Protestant Exiles from France/Historical Introduction - section II

by David Carnegie Andrew Agnew

Layout 2

Section II.

ENGLAND AND THE REFUGEES IN THE REIGNS OF EDWARD VI. AND ELIZABETH.

In the reign of Edward VI., which, like the rule of Henry II. and the Guises over France, began in 1547, the potentates of Europe, by their persecution of Protestants, doomed their best subjects to death or flight. Exiles for the pure Gospel’s sake were scattered abroad in all directions. A Polish nobleman, John a Lasco, fled to Embden in East Friesland, and his talents and learning, superadded to his courageous piety, made his fellow-exiles invite him to take the office of pastor over them. As the times grew blacker, Embden threatened destruction to his flock; and he came over to England in 1548, in the hope of obtaining a settlement and a place of worship in London by Royal Charter. Archbishop Cranmer, the Duke of Somerset, and Secretary Cecil gave him encouragement. He took his departure in March 1549 to resume his charge in Embden, and to prepare his congregation for their probable expulsion thence.

Bishop Latimer gave utterance to the true English sentiment in a sermon preached before King Edward at this very time. His words were — “Johannes Alasco was here, a great learned man, and, as they say, a nobleman in his country, and is gone his way again; if it be for lack of entertainment, the more pity. I would wish such men as he to be in the realm, for the realm should prosper in receiving of them. Qui vos recipit me recipit, who receiveth you receiveth me, saith Christ; and it should be for the King’s honour to receive them and keep them.”^[1]

It was also in 1549 that a part of the holiday illumination, which gratified the eyes of the French king as he drove in procession through Paris, was the burning of Protestant martyrs at stakes in several of the streets. The persecution in France waxed fiercer; and many Huguenots fled into England. On the 13th August of that year, writing from Lambeth, the well-known foreign exiles Bucer, Martyr, Alexander, and Fagius, for the information of the Protector, pled with Cecil in behalf of some poor French Protestant refugees, certifying as to them that, having been compelled to forsake their own country for no other cause but that of religion, they had come to this kingdom as to Christ’s place of shelter; [eos, nullâ aliâ, quààm religionis causâ, patriam suam descrere coactos, in hoc regnum venisse tanquam ad Christi asylum.]^[2]

On John a Lasco’s return to England, he received a royal charter, dated 24th July 1550, granting a place of worship to the foreign Protestants in London, and appointing him to be the superintendent of all the Protestants of Holland, France, Switzerland, and Germany who had taken refuge in England. He is eulogized in this Patent^[3] as a man very eminent for integrity, of unblemished life, and of singular erudition. In the preamble the King, as Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Head under Christ of the English and Irish Church, declared it to be his duty to provide for religion, and for unfortunate persons afflicted and banished on account of religion. His Majesty represented himself as “pitying the condition of those refugees, who for a considerable time have dwelt in our kingdom, and of those who daily enter it.”

The first Refugees’ Church (since known as the Dutch Church in Austin Friars) was the place of worship for the refugees of all nations, two of the four ministers being French, namely, Messrs François de la Rivière and Richard François. This reminds us of a stanza composed in honour of the place of worship within Canterbury Cathedral, granted to a similar foreign congregation in the days of Elizabeth:—

When Calvin’s sons from Artois’ fruitful fields
Blind persecution’s iron hand expels,
This fostering church maternal shelter yields.
Beneath her roof where Gospel freedom dwells,
Beneath her spacious roof, in rites divine,
Lo, various sects and various tongues unite;
In blissful league French, Germans, Britons join,
While hovering angels listen with delight.^[4]

As the above-named French ministers disappeared from England after the death of Edward VI., we note here that La Rivière’s surname was Peruçel. He became chaplain to the Prince of Conde, and was with him at the battle of Dreux, and after the lost battle he escaped under the wing of Throgmorton, the English ambassador. Beza honours him as a fortifier of the spirit of the prince. He also praises the other minister, Richard Vauville or François, who had been minister at Bourges, and died in charge of the French Church at Frankfort.

The French worshippers of London removed to the Chapel of St Anthony in Threadneedle Street; not that there was any schism between them and the German-Dutch (Belgico-Germani). It was simply a more convenient arrangement for the regular and sufficient administration of ordinances to the French-speaking refugees.

French churches gradually multiplied in London and the provinces. As these churches accommodated the numerous and influential refugees from French Flanders, they were often called Walloon churches, such being the designation given to the population of French Flanders and to their dialect of the French tongue. As to these churches, the original researches of Mr Burn, and the popularized details given by Mr Smiles,^[5] render it unnecessary that I should load this biographical volume with statistical facts. Omitting London edifices, I give alphabetically the names of places where French churches were established before and after the central date, 1685.

Before 1685, Canterbury, Colchester, Dover, Faversham, Glastonbury, Maidstone, Norwich, Rye, Sandtoft, Sandwich, Southampton, Stamford, Thorney Abbey, Whittlesea, Winchester, Yarmouth. [Some of these were literally Dutch churches, but “Walloons” and “Huguenots” used them.]

At and after 1685, Barnstaple, Bideford, Bristol, Chelsea, Dartmouth, Exeter, Greenwich, Hammersmith, Plymouth, Stonehouse, Thorpe-le-Soken.

