion, not having power to resist their consciences, are constrained to assemble together, to call upon the holy name of God and sing His praises, and by this religious service to expose themselves to all the violence and rigours which a too fierce zeal can infuse into the breasts of your officers.” These conventicles were proclaimed to be rebellious, and were visited with military vengeance. In Vivarais and Dauphiny the savage troopers met with armed resistance; and by a lying truce they secured many hapless prisoners, including the Pasteur Isaac Homel (aged seventy-two), who was broken on the wheel on the 16th October 1683. Another delusion in the royal mind was that, though there might be great heat and clamour in the means used by his missionaries, there was little personal cruelty. It is said, that in 1684 a final representation was presented to the king as to the numberless and unparalleled cruelties inflicted by the dragoons and their abettors. This statement refers either to the old Marquis or to his son:— “The last petition presented to the king himself by the Lord Marquis De Ruvigny, the Deputy-General, in March 1684, was couched in the most submissive terms, that would have moved and melted into pity the hardest heart (thousands having seen and read it, for it was afterwards printed), yet they got nothing by it but the hastening of their ruin and destruction.” Wodrow joins the ​name of Marshal Schomberg with the Marquis De Ruvigny in alluding to the presentation of this memorial.
The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (October 1685) falsified Lady Russell’s belief that she had taken her last leave of her uncle in September. She writes, 15th January 1686, “My uncle and his wife are permitted to come out of France.” Their safe arrival is inferred from her letter of 23d March. “I was at Greenwich yesterday to see my old uncle Ruvigny.” He was probably in his eighty-sixth year. At Greenwich for more than three years Le Marquis and La Marquise enjoyed the happiest kind of celebrity as benefactors of their refugee countrymen who continually flocked into England.
Ruvigny’s worldly circumstances were such that there was no opportunity for his receiving any panegyric in the English parliament. His panegyric came from his old master. Louis XIV. did not confiscate any portion of his great property. He offered liberty of worship to him and his household, and assured him of continued favour as a great nobleman at the court of Versailles. But the warm-hearted old man could not bear to be an eye-witness of the ruin of his brethren — a feeling at which Louis did not take offence. He was therefore allowed to retire to England with his family, and to retain his wealth, taking with him whatever he pleased, and leaving investments, deposits, and stewards in France, ad libitum. The absence of speeches in our Parliamentary history is compensated by the eulogium of Lord Macaulay, who from St. Simon, Dumont de Bostaquet, and other authorities, has collected facts and framed a conscientious verdict. The historian represents Ruvigny as quitting a splendid court for a modest dwelling at Greenwich. “That dwelling,” says Macaulay, “was the resort of all that was most distinguished among his fellow exiles. His abilities, his experience, and his munificent kindness, made him the undoubted chief of the refugees.2/
His English relations and other admirers were also frequent visitors. His neighbour, the accomplished John Evelyn, became an intimate friend. Evelyn’s Diary contains the following entries: — “1686, August 8. I went to visit the Marquess Ruvigny, now my neighbour at Greenwich, retired from the persecution in France. He was the Deputy of all the Protestants in that kingdom [to the French king], and several times ambassador at this and other courts — a person of great learning and experience.” “1687, 24th April. At Greenwich, at the close of the Church Service there was a French Sermon preached, after the use of the English liturgy translated into French, to a congregation of about a hundred French refugees, of whom Monsieur Ruvigny was chief, and had obtained the use of the church after the parish service was ended.” The Diarist gives us also a glimpse of the fine old gentleman’s bearing in general society, in a letter to Pepys, dated 4th October 1689, “The late Earl of St. Albans took extraordinary care at Paris that his nephew should learn by heart all the forms of encounter and court addresses, as upon occasion of giving or taking the wall, sitting down, entering in, or going out of the door, taking leave at parting, l’entretien de la ruelle, à la cavalière among the ladies, &c. — in all which never was person more adroit than my late neighbour, the Marquis de Ruvigny.”
Bishop Burnet was an old friend; and probably at this date they had some of the conversations of which Burnet has made use in the History of His own Time. As to Charles II., Ruvigny said, “I often observed how anxious he was to raise the greatness of France, especially at sea. He desired that all the plans of the French government for the increase and conduct of their naval force might be sent to him. He pointed out errors, and suggested corrections, as if he had been a Vice-Roy of France.”
Dumont de Bostaquet, a French officer who came with King William, gives us some idea of the last months of the veteran refugee, who seems to have been always showing hospitality, hastening on errands of mercy, and scattering his wealth among the other refugees. He was admitted to the presence of a king, on whom he might lavish his instinctive devotion to monarchy. If not a regular Privy Councillor, he was nevertheless taken into King William’s intimate counsels. War in Europe and also in Ireland being inevitable, though he was too old to receive a general’s commission, he took the chief responsibility of enrolling the refugees in regiments. “Four regiments,” says Macaulay, “one of cavalry and three of infantry were formed out of the French refugees, many of whom had borne arms with credit. No person did more to promote the raising of these regiments than the Marquis of Ruvigny.”
