Chapter IV: , VII (55)

"The heroism of conviction, it has been truly said, was now
displayed, not in resistance, but, if the paradox may be
admitted, in flight. The outflow was for the moment arrested
at the remonstrance of Colbert, now for the last time listened
to in the royal councils, and by reason of the sympathy
aroused by the fugitives in England: but not before 3,000
families had left the country. The retirement and death of the
great minister were the signal for revived action, wherever an
assembly of Huguenots larger than usual might warrant or
colour a suspicion of rebellion. In such excuses, not as yet
an avowed crusade, the troopers of the duke de Noailles were
called in at Grenoble, Bourdeaux, and Nimes. Full forty
churches were demolished in 1683, more than a hundred in 1684.
But the system of military missions was not organized until in
1685 the defence of the Spanish frontier offered the
opportunity for a final subjugation of the Huguenots of Bearn.
The dragonnade passed through the land like a pestilence. From
Guienne to Dauphine, from Poitou to Upper Languedoc, no place
was spared. Then it pervaded the southeast country, about the
Cevennes and Provence, and ravaged Lyons and the Pays de Gex.
In the end, the whole of the north was assailed, and the
failing edict of Nantes was annulled on the 1st of October.
The sombre mind of Madame de Maintenon had postulated the
Recall as a preliminary to the marriage which the king had
already conceded. On the 21st of the month the great church at
Charenton was doomed; and on the 22nd the 'unadvised and
precipitate' Edict of Revocation was registered in the Chambre
des Vacations. ... The year 1685 is fitly identified with the
depopulation of France. And yet, with a blindness that appears
to us incredible, the government refused to believe in the
desire or the possibility of escape. The penalties attached to
capture on the road,--the galleys or the nunnery,--the
vigilant watch at the frontier, the frigates cruising by every
coast, all these difficulties seem to have persuaded Louvois
that few would persist in risking flight. What these measures
actually effected was doubtless to diminish the exodus, but in
no marked degree. At length, it came to be thought that the
emigration was due to its prohibition, as though the Huguenots
must do a thing from mere perverseness. The watch was relaxed,
and a result unlooked for issued. It was the signal of the
greatest of the emigrations, that of 1688. ... In the
statistical question [as to the total number of the Huguenot
exiles from France after the revocation of the edict of
Nantes] it is impossible to arrive at a certain result; and
the range which calculation or conjecture has allowed to
successive historians may make one pause before attempting a
dogmatic solution. Basnage, a year after the Recall, reckoned
the emigrants above 150,000: next year Jurieu raised the total
above 200,000. Writing later Basnage found between 300,000 and
400,000; and the estimate has been accepted by Sismondi.
Lastly Voltaire, followed in our own day by Hase, counted
500,000. These are a few of the sober calculations, and their
mean will perhaps supply the ultimate figure. I need only
mention, among impossible guesses, that of Limiers, which
raises the account to 800,000, because it has been taken up by
the Prussian statesman Von Dohm. ... The only historian who
professes to have pursued the enquiry in exact detail is
Capefigue; and from his minute scrutiny of the cartons des
généralités, as prepared in the closing years of the 17th
century, he obtains a computation of 225,000 or 230,000. Such
a result must be accepted as the absolute minimum; for it was
the plain interest of the intendants who drew up the returns,
to put all the facts which revealed the folly of the king's
action at the lowest cipher. And allowing the accuracy of
Capefigue's work, there are other reasons for increasing his
total. ... We cannot set the emigration at a lower fraction
than one-fifth of the total Huguenot society. If the body
numbered two millions, the outflow will be 400,000. If this
appear an extreme estimate, it must be remembered that
one-fifth is also extreme on the other side. Reducing the
former aggregate to 1,500,000, it will be clearly within the
bounds of moderation to leave the total exodus a range between
300,000 and 350,000. How are we to distribute this immense
aggregation? Holland certainly claims near 100,000; England,
with Ireland and America, probably 80,000. Switzerland must
have received 25,000; and Germany, including Brandenburg,
thrice that number. The remainder will be made up from the
north of Europe, and from the exiles whom commerce or other
causes carried in isolated households elsewhere, and of whom
no record is preserved to us. ... The tale then of the
emigrants was above 300,000. It follows to ask what was the
material loss involved in their exodus. Caveirac is again the
lowest in his estimate: he will not grant the export of more
than 250,000 livres. He might have learnt from Count d'Avaux
himself, that those least likely to magnify the sum confessed
that by the very year of the Recall twenty million livres had
gone out of the country; and it is certain that the wealthier
merchants deferred their departure in order to carry as much
as they could with them. Two hundred and fifty traders are
said to have quitted Rouen in 1687 and 1688. Probably the
actual amount was very far in excess of these twenty millions:
and a calculation is cited by Macpherson which even affirms
that every individual refugee in England brought with him on
an average money or effects to the value of £60. ... It will
be needless to add many statistics of the injury caused by
their withdrawal from France. Two great instances are typical
of the rest. Lyons which had employed 18,000 silk-looms had
but 4,000 remaining by the end of the century. Tours with the
same interest had had 800 mills, 80,000 looms, and perhaps
4,000 work-people. Of its 3,000 ribbon-factories only sixty
remained: Equally significant was the ruin of the woollen
trade of Poitou. Little was left of the drugget-manufacture of
Coulonges and Châtaigneraie, or of the industry in serges and
bombazines at Thouars; and the export traffic between
Châtaigneraie and Canada, by way of La Rochelle, was in the
last year of the century absolutely extinct."

