Protestant Exiles from France/Volume 2 - Book Third - Chapter 25 - Samuel Romilly
Sir Samuel Romilly was born on 1st September 1757; he was called to the Bar on the last day of Easter term, 1783. His father (see chapter xxi.) died on 29th August 1784, in his seventy-third year. It was not till 3d January 1798 that Samuel Romilly married. His public life began in February and March 1806, when he was made Solicitor-General, knighted, and brought into the House of Commons. He ceased to be a law-officer of the Crown on the change of Administration in 1807, but his Parliamentary career ended only with his life, his last triumph being his election for Westminster at the top of the poll,[1] without any appearance or canvass on his part. He did not long survive the lamented Princess Charlotte. Immediately after her death he thus expressed himself in a letter to Dr. Samuel Parr, dated November 18, 1817:—
“The death of the poor princess is indeed a great public calamity. With her are extinguished all hopes of a Whig administration being ever again formed in this country, or at least within any time that those who are now mixing in the affairs of the world can suppose that they will live to see. . . . .That this great change in the prospect to the succession to the throne will have a considerable influence on the Opposition — that it will thin their ranks and weaken their efforts, I am afraid, must be expected. I need not assure you that upon me it will not have the slightest effect. As a desire of being in office has (I can with perfect truth declare) never been among the motives which have governed my public conduct, I can only see in the present state of public affairs stronger grounds than I ever felt before for persevering in that course which I have hitherto pursued.”
He procured the enacting of the first reforms of the severity of our criminal laws. In the life of one of the private promoters of this just and merciful object, we are reminded of the state of the case in its unreformed abomination:— “There were between one and two hundred offences punishable with death, and the unfortunate victims of inherited misery and vice were strung up like dogs by the dozen at a time.” It is added, “The efforts which were made by Sir Samuel Romilly, about the year 1810, to procure the removal of the death-penalty from one or two very minor offences, such as stealing from bleach-grounds, although partially successful, were attended by vigorous and powerful opposition in Parliament, and were apathetically regarded by the public.”[2] Sir Samuel published a pamphlet explanatory of his measures, which was favourably reviewed in the Quarterly Review two years afterwards. The reviewer (Rev. John Davison, B.D.) believed that the learned author “will not consent to abandon, on the first failure, this attempt to humanise the laws of his country.”
Dr. Parr (writing in the year 1808) gives this account of Sir Samuel’s earliest effort in this direction:— “Sir Samuel Romilly, whose name I never mention without veneration, moved in the House of Commons for the repeal of the law against private stealing from the person. He supported the motion with his usual accuracy of information and acuteness of reasoning. The Bill has passed both houses of Parliament, but with amendments, in which the mover probably acquiesced, upon the principle of surrendering a part lest the whole should be wrested from him.”
Writing to Dr. Parr on 15th December 1812, Sir Samuel said —
“I shall persevere in endeavouring to do some good, but I know beforehand I shall not be able to do any. I thought nothing could be worse than the last Parliament, but from what I hear of the component parts of the present, I fear that I shall not long retain that opinion.”
To the same reverend doctor he wrote on April 9, 1813:—
“I cannot suffer your high indignation to be entirely engrossed by the five bishops who voted the other day for the continuance of a law, by which the lives of their fellow-creatures are exacted for no greater an offence than pilfering property of the value of five shillings, when there are so many more venerable prelates who are entitled to a share of it. On the 30th of May 1810 the same bill was rejected by the House of Lords, when no less than seven prelates voted against it. . . . . In the opinion of these pious churchmen, transportation for life, which the bill enabled the judges to inflict, was not a sufficiently severe punishment for such a transgression. I must not venture to speak as freely of judges as you do of bishops, or I should tell you how well I think you have characterised Lord Eldon and Lord Ellenborough.”
After the battle of Waterloo the restoration of the Bourbons was characteristically solemnised by a furious persecution and massacre of the Protestants in the South of France. British Christians hastened to concert measures with the French pasteurs for the exposure and cessation of these sanguinary outrages. Romilly brought the subject before the House of Commons on 23d May 1816. There is a highly-prized volume of Sir Samuel Romilly’s speeches; and from it I extract the substance of his speech in introducing the subject; it is a good specimen of his oratory, and a valuable narrative of facts:—
“Sir, — I rise to call the attention of the House to a subject which has made a deep impression in this country, although it has been but incidentally mentioned within these walls. I allude to the recent persecution of the Protestants in France. In the last autumn, reports reached this country of extreme acts of violence committed in the Southern Departments of France. These reports created a strong sensation in England. Meetings were held. Resolutions were adopted, and a subscription for the relief of the sufferers was entered into with that generosity which ever characterises the British public, when they see occasion for their benevolent interposition. On a sudden, however, an extraordinary turn was given to the popular feeling. Although the meetings which I have described had not taken place without a previous communication with His Majesty’s Ministers, yet the latter subsequently affected to think them improper. A letter was written by the Duke of Wellington, denying the truth of the statements which had been made. The effect of this letter was very great.