On the 6th July 1553, the death of King Edward VI. took place; and thus to Protestant refugees his kingdom was no longer a refuge. The bloody hierarchy of Rome re-established its rule in England, and invested its regal slave, Queen Mary, with the epithet which was truly its own. The Protestant exiles fled. John a Lasco went back to the Continent, and the sanctuaries under his superintendence were shut up. We say nothing of the dismal night which followed. We awake on the morning of November 18th, 1558, and find that both the Popish Queen and the Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury have disappeared from the scene.

The refugees” protector, Archbishop Cranmer, having perished in the fires of the last reign, another Protestant Primate had to be chosen. And the new Archbishop, whose name has been embalmed by the Parker Society, was also a friend of the refugees. The Bishop of London, Dr Edmund Grindal, (whose final destination was Canterbury), took the necessary steps for having the charters of their churches restored to them. The London refugees” petition for this re-establishment, addressed to the Queen, was dated 10th December 1559.

Many refugees came over during the early years of the reign of Elizabeth, England having become English again. I have ransacked Strype’s numerous folios, and have been much indebted to them. Strype’s best documentary information is from the papers of Queen Elizabeth’s great minister, Sir William Cecil, known as Mr Secretary Cecil, after 1570 as Lord Burghley, and after 1572 as the Lord High Treasurer of England.

In 1562 the Queen was prevailed upon to send succour to the French Protestants. Sir Nicholas Throgmorton had interviews in France with Theodore Beza, and conveyed to Cecil a letter from that famous divine, dated at Caen, 16 March 1562, (signed) T. de Belze. This letter is printed in Strype’s “Annals of Queen Elizabeth,” Second Appendix, B., vol. i.

In 1567 a Secret League was concocted among the Popish Potentates for the partition of Europe among rulers attached to the Church of Rome (Mary, Queen of Scots, to receive the English crown), and for the extirpation of Protestantism — the eleventh Article was to this effect, “Every man shall be commanded and holden to go to mass, and that on pain of excommunication, correction of the body, or death, or (at the least) loss of goods, which goods shall be parted and distributed amongst the principal lieutenants and captains.” ("Annals of Q. Eliz.,” i. 538.) On 15th July 1567 the Canterbury refugees presented a petition to the authorities of that city, asking to be formed into an industrial fraternity. In 1568 there was a great influx of refugees and an extensive founding of settlements for them throughout England. Strype assures us (Ibid. p. 555), “This year flesh, fish, wheat and other provisions bore a very cheap price; and that which gave a greater remark to this favourable providence of God to the nation was, that this happened contrary to all men’s expectations; for all had feared, but a little before, a great dearth. This was esteemed such considerable news in England that Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, in his correspondence with the divines of Helvetia, wrote it to Gualter his friend, one of the chief ministers of Zurich, and added that he was persuaded, and so were others, that this blessing from God happened by reason of the godly exiles, who were hither fled for their religion, and here kindly harboured; whereby, in their strait circumstances, they might provide at a cheaper rate for themselves and their families.” Strype complains of a mixture of Anabaptists, and disorderly and criminal people among those refugees, but adds, “many (it must be acknowledged) were very pious and sober, and some very learned too. Of their wants this year compassion was had among the bishops; and I find Bishop Jewel, May 3, sending up to the Archbishop three pounds six and eightpence, for the use of the poor exiles, for his part.”

Influenced by the allegation (already alluded to) unfavourable to the religion and morals of some refugees, the Government made a numerical and religious census of foreign residents. Strype prints (supplement to Annals, vol. iv., No. 1) the Lord Mayor’s return of “Strangers in London, anno 1568”— beginning with these words: — “As to the number of strangers as well within the city of London as in certain other liberties and exempt jurisdictions adjoining nigh unto the same, both of men, women, and children of every nation, as well denisons as not denisons, with their names, surnames, and occupations — and what Houses be pestered with greater number of strangers than hath of late been accustomed — and to whom they pay their rents for the same, and how many of them do resort to any of the strangers’ churches.” The number of strangers (including 88 Scots) was 6704, of whom 850 were naturalized, 1815 were of the English Church, and 1008 “of no church.” The Dutch formed an overwhelming majority, their number being 5225; the French numbered 119 (the other continental nations being all represented by 271 only).

1910 were of the Dutch Church, 1810 of the French Church, and 161 of the Italian Church. In this year French refugees flocked into Jersey, as appears from the following letter from Sir Hugh Poulet to Mr Secretary Cecil, preserved in our State Paper Office: — “It may please you to receive herewithal a letter directed unto you from my son, Amyce Poulet, out of Jersey. And, understanding the contents thereof by a copy of the same sent unto me, I do very well like their zeal at Jersey in the receiving of these strangers to their present relief, and yet, for divers respects, cannot like of any continuance of their abode in the Isle, nor of such others as shall happen upon like occasion to arrive there hereafter (which are like to follow in greater number), but rather being received there as passengers to be passed over from thence with convenient speed unto this realm to their better security and relief, and to the avoiding of such danger and peril to the Isles as otherwise might ensue. Wherein I have thought it my duty thus to signify my simple opinion unto you, having received no other news out of those parts, but that upon the Count Montgomery’s passing towards the Prince of Conde, the ministers and other fideles in Normandy are in great doubt and fear of themself — as knoweth God who send them well to overpass the same. At my poor house of Tytenhanger, in Hartfordshere, the 2d of October 1568. — Yours to command, Hugh Poulet.”