He lived till July 1689. On the last day of his life he was apparently in excellent health; but at midnight he was attacked by a violent fit of colic which proved fatal in four hours. Dumont de Bostaquet mentions a procession of mourners, ​including Messieurs Le Coq and De Romaignac, and Dumont himself. This sorrowful company was conveyed by the river to the French Church of the Savoy in the Strand, and there a funeral service was performed. The interment is registered at Greenwich:—
BURIALS IN JULY 1689. 28 |Marquis of Ruvignie.28 | The above is a true Extract from the Register of Burials belonging to the Parish Church of Greenwich, in the County of Kent, taken this 20th day of July 1863, By me, F. E. Lloyd Jones, Curate.
Here I may introduce Benoist’s summing up of the character and reputation of the deceased (it barely does him justice):—
“The most ardent and zealous decided that he temporised too much, that he was too much disposed to take his time and make his footing sure, that he proposed nothing [to the king] until by prudent measures he had done away with any appearance of being disagreeably importunate, — in one word, that the fear of damaging his own fortune deprived him of courage to speak firmly in matters involving the interests of the Church. The provinces more adjacent to Paris looked with more favour on his behaviour and his counsels. They did not blame him for dexterous management in a conjuncture when he might well fear that their all might be ruined by uncourteous language and unfortunate coincidences. They did not believe that the complaisance which he had for the Ministers of State was incompatible with zeal for religion, or that because he was a smart courtier he was less at heart a good man. In fact they sometimes received from him advices, both very useful and very opportune, on the secret designs of the court and clergy, into which he probably would not have possessed the means of penetrating, if he had had less management and address. This diversity of opinions was never cleared up, and during the whole of his deputation he was exposed to these opposite judgments. Nevertheless, fairness requires that two things should be said in his favour:— first, that his deputation fell to him in times so vexatious, that it was impossible for him to acquit himself to the taste of every one ; and that any other man, gifted with the same power of being agreeable to the court, would probably have been more unhappy in the discharge of the office ; and, secondly, that the end of his life has proved to conviction that he loved his religion, since he chose to quit the kingdom with all his family to continue in the profession of the Reformed faith to which he had adhered all his life, rather than to advance his fortune several degrees higher by remaining in France and becoming a Roman Catholic.”
Very similar feelings are attributed to Pasteur Du Bosc by his biographer, who says: “The news of the death of the Marquis De Ruvigny did not affect him otherwise than most sensibly, even though that nobleman had, in years, passed the bounds which Moses assigned to the most vigorous. Du Bosc had received kind offices from him, and he did him the justice to believe that if he had not at all times done all that the Churches of France expected from a Deputy-General, the reason was that he knew the spirit of his master, and that he could never have obtained access to him, if he had not studied him with very careful observation. He was edified by the attachment to the truth of which all his family had given proof, and by the indefatigable assiduity with which his sons have promoted the relief of the poor refugees. He could not but place himself in their circumstances, and sympathise in their loss of so good a head.”
ROYAL COMMISSIONERS AT NATIONAL SYNODS.
| At the Synod of Charenton there appeared in the year as a Royal Commissioner — [“it being his Majesty’s pleasure that always, in all colloquies and synods for the future, there shall be present an officer of the king, professing the P. Reformed Religion, to represent his person, and see that nothing be treated or debated contrary to his Majesty’s service, or prejudicial to the public peace ; and that no other thing be proposed or debated than what concerns the order and discipline of the said P. Reformed Religion.”] The Lords Deputies-General had remonstrated with his Majesty without success. | 1623 | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ |
| At the Synod of Castres, | 1626 | The same. |
| At the Second Synod of Charenton, | 1631 | The same. |
| At the Synod of Alencon, | 1637 | Lord de Saint-Marc. |
| At the Third Synod of Charenton, | 1644-5 | Du Cumont Lord de Boisgrollier. |
| At the Synod of Loudun, | 1659 | Lord de Magdelaine. |
Note. &endash; Royal Commissioners (being Protestants) continued to sit in the provincial church courts after the abolition of National Synods. The King threatened to send Roman Catholic commissioners in their stead, on the pretext, “que l’on accusoit les Synodes de cacher une partie des resolutions, que la Cour avoit le plus d’interêt d’savoir.” The Messieurs Ruvigny suggested a compromise, namely, that there should still be the Protestant Commissioner, but that a Roman Catholic should be associated with him, which was first acted upon at the Synod of Rouen in 1682 (where the Protestant Commissioner was the Marquis de Heucourt). See the “Life of Du Bosc,” p. 119. The very last Provincial Synod was held at Lizy, in the diocese of Meaux, in 1683, when only one Royal Commissioner was named by the king, a Roman Catholic Nobleman, who was accompanied by a Romish Priest as an assistant-commissioner. See “Bulletin de la Societe de l’Hist. Prot.,” tom. 2, p. 458.