“I have no intention of accusing His Majesty’s Ministers of criminality. All that I complain of is, they have been too credulous, and that they have listened with too little suspicion to the assurances of the French Government on the subject. The Duke of Wellington’s letter was printed at Nismes, and scattered about that town with great activity by the Catholics. It has filled the Protestants with the utmost consternation, taking (as it does) from the oppressors the only restraint to which they had until that period been subject, and from the oppressed their last hope and consolation. So far was the previous expression of British feeling from injuring the Protestants, that nothing had afforded them so much real relief.
“After having taken the utmost pains in the investigation — after much anxious inquiry, both by letter and in person — no doubt remains in my mind. It becomes me to state the facts fairly, and without exaggeration.
“It will be impossible to give the House an adequate idea of the character of the transactions which have taken place in the Department of the Gard, the chief seat of the persecution of the Protestants (for no general persecution has occurred, nor has any disposition been evinced towards it) without alluding to the condition ot that part of France at the time of the restoration of the present king.
“From 1685 (the date of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes) until 1787 (only two years previous to the Revolution), what was the condition of the Protestants in France? any persons were found attending Protestant service, they were sent to the galleys for life. The minister was sentenced to death; and every one harbouring him, or facilitating his escape, was condemned to the galleys. The marriages of Protestants were declared illegal. Their children were considered bastards, and might be taken away by the Government to be educated in the Catholic religion; at seven years of age a Protestant child was authorised to become a Catholic. It has been said by French legislators that, however severe these laws might be in their enactments, they were comparatively mild in their administration. And what was the proof adduced of the leniency with which they were administered? — that in the period which elapsed from 1745 to 1770 only eight Protestant ministers had been hanged; that only forty marriages had been annulled, the husbands sent to the galleys, and the wives to hospitals as common prostitutes!
“Such was the state, such the administration, of the laws respecting Protestants until 1787, when Louis XVI. softened them, and undoubtedly would have repealed them but for the subsequent events which occurred to interrupt the accomplishment of his humane intentions. One of the first acts, however, of the Revolution was to restore the Protestants to a perfect equality of privileges. With the feelings natural to men, they could not but applaud and admire a work which had raised them from the depths of degradation and misery to the state of free citizens, possessing equal laws and equal rights. This, however, has been urged against them as a matter of reproach.
“In the subsequent scenes of the Revolution, when liberty had degenerated into licentiousness, and when tyranny and persecution had usurped the places of justice and mercy, not one Protestant was found to be an actor. There was not a single Protestant a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal of the Department of the Gard; whilst of the 130 persons who were guillotined by its orders at Nismes, more than 100 were Protestants, though the Protestants only formed about one-third of the population.
“The Protestants being restored to the rank of citizens, all religious animosities seemed to subside in the south of France. In 1802 Buonaparte, the First Consul of France, procured the enactment of a law placing the Protestant on the same footing with the Catholic faith, in point of establishment and privilege. Can it be a subject of reproach to them that they were grateful for this favour? It is not possible but that they must have felt attachment to him for it; and hence it is deemed proper to characterise them as Buonapartists.
“Such was the state of things when, in April 1814, Louis XVIII. was restored. At that period Buonaparte had become as unpopular at Nismes as in every other part of France. The people were worn down by the taxes and the conscription. In the Department of the Gard these had been more severely felt. The Protestants expressed their satisfaction with as much ardour and sincerity as the Catholics. But unfortunately there returned to Nismes persons who had long been absent from the place, and who entertained a great jealousy of the Protestants. By the interference of these individuals, a tendency was exhibited to return to the old system. The Protestants were insulted in the streets by the populace. Songs were sung in ridicule of them; gibbets were drawn at their doors. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day was adverted to, and the agitators expressed the satisfaction which they should soon feel in washing their hands in Protestant blood. The Protestants were threatened with extermination, and were told that there should be but one religion.