In 1569, a census of 83 “Frenchmen, Flemyngs, and Wallounes” was made at Rye, including four ministers, Hector Harmon (query Hamon) of Bacavile, Jacob Caref of Ponteau, Nicolas Tellier of Rue, and Tousainth of Paure. Six men, including Monsieur Delaplace and Anthoine Dehayes, are recorded as being “of Roan” [Rouen].^[6] In 1571 there was a census of foreign Protestants of all nations resident in London. I shall give copious extracts concerning Walloons and Huguenots in my chapter first.

In 1572, the year of the St. Bartholomew massacre, Sir Francis Walsingham was Queen Elizabeth’s Ambassador at Paris; his house was respected, and permitted to be a sanctuary for fugitive foreigners, which favour he formally acknowledged, at the same time requesting an official communication of “the very truth” regarding the massacre. The massacre Walsingham called “this last tumult” and “the late execution here;” Catherine De Medicis the Queen-mother’s phrase was “the late accidents here.” Some garbled narratives were communicated during August; and on the 1st September King Charles IX. sent for the Ambassador and conversed with him. The French Court wished it to be believed (as appears by Walsingham’s despatch of Sept. 13) that the French Protestants having been detected in a secret conspiracy, the massacre had been designed to remove the ringleaders; but now, “the heads being taken away, the meaner sort should enjoy (by virtue of the edicts) both lives and goods and liberty of their consciences.” “The very truth” was first heard in England from the mouths of the refugees; our Queen rebuked the French Ambassador, La Motte, for his self-contradictory tales, in the most solemn strain.

In December her Majesty had an opportunity, which she vigorously employed, to rebuke King Charles IX. himself “for that great slaughter made in France of noblemen and gentlemen, unconvicted and untried, so suddenly, it was said, at his command,” declaring her conviction founded on evidence that “the rigour was used only against them of the Religion Reformed, whether they were of any conspiracy or no.” — (Strype’s “Annals,” vol. ii. p. 167). And in reply to his request that refugees might be discouraged from settling in England, our Queen instructed the Earl of Worcester, when in Paris, to say to the King, “that she did not understand of any rebellion that the refugees were ever privy to, and that she could perceive nothing but that they were well affected to their Prince. But when such common murdering and slaughter was made, throughout France, of those who professed the same religion, it was natural for every man to flee for his own defence, and for the safety of his life. It was the privilege of all realms to receive such woeful and miserable persons, as did flee to this realm only for defence of their lives. As for their return to France, the chiefest of them had been spoken to, and they made their answer, that the same rage of their enemies, which made them first to flee hither, did still continue the cause of their tarrying here, &c.” Strype adds, “The better sort of the Queen’s subjects were very kind unto these poor Protestants, and glad to see them retired unto more safety in this country; but another sort (divers of the common people and rabble, too many of them) behaved themselves otherwise towards these afflicted strangers, and would call them by no other denomination but French dogs. This a French author, sometime afterward, took notice of in print, to the disparagement of the English nation. But George Abbot, D.D. (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury), in one of his morning lectures [on Jonah] preached at Oxford, vindicating our kingdom from a charge that lay only upon some of the meaner and worse sort, said, ‘Those that were wise and godly used those aliens as brethren, considering their distresses with a lively fellow-feeling; holding it an unspeakable blessedness that this little island of ours should not only be a temple to serve God in for ourselves, but an harbour for the weather-beaten, a sanctuary to the stranger, wherein he might truly honour the Lord — remembering the precise charge which God gave to the Israelites, to deal well with all strangers, because the time once was when themselves were strangers in that cruel land of Egypt — and not forgetting that other nations, to their immortal praise, were a refuge to the English in their last bloody persecution in Queen Mary’s days.’”^[7]

The most remarkable proof which Queen Elizabeth gave, of the solemn impression made upon her spirit by the St. Bartholomew massacre, was her order to the Archbishop of Canterbury to prepare special forms of prayer and to issue them by her royal authority. Accordingly, on 27th October 1572, four prayers were published and appointed to be used in churches (see Strype’s “Life of Archbishop Parker,” page 358). The first was a prayer for Repentance and Mercy; the second, a prayer to be delivered from our enemies, taken out of the Psalms. The third was a prayer and thanksgiving in behalf of the Queen, for her own and her people’s preservation “from all deceits and violences of our enemies, and from all other dangers and evils, both bodily and ghostly.” The fourth was entitled, A Prayer for the Persecuted and Persecutors: — “O Lord our God and Heavenly Father, look down, we beseech thee, with thy fatherly and merciful countenance upon us thy people and poor humble servants, and upon all such Christians as are anywhere persecuted and sore afflicted for the true acknowledging of thee to be our God, and thy Son Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, to be the only Saviour of the world. Save them, O merciful Lord, who are as sheep appointed to the slaughter, and by hearty prayers do call and cry unto thee for thy help and defence. Hear their cry, O Lord, and our prayers for them and for ourselves. Deliver those that be oppressed; defend those that be in fear of cruelty; relieve them that be in misery, and comfort all that be in sorrow and heaviness, that by thy aid and strength, they and we may obtain surety from our enemies, without shedding of Christian and innocent blood. And for that, O Lord, thou hast commanded us to pray for our enemies, we do beseech thee, not only to abate their pride and to stay the cruelty and fury of such as, either of malice or ignorance, do persecute them which put their trust in thee, and hate us, but also to mollify their hard hearts, to open their blind eyes, and to enlighten their ignorant minds, that they may see and understand, and truly turn unto thee, and embrace that holy Word, and unfeignedly be converted unto thy Son Jesus Christ the only Saviour of the world, and believe and love his Gospel, and so eternally be saved. Finally, we beseech thee, that all Christian realms, and especially this realm of England, may, by thy defence and protection, enjoy perfect peace, quietness, and security, and ail that desire to be called and accounted Christians, may answer in deed and life unto so good and godly a name, and jointly, all together, in one godly concord and unity, and with one consonant heart and mind, may render unto thee all laud and praise continually, magnifying thy glorious name, who with thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, art one eternal, almighty, and most merciful God, to whom be all laud and praise, world without end. Amen”