_R. L. Poole,
History of the Huguenots of the Dispersion,
chapters 3 and 15._

ALSO IN:
_C. Weiss,
History of the French Protestant Refugees._

_N. Peyrat,
The Pastors in the Wilderness,
volume 1, chapters 5-7._

_A. Maury,
Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
(Fontaine), chapters 4-9._

_J. I. von Döllinger,
Studies in European History,
chapters 11-12._

_C. W. Baird,
History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
chapters 4-8 (volumes 1-2)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1686.
Claims upon the Palatinate.
Formation of the League of Augsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

{1239}

FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
War of the League of Augsburg.
The second devastation of the Palatinate.

"The interference of Lewis in Ireland on behalf of James [the
Second, the dethroned Stuart king] caused William [prince of
Orange, now King of England] to mature his plans for a great
Continental confederacy against France. On May 12, 1689,
William, as Stadtholder of the United Provinces, had entered
into an offensive and defensive alliance with the Emperor
against Lewis. On May 17, as King of England, he declared war
against France; and on December 30 joined the alliance between
the Emperor and the Dutch. His example was followed on June 6,
1690, by the King of Spain, and on October 20 of the same year
by Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy. This confederation was
called the 'Grand Alliance.' Its main object was declared to
be to curb the power and ambition of Lewis XIV.; to force him
to surrender his conquests, and to confine his territories to
the limits agreed upon between him and the Emperor at the
treaty of Westphalia (1648), and between France and Spain at
the treaty of the Pyrenees (1659). The League of Augsburg,
which William had with so much trouble brought about, had now
successfully developed into the Grand Alliance."

_E. Hale,
The Fall of the Stuarts and Western Europe,
chapter 14, section 5._

"The work at which William had toiled indefatigably during
many gloomy and anxious years was at length accomplished. The
great coalition was formed. It was plain that a desperate
conflict was at hand. The oppressor of Europe would have to
defend himself against England allied with Charles the Second
King of Spain, with the Emperor Leopold, and with the Germanic
and Batavian federations, and was likely to have no ally
except the Sultan, who was waging war against the House of
Austria on the Danube. Lewis had, towards the close of the
preceding year, taken his enemies at a disadvantage, and had
struck the first blow before they were prepared to parry it.
But that blow, though heavy, was not aimed at the part where
it might have been mortal. Had hostilities been commenced on
the Batavian frontier, William and his army would probably
have been detained on the continent, and James might have
continued to govern England. Happily, Lewis, under an
infatuation which many pious Protestants confidently ascribed
to the righteous judgment of God, had neglected the point on
which the fate of the whole civilised world depended, and had
made a great display of power, promptitude, and energy, in a
quarter where the most splendid achievements could produce
nothing more than an illumination and a Te Deum. A French army
under the command of Marshal Duras had invaded the Palatinate
and some of the neighbouring principalities. But this
expedition, though it had been completely successful, and
though the skill and vigour with which it had been conducted
had excited general admiration, could not perceptibly affect
the event of the tremendous struggle which was approaching.
France would soon be attacked on every side. It would be
impossible for Duras long to retain possession of the
provinces which he had surprised and overrun. An atrocious
thought rose in the mind of Louvois, who, in military affairs,
had the chief sway at Versailles. ... The ironhearted
statesman submitted his plan, probably with much management
and with some disguise, to Lewis; and Lewis, in an evil hour
for his fame, assented. Duras received orders to turn one of
the fairest regions of Europe into a wilderness. Fifteen years
had elapsed since Turenne had ravaged part of that fine
country. But the ravages committed by Turenne, though they
have left a deep stain on his glory, were mere sport in
comparison with the horrors of this second devastation. The
French commander announced to near half a million of human
beings that he granted them three days of grace, and that,
within that time, they must shift for themselves. Soon the
roads and fields, which then lay deep in snow, were blackened
by innumerable multitudes of men, women, and children flying
from their homes. Many died of cold and hunger: but enough
survived to fill the streets of all the cities of Europe with
lean and squalid beggars, who had once been thriving farmers
and shopkeepers. Meanwhile the work of destruction began. The
flames went up from every marketplace, every hamlet, every
parish church, every country seat, within the devoted
provinces. The fields where the corn had been sown were
ploughed up. The orchards were hewn down. No promise of a
harvest was left on the fertile plains near what had once been
Frankenthal. Not a vine, not an almond tree, was to be seen on
the slopes of the sunny hills round what had once been
Heidelberg. No respect was shown to palaces, to temples, to
monasteries, to infirmaries, to beautiful works of art, to
monuments of the illustrious dead. The far-famed castle of the
Elector Palatine was turned into a heap of ruins. The
adjoining hospital was sacked. The provisions, the medicines,
the pallets on which the sick lay, were destroyed. The very
stones on which Manheim had been built were flung into the
Rhine. The magnificent Cathedral of Spires perished, and with
it the marble sepulchres of eight Cæsars. The coffins were
broken open. The ashes were scattered to the winds. Treves,
with its fair bridge, its Roman baths and amphitheatre, its
venerable churches, convents, and colleges, was doomed to the
same fate. But, before this last crime had been perpetrated,
Lewis was recalled to a better mind by the execrations of all
the neighbouring nations, by the silence and confusion of his
flatterers, and by the expostulations of his wife. ... He
relented; and Treves was spared. In truth he could hardly fail
to perceive that he had committed a great error. The
devastation of the Palatinate, while it had not in any
sensible degree lessened the power of his enemies, had
inflamed their animosity, and had furnished them with
inexhaustible matter for invective. The cry of vengeance rose
on every side. Whatever scruple either branch of the House of
Austria might have felt about coalescing with Protestants was
completely removed."