“This was the situation of things when in March 1815 Buonaparte suddenly re-appeared in the south of France. On this occasion the principal Protestants expressed the same zeal and determination as the Catholic subjects of Louis. A declaration was issued at Nismes on the 13th of March, signed by the municipal body and the most distinguished inhabitants (amongst whom were the ministers and several of the members of the Protestant Church) expressive of warm attachment to the king. Soon after this the Duke d’Angouleme appeared among them. But the Protestants (it was alleged) did not join the royal army in the numbers it was expected they would do. It was true, they did not; nor will it appear surprising, when the treatment, which they had experienced during the short reign of Louis, is recollected. On the 3d of April the authority of Buonaparte was proclaimed at Nismes; on the 15th of July, that of Louis XVIII. was re-established.
“It has been represented that, during the reign of Buonaparte from the 3d of April to the 15th of July, acts of the greatest violence had been committed by the Protestants towards the Catholics, and that everything which subsequently took place was to be considered as mere acts of retaliation and revenge. The fact was, however, that no such acts of violence were committed by the Protestants. Of this I have been assured on the best authority. During that period the town was under the command of a Catholic, General Gilly.
“After the 15th of July, many of the royalists from the Duke d’Angouleme’s army, and from various adjoining places, flocked to Nismes. The garrison, consisting of 200 men, laid down their arms, but (shocking to relate) were, with a few exceptions, killed in cold blood.
“Now commenced the persecution of the Protestants. Their houses were pulled down, their furniture was burnt, the rich were laid under severe contributions, and the poor exposed to the utmost cruelties. The greater part of these unfortunate people were manufacturers. Their persecutors destroyed their looms and implements of industry, knowing that by such a proceeding they would totally deprive them of all means of subsistence. Houses and manfactories were totally destroyed, vineyards laid waste, and the vines torn up by the roots. Many females were exposed in the street to every description of insult. One woman in particular, who was scourged in a most brutal manner, was known to be far advanced in pregnancy. The instruments which were used in this torture were not of the ordinary kind; small pieces of iron and small nails were fastened to the scourges by which these people were torn.
“Sir, I will not detain the House by going into all the particulars of these dreadful scenes. Thirty women were scourged, eight or nine of whom died in consequence. The statement which I have before made on this subject has surprised many who heard it; but from everything which has since come to my knowledge, I am confirmed in that statement. I am certain that I shall be within the real numbers when I assert, that in these dreadful scenes two hundred persons have been murdered, and nearly two thousand persecuted in their persons and property. Two hundred and fifty houses have been destroyed; and some of these outrages have been attended with circumstances so horrid, that it would appear almost incredible that they should be suffered to pass with impunity in any civilised country. An old unmarried man named Lafond, who lived in retirement — who had neither the inclination nor ability to engage in political plots or discussions — whose only crimes were, that he professed the Reformed Religion, and was possessed of a few hundred pounds — was singled out as one of the first victims. Trestaillon, accompanied by other ruffians, went to his house, forced open the street door, and entered his apartment, which was on the upper floor. They demanded the instant surrender of his money, and threatened him with immediate death on his refusing to become a Catholic. He offered them all the money he had in his house if they would not murder him. To this they pretended to agree; but when they had obtained their booty, regardless of his cries and entreaties, they dragged him by his white locks to the landing-place, and precipitated him from the top of the balustrade. They thought he was dead, and left him; but returning soon after, and finding him only stunned, they brought him to the door, and there, amidst the acclamations of the populace, literally cut him into pieces with axes and broadswords. Out of a family of the name of Leblanc, consisting of eight persons all residing in the same house, seven have been murdered by Trestaillon and his associates. Two of them, who made some resistance, they brought into the street and cut to pieces on the threshold of their own habitation; the others they strangled. Five persons of the family of Chivas were immolated. One of these had been for some time confined to his room by sickness. Trestaillon went to his lodging, and, finding his wife on the staircase, asked for her husband. Shuddering at the sight of the murderer of her brethren, she hesitated what to answer. He saw her alarmed, and told her to fear nothing, he intended no harm. As he appeared without arms, she suffered him to enter the room of her husband. He found Andre Chivas in bed, and, approaching his bedside, put several questions to him concerning his illness, with all the appearance of one interested in his welfare. Trestaillon then took him by the hand and said, ‘They have not treated your disease properly; I am the better doctor, and will cure you immediately.’ On this he pulled out a pistol from his pocket, and holding it to the head of Chivas, blew out his brains in the presence of his wife, who has since shared the same fate.
“Having mentioned the name of this monster Trestaillon, I cannot but remark to the House, that he has never been brought to punishment. He has been twice in custody; once he has been released. I know not whether he is still in custody, but I know that he has not since been brought to justice. This wretch, as it has been reported, frequently boasted in public of the horrid outrages he had committed. He was a member of the Urban Guard. One man, whose house had been entered and set on fire, was condemned to see the body of his daughter, who had died a short time before, dug up and thrown into the flames. Barbarous instances of this kind are too numerous to be repeated in detail to the House. And it is to be recollected, that these murders and atrocities have not been perpetrated on men taken in arms, they were committed in cold blood.
