great statesman vanquished them; but he confirmed to them the liberty of conscience which had been bestowed on them by the Edict of Nantes. They were suffered, under some restraints of no galling kind, to worship God according to their own ritual, and to write in defense of their own doctrine. They were admissible to political and military employment; nor did their heresy, during a considerable time, practically impede their rise in the world. Some of them commanded the armies of the state, ⚫ and others presided over important departments of the civil administration. At length a change took place. Louis the Fourteenth had, from an early age, regarded the Calvinists with an aversion at once religious and political. As a zealous Roman Catholic, he detested their theological dogmas. As a prince fond of arbitrary power, he detested those Republican theories which were intermingled with the Genevese divinity. He gradually retrenched all the privileges which the schismatics enjoyed. He interfered with the education of Protestant children, confiscated property bequeathed to Protestant consistories, and on frivolous pretexts shut up Protestant churches. The Protestant ministers were harassed by the tax-gatherers. The Protestant magistrates were deprived of the honor of nobility. The Protestant officers of the royal household were informed that his majesty dispensed with their services. Orders were given that no Protestant should be admitted into the legal profession. The oppressed sect showed some faint signs of that spirit which in the preceding century had bidden defiance to the whole power of the house of Valois. Massacres and executions followed. Dragoons were quartered in the towns where the heretics were numerous, and in the country seats of the heretic gentry; and the cruelty and licentiousness of these rude missionaries was sanctioned or leniently censured by the government. Still, however, the Edict of Nantes, though practically violated in its most essential provisions, had not been formally rescinded; and the king repeatedly declared in solemn public acts that he was resolved to maintain it.

But the bigots and flatterers who had his ear gave him advice which he was but too willing to take. They represented to him that his rigorous policy had been eminently successful; that little or no resistance had been made to his will; that thousands of Huguenots had already been converted; that, if he would take the one decisive step which yet remained, those who were still obstinate would speedily submit, France would be purged from the taint of heresy, and her prince would have earned a heavenly crown not less glorious than that of Saint Louis. These arguments prevailed. The final blow was struck. The Edict of Nantes was revoked; and a crowd of decrees against the sectaries appeared in rapid succession. Boys and girls were torn from their parents, and sent to be educated in convents. All Calvinistic ministers were commanded either to abjure their religion, or to quit their country within a fortnight. The other professors of the Reformed faith were forbidden to leave the kingdom; and, in order to prevent them from making their escape, the out-ports and frontiers were strictly guarded. It was thought that the flocks, thus separated from the evil shepherds, would soon return to the true fold; but, in spite of all the vigilance of the military police, there was a vast emigration. It was calculated that, in a few months, fifty thousand families quitted France forever. Nor were

the refugees such as a country can well spare. They were generally persons of intelligent minds, of industrious. habits, and of austere morals. In the list are to be found names eminent in war, in science, in literature, and in art. Some of the exiles offered their swords to William of Orange, and distinguished themselves by the fury with which they fought against their persecutor. Others avenged themselves with weapons still more formidable, and, by means of the presses of Holland, England, and Germany, inflamed, during thirty years, the public mind of Europe against the French government. A more peaceful class erected silk manufactories in the eastern suburb of London. One detachment of emigrants taught

the Saxons to make the stuffs and hats of which France had hitherto enjoyed a monopoly. Another planted the first vines in the neighborhood of the Cape of Good Hope.*

In ordinary circumstances, the courts of Spain and of Rome would have eagerly applauded a prince who had made vigorous war on heresy; but such was the hatred inspired by the injustice and haughtiness of Louis, that, when he became a persecutor, the courts of Spain and Rome took the side of religious liberty, and loudly reprobated the cruelty of turning a savage and licentious soldiery loose on an unoffending people.† One cry of grief and rage rose from the whole of Protestant Europe. The tidings of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes reached England about a week before the day to which the Par liament stood adjourned. It was clear then that the spirit of Gardiner and of Alva was still the spirit of the Roman Catholic Church. Louis was not inferior to James in generosity and humanity, and was certainly far superior to James in all the abilities and acquirements of a statesman. Louis had, like James, repeatedly promised to respect the privileges of his Protestant subjects; yet Louis was now avowedly a persecutor of the Reformed religion. What reason was there, then, to doubt that James waited only for an opportunity to follow the example? He was already forming, in defiance of the law, a military force officered to a great extent by Roman Catholics. Was there any thing unreasonable in the apprehension that this force might be employed to do what the French Dragoons had done?

