Dr. Parr (writing in the year 1808) gives this account of Sir Samuel’s earliest effort in this direction:— “Sir Samuel Romilly, whose name I never mention without veneration, moved in the House of Commons for the repeal of the law against private stealing from the person. He supported the motion with his usual accuracy of information and acuteness of reasoning. The Bill has passed both houses of Parliament, but with amendments, in which the mover probably acquiesced, upon the principle of surrendering a part lest the whole should be wrested from him.”
Writing to Dr. Parr on 15th December 1812, Sir Samuel said —
“I shall persevere in endeavouring to do some good, but I know beforehand I shall not be able to do any. I thought nothing could be worse than the last Parliament, but from what I hear of the component parts of the present, I fear that I shall not long retain that opinion.”
To the same reverend doctor he wrote on April 9, 1813:—
“I cannot suffer your high indignation to be entirely engrossed by the five bishops who voted the other day for the continuance of a law, by which the lives of their fellow-creatures are exacted for no greater an offence than pilfering property of the value of five shillings, when there are so many more venerable prelates who are entitled to a share of it. On the 30th of May 1810 the same bill was rejected by the House of Lords, when no less than seven prelates voted against it. . . . . In the opinion of these pious churchmen, transportation for life, which the bill enabled the judges to inflict, was not a sufficiently severe punishment for such a transgression. I must not venture to speak as freely of judges as you do of bishops, or I should tell you how well I think you have characterised Lord Eldon and Lord Ellenborough.”
After the battle of Waterloo the restoration of the Bourbons was characteristically solemnised by a furious persecution and massacre of the Protestants in the South of France. British Christians hastened to concert measures with the French pasteurs for the exposure and cessation of these sanguinary outrages. Romilly brought the subject before the House of Commons on 23d May 1816. There is a highly-prized volume of Sir Samuel Romilly’s speeches; and from it I extract the substance of his speech in introducing the subject; it is a good specimen of his oratory, and a valuable narrative of facts:—
“Sir, — I rise to call the attention of the House to a subject which has made a deep impression in this country, although it has been but incidentally mentioned within these walls. I allude to the recent persecution of the Protestants in France. In the last autumn, reports reached this country of extreme acts of violence committed in the Southern Departments of France. These reports created a strong sensation in England. Meetings were held. Resolutions were adopted, and a subscription for the relief of the sufferers was entered into with that generosity which ever characterises the British public, when they see occasion for their benevolent interposition. On a sudden, however, an extraordinary turn was given to the popular feeling. Although the meetings which I have described had not taken place without a previous communication with His Majesty’s Ministers, yet the latter subsequently affected to think them improper. A letter was written by the Duke of Wellington, denying the truth of the statements which had been made. The effect of this letter was very great.
“I have no intention of accusing His Majesty’s Ministers of criminality. All that I complain of is, they have been too credulous, and that they have listened with too little suspicion to the assurances of the French Government on the subject. The Duke of Wellington’s letter was printed at Nismes, and scattered about that town with great activity by the Catholics. It has filled the Protestants with the utmost consternation, taking (as it does) from the oppressors the only restraint to which they had until that period been subject, and from the oppressed their last hope and consolation. So far was the previous expression of British feeling from injuring the Protestants, that nothing had afforded them so much real relief.
“After having taken the utmost pains in the investigation — after much anxious inquiry, both by letter and in person — no doubt remains in my mind. It becomes me to state the facts fairly, and without exaggeration.
“It will be impossible to give the House an adequate idea of the character of the transactions which have taken place in the Department of the Gard, the chief seat of the persecution of the Protestants (for no general persecution has occurred, nor has any disposition been evinced towards it) without alluding to the condition ot that part of France at the time of the restoration of the present king.
“From 1685 (the date of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes) until 1787 (only two years previous to the Revolution), what was the condition of the Protestants in France? any persons were found attending Protestant service, they were sent to the galleys for life. The minister was sentenced to death; and every one harbouring him, or facilitating his escape, was condemned to the galleys. The marriages of Protestants were declared illegal. Their children were considered bastards, and might be taken away by the Government to be educated in the Catholic religion; at seven years of age a Protestant child was authorised to