Lord Burghley took a deep interest in the refugees. Among his papers was found the following memorandum, which I copy in modernized spelling (see Strype’s “Annals,” vol. iv., Supplement No. 4).

“Upon the massacre at Paris, Protestants fly into England, whereof a brief account was sent up of those that fled to Rye from Rouen and Dieppe. Soon after that massacre came over from Rouen and Dieppe to Rye 641 persons, men, women, and children — families 85. They came over at several times in the months of August and September, and some few in October; but some few came over in August somewhat before the massacre. Besides in the beginning of November, the 4th, 7th, and 9th days, 58 persons more, most of them for religion; several, Monsieur Le Vidame of Chartres's servants. The view was taken of these French and other strangers, within the town of Rye by the appointment of Henry Seymer, Mayor of that town, and the jurats there. John Donning, Custos of Rye, sent up the catalogue, Nov. the 22nd, to the Lord Treasurer, according to order sent to him. In this catalogue are the names of divers entitled ministers, clerks, schoolmasters; many merchants, mariners and of all trades, and some gentlemen, with their children, wives, and servants.”

Lord Burghley was the principal proprietor of the town of Stamford, and through his enlightened patronage,^[8] a colony was founded there this year, to consist of “estraungers beinge for conscience sake, and for the trewe and mere Religion of Christe Jhesu, fledde into her Grace's Reaulme, and willinge to go to Stanford, and theire to keep theyre Residence.” Their spokesmen were Isbrand Balkius, their minister, and Casper Vosberguis; the colony consisted of manufacturers, silk-weavers, hatters, cutlers, dyers, and other industrial people. [Strype in 1711 says, “This Walloon congregation and manufacture continued a great while in Stamford, but now is in effect vanished. In the Hall, where they used to meet for their business, the town feasts are now kept; the place where they exercised their religion is not known. Yet their last minister, a long-lived man, was known to many now alive.” (Strype’s “Life of Parker,” page 367, and Appendix Nos. 72 and 73).]

English popular sympathy with the victims of the St. Bartholomew massacre and with their refugee kindred contributed to bring to a formal settlement the overtures made in Canterbury for manufacturing and trading liberties. On 15th March 1574, the Mayor (Mr Rose), Alderman Alcock, and Mr John Boys signed the “Articles agreed by the Worshipful Magistrates of the City of Canterbury unto the Strangers under their protection, to pursue the confirmation under the patent of her Majesty.” The trading and other working articles may be studied in Burn's History (p. 274), prefaced by, “In primis, they shall have full and free exercise of theire religion, as all other congregations of this realme have, with competent church for their assemblies.”^[9]

The date of the horrible “sacking of Antwerp” was the beginning of November 1576. The Spaniards stripped all merchants, native and foreign, and massacred Walloons indiscriminately. And simultaneously the French king increased his rigour against the Huguenots; and at the same time “prohibition was made that no Frenchman should be suffered to fly into England,” according to information sent to the Earl of Sussex, by his brother, the Hon. Henry Radclyff, from Portsmouth, January 15th, 1576 [?—1577, new style]. This information, which includes information as to the watching of the French coast in order to intercept fugitives, is printed in Strype’s “Annals of Elizabeth,” vol. ii. page 406.

During all these years, until 1588, plots were hatching for the overthrow of Protestant England and the dethronement of Queen Elizabeth. The Armada of 1588 was the Royal Spaniard’s discomfited attempt to destroy England both as a Protestant nation, and as a sanctuary for Protestant refugees. Wrath and revenge were specially due to the kingdom in its latter function. In a bull, dated 5th “Upon the massacre at Paris, Protestants fly into England, whereof a brief account was sent up of those that fled to Rye from Rouen and Dieppe. Soon after that massacre came over from Rouen and Dieppe to Rye 641 persons, men, women, and children — families 85. They came over at several times in the months of August and September, and some few in October; but some few came over in August somewhat before the massacre. Besides in the beginning of November, the 4th, 7th, and 9th days, 58 persons more, most of them for religion; several, Monsieur Le Vidame of Chartres's servants. The view was taken of these French and other strangers, within the town of Rye by the appointment of Henry Seymer, Mayor of that town, and the jurats there. John Donning, Custos of Rye, sent up the catalogue, Nov. the 22nd, to the Lord Treasurer, according to order sent to him. In this catalogue are the names of divers entitled ministers, clerks, schoolmasters; many merchants, mariners and of all trades, and some gentlemen, with their children, wives, and servants.”