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 11._

ALSO IN:
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2._

_S. A. Dunham,
History of the German Empire,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume. 3)._

See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
Aid to James II. in Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

{1240}

FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
Campaigns in the Netherlands and in Savoy.

"Our limits will not permit us to describe at any length the
war between Louis XIV. and the Grand Alliance, which lasted
till the Peace of Ryswick, in 1697, but only to note some of
the chief incidents of the different campaigns. The
Imperialists had, in 1689, notwithstanding the efforts it was
still necessary to make against the Turks, brought an army of
80,000 men into the field, which was divided into three bodies
under the command of the Duke of Lorraine, the Elector of
Bavaria, and the Elector of Brandenburg; while the Prince of
Waldeck, in the Netherlands, was at the head of a large Dutch
and Spanish force, composed, however, in great part of German
mercenaries. In this quarter, Marshal d'Humières was opposed
to Waldeck, while Duras commanded the French army on the
Rhine. In the south, the Duke of Noailles maintained a French
force in Catalonia. Nothing of much importance was done this
year; but on the whole the war went in favour of the
imperialists, who succeeded in recovering Mentz and Bonn.

1690: This year, Marshal d'Humières was superseded by the Duke
of Luxembourg, who infused more vigour into the French
operations. ... Catinat was sent this year into Dauphiné to
watch the movements of the Duke of Savoy, who was suspected by
the French Court, and not without reason, of favouring the
Grand Alliance. The extravagant demands of Louis, who required
Victor Amadeus to unite his troops with the army of Catinat,
and to admit a French garrison into Vercelli, Verrua, and even
the citadel of Turin itself, till a general peace should be
effected, caused the Duke to enter into treaties with Spain
and the Emperor, June 3d and 4th; and on October 20th, he
joined the Grand Alliance by a treaty concluded at the Hague
with England and the States-General. This last step was taken
by Victor Amadeus in consequence of his reverses. He had
sustained from Catinat in the battle of Staffarda (August
17th) a defeat which only the skill of a youthful general, his
cousin the Prince Eugene, had saved from becoming a total
rout. As the fruits of this victory, Catinat occupied Saluzzo,
Susa, and all the country from the Alps to the Tanaro. During
these operations another French division had reduced, without
much resistance, the whole of Savoy, except the fortress of
Montmélian. The only other event of importance during this
campaign was the decisive victory gained by Luxembourg over
Prince Waldeck at Fleurus, July 1st. The captured standards,
more than a hundred in number, which Luxembourg sent to Paris
on this occasion, obtained for him the name of the 'Tapassier
de Notre Dame.' Luxembourg was, however, prevented from
following up his victory by the orders of Louvois, who forbade
him to lay siege to Namur or Charleroi. Thus, in this
campaign, France maintained her preponderance on land as well
as at sea by the victory off Beachy Head. ...

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.

The Imperialists had this year lost one of their best leaders
by the death of the Duke of Lorraine (April). He was succeeded
as commander-in-chief by Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of
Bavaria; but nothing of importance took place upon the Rhine.

1691: The campaign of this year was singularly barren of
events, though both the French and English kings took a
personal part in it. In March, Louis and Luxembourg, laid
siege to Mons, the capital of Hainault, which surrendered in
less than three weeks. King William, who was in the
neighbourhood, could not muster sufficient troops to venture
on its relief. Nothing further of importance was done in this
quarter, and the campaign in Germany was equally a blank. On
the side of Piedmont, Catinat took Nice, but, being confronted
by superior numbers, was forced to evacuate Piedmont; though,
by way of compensation, he completed the conquest of Savoy by
the capture of Montmélian. Noailles gained some trifling
successes in Spain; and the celebrated French corsair, Jean
Bart, distinguished himself by his enterprises at sea. One of
the most remarkable events of the year was a domestic
occurrence, the death of Louvois."

_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 44 (volume 5)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1692.
The taking of Namur and the victory of Steinkirk, or
Steenkerke.

Never perhaps in the whole course of his unresting life were
the energies of William [of Orange] more severely taxed, and
never did his great moral and intellectual qualities shine
forth with a brighter lustre, than in the years 1692-93.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

