Protestant Exiles from France/Book Second - Chapter 3 - Section I
Chapter III.
HENRI DE RUVIGNY, EARL OF GALWAY.
Sec. i. — His Career as a Frenchman.
Henri De Massue De Ruvigny, eldest son of the first Marquis De Ruvigny, was born at Paris, on the 9th of April 1648. According to French custom he, from his birth, was also styled Le Marquis de Ruvigny. He entered the army, and first served under Schomberg in Portugal. It seems certain that he was at the Battle of Montesclaros; for he is mentioned in the subsequent irruption into Spain, along with Count Charles de Schomberg, as taking a valiant and prominent part in the siege of the Fort de la Garda. He was then only seventeen years of age; but he thus early earned, and long maintained, the reputation, expressed in the phrase, “bon officier.” In 1675 he attained the rank of colonel. It was in this year that Marshal Turenne, while reconnoitring, was killed by a random cannon ball. It is recorded, as the general belief, that the army in Germany would have perished after the death of Turenne, through the jealousy of the chiefs who aspired to the command, if the good sense and tact of young Ruvigny had not effected an amicable arrangement. The Prince of Condé, who arrived soon afterwards, to command in chief, admitted the young Marquis to his friendship. An anecdote, which young Ruvigny repeated to Burnet, is a memento of this campaign. Condé, laughing heartily, told him how he had pleased Louis XIV. by disparaging the glory of great commanders, a glory which the King coveted, yet, through political prudence, and the instinct of self-preservation, had always missed. Condé’s nephew, the Prince of Conti, was once advised by the king not to demean his royal blood by fighting a duel with a mere nobleman, and Condé’s example in a similar case was quoted. Conti replied, “My uncle might safely decline to be called out after he had won two battles; but I, who have as yet done nothing, have no such distinction as a shelter.” The king, nettled at what seemed to hit himself, mentioned this answer to Condé. So to restore his complacency, Condé said, “My nephew speaks like a young man. The winning of a battle is no great matter. The commander gets the glory, but the subalterns do the deed.”
On the return of the troops to France, old Ruvigny claimed for his son the rank of brigadier, and the reversion of his own office of Deputy-General of the Reformed Churches. There was some hesitation as to granting the former request, as there always was in the case of a Protestant, it being understood that conversion to Romanism was the royal road to promotion. The good services of the father were, however, recognised as contributing to the son’s claim, which (at least the ecclesiastical portion) was granted in 1678. He thus retired from military life, probably with the rank of Brigadier, and with a pension of 4000 livres and an official salary of 1000 pistoles. His career was exactly the same as his father’s. He was sent on diplomatic errands, the king having unbounded confidence in him.
In extenuation of his zeal in a service quite unworthy of him, we only refer to what we have hinted by way of apology for the old Marquis, with whom the son is sometimes confounded. For instance, the conversation (said to have been with young Ruvigny) in which Montague, our ambassador at Paris, assumed it as an axiom mutually admitted, that dans ce monde on ne fait rien pour rien, was in reality with the old Marquis, as Lord Danby’s correspondence proves.
In 1678, being in his thirty-first year, and Barillon being the accredited ambassador, Henri came over on a secret mission, or rather on two errands, both aimed against the Earl of Danby. This nobleman, to whom all generations owe much for his promotion of the marriage of the Prince of Orange to the Princess Mary, was known in France to be against the French Government, while he was suspected in England to be its tool — a charge which he could not refute consistently with the reserve which official life imposed upon him. As we have not young Ruvigny’s own story, it would be unfair to him to adopt Montague’s and Danby’s letters as history by weaving them into a narrative. I therefore give the extracts which concern him without comment.
Mr. Montague wrote to the Earl of Danby from Paris, January 11, 1678:—
“I give you the best light I can into the reason of Monsieur Ruvigny’s son’s journey into England, who will be there perhaps as soon as this letter. If his father’s age would have permitted it, I believe they would have sent him; for they have chosen the son, who is to make use of lights his father will give him. And by the nearer relation he has to my Lady Vaughan, who is his cousin-german, and the particular friendship which father and son have with Mr. William Russell, he is to be introduced into a great commerce with the malcontented members of Parliament, and insinuate what they shall think fit to cross your measures at court, if they thall prove disagreeable to them here; whilst Monsieur Barillon goes on in his smooth, civil way.”
Montague wrote again on January 18, 1678:—
“His [young Ruvigny’s] chief errand is to let the king know that the King of France did hope he was so firm to him as not to be led away by the Grand Treasurer [Danby] who was an ambitious man, and, to keep himself with the people, would gratify their inclinations by leading his master into an unreasonable war against France — that as for money, if he wanted that, he should have what he would from hence. His instructions are (if this does not take), by the means of William Russell and other discontented people, to give a great deal of money, and cross all your measures at court. Old Ruvigny, who values himself for knowing of England, has given it them for a maxim, that they must diminish your credit before they can do any good. . . . If the king is for a war, you know what to do. If he hearkens to their money, be pleased to let me know what they offer, and I dare answer to get our master as much again, for Barillon’s orders are to make the market as low as he can.”