Lord Burghley was the principal proprietor of the town of Stamford, and through his enlightened patronage,^[10] a colony was founded there this year, to consist of “estraungers beinge for conscience sake, and for the trewe and mere Religion of Christe Jhesu, fledde into her Grace's Reaulme, and willinge to go to Stanford, and theire to keep theyre Residence.” Their spokesmen were Isbrand Balkius, their minister, and Casper Vosberguis; the colony consisted of manufacturers, silk-weavers, hatters, cutlers, dyers, and other industrial people. [Strype in 1711 says, “This Walloon congregation and manufacture continued a great while in Stamford, but now is in effect vanished. In the Hall, where they used to meet for their business, the town feasts are now kept; the place where they exercised their religion is not known. Yet their last minister, a long-lived man, was known to many now alive.” (Strype’s “Life of Parker,” page 367, and Appendix Nos. 72 and 73).]

English popular sympathy with the victims of the St. Bartholomew massacre and with their refugee kindred contributed to bring to a formal settlement the overtures made in Canterbury for manufacturing and trading liberties. On 15th March 1574, the Mayor (Mr Rose), Alderman Alcock, and Mr John Boys signed the “Articles agreed by the Worshipful Magistrates of the City of Canterbury unto the Strangers under their protection, to pursue the confirmation under the patent of her Majesty.” The trading and other working articles may be studied in Burn's History (p. 274), prefaced by, “In primis, they shall have full and free exercise of theire religion, as all other congregations of this realme have, with competent church for their assemblies.”^[11]

The date of the horrible “sacking of Antwerp” was the beginning of November 1576. The Spaniards stripped all merchants, native and foreign, and massacred Walloons indiscriminately. And simultaneously the French king increased his rigour against the Huguenots; and at the same time “prohibition was made that no Frenchman should be suffered to fly into England,” according to information sent to the Earl of Sussex, by his brother, the Hon. Henry Radclyff, from Portsmouth, January 15th, 1576 [?—1577, new style]. This information, which includes information as to the watching of the French coast in order to intercept fugitives, is printed in Strype’s “Annals of Elizabeth,” vol. ii. page 406.

During all these years, until 1588, plots were hatching for the overthrow of Protestant England and the dethronement of Queen Elizabeth. The Armada of 1588 was the Royal Spaniard’s discomfited attempt to destroy England both as a Protestant nation, and as a sanctuary for Protestant refugees. Wrath and revenge were specially due to the kingdom in its latter function. In a bull, dated 5th born, being neither denizens nor having served as apprentices by the space of seven years, should sell any wares by retail.

Because it is required that this be made a law, let us consider how it may stand, first, with the grounds and foundations of all laws (which are the laws of nature and the Law of God), and secondly, with the profit and commodity of the commonwealth.

I will not detain you with mathematical or philosophical discourses concerning the earth and man and man’s residence thereon. The whole earth, being but a point in the centre of the world, will admit no division of dominions; punctum est indivisible. Man (as Plato saith) is no earthly, but a heavenly creature, and therefore hath caput tanquam radicem infixum caelo.

The residence or continuance of one nation in one place is not of the law of nature, which (being in itself immutable) would admit no transmigration of people or transplantations of nations. But I will propound unto you two grounds of nature, as more proper to this purpose.

One is that we should give to others the same measure that we would receive from them, which is the golden rule of justice, and the other is that we ought by all good means to strengthen the links of society between man and man (turn artibus, turn opera, turn facultatibus, devincire hominum inter homines societatem), and that they wrench in sunder the joint society of mankind who maintain that the cause of a citizen should have that attention which is denied to the foreigner (qui civium rationem dicunt esse habendam, externorum negant, hi dirimunt communem humani generis societatem).

The law of God is next, which in infinite places commendeth unto us the good usage and entertainment of strangers; in Deuteronomy, God loveth the stranger, giving him food and raiment. Therefore love ye the stranger. In Leviticus, If a stranger sojourn with you in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger which dwelleth with you shall be as one of yourselves, and ye shall love him as yourselves. For ye were strangers. In Ezekiel, it appeareth that the land of promise was by God’s appointment allotted as well to the stranger as to the Israelite; for they shall part the inheritance with you in the midst of the tribes of Israel, saith the text. And the commandment which is given for the observation of the Sabbath forbids the stranger to labour on that day; whereby it may well be gathered, that at other times it is lawful for him to exercise his lawful trade or vocation. So that for this point I may well conclude with Mr Calvin, who saith that ‘tis an inhospitality and ferocity worthy of a savage to oppress miserable strangers who take refuge in our safeguard (barbaries et immanitas inhospitalis miseros advenas opprimere qui in fidem nostram confugiunt).

It hath been confessed that the arguments used against this bill do carry with them a great show of charity, which (say they) being severed from policy is now no charity, but folly. I will answer that if it be a good rule and principle in divinity morals before ceremonies (moralia sunt anteponenda ceremoniis), it ought much more to be overruled in all consultations, that things human be postponed for things divine; (humana sunt postponenda divinis). Therefore policy without charity is impiety.