The great victory of La Hogue and the destruction of the
flower of the French fleet did, it is true, relieve England of
any immediate dread either of insurrection or invasion, and so
far the prospect before him acquired a slight improvement
towards the summer of 1692. But this was the only gleam of
light in the horizon. ... The great coalition of Powers which
he had succeeded in forming to resist the ambition of Louis
was never nearer dissolution than in the spring of 1692. The
Scandinavian states, who had held aloof from it from the
first, were now rapidly changing the benevolence of their
neutrality into something not easily distinguishable from its
reverse. The new Pope Innocent XII. showed himself far less
amicably disposed towards William than his two predecessors.
The decrepitude of Spain and the arrogant self-will of Austria
were displaying themselves more conspicuously than ever. Savoy
was ruled by a duke who was more than half suspected of being
a traitor. ... William did succeed in saving the league from
dissolution, and in getting their armies once more into the
field. But not, unfortunately, to any purpose. The campaign of
the present year was destined to repeat the errors of the
last, and these errors were to be paid for at a heavier cost.
... The French king was bent upon the capture of the great
stronghold of Namur, and the enemy, as in the case of Mons,
were too slow in their movements and too ineffective in their
dispositions to prevent it. Marching to the assault of the
doomed city, with a magnificence of courtly pageantry which
had never before been witnessed in warfare, Louis sat down
before Namur, and in eight days its faint-hearted governor,
the nominee of the Spanish viceroy of the Netherlands,
surrendered at discretion. Having accomplished, or rather
having graciously condescended to witness the accomplishment
of this feat of arms, Louis returned to Versailles, leaving
his army under the command of Luxembourg. The fall of Namur
was a severe blow to the hopes of William, but yet worse
disasters were in store for him. He was now pitted against one
who enjoyed the reputation of the greatest general of the age,
and William, a fair but by no means brilliant strategist, was
unequal to the contest with his accomplished adversary.
{1241}
Luxembourg lay at Steinkirk, and William approaching him from
a place named Lambeque, opened his attack upon him by a
well-conceived surprise which promised at first to throw the
French army into complete disorder. Luxembourg's resource and
energy, however, were equal to the emergency. He rallied and
steadied his troops with astonishing speed, and the nature of
the ground preventing the allies from advancing as rapidly as
they had expected, they found the enemy in a posture to
receive them. The British forces were in the front, commanded
by Count Solmes, the division of Mackay, a name now honourable
for many generations in the annals of continental, no less
than of Scottish, warfare, leading the way. These heroes, for
so, though as yet untried soldiers, they approved themselves,
were to have been supported by Count Solmes with a strong body
of cavalry and infantry, but at the critical moment he failed
them miserably, and his failure decided the fortunes of the
day. ... The division was practically annihilated. Its five
regiments, 'Cutt's, Mackay's, Angus's, Graham's, and Leven's,
all,' as Corporal Trim relates pathetically, cut to pieces,
and so had the English Life-guards been too, had it not been
for some regiments on the right, who marched up boldly to
their relief, and, received the enemy's fire in their faces,
before anyone of their own platoons discharged a musket.'
Bitter was the resentment in the English army at the desertion
of these gallant troops by Count de Solmes, and William gave
vent to one of his rare outbursts of anger at the sight. We
have it indeed on the authority above quoted--unimpeachable as
first-hand tradition, for Sterne had heard the story of these
wars at the knees of an eye-witness of and actor in them--that
the King 'would not suffer the Count to come into his presence
for many months after.' The destruction of Mackay's division
had indeed decided the issue of the struggle. Luxembourg's
army was being rapidly strengthened by reinforcements from
that of Boufflers, and there was nothing for it but retreat.
The loss on both sides had been great, but the moral effect of
the victory was still greater. William's reputation for
generalship, perhaps unduly raised by his recent exploits in
Ireland, underwent a serious decline."

_H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapter 10._

On the Rhine and on the Spanish frontier nothing of importance
occurred during 1692. The Duke of Savoy gained some advantages
on his side and invaded Dauphiny, without any material result.
The invasion called into action a young heroine, Mademoiselle
de La Tour-du-Pin, whose portrait has a place at Saint-Denis
by the side of that of Jeanne D'Arc.

_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 20._

FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (July).
The Battle of Neerwinden, or Landen.