“The National Guard, who, it is to be recollected, were all Catholics, continued at Nismes until the 24th of August. During this time the murders of the Protestants continued, nor was tranquillity restored until the Austrian troops entered the place. Whilst they remained, all was tranquil. When they departed, the murders of the Protestants were once more renewed. After the National Guard had quitted Nismes, they were removed to the mountains of the Cevennes, where, under pretence of suppressing treasonable conspiracies against the government, they exercised great cruelties on the unoffending mountaineers, by which several lives were lost. The Austrians at length arrived, and they were all disarmed. The Austrian troops, which entered Nismes on the 24th of August, remained there until the 15th of October. On the 16th, fresh murders were committed. Though Trestaillon had been arrested and sent out of the Department, yet there were not wanting others to emulate that monster in his crimes. Amongst these was one who assumed the name of Quatretaillon, and who particularly signalized himself by his cruel atrocities. He was suffered to pass with impunity, though there were hundreds who had been witnesses to his crimes. In fact, not one of the many who were implicated in these outrages has suffered.
“Since December last, I am happy to believe, no crimes of so ferocious a nature have been committed. Protestants, however, still continue to be the subjects of insult and reproach. They are driven from the public walks; they are interrupted in their religious duties. They have a different measure of justice dealt out to them from that which is enjoyed by their Catholic fellow-citizens. Many of them have been sentenced to long imprisonment, sometimes even for life, under pretext of having uttered seditious expressions. If any person comes forward and says, that he has heard a Protestant use such and such words, the Protestant is immediately thrown into prison. There was a case in which two persona were accused of singing an improper song and of insulting a waiter; one of them was condemned to imprisonment for ten years, the other for life. It is impossible for me to say on what evidence these convictions took place; though it will not, surely, be very uncharitable to suppose, that those who had hearts to perpetrate the atrocities which I have described, are not likely to be very scrupulous as to the evidence they give against the Protestants. This is a strange picture of justice ! We behold the petty offender visited with the severest penalties of the law, while the- perpetrator of the most atrocious crimes — the murderer — not only remains unpunished, but is let loose to renew his practices with impunity, and to immolate new victims to his ferocious bigotry or revenge.
“Sir, I am not now inclined to move an immediate Address to the crown, calling upon Government to interfere on this subject. I am desirous of first knowing what has taken place between His Majesty’s Ministers and the Government of France respecting the excesses committed against the Protestants. I am glad to afford an opportunity to the noble Secretary of State to give to the House more detailed information, and from more authentic sources, than I can be supposed to possess. I have purposely avoided entering into details on this subject. I could give a long list of the names of Protestants murdered at Nismes, to not one of whom could it be imputed that he had taken part with Buonaparte. It is incumbent on those ministers, who, with the Duke of Wellington, have said that the French Government has taken all the measures in its power to prevent these atrocities and to extend protection to all classes of its subjects, to shew that this has been the case.
"Sir, if precedents are necessary now to justify the line of conduct which I wish the House to adopt, I need bring forward no other than that recent one which has reflected such honour on this country — I mean that unanimous expression of English feelings with respect to our fellow-creatures on the coast of Africa, for I cannot think that they had stronger claims on us than our fellow-creatures in the south of France. The interference on that recent occasion would even serve to justify our conduct if France were indifferent to us. But such is not the case.
"We have taken a great part in the Restoration of the Bourbons. If the Protestants are disarmed, we have assisted in disarming them. At the moment when these bloody scenes were acting in Languedoc, three Protestant armies might be said to occupy France. His Most Christian Majesty could not look from the windows of his palace without seeing guns pointed against it, and matches ready to fire them off if necessary. This was the state of France at the time when all these bloody transactions were taking place. Our responsibility calls upon us, if we did not at the moment interpose our good offices, to do so now. The House well knows that many parts of France are still in a state of trouble and disorder. Who can say, if the fears of those who call themselves the Loyalists should be excited, what may be the situation of the Protestant inhabitants of Nismes, who are doomed to be now jostled as they walk along the streets by the murderers of their wives, their children, or their parents, threatening them with their looks, and exulting in their former successful villany? And what sort of blame will fall on us having this responsibility if we shall not ask protection for these unfortunate people? Sir, I move that a humble address be presented to His Royal Highness, the Prince Regent, that he would be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House copies or extracts of all communications which have passed between His Majesty’s Government and the Government of France relative to the Protestants in the Southern Departments of that kingdom.”
