Page:Protestant Exiles from France Agnew vol 2.djvu/78

  Daniel Fougeron, John, son. Peter La Brosse. Andrew Dennis. Samuel Du Rousseau. Gerard Bovey. Nicholas Wilkens. Cornelius Van Deure. Peter Brun. John Dubrois. Abraham Dupont. David Knigg. William Moyon. Isaiah Valleau. Nicholas Fallet. Thomas Fallet. George Nicholas Dobertin. Austin Borneman. Abraham Tixier. Nicholas Moyne. John Papin. Daniel Marcherallier De Belleveeve. Matthew Chouard, Paul and Gabriel, sons. Josiah Gaillon, Josiah and John, sons. James Thomeaur. John Thomeur. Peter Thomeur Duport. Elias Arnaud, John and Elias, sons. Jeremy Marion. Ambroses Godfroy Hautkwits. Jacob Giles Zinck. John Motteux, John-Anthony, Timothy, Peter, Judith, Catherine, and Martha Mary, his children. Isaac Charier. Peter Chabet. Denis Chavalier. Peter Maurice. Daniel Cadroy. Moses Jaqueau. Mary Anne Pryor. Peter Fermend. David De la Maziere. Esther Sandham. Isaac De la Haye.

. — As to List XX., I am not informed whether there was a relationship between Rev. Abel Ligonier and the great Ligoniers; he must have been of an older generation; I have his autograph on the title-page of a copy of L’Estrange’s “Colloquies of Erasmus.” There are in this list several surnames which occur among the Memoirs in this volume: such as Garnault, Robethon, Fonnereau, and Motteux. The Gentleman’s Magazine (6th March 1750), announces the marriage of Peter Motteux of Spittle-fields, Esq., to Miss West of Bishop’s-gate Street.

The chronology of history requires me to interrupt these lists of adopted indigenae and ligei, in order to glance into the House of Commons of 1694. Until almost recent times the House sat with closed doors, and the reporting of its transactions and speeches was illegal. Even a member could not report his own speech; and if he experimented on the not quite impossible forbearance of the executive by printing his speech, the public had to take its accuracy upon trust. It was known that in 1694 a Bill for naturalising all Protestant strangers had come to a second reading, but had been dropped. But Sir John Knight, M.P. for Bristol, published an elaborate oration, which he represented as having been delivered by himself, off-hand, in his place in parliament, concluding with the amendment, “That the sergeant be commanded to open the doors, and let us first kick the Bill out of the House, and then Foreigners out of the kingdom.” The House, however, ordered the printed speech (or pamphlet) to be burnt by the common hangman.

This brochure also drew forth a reply, entitled:— “An Answer to the Pretended Speech, said to be spoken off-hand in the House of Commons, by one of the Members for B_____l, and afterwards burnt by the Common Hangman, according to the order of the House — London, printed in the year 1694.” “It’s very probable,” wrote the pamphleteer, “that if this speech had been spoken within as it was printed without doors, that the author had undergone the same fate to which he would have condemned the Bill for Naturalizing of Foreign Protestants. . . . Let him caw and bray and kick, and do what he pleases, it signifies nothing so long as he kicks against the pricks, whereof I hope that by this time he himself may be persuaded; especially if he consider the disgraceful exit which the Commons have given to his speech, and he may thank his stars for having escaped so well.”

The foreigners, pelted and btspattered by Sir John, were chiefly the Dutch, and by including even the king his words were seditious. There was only one paragraph as to the French, which I quote:—

"“A Fourth Pretence for this Bill is, a want of husbandmen to till the ground. I shall say, little on this head, but request the honourable person below me to tell me, Of the 40,000 French (which he confesseth are come into England) how many does he know, that at this time follow the plough-tail? For it’s my firm opinion, that not only the French, but any other nation this Bill shall let in upon us, will never transplant themselves for the benefit of going to plough. They will contentedly leave the English the sole monopoly of that slavery.”

True to its description [“The said pretended speech is faithfully repeated, paragraph by paragraph — the falsehood of its reasoning, and the malice and sedition