"Lewis had determined not to make any advance towards a
reconciliation with the new government of England till the
whole strength of his realm had been put forth in one more
effort. A mighty effort in truth it was, but too exhausting to
be repeated. He made an immense display of force at once on
the Pyrenees and on the Alps, on the Rhine and on the Meuse,
in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. That nothing might
be wanting which could excite the martial ardour of a nation
eminently high-spirited, he instituted, a few days before he
left his palace for the camp, a new military order of
knighthood, and placed it under the protection of his own
sainted ancestor and patron. The cross of Saint Lewis shone on
the breasts of the gentlemen who had been conspicuous in the
trenches before Mons and Namur, and on the fields of Fleurus
and Steinkirk. ... On the 18th of May Lewis left Versailles.
Early in June he was under the walls of Namur. The Princesses,
who had accompanied him, held their court within the fortress. He
took under his immediate command the army of Boufflers, which
was encamped at Gembloux. Little more than a mile off lay the
army of Luxemburg. The force collected in that neighbourhood
under the French lilies did not amount to less than 120,000
men. Lewis had flattered himself that he should be able to
repeat in 1693 the stratagem by which Mons had been taken in
1691 and Namur in 1692; and he had determined that either
Liege or Brussels should be his prey. But William had this
year been able to assemble in good time a force, inferior
indeed to that which was opposed to him, but still formidable.
With this force he took his post near Louvain, on the road
between the two threatened cities, and watched every movement
of the enemy. ... Just at this conjuncture Lewis announced his
intention to return instantly to Versailles, and to send the
Dauphin and Boufflers, with part of the army which was
assembled near Namur, to join Marshal Lorges who commanded in
the Palatinate. Luxemburg was thunderstruck. He expostulated
boldly and earnestly. Never, he said, was such an opportunity
thrown away. ... The Marshal reasoned: he implored: he went on
his knees: but all was vain; and he quitted the royal presence
in the deepest dejection. Lewis left the camp a week after he
had joined it, and never afterwards made war in person. ...
Though the French army in the Netherlands had been weakened by
the departure of the forces commanded by the Dauphin and
Boufflers, and though the allied army was daily strengthened
by the arrival of fresh troops, Luxemburg still had a
superiority of force; and that superiority he increased by an
adroit stratagem." He succeeded by a feint in inducing William
to detach 20,000 men from his army and to send them to Liege.
He then moved suddenly upon the camp of the allies, with
80,000 men, and found but 50,000 to oppose him. "It was still
in the [English] King's power, by a hasty retreat, to put
between his army and the enemy the narrow, but deep, waters of
the Gette, which had lately been swollen by rains. But the
site which he occupied was strong; and it could easily be made
still stronger. He set all his troops to work. Ditches were
dug, mounds thrown up, palisades fixed in the earth. In a few
hours the ground wore a new aspect; and the King trusted that
he should be able to repel the attack even of a force greatly
outnumbering his own. ... On the left flank, the village of
Romsdorff rose close to the little stream of Landen, from
which the English have named the disastrous day. On the right
was the village of Neerwinden. Both villages were, after the
fashion of the Low Countries, surrounded by moats and fences.
"Notwithstanding the strength of the position held by the
allies, and the valor with which they defended it, they were
driven out of Neerwinden [July 29]--but only after the
shattered village had been five times taken and retaken--and
across the Gette, in confusion and with heavy loss.
{1242}
"The French were victorious: but they had bought their victory
dear. More then 10,000 of the best troops of Lewis had fallen.
Neerwinden was a spectacle at which the oldest soldiers stood
aghast. The streets were piled breast high with corpses. Among
the slain were some great lords and some renowned warriors.
... The region, renowned as the battle field, through many
ages, of the greatest powers of Europe, has seen only two more
terrible days, the day of Malplaquet and the day of Waterloo.
... There was no pursuit, though the sun was still high in the
heaven when William crossed the Gette. The conquerors were so
much exhausted by marching and fighting that they could
scarcely move. ... A very short delay was enough for William.
... Three weeks after his defeat he held a review a few miles
from Brussels. The number of men under arms was greater than
on the morning of the bloody day of Landen: their appearance
was soldierlike; and their spirit seemed unbroken. William now
wrote to Heinsius that the worst was over. 'The crisis,' he
said, 'has been a terrible one. Thank God that it has ended
thus.' He did not, however, think it prudent to try at that
time the event of another pitched field. He therefore suffered
the French to besiege and take Charleroi; and this was the
only advantage which they derived from the most sanguinary
battle fought in Europe during the seventeenth century."

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 20 (volume 4)._

ALSO IN:
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 5 (1693), volume 4._

_Duc de Saint-Simon,
Memoirs (translated by St. John),
volume 1, chapter 4._

FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (October).
Defeat of the Duke of Savoy at Marsaglia.

"The great efforts made by Louis in the north prevented him
from strengthening the army of Catinat sufficiently to act
with energy against the Savoyard prince, and it was determined
to restrict the campaign of 1693 to the defensive on the part
of France. The forces of the duke had in the meantime been
reinforced from Germany, and he opened the campaign with a
brilliant and successful movement against Pignerol. ... He is
said to have entertained hopes of carrying the war in that one
campaign to the very gates of Lyons; but the successes which
inspired him with such expectations alarmed the court of
France, and Louis detached in haste a large body of cavalry to
reinforce Catinat. That general marched at once to fight the Duke
of Savoy, who, presuming on his strength, suffered the French
to pour out from the valley of Suza into the plain of
Piedmont, abandoned the heights, and was consequently defeated
at Marsaglia on the 4th of October. Catinat, however, could not
profit by his victory; he was too ill supplied in every
respect to undertake the siege of Coni, and the state of the
French armies at this time marks as plainly that Louvois was
dead, as the state of the finances speaks the loss of
Colbert."

_G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 11._

FRANCE: A. D. 1694.
Campaigns without battles.
Operations at sea.