[Sir Samuel Romilly’s motion was negatived.]
A few London newspapers made malicious and ignorant attacks on him on account of this speech. The Courier inserted an epigram:—
“Pray, tell us why, without his fees,
He thus defends the refugees,
And lauds the outcasts of society?
Good man! he’s mov’d by filial piety.”
The factiousness of newspapers in those days betrayed itself in a recklessness of which we have little or no experience now. Of this Sir Samuel had to complain. To Dr. Parr he wrote —
“I hope you do not give any credit to the accounts published in the Morning Chronicle of what passes in the Court of Chancery; much of what is there stated is the pure invention of the reporter. He has lately made Sir Arthur Piggott and me pay high compliments to the chancellor, of which not a single word was uttered; and he has made me express myself with a degree of incivility towards Basil Montagu, which I never shewed to any man at the bar — much less, to one whom I esteem so highly as I do him.”
None, however, but the desperately factious ever attacked Romilly. We find his praises everywhere. Lord Brougham wrote an able panegyric, attributing to him “an extraordinary reach of thought; great powers of attention and of close reasoning; a memory quick and retentive; a fancy eminently brilliant, but kept in perfect discipline by his judgment and his taste.” “His manner,” Brougham goes on to say, “was perfect in voice, in figure, in a countenance of singular beauty and dignity; nor was anything in his oratory more striking or more effective than the heartfelt sincerity which it throughout displayed in topic, in diction, in tone, in look, in gesture.” Brougham also alluded to the probability that Romilly one day would have been Lord Chancellor; but Barnes, in his Parliamentary Portraits, published in 1815, had already disposed of such an anticipation:— “I should wish, indeed, to see the first best man of his profession occupying, at some time, the first rank in it, and giving dignity to some new title, which might hereafter be quoted as the heraldic name for fine sense and integrity. But this is merely a matter of taste. Sir S. Romilly has already reached the summit; no honours could add weight to his opinions in the general mind; no station could make his virtues more conspicuous.” Professor George Joseph Bell, of Edinburgh, said, with grateful affection, “The name alone of Romilly suggests so much, that I will not presume to apply to him any epithet that might seem to measure the extent of his talents, the perfection of his virtue, or the reach of his benevolence.”[3]
The poet Montgomery saw in him “the clearest intellect, the most unsullied virtues, and a thoroughly disinterested devotion to the public good.” To Crabbe, on 10th September 1818, Romilly suggested that he should devote one of his metrical tales to the object of mitigating the rage of the game-preserver and the passion of the poacher. The poet at once set to work on a twenty-first Tale of the Hall, with the title, “Smugglers and Poachers.” Before it was finished Romilly was dead, and Crabbe indited a long note, concluding thus:—
“Thou hadst the tear of pity, and thy breast
Felt for the sad, the weary, the opprest;
And now (affecting change!) all join with me,
And feel, lamented Romilly, for thee.”
“He devoted himself — with too much ardour, alas — to the cause of his country and her laws. By giving himself too little relaxation from these hallowed but toilsome pursuits, the mortal frame was too soon worn out. But he has left a name, consecrated by his aim to ameliorate the penal code of his country, and to improve the condition of his countrymen, which will never die.
“There is only one short letter from Sir Samuel [to Dr. Parr] after Lady Romilly’s illness was declared alarming. But Mr. Basil Montagu and his accomplished lady warned Dr. Parr of her hopeless state, and entreated him to be with Sir Samuel at the close of the scene. Unfortunately this humane foresight had not its intended effect; for although Parr declared his opinion to me that Sir Samuel would not survive Lady Romilly long, he either thought himself incapable of doing the good desired, or some impediment lay in his way.”[4]
Toone’s Chronological Record says, “1818, November 2, Died by suicide, Sir Samuel Romilly, Knt, a celebrated lawyer, and lately returned member for Westminster; the supposed cause of this melancholy catastrophe was the death of his wife, which had recently happened.” [Lady Romilly had died on October 29.]
- ↑ Close of the poll, 4th July 1818. Sir Samuel Romilly, 5339 ; Sir Francis Burdett, 5238; Sir Murray Maxwell, 4808 ; Henry Hunt, 84.
- ↑ “Peter Bedford, the Spitalfields Philanthropist,” by William Tallack. London, 1865.
- ↑ Preface to “Commentaries on the Laws of Scotland,” 1826.
- ↑ “Life of Parr,” by John Johnstone, M.D., F.R.S., pp. 552, 555 (vol. i. of Parr’s Works).