But let us consider, how doth this charity overthrow our policy? Forsooth (it is said generally) by impoverishing the natural subject and enriching the stranger; by nourishing a scorpion in our bosoms; by taking the children’s bread and casting it to dogs; and (more particularly), first, by multitude of retailers (for the more men exercise one trade, the less is every one his gain), and secondly, by the strangers’ policy, which consisteth either in providing their wares in such sort that they may sell better cheap than the natural subject, or else by persuading our people that they do so.

To the general accusation — if I should use no other defence but this, that these people (the denizens I mean, for of them and for them only do I speak) having renounced their obedience to their natural governor and countries, and having subjected themselves even by their oaths to the obedience of her Majesty, to her laws and authority, are now to be accounted of us, though not natural yet naturalized subjects — though not sprung up from our root, yet firmly grafted into our stock and body — though not our children by birth, yet our brethren by adoption — if (I say) I should use no other defence but this, I doubt not but I, in the opinion of all or the most part of this honourable house, might clear them of the envious title of the rich strangers, of the odious name of the venomous scorpions, and of the uncharitable term of contemptible dogs.

But because the strength of the general accusation consisteth in the validity of the particular objections, I will, by your favour, in a word or two, make answer to them. It cannot be denied that the number of retailers is somewhat increased by these denizens; but yet not so much, that the burden of them is so insupportable, as is pretended. For by the confession of their adversaries, they are not in all, denizens and not denizens, in and about the city, of all manner of retailers, above the number of fifty or thereabouts; whereof it is probable that the denizens (whom only my purpose is to maintain) exceed not the number of thirty — who, being divided into many trades and companies, cannot so much impoverish any one trade or company in the city of London by their number only, as is suggested.

As touching their policy, which consists in drawing of customers to their shops or houses, either by selling cheap indeed, or else by persuading us that they sell their wares more cheap than our nation can do, I take it (saving reformation) very easy to be answered. For if the first be true that they do indeed sell better pennyworths, then we have no cause to punish but to cherish them as good members of our commonwealth, which by no means can be better enriched than by keeping down the prices of foreign commodities, and enhancing the value of our own. Besides, the benefit of cheapness of foreign commodities by so much exceedeth the benefit of dear prices, by how much the number of buyers of them exceedeth the number of sellers, which is infinite. But if the second be true, that it is but our error to believe that they sell their wares better cheap than our nation doth, then surely I cannot but think it very great injustice to punish them for a fault committed by us.

It hath been further objected unto them in this house, that by their sparing and frugal living, they have been the better enabled to sell good pennyworths. It seems we are much straitened for arguments, when we are driven to accuse them for their virtues.

From the defeat of the bill, in opposition to which the above speech was delivered, Strype justly infers, “the hearty love and hospitable spirit which the nation had for these afflicted people of the same religion with ourselves.” Not only was this bill refused a second reading, but the same fate happened to another, which proposed that the children of strangers should pay strangers' customs. Thus the late Archbishop Parker’s maxim (he died in 1575) was still adhered to, “profitable and gentle strangers ought to be welcome and not to be grudged at.” (See Strype’s “Life of Parker,” p. 139.)

It will be observed that all that the refugees sought and obtained was the opportunity of earning their own livelihood. They suffered none of their people to solicit alms. They maintained their own poor, a large portion of their congregational funds being devoted to this purpose. And so grand and resolute was their determination in this matter, that when the convulsions of a time of war made their trade low and their cash little, their London consistory (or vestry, as the English would have said) actually borrowed money to enable them to maintain their poor. This circumstance came to light when Archbishop Whitgift communicated to the Pasteur Castol, the Queen’s desire that his congregation should contribute to the fund for raising an English force to assist King Henry of Navarre, and to defeat the rebellion against him as the legitimate King of France. Castol’s letter in answer to the Archbishop of Canterbury was dated 19th December 1591; (it was in Latin and is printed in the Life of Whitgift, Appendix (No. 13) to book 4th — Strype also alludes to it in the body of the Life, p. 381, and in “Annals of Elizabeth,” vol. iv. p. 82). This letter states other interesting facts. Their gentlemen had gone over to France in the hope of being repossessed of their estates. The able-bodied men had joined King Henry’s army, and their travelling expenses had been paid, their wives and children being left to the charity of the church. The congregation had also been always ready to make collections for their brethren in other places, and had responded to such appeals from Montpellier, Norwich, Antwerp, Ostend, Wesel, Geneva, &c.

Having failed to put down refugee retailers by Act of Parliament, some Londoners attempted to gain this end by threats of rioting. In May 1573 they had surreptitiously issued this warning: “Doth not the world see that you beastly brutes the Belgians, or rather drunken drones and faint-hearted Flemings, and you fraudulent Father-Frenchmen, by your cowardly flight from your own natural countries, have abandoned the same into the hands of your proud cowardly enemies, and have, by a feigned hypocrisy and counterfeit show of religion, placed yourselves here in a most fertile soil, under a most gracious and merciful prince who hath been contented, to the great prejudice of her natural subjects, to suffer you to live here in better case and more freedom than her own people?