In 1694, King William was "in a position to keep an army afoot
in the Netherlands stronger than any had hitherto been. It was
reckoned at 31,800 horse, including a corps of dragoons, and
58,000 foot; so great a force had never been seen within the
memory of man. All the best-known generals, who had hitherto
taken part in the wars of western Europe, were gathered round
him with their troops. The French army, with which the
Dauphin, but not the King, was present, was not much smaller;
it was once more led by Marshal Luxembourg. These two hosts
lay over against one another in their camps for a couple of
months; neither offered battle to the other. ... This campaign
is notable in the annals of the art of war for the skill with
which each force pursued or evaded the other; but the results
were limited to the recovery by the allies of that unimportant
place, Huy. William had thought himself fortunate in having
come out of the previous campaign without disaster: in this
campaign the French were proud to have held their lines in
presence of a superior force. On the coast also the French
were successful in repelling a most vehement and perilous
attack. They had been warned that the English were going to
fall on Brest, and Vauban was sent down there in haste to
organise the defence; and in this he was thoroughly
successful. When the English landed on the coast in Camaret
Bay (for the fort of that name had first to be taken) they
were saluted by two batteries, which they had never detected,
and which were so well placed that every shot told, and the
grape-shot wounded almost every man who had ventured ashore.
The gallant General, Talmash, was also hit, and ere long died
of his wounds. The English fleet, which had come to bombard
Brest, was itself bombarded from the walls. But though this
great effort failed, the English fleet still held the mastery
of the Channel: it also blockaded the northern coast of
France. After Brest it attacked Dieppe, laying it almost
entirely in ashes; thence it sailed to Havre, and St. Malo, to
Calais, and Dunkirk. This was of great use in the conduct of
the war. King William observes that had not the coasts been
kept in a state of alarm, all the forces detained there for
defensive purposes would have been thrown on the Netherlands.
... But the most important result of the maritime war lay on
another side. In May, 1694, Noailles pushed into Catalonia,
supported by Tourville, who lay at anchor with the fleet in
the Bay of Rosas. ... It was of incalculable importance to
Spain to be in alliance with the maritime powers. Strengthened
by a Dutch fleet and some Spanish ships, Admiral Russell now
appeared in the Mediterranean. He secured Barcelona from the
French, who would never have been kept out of the city by the
Spaniards alone. The approach of the English fleet had at this
time the greatest influence in keeping the Duke of Savoy
staunch to the confederation. In Germany the rise of the house
of Hanover to the Electoral dignity had now caused most
unpleasant complications. A shoal of German princes, headed by
the King of Denmark, as a Prince of the Empire, and offended
by the preference shown to Hanover, inclined, if not to
alliance with France, at least to neutrality. ... We can have
no conception, and in this place we cannot possibly
investigate, with what unbroken watchfulness King William,
supported by Heinsius, looked after the German and the
Northern courts, so as to keep their irritation from reacting
on the course of the great war. ... When the French, in June,
1694, crossed the Rhine, meaning, as they boasted with true
Gallic arrogance, soon to dip their swords in the Danube, they
found the Prince of Baden so well prepared, and posted so
strongly near Wisloch, that they did not venture to attack
him. ... The general result is this: neither side was as yet
really superior to the other: but the French power was
everywhere checked and held within bounds by the arms and
influence of William III."

_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 20, chapter 6 (volume 5)._

{1243}

FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
The end of the War of the League of Augsburg.
Loss of Namur.
Terms with Savoy.
The Peace of Ryswick.

"Military and naval efforts were relaxed on all sides: on the
Rhine the Prince of Baden and the Marechal de Lorges, both ill
in health, did little but observe each other; and though the
Duke of Savoy made himself master of Casal on the 11th July,
1695, no other military event of any consequence took place on
the side of Italy, where Louis entered into negotiations with
the duke, and succeeded, in the following year, in detaching
him from the league of Augsburg. As the price of his defection
the whole of his territories were to be restored to him, with
the exception of Suza, Nice, and Montmeillan, which were
promised to be delivered also on the signature of a general
peace. Money was added to render the consent of a needy prince
more ready. ... The duke promised to obtain from the emperor a
pledge that Italy should be considered as neutral ground, and
if the allies refused such a pledge, then to join the forces
of Savoy to those of France, and give a free passage to the
French through his dominions. In consequence of this treaty
... he applied to the emperor for a recognition of the
neutrality of Italy, and was refused. He then hastened, with a
facility which distinguished him through life, to abandon his
friends and join his enemies, and within one month was
generalissimo for the emperor in Italy fighting against
France, and generalissimo for the King of France in Italy
fighting against the emperor. Previous to this change,
however, the King of England opened the campaign of 1695 in
the Netherlands by the siege of Namur. The death of Luxemburg
had placed the French army of Flanders under the command of
the incapable Marshal Villeroi: and William, feeling that his
enemy was no longer to be much respected, assumed at once the
offensive. He concealed his design upon Namur under a variety
of manœuvres which kept the French generals in suspense; and,
then leaving the Prince of Vaudemont to protect the principal
Spanish towns in Flanders, he collected his troops suddenly;
and while the Duke of Bavaria invested Namur, he covered the
operations of the siege with a considerable force. Villeroi
now determined to attack the Prince of Vaudemont, but twice
suffered him to escape: and then, after having apparently
hesitated for some time how to drive or draw the King of
England from the attack upon Namur, he resolved to bombard the
city of Brussels, never pretending to besiege it, but alleging
as his motive for a proceeding which was merely destructive,
the bombardment of the maritime towns of France by the
English. During three days he continued to fire upon the city,
ruining a great part thereof, and then withdrew to witness the
surrender of the citadel of Namur on the 2nd September, the
town itself having capitulated on the 4th of the preceding
month. As some compensation, though but a poor one, for the
loss of Namur, and the disgrace of the French arms in
suffering such a city to be captured in the presence of 80,000
men, Montal took Dixmude and Deynse in the course of June. ...
The only after-event of any importance which occurred in
Flanders during this war, was the capture of Ath by the
French, in the year 1697, while negotiations for peace were
going on with activity at Ryswick. ... Regular communications
regarding peace having been once established, Ryswick, near
the Hague, was appointed for the meeting of plenipotentiaries;
and Harlay, Torci, and Callières appeared at that place as
representatives of Louis. The articles which had been formerly
sketched out at Utrecht formed the base of the treaties now
agreed upon; and Louis yielded far more than could have been
expected from one so proud and so successful."

_G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 11._

ALSO IN:
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 3, chapter 5._

_Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
part 3, book 4 (volume 3)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1697 (April).
The sacking of Carthagena.

See CARTHAGENA: A. D. 1697.

FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.

