Page:Protestant Exiles from France Agnew vol 2.djvu/88

  Peter Belvere. Daniel Collett. Peter Dumoulin. John Suyre.

. — There was an Irish refugee family of Raboteau, now represented collaterally (see my chapter xxii.), and whose history proves that the right spelling of the name is Raboteau; yet a deceased lady of the old generation, still affectionately remembered by her descendants, always pronounced the name, “Robateau;” and such is the spelling in ihe above list. There are some noble names, as De la Tour, and De Roure des Bonneaux.

During the vigorous prosecution of the war with France, the refugees were recognised practically as British subjects. And at length it was felt that their warm and active devotion deserved a more open and formal recognition. Accordingly a Bill for the Naturalisation of Foreign Protestants was brought into the House of Commons on the 14th February 1709, by the Hon. Sydney Wortley Montague, M.P. for Peterborough, in concert with Lord William Powlett, M.P. for Winchester; Sir James Montague, M.P. for Carlisle; Robert Eyre, M.P. for Salisbury; Sir Joseph Jekyll, M.P. for Eye; Richard Nevil, M.P. for Berkshire; Sir Peter King, M.P. for Boralston; William Lowndes, M.P. for Seaford; and Roger Gale, M.P. for Northallerton. The Bill became an Act of Parliament on the 23d March 1709; — the qualification was the taking of the usual oaths, and there was also a Proviso, “that no person shall be naturalised, &c, unless he shall have received the Sacrament in some Protestant or Reformed congregation within this kingdom.”

The following is the Bishop of Sarum’s (Burnet) account of this honourable deed:—

“An Act passed in this Session, that was much desired, and had been often attempted, but had been laid aside in so many former Parliaments, that there was scarce any hope left to encourage a new attempt. It was for naturalising all Foreign Protestants, upon their taking the oaths to the government, and their receiving the Sacrament in any Protestant church. Those who were against the Act soon perceived that they could have no strength if they should set themselves directly to oppose it; so they studied to limit strangers in the receiving the sacrament to the way of the Church of England. This probably would not have hindered many who were otherwise disposed to come among us; for the much greater part of the French came into the way of our church. But it was thought best to cast the door as wide open as possible for encouraging of strangers. And therefore since, upon their first coming over, some might choose the way to which they had been accustomed beyond sea, it seemed the more inviting method to admit of all who were in any Protestant communion. This was carried in the House of Commons with a great majority. But all those who appeared for this large and comprehensive way were reproached for their coldness and indifference in the concerns of the Church. And in that I had a large share, as I spoke copiously for it when it was brought up to the Lords. The Bishop of Chester (Sir William Dawes) spoke as zealously against it, for he seemed resolved to distinguish himself as a zealot for that which was called High Church. The Bill passed with very little opposition.”

To leaven the British population with Protestantism of Huguenot intensity was always the policy of the Williamite or true English party. But the aim of the opposition was to drive this influence out of the kingdom. So that when the Opposition became the Queen’s ministry under the leadership of Harley and Bolingbroke, they assailed the authors and supporters of the Naturalization Act, proclaimed them to be “the Queen’s and the kingdom’s enemies,” on account of it, and lost no time in introducing a Bill to repeal it. This was in 1711.

The appeals made to English prejudices, and the probable success of such appeals in more quarters than one, may be illustrated by referring to a rhyming pamphlet of the period (without date), entitled: “Canary-Birds Naturaliz’d in Utopia — a Canto (Dulce est paternum solum). London, printed and sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster, Price 2 Pence.” The preface appeals in prose “To the Free-born Reader:” — “Ought not I to prefer my old acquaintance, my old friends, or even my old shoes (that King James the 1st said were easiest for his feet), before strangers, sharpers and intruders — Hoghen Moghens, Hugonots, and Wooden-Shoe Makers? In a word, can any one of sense and reason be so barbarous to his own bowels as to undervalue, undermine, and undo his natural-fellow-free-born Subjects for any interloping Canary-Birds or naturaliz’d foreigners?” Here is a specimen of the poetry:—

Here they grew fat and liv’d at ease, And bigger look’d than Refugees, Kindly protected from the stroke Of swift pursuing Gallick hawk. Them we so well did entertain They would not choose go home again, But now at last so saucy grew That to aspiring heights they flew; 