“Be it known to all Flemings and Frenchmen that it is best for them to depart out of the realm of England between this and the 9th of July next; if not, then to take that which follows. There shall be many a sore stripe. Apprentices will rise to the number of 2336. And all the Apprentices and Journeymen will down with the Flemings and strangers.” Of equal merit with this miserable prose were some verses stuck up upon the wall of the Dutch Church-yard on Thursday night, 5th May 1593: —

“You strangers that inhabit in this land!
Note this same writing, do it understand;
Conceive it well, for safety of your lives,
Your goods, your children, and your dearest wives.”
  &c, &c, &c, &c.

By order of the Government, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London quietly arranged with some merchants and master-tradesmen to act as special constables.

And some apprentices and servants who were found behaving riotously ” were put into the stocks, carted, and whipt.” (See “Annals of Elizabeth,” vol. iv. pp. 167-8.)

In 1598 the refugees’ patron at court, Lord Burghley, died. And in the following year we find the Lord Mayor of London forbidding the strangers, both Dutch and French, to exercise their trades in the city. But it soon appeared that the Christian hospitality of our Queen and of the Government had not died. By an order in Council, dated Greenwich, 29th April 1599, the Queen required the Lord Mayor to “forbear to go forward.” The order was signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Whitgift), the Lord Keeper (Egerton), the Lord Admiral (Lord Howard of Effingham), by Lords North and Buckhurst, by the Controller of the Household (Sir William Knollys), by the Secretary of State (Sir Robert Cecil, younger son of Lord Burghley, and heir of his abilities), and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Fortescue).

Another petty persecution was similarly stopped in 1601. Sir Noel de Caron memorialized the Queen on behalf of several refugee tradesmen whose cases had been brought up by informers. Lord Buckhurst, who had succeeded to the office of Lord High Treasurer, wrote from Sackville House, 31st October 1601, directing the Attorney-General (Coke) to quash all actions at law against the strangers, the matter being under investigation by the Privy Council. (The documents described in this and the preceding paragraph are printed in Strype’s “Annals of Elizabeth,” vol. iv. pp. 352-3.)

Strype gives a quotation from Lambard’s “Perambulation of Kent,” denouncing “the inveterate fierceness and cankered malice of the English nation against foreigners and strangers.” Lambard begins by recalling “what great tragedies have been stirred in this realm by this our natural inhospitality and disdain of strangers, both in the time of King John, Henry his son, King Edward II., King Henry VI., and in the days of later memory.” He then declares his hope, “whatsoever note of infamy we have heretofore contracted among foreign writers by this our ferocity against aliens, that now at the last, having the light of the Gospel before our eyes, and the persecuted parts [members?] of the afflicted church as guests and strangers in our country, we shall so behave ourselves towards them as we may utterly rub out the old blemish.”

In April 1598 the King of France, Henri IV., enacted the Edict of Nantes, which is so named after the city in which his Council was held, and which was intended to quiet the religious commotions of France by a considerable, though fragmentary, toleration of the Huguenots. It was registered in the metropolitan Parliament at Paris on 15th February 1599. Our Queen Elizabeth wrote to the English Ambassador in Paris: “We doubt not that you bear in mind how advantageous it is to our tranquillity, and to that of our kingdom, that the French party which makes profession of being Reformed be maintained. And therefore we desire that on all occasions, when you can contribute to make the Edict observed, you will not spare yourself.”

With regard to the spiritual office of Superintendent of Foreign Churches in England, the accession of Elizabeth found it vacant, John a Lasco having finally left our shores. But the churches found a worthy successor in a refugee gentleman belonging to a noble family of Ghent, who had been an elder under a Lasco in the Dutch Church of London. John Utenhove [ab Utenkovett], having been ordered to quit Ghent (about 1545), withdrew to Strasburg. In 1547 he was Cranmer’s guest at Canterbury, and, during the reign of Edward VI. usually resided in London.

He visited Zurich in 1549, with letters of introduction describing him as “That nobleman of Ghent, alike distinguished by his birth and manners as by his faith and piety.” To these letters Bullinger responded, “That nobleman of Ghent, who is in every way so distinguished, far exceeded your commendation of him.” In Strasburg he was known as “a disciple of the French Church — a man of learning and of godly judgment.” In our State Paper Office there is a letter to the Queen from Utenhove, dated London, 11th December 1559, in which he states, that for maintaining the truth of the Gospel he had been expelled from his country by the Emperor fifteen years ago. After the death of Utenhove, Bishop Gindal was requested to become Patron and Superintendent, and, he having accepted the charge by the Queen’s permission, it thereafter remained with the bishops of the see of London, ex officio. “The widow of Utenhove, with three children boarded with her,” is an entry in the lists of strangers in 1568.

“Died on the 24th March 1603 (n.s.), Queen Elizabeth, who, having at her coming to the crown promised to maintain the truth of God and to deface superstition, with this beginning with uniformity continued; she yielded her land (as a sanctuary to all the world groaning for liberty of their religion), flourishing in wealth, honour, estimation every way” (I borrow the language of Archbishop Abbot, quoted in Strype’s “Annals,” vol. iv. page 359.)