"The Congress for the treaty or series of treaties that was to
terminate the great European war, which had now lasted for
upwards of nine years, was held at Ryswick, a château near the
Hague. The conferences were opened in May, 1697. Among the
countries represented were Sweden, Austria, France, Spain,
England, Holland, Denmark and the various States of the German
Empire. The treaties were signed, in severalty, between the
different States, except Austria, in September and October,
1697, and with the Emperor, in November. The principal
features of the treaty were, as between France and Spain,
that, the former country was to deliver to Spain Barcelona,
and other places in Catalonia; also various places which
France had taken in the Spanish Netherlands, during the war,
including Luxembourg and its Duchy, Charleroi, Mons and
Courtrai. Various others were excepted, to be retained by
France, as dependencies of French possessions. The principal
stipulations of the treaty, as between France and Great
Britain, were that France formally recognized William III. as
lawful king of Great Britain, and agreed not to trouble him in
the possession of his dominions, and not to assist his
enemies, directly or indirectly. This article had particular
relation to the partisans of the exiled Stuart king, then
living in France. By another article, all places taken by
either country in America, during the war, were to be
relinquished, and the Principality of Orange and its estates
situated in the south of France were to be restored to
William. In the treaty with Holland, certain possessions in
the East Indies were to be restored to the Dutch East India
Company: and important articles of commerce were appended,
among which the principle was laid down that free ships should
make free goods, not contraband of war. By the treaty with the
Emperor and the German States, the Treaties of Westphalia and
Nymeguen were recognized as the basis of the Treaty of
Ryswick, with such exceptions only as were to be provided in
the latter treaty. France also was to give up all territory
she had occupied or controlled before or during the war under
the name of 'reunions,' outside of Alsace, but the Roman
Catholic religion was to be preserved in Alsace as it then
existed.
{1244}
This concession by France included among other places
Freiburg, Brisach, and Treves; and certain restitutions were
to be made by France, in favor of Spire, the Electors of
Treves, and Brandenburg and the Palatinate; also, others in
favor of certain of the smaller German Princes. The city of
Strasburg, in return, was formally ceded to France, ... and
the important fort of Kehl was yielded to the Empire. The
navigation of the Rhine was to be free to all persons. The
Duke of Lorraine was to be restored to his possessions with
such exceptions as were provided in the treaty. By the terms
of this treaty, a more advantageous peace was given to Spain
than she had any expectation of. ... Not only were the places
taken in Spain, including the numerous fortified places in
Catalonia, yielded up, but also, with some exceptions, those
in the Spanish Netherlands, and also the important territory
of Luxembourg; some places were even yielded to Spain that
France had gained under former treaties."

_J. W. Gerard,
The Peace of Utrecht,
chapter 4._

"The restitutions and cessions [from France to Germany]
comprised Treves, Germersheim, Deux-Ponts, Veldentz,
Montbéliard, Kehl, Freiburg, Breisach, Philippsburg, the
Emperor and the Empire ceding in exchange Strasbourg to the
King of France in complete sovereignty. ... Louis XIV. had
consented somewhat to relax the rigor of the treaty of
Nimeguen towards the heir of the Duchy of Lorraine, nephew of
the Emperor by his mother; he restored to the young Duke
Leopold his inheritance in the condition in which Charles IV.
had possessed it before the French conquest of 1670; that is
to say, he restored Nancy, allowing only the ramparts of the
Old Town to remain, and razing all the rest of the
fortifications without the power of restoring them; he kept
Marsal, an interior place calculated to hold Lorraine in
check, and also Sarre-Louis, a frontier-place which separated
Lorraine from the Germanic provinces; he restored Bitche and
Homburg dismantled, without power to reestablish them, and
kept Longwy in exchange for a domain of similar value in one
of the Trois-Evêchés; finally, he no longer demanded, as at
Nimeguen, four great strategic routes through Lorraine, and
consented that the passage should always be open to his
troops. The House of Lorraine was thus reestablished in its
estates after twenty-seven years of exile."

_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 20, chapter 11 (volume 5)._

See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697;
and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

FRANCE: A. D. 1698-1712.
The colonization of Louisiana.
Broad claims to the whole valley of the Mississippi.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

FRANCE: A. D. 1700.
Bequest of the Spanish crown to a French royal prince.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

FRANCE: A. D. 1701-1702.
Provocation of the Second Grand Alliance
and War of the Spanish Succession.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702,
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
The Camisard rising of the French Protestant's in the
Cévennes.