Our last extract is from Lord Danby’s letter to Montague, dated London, 17th January 1678:—
“My son Dunblane arrived here on Monday last, who delivered me your letters, and acknowledges your very great kindness to him, as I must do both for him and myself, who you have obliged by so many ways. Your intelligence concerning Monsieur Ruvigny has not been the least of your favours, and hitherto his son’s steps have been very suitable to your information. For yesterday he came to me with Monsieur Barillon (having given me his father’s letters the day before), and discoursed much of the confidence his king hath of the firmness of ours to him, of the good opinion his master hath of me, and of his king’s resolution to condescend to anything that is not infamous to him, for the satisfaction of our king — how certainly our king may depend upon all sorts of assistances and supplies from his master in case the friendship be preserved — and in short, went so far as to seem desirous to have me understand (although he could not directly say it) that his master might be brought to part with Valenciennes and Condé, but never with Tournay. And the main of their drift was to engage me to prevail with the King to prevail with the Prince of Orange as to that town, and pressed the matter upon me, as a thing wherein they thought I had an interest with the Prince of Orange, sufficient to persuade him to put an end to the war by that means. I answered them (as is most true) that there is nothing I am so desirous of as the peace, but I thought things were gone so far as it was only in their master’s power to prevent the war, and that I could not contribute to any possible expedient to that end; but that they must apply to the king himself, and when it came to my part, I should be found to contradict nothing which might be equal for preservation of the friendship betwixt the two kings. From me they went immediately to the king, who tells me their discourse was the same they had held with me. And at last he desired that whatever expedient they had to propose to him might be put in writing for him to consider; and thus it stands at this time.”
As to Henri’s errand to the patriotic party in Parliament, nothing was known until about a century thereafter, when Sir John Dalrymple had searched the French archives. Dalrymple and others have founded upon these papers some accusations, which I must very briefly notice. The first accusation is, “Russell held confidential communications with a French agent.” True; but it was with his faithful friend, Henri de Ruvigny, his wife’s first cousin. The second accusation is, “Russell took into consideration a project of bribery.” I answer, Ruvigny told Russell that Barillon was ready to distribute money among the country party. Russell protested that he would not act along with members who would take bribes. He did say that he would speak to Lord Shaftesbury (who was also a relative), but only as to the pleasing fact, that even the French king did not wish Charles to be absolutely despotic, and to subjugate the patriotic members. The third accusation is, “Algernon Sidney took a bribe and Russell connived at it.” The charge against Sidney is founded upon a list of public men who had taken French money, in Barillon’s handwriting. Barillon’s accounts may have been incorrect, like those of other unjust stewards. Or money might have been offered and accepted as a donation to some charitable object. On either supposition Sidney took no bribe, and there was nothing for Russell to connive at. If France had possessed any damaging secret against our patriots, the secret would not have slumbered for many years.
So far I have spoken for Russell. But as for Ruvigny — in the first place, the list has been erroneously called Ruvigny’s. It professes to be Barillon’s list. And secondly, any moral charge may be safely denied on the ground of the continued affection and admiration of the Russells for Ruvigny as a man and a Christian. It is incomprehensible how Lord Macaulay could believe the accusations, and could conclude by extolling modern statesmen as having a more elevated standard than even Sidney and Russell, and as soaring above Ralph Montague’s creed, that “in this world nobody does anything for nothing.”
Young Ruvigny was also employed in some of the other negotiations, which ended in 1678 in the Treaty of Nimeguen, between France and Holland, under the nominal mediation of England. France, however, dictated the peace, and so irritated Charles that he seemed for a short time determined to go to war. Young Ruvigny,[1] at his request, asked Louis to state positively what his ultimatum was; but the French king, having satisfied Holland, paid little attention to Charles. Henri came back without any definite answer. Charles had to yield with as good a grace as possible. Bishop Burnet shall tell the finale:[2] — “A general peace quickly followed. And there was no more occasion for our troops beyond sea. The French were so apprehensive of them, that Ruvigny (now Earl of Galway) was sent over to negotiate matters. That which France insisted most on was the disbanding of the army. And the force of money was so strong, that he had orders to offer six millions of their money in case the army should be disbanded in August. Ruvigny had such an ill opinion of the designs of our court if the army were kept up, that he insisted on fixing the day for disbanding it, at which the Duke of York was very uneasy. And matters were so managed that the army was not disbanded by the day prefixed for it. So the King of France saved his money. And for this piece of good management Ruvigny was much commended.”