List of Lords Deputies-General of the Protestant Churches of France, who have resided at the Courts of Henri iv., Louis xiii., and louis xiv.
Reign of Henri IV.
| Names. | | Remarks. |
| 1. Lord de St. Germains. 2. Josias Mercier, Lord des Bordes. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | Elected in 1601, at Sainte-Foy, by a political assembly. They were re-elected in 1603, by the National Synod of Gap. |
| 1. Odet La None, Lord de La Noue. 2. Lord Du Crois. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | Probably elected in 1605, at Chatellerault, by a political assembly. |
| 1. Jean de Jaucourt, Lord de Villarnoul. 2. Jean Bontemps, Lord de Mirande. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | Nominated by the 18th National Synod (called the third Synod of La Rochelle), in 1607, the king having declared his resolution to refuse his royal licence to a political assembly. |
| Reign of Louis XIII. |||
| 1. Jacques de Jaucourt, Lord de Rouvray. 2. Etienne Chesneverd, Lord de la Miletière. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | Elected in 1611, at Saumur, by a political assembly. |
| 1. Lord de Bertreville. 2. Lord de Maniald. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | Elected in 1614 at Grenoble, by a political assembly. |
| 1. Lord de Maniald. 2. Jean, Lord de Chalas. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | In office in 1620, having been elected by a political assembly at Loudun. |
| 1. Lord de Maniald. 2. Esaïïe Du Mas, Lord de Montmartyn. [On the death of the former, in 1626, Lord Hardy, one of his Majesty’s Secretaries, was nominated by the king.] | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | In office in 1623; these Deputies-General are named in the diplomatic papers concerning La Rochelle, and were probably elected by the political assembly that met in that city in 1621. |
| 1. Henri de Clermont d’Amboise, Marquis de Gallerande, commonly called the Marquis de Clermont. 2. Lord Bazin. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | “The Synod of Castres, in 1626, yielded to the royal demand, that six names should be sent from which the king might select two Deputies-General. The other names were — (III.) Claude, Baron de Gabrias et de Beaufort; (IV.) Louis de Champagne, Comte de Suze; (V.) and (VI.) were from the tiers-etat. This Synod, by the king’s command, ordered that only laymen should sit in political assemblies. |
| 1. Marquis de Clermont. 2. Lieutenant-General, Lord Galland, eldest son of the Lord Commissioner. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | These names, by the king’s desire, were deliberately proposed by the Second Synod of Charenton, in 1631, and accepted by his Majesty. The message was, “That it was his Majesty’s pleasure, that this assembly should agree with him in the choice of two persons acceptable to his Majesty, who might exercise the office of Deputies-General near his person, and attend the court at its progress and removals.” |
| 1. Marquis de Clermont. 2. Lord Marbaud. | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Elected in 1637 by the Synod of Alencon. |
| Reign of Louis XIV. |||
| deputies-general appointed by the king himself. |||
| 1644- Marquis d’Arzilliers. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | The office was vacant by the resignation of De Clermont. |
| 1653. Marquis De Ruvigny. | | On the death of d’Arzilliers. |
| 1679. Henri De Ruvigny, eldest son of the above. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | The father had leave either to act alone, or to co-operate with his son, ad libitum. |
* ↑ The wife of Seigneur Nicolas de Massue de Renneval was Helène, daughter of Antoine d’Ailly, Le Sieur de La Mairie et de Pierrepont, by Charlotte Famechon, his wife.
* ↑ Je fais plus de cas de la liaison de Monsieur le Maréchal d’Estrees et de Monsieur de Seneeterre, qui ont vècu cinquante ans à la Cour dans une confidence toujours égale; je fais plus de cas de la confiance que Monsieur de Turenne a eûë en Monsieur de Ruvigny quarante ans durant: que de ces Amitiés toujours citées et jamais mises en usage parmi les hommes. — Saint-Evremond OEuvres, Tome II., page 282. (Lond. 1705.)
* ↑ Haag.
* ↑ Clarendon’s History, Book x.
* ↑ This account of the cause celêbre is an abridgement of the story as told by Benoist in his History of the Edict of Nantes. The greater part of it, of course, belongs to earlier dates than those of Ruvigny’s marriage and his subsequent public life.