"The movement known as the War of the Camisards is an episode
of the history of Protestantism in France which, though rarely
studied in detail and perhaps but partially understood, was
not devoid of significance. When it occurred, in the summer of
1702, a period of little less than 17 years had elapsed since
Louis XIV., by his edict of Fontainebleau, October, 1685,
solemnly revoked the great and fundamental law enacted by his
grandfather, Henry IV., for the protection of the adherents of
the Reformed faith, known in history as the Edict of Nantes.
During the whole of that period the Protestants had submitted,
with scarcely an attempt at armed resistance, to the
proscription of their tenets: ... The majority, unable to
escape from the land of oppression, remained at home ...
nearly all of them cherishing the confident hope that the
king's delusion would be short-lived, and that the edict under
which they and their ancestors had lived for three generations
would, before long, be restored to them with the greater part,
if not the whole, of its beneficent provisions. Meanwhile, all
the Protestant ministers having been expelled from France by
the same law that prohibited the expatriation of any of the
laity, the people of the Reformed faith found themselves
destitute of the spiritual food they craved. True, the new
legislation affected to regard that faith as dead, and
designated all the former adherents of Protestantism, without
distinction, as the 'New Converts,' 'Nouveaux Convertis.' And,
in point of fact, the great majority had so far yielded to the
terrible pressure of the violent measures brought to bear upon
them ... that they had consented to sign a promise to be
're-united' to the Roman Catholic Church, or had gone at least
once to mass. But they were still Protestants at heart. ...
Under these circumstances, feeling more than ever the need of
religious comfort, now that remorse arose for a weak betrayal
of conscientious conviction, the proscribed Protestants,
especially in the south of France, began to meet clandestinely
for divine worship in such retired places as seemed most
likely to escape the notice of their vigilant enemies. ... It
was not strange that in so exceptional a situation, a phase of
religious life and feeling equally exceptional should manifest
itself. I refer to that appearance of prophetic inspiration
which attracted to the province of Vivarais and to the
Cévennes Mountains the attention of all Europe. ...
Historically ... the influence of the prophets of the Cévennes
was an important factor in the Protestant problem of the end
of the 17th and the commencement of the 18th centuries. ...
Various methods were adopted to put an end to the prophets
with their prophecies, which were for the most part
denunciatory of Rome as Antichrist and foreshadowed the
approaching fall of the papacy. But this form of enthusiasm
had struck a deep root and it was hard to eradicate it.
Imprisonment, in convent or jail, was the most common
punishment, especially in the case of women. Not infrequently
to imprisonment was, added corporal chastisement, and the
prophets, male and female, were flogged until they might be
regarded as fully cured of their delusion. ... But no
utterances of prophets, however fervid and impassioned, would
have sufficed to occasion an uprising of the inhabitants of
the Cévennes Mountains, had it not been for the virulent
persecution to which the latter found themselves exposed at
the hands of the provincial authorities directly instigated
thereto by the clergy of the established church.
{1245}
For it must be noticed that a large part of the population of
the Cévennes was still Protestant, and made no concealment of
the fact, even though the king's ministers affected to call
them 'New Catholics,' or 'New Converts.' The region over which
the Camisard war extended with more or less violence comprised
six episcopal dioceses, which, in 1698, had an aggregate
population of about two-thirds of a million of souls. Of these
souls, though Protestantism had been dead in the eye of the
law for 13 years, fully one-fourth were still Protestant. ...
The war may be said to have begun on the 24th of July, 1702,
when the Abbé du Chayla, a noted persecutor, was killed in his
house, at Pont de Montvert, by a band of 40 or 50 of the
'Nouveaux Convertis,' whom he had driven to desperation by his
cruelty to their fellow believers. If we regard its
termination to be the submission of Jean Cavalier, the most
picturesque, in the month of May, 1704, the war lasted a
little less than two years. But, although the French
government had succeeded, rather by craft than by force, in
getting rid of the most formidable of its opponents ... it was
not until five or six years later--that is, until 1709 or
1710--that ... comparative peace was finally restored. ...
During the first months of the insurrection the exploits of
the malcontents were confined to deeds of destruction
accomplished by companies of venturesome men, who almost
everywhere eluded the pursuit of the enemy by their superior
knowledge of the intricacies of the mountain woods and paths.
The track of these companies could easily be made out; for it
was marked by the destruction of vicarages and rectories, by
the smoke of burned churches, too often by the corpses of
slain priests. The perpetrators of these acts of violence soon
won for themselves some special designations, to distinguish
them from the more passive Protestants who remained in their
homes, taking no open part in the struggle. ... About the
close of 1702, however, or the first months of 1703, a new
word was coined for the fresh emergency, and the armed
Protestants received the appellation under which they have
passed into history--the Camisards. Passing by all the strange
and fanciful derivations of the word which seem to have no
claim upon our notice, unless it be their evident absurdity,
we have no difficulty in connecting it with those nocturnal
expeditions which were styled 'Camisades'; because the
warriors who took advantage of the darkness of the night to
ride out and explore or force the enemy's entrenchments,
sometimes threw over their armor a shirt that might enable
them to recognize each other. Others will have it that, though
the name was derived from the same article of apparel--the
'camisa' or shirt--it was applied to the Cévenol bands for
another reason, namely," that when they found opportunities,
they carried off clean linen from the villages and left their
soiled garments in exchange. The final overthrow of the
Camisards "was not accomplished without the employment of
100,000 troops, certainly far more than ten times the total
number ever brought into the field by the Camisards. ... Not
less than three officers of the highest grade in the service,
marshals of France, were successively appointed to put down a
revolt which it might have been expected a simple colonel
could suffice to quell--M. de Broglie being succeeded by the
Marshal de Montrevel, the Marshal de Montrevel by the Marshal
de Villars, and the Marshal de Villars by the Marshal de
Berwick."

_H. M. Baird,
The Camisard Uprising
(Papers of the American Society of Church History,
volume 2, pages 13-34)._

ALSO IN:
_Mrs. Bray,
The Revolt of the Protestants of the Cevennes._

_N. Peyrat,
The Pastors in the Wilderness._

_S. Smiles,
The Huguenots in France after the Revocation of the Edict
of Nantes, chapters 5-8._

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession in America
(called Queen Anne's War).

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1713.
The War of the Spanish Succession in Europe.

See
ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
SPAIN: A.D. 1702, to 1707-1710;
GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1706-1711;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.

FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1715.
Renewed Jesuitical persecution of the Jansenists.
The odious Bull Unigenitus and its tyrannical enforcement.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

A. D. 1710.
The War of the Spanish Succession: Misery of the nation.
Overtures for Peace.
Conferences at Gertruydenberg.