Early in the year 1679 Henri was appointed Lord Deputy-General of the Reformed Churches of France. Louis XIV. having abolished national synods, there was no organized court to dispute his elective fiat. Local church courts, each under the eye of a Protestant royal commissioner, still sat. The provincial synod of the Isle of France met at Charenton in April 1679. A vote of thanks to the retiring Deputy-General and a complimentary address to his successor were agreed upon. The substance of these is probably preserved in the letters which pastor Du Bosc had sent on the preceding February to the two lords. To the son he wrote in full appreciation of his talents and good qualities, and as one who would walk in the steps of his able father — concluding in the name of the Protestants with strong professions of loyalty and affection for the king, and assurances of their prayers that the new Deputy-General might continue and grow in the grand monarch’s favour. He concluded —
“We should be treacherous to ourselves were we in our prayers to forget you. If God hears those prayers, you will rejoice and we shall live in peace; you will enjoy the king’s favour and we the repose and liberty which his edicts give us. Our welfare is united to your person. We are, &c.”
To the old marquis he wrote —
“Sir, — We praise God to see your charge in the hands of your son, and yet not out of yours. That fortunate appointment cannot fail to give us great happiness, since instead of one Deputy-General we now have two. And that which, above all, delights us is, that he who seconds you is your other self, and that we see you wholly reproduced in him. His lordship is doubly your son, both by birth and also by his good qualities, which are the native image of your own virtues. That wisdom so consummately matured in yourself, sir, already manifests itself in him; the world recognizes him as possessing that very qualification; and no one doubts that he will perfectly represent you in the office which the king has just given him. His majesty could confer on us no greater obligation than in making a selection which we ourselves would have made had the matter depended on us. We shall hope at the hands of the son for what we were expecting from his father. And if we become better people, we shall not obstruct the success of his negotiations, as hitherto by our sins we have obstructed yours. We shall always have the same fidelity and obedience towards the king; and if we have more love to God we may see our affairs taking a better turn. At all events, sir, we shall always be infinitely obliged for the good offices which you have rendered to our churches, and for the zeal with which you have succoured them in difficult times. We shall reckon it as an important boon that you have given to the churches your son in your place. May God render the rest of your life happy, and load all your house with His best blessings. We are, &c.”
During the war, young Ruvigny had become acquainted with the “handsome Englishman,” Colonel Churchill. On the accession of James II. the same officer, Lord Churchill, came as an Envoy to France, and renewed his acquaintance with Henri de Ruvigny. It was to him that Churchill then made his celebrated declaration as to King James, “If the king is ever prevailed on to alter our religion, I will serve him no longer but will withdraw from him.”[3] [Churchill rose to be the great Duke of Marlborough.]
In Benoist’s invaluable History there is a bird’s-eye view of young Ruvigny’s French life, and its transition into the life of a refugee. “The Deputy-General demitted his office, and through his interest with the king, his eldest son was appointed in his place. He was a young lord whose fine qualities were known to all the world. He was handsome in person, and mentally he was affable, sagacious and intelligent, brave without temerity, prudent without meanness, agreeable to the king, beloved by all the court, and on excellent terms with the ministers. He had so thoroughly prepossessed all the court in his favour, that his merits procured him neither enemies nor detractors. At first the churches were uneasy on account of his youth. They thought that in the confusion of their affairs, a deputy of more weight and experience was wanted. But the father promised not only to aid his son with his advice, and to interest himself in all the business put into his hands, but also to continue publicly to discharge the functions of the office, when the service of the church required this. For the latter, the churches had not only his own word, but also the king’s permission, which he had taken care to obtain. However, as soon as they had had some experience of the capacity of the young lord, they found that the churches had lost nothing by the change. They found him to be always accessible, always prepared for action, full of expedients and overtures, finding his greatest pleasure in his duties, and though residing at a court where a thousand agreeable amusements might enervate a young man, giving to the diversions of persons of his years only the time which remained after the hours of business. Even those who had not done entire justice to his father’s reputation, because it seemed to them that his prudence and circumspection savoured of timidity, found in his son no occasion for complaint. And his diligence, in obliging all those who sought interviews with him, always prevented the apprehension that he would let his work get into arrear. Hardly one instance of procrastination could be alleged against him. It was in the exercise of that office, during the most rough and vexatious period, that his mind was matured in the qualities of a great man, and that he acquired those merits which give him in the present day so large a share of the confidence and friendship of one of the greatest kings that ever wore a crown (King William III).”
Except on a few occasions young Ruvigny was the acting Deputy-General from 1678 to the extinction of the office in 1685. “It was,” he said to Burnet, “a melancholy post.” He daily saw new injustices done, and was suffered to inform against the wrong-doers, only for form’s sake and with no hope of success.
By the special favour of the king, he was allowed to leave France on the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, without forfeiting his property or his rights as his father’s heir. To the last moment he showed his zeal for Protestantism, braving the wrath of the king by allowing the Consistory of Charenton to meet in his house, for the distribution of their charitable funds among the poor of the flock.