* ↑ John Locke has noted the value of French money at this time:— 1 pistole ... (Louis d’or) ... 11 livres. 1 ecu ... (Crown) ... ... 3 livres. 1 livre ... (Pound) ... ... 20 sous. 1 pistole was therefore equal to 220 sous, or no pence (9s. 2d. sterling). Before the reign of Louis XIV. there were two Deputies-General, for whom the annual sum of 13,500 livres was set aside from the Protestant endowments. The endowments were obtained through a composition or commutation entered into between the Protestants and the King with reference to tithes. See also “Danby’s Letters,” page 5.
* ↑ A similar office had been introduced at the Court of Navarre by the same prince. At the National Synod held at Vitre in Brittany, in the Chateau of the Right Hon. Guy, Comte De Laval, 16th May 1583, “The Lord Du Plessis presented himself in the name of the King of Navarre to this Assembly, proposing from his Majesty that there might be sent unto him, being now on the other side of the Loire, certain Deputies, persons of quality and understanding who might be near his Majesty, to acquaint him with the true state of our Churches; and that he might also reciprocally communicate unto the Churches all matters of importance tending to their welfare and preservation. This assembly is of opinion that all the Churches be exhorted effectually to comply with His Majesty’s demands, and in order thereunto, to name one or two deputies to be despatched unto him in the name of the Churches, and this to be done out of hand; and the Province of the Isle of France is to see it done without delay.”
* ↑ Quick’s Synodicon.
* ↑ Phelypeaux was the surname and signature of the Marquis de la Vrilliére, who was the Secretary of State for the dealings of the king with his subjects of the Pretended Reformed Religion. The nobles of the most ancient races signed with their family names rather than with their titles. This Secretary continued in office until his death in 1681, being the brother and successor of the eminent Secretary Paul Phelypeaux Comte de Pont-Chartrain, and ancestor of a line of Secretaries of State, ending with Le Duc de La Vrilliére in 1775.
* ↑ Bulletin, vol. x. p. 119.
* ↑ Lady Derby was Charlotte, (laughter of Claude, Due de la Tremoïlle by Lady Charlotte Brabantine de Nassau, daughter of William the Silent, Prince of Orange, and Charlotte de Bourbon Montpensier, the prince’s third wife. The Duchesse to whom she wrote was Marie de la Tour d’Auvergne, daughter of the Duc de Bouillon by Elizabeth de Nassau, and grand-daughter of William the Silent, and his fourth wife, Louise de Coligny. When the French church in the Savoy, London, was opened on 14th July 1661, Lady Derby was present, and her daughter Amelia Sophia, Countess (afterwards Marchioness) of Athole. King Charles II. esteemed Lady I >eiby, and promised to make her the governess of his children; but the expected royal family was never born. She died in 1664, aged sixty-three. See “The Lady of Latham,” being the Life and Letters of Charlotte, Countess of Derby, by Madame Guizot de Witt. London, 1869.
* ↑ Cooke’s “Life of Shaftesbury,” vol. i. p. 331.
* ↑ According to a pamphlet printed at London in 1680, “Monsieur Rohux” had the imprudence to solicit the Duke of York to take him to Charles II. The Duke agreed, but secretly “caused Rouveny to stand behind the hangings at St. James’s,” so that he might hear “this innocent gentleman discourse over the whole business,” quite unaware that he was speaking in the hearing of the French Ambassador. (The pamphlet is entitled “A Letter to a Person of Honour concerning the King disavowing the having been married to the D. of M.’s mother.”)
* ↑ “1669. — His Majesty begins to suppress the Chambers of the Edict, which had been extorted from his predecessors by the Huguenots. The Chamber of the Parliament of Paris was suppressed the first.” — Father Daniel, “History of France.”
* ↑ Benoist’s Histoire de L’Edit de Nantes.
* ↑ “Burnet’s own Time,” folio, vol. i., pp. 656, 657.
* ↑ “This most Christian King did lately in our hearing say, That he did so earnestly desire to sec all those broken and scattered parcels brought back to the Unity of the Church, that he would esteem it his glory to compass it with the shedding of his own Royal blood, and even with the loss of that invincible arm by which he has so happily made an end of so many wars.” — The Clergy’s Letter, translated by Burnet, page 8.
* ↑ “Je ne veux pas empêcher que M. de Ruvigny me vienne ici, mais my lord Russel aura le cou coupé, avant qu’il arrive.” — Letter from Barillon reporting to Louis XIV. his interview with Charles II. on 1 8th July 1683. This letter is in Paris in the “Archives des affaires etrangères de France,” and was copied by M. Guizot for his article in the “Revue des Deux-Mondes,” — which was afterwards published as a book under the title, “L’Amour dans le Mariage,” 6th edition, Paris, 1858. [There is an English translation of Guizot’s brochure, with the title, “The Married Life of Rachel, Lady Russell.”]
* ↑ Wodrow’s History, folio, vol. ii., p. 333, and Appendix Nos. 92, 93.