James was almost as much disturbed as his subjects by the conduct of the court of Versailles. In truth, that

The cotemporary tracts in various languages on the subject of this persecution are innumerable. An eminently clear, terse, and spirited summary will be found in Voltaire's Siècle de Louis XIV.

↑ "Misionarios embotados," says Ronquillo. "Apostoli armati," says Innocent. There is, in the Mackintosh Collection, a remarkable letter on this subject from Ronquillo, dated 1686. See Venier, Relatione di Fran

March 26
April 5,

cia, 1689, quoted by Professor Ranke in his Römischen Päpste, book viii.

court had acted as if it had meant to embarrass and annoy him. He was about to ask from a Protestant Legislature a full toleration for Roman Catholics. Nothing, therefore, could be more unwelcome to him than the intelligence that, in a neighboring country, toleration had just been withdrawn by a Roman Catholic government from Protestants. His vexation was increased by a speech which the Bishop of Valence, in the name of the Gallican clergy, addressed at this time to Louis the Fourteenth. The pious sovereign of England, the orator said, looked to the most Christian king, the eldest son of the Church, for support against a heretical nation. It was remarked that the members of the House of Commons showed particular anxiety to procure copies of this harangue, and that it was read by all Englishmen with indignation and alarm.* James was desirous to counteract the impression which these things had made, and was also, at that moment, by no means unwilling to let all Europe see that he was not the slave of France. He therefore declared publicly that he disapproved of the manner in which the Huguenots. had been treated, granted to the exiles some relief from his privy purse, and, by letters under his great seal, invited his subjects to imitate his liberality. In a very few months it became clear that all this compassion was simulated merely for the purpose of cajoling his Parliament; that he regarded the refugees with mortal hatred, and that he regretted nothing so much as his own inability to do what Louis had done.

On the ninth of November the houses met. The Commons were summoned to the bar of the Lords, and the

king spoke from the throne. His speech had been composed by himself. He congratulated his loving subjects on the suppression of the rebellion in the west; but he added that the speed with which that rebellion had risen to a formidable height, and the length of time during which

* "Mi dicono che tutti questi parlamentarii ne hanno voluto copia, il che assolutamente avrà causate pessime impressioni."—Adda, Nov. 5, 1685. See Evelyn's Diary, Nov. 3.

it had continued to rage, must convince all men how little dependence could be placed on the militia. He had, therefore, made additions to the regular army. The charge of that army would henceforth be more than double of what it had been, and he trusted that the Commons would grant him the means of defraying the increased expense. He then informed his hearers that he had employed some officers who had not taken the tests; but he knew them to be fit for public trust. He feared that artful men might avail themselves of this irregularity to disturb the harmony which existed between himself and his Parliament. But he would speak out. He was determined not to part with servants on whose fidelity he could rely, and whose help he might, perhaps, soon need.*

This explicit declaration that he had broken the laws which were regarded by the nation as the chief safeguard of the established religion, and that he was resolved to persist in breaking those laws, was not likely to soothe the excited feelings of his subjects. The Lords, seldom disposed to take the lead in opposition to a government, consented to vote him formal thanks for what he had said; but the Commons were in a less complying mood. When they had returned to their own house there was a long silence, and the faces of many of the most respectable members expressed deep concern. At length Middleton rose and moved the House to go instantly into committee on the king's speech; but Sir Edmund Jennings, a zealous Tory from Yorkshire, who was supposed to speak the sentiments of Danby, protested against this course, and demanded time for consideration. Sir Thomas Clarges, maternal uncle of the Duke of Albemarle, and long distinguished in Parliament as a man of business and a vigilant steward of the public money, took the same side. The feeling of the House could not be mistaken. Sir John Ernley, chancellor of the Exchequer, insisted that the delay should not exceed forty-eight hours; but he was

* Lords' Journals, Nov. 9, 1685. "Vengo assicurato," says Adda, "che S M. stessa abbia composto il discorso."—Dispatch of Nov. 18, 1685.