1. 1. ##

1. Latimer’s Third Sermon before Edward VI. (Parker Society, p. 141).
2. Strype’s Cranmer, Appendix, No. 105.
3. The Charter is printed by Burnet, Hist. Ref., vol. ii., Book 1st, Appendix No. 51.
4. Baynes’ “ Witnesses in Sackcloth,” p. 103, quoting Duncombe’s Canterbury.
5. Samuel Smiles, LL.D., whose compilation “The Huguenots” was published in 1867.
6. Burn, page 276.
7. The family-likeness between English refugees on the Continent and French refugees in England appears in the following paragraph from the “Life of Bernard Gilpin,” chap. 3: — “1554. While he stayed in the Low Countries, he was greatly affected by the melancholy sight of crowds of his dejected countrymen arriving daily in those parts, from the bloody scene then acting in England. These unhappy exiles, however, soon recovered their spirits, and, dispersing into various towns, cheerfully applied themselves, each as his profession led, to gain an honest livelihood. The meaner sort exercised their crafts; the learned taught schools, read lectures, and corrected presses — at Basil particularly, where the ingenious Oporinus was then carrying printing to great perfection. Their commendable endeavours, to make themselves not quite a burden to those who entertained them, were suitably rewarded. The several towns of Germany and Holland, finding their advantage in these strangers, showed them all imaginable civility; many private persons likewise contributed to their aid; but, above all others, the generous Duke of Wirtemberg distinguished himself in their favour: his bounty to the English at Strasburg and Frankfort should never pass unremembered, where these things are mentioned.” — (Gilpin’s Life, Collins’ edition, page 102).
8. Out of gratitude to the English Government, a Huguenot refugee named Bertrand, Seigneur de La Tour, gave information (dated at Spaa, near Aix-la-Chapelle, nth Aug. 1573) of a Foreign Conspiracy against Queen Elizabeth. It was forwarded to Lord Burghley by Sir William bromheld, an officer of her Majesty’s Guards, to vthom the communication had been made in presence of Stephen Bochart, Seigneur Du Menillet. The Seigneur de La Tour described himself as one “bound on many accounts to the most illustrious Queen of the English, on account of her hospitality shewn to all the refugees lrom France for the Word of God, and esteeming the benefits conferred by her Majesty upon all the brethren professing the same religion, to be common to him and all the French exiles in Germany or in any other part of the world,” [devinctus multis nominibus illustrissimae; Reginae Anglorum propter hospitalitatem exhibitam omnibus profugis ex Gallia propter Verbum Dei, existimans benelicia a suâ Majestate collata omnibus Fratribus eandem religionem profitentibus, sibi et omnibus Exulibus Gallis, in Germaniâ, sive in quâcunque Orbis parte, esse communiaj. For the Latin original, see Strype’s “Life of Parker,” Appendix, No. 91; for an abstract in English, see his “Annals of Elizabeth,” vol. ii. page 254.
9. I quote from Bunce’s Abridgement the two other orders of the Canterbury Burghmote during Elizabeth’s reign: — 15th July, 22d Elizabeth [1580] — “Agreed that the strangers inhabiting within this city shall pay to the Chamberlain to the use of the House, £15 in discharge of a taxation which should have been made upon them towards repairing Westgate Tower, and other charges presently to be disbursed.”

   10th July, 24th Elizabeth [1582] — “From henceforth no more strangers shall be suffered to inhabit within this city, unless allowed by the Mayor and three Aldermen, by Warrant under their hands.”

10. Out of gratitude to the English Government, a Huguenot refugee named Bertrand, Seigneur de La Tour, gave information (dated at Spaa, near Aix-la-Chapelle, 11th Aug. 1573) of a Foreign Conspiracy against Queen Elizabeth. It was forwarded to Lord Burghley by Sir William bromheld, an officer of her Majesty’s Guards, to vthom the communication had been made in presence of Stephen Bochart, Seigneur Du Menillet. The Seigneur de La Tour described himself as one “bound on many accounts to the most illustrious Queen of the English, on account of her hospitality shewn to all the refugees lrom France for the Word of God, and esteeming the benefits conferred by her Majesty upon all the brethren professing the same religion, to be common to him and all the French exiles in Germany or in any other part of the world,” [devinctus multis nominibus illustrissimae; Reginae Anglorum propter hospitalitatem exhibitam omnibus profugis ex Gallia propter Verbum Dei, existimans benelicia a suâ Majestate collata omnibus Fratribus eandem religionem profitentibus, sibi et omnibus Exulibus Gallis, in Germaniâ, sive in quâcunque Orbis parte, esse communiaj. For the Latin original, see Strype’s “Life of Parker,” Appendix, No. 91; for an abstract in English, see his “Annals of Elizabeth,” vol. ii. page 254.
11. I quote from Bunce’s Abridgement the two other orders of the Canterbury Burghmote during Elizabeth’s reign: — 15th July, 22d Elizabeth [1580] — “Agreed that the strangers inhabiting within this city shall pay to the Chamberlain to the use of the House, £15 in discharge of a taxation which should have been made upon them towards repairing Westgate Tower, and other charges presently to be disbursed.”

    10th July, 24th Elizabeth [1582] — “From henceforth no more strangers shall be suffered to inhabit within this city, unless allowed by the Mayor and three Aldermen, by Warrant under their hands.”