Page:Protestant Exiles from France Agnew (1st ed. vol 3).djvu/19

 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, anti 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 880 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 1119, (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 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