THE COLLOQUY OF POISSY. THE ESTATES OF PONTOISE. THE EDICT OF JANUARY, 1562

In the summer of 1561, France saw two separate assemblies convene: the adjourned session of the States-General at Pontoise and the conference of the leaders of the two religions at Poissy. In a sense the cause of the political Huguenots was represented in the former, that of the religious Huguenots in the latter, although the deliberations of the two assemblies were finally combined in an instrument known as the Act of Poissy. The elections in the provinces, each of which sent up two[390] representatives from each bailiwick of the kingdom, had enabled the opposition to go on record,[391] so that the crown had early intimation of the sort of legislation that was likely to be demanded. The business of the estates was to find a way out of the financial difficulties which overwhelmed the King.[392]

The spokesman of the third estate, one Jean Bretaigne, mayor of Autun, after a tedious prologue copiously laden with biblical and classic lore, at last came to the pith of things: he summed up in a paragraph of portentous dimensions the burden imposed upon the people by war and the extravagance of the court during the past twenty years, declaring that the people were so penniless that they had nothing to give the King, “save a good and loyal will.” Things had come to such a pass that mere economy and retrenchment, nor even an honest and effective administration, although that was demanded and was promised by the King, could save the future.[393] The immense resources of the clergy must be made to restore the dilapidated finances of the monarchy; the church must come to the material rescue of the state, as in the days of Charles Martel. The entire revenue he argued, must be taken of all offices, benefices, and ecclesiastical dignities not actually officiated either in person or in a titular capacity, the Knights of Rhodes and the Hospitalers of St. James included; all the fruits, also, of benefices in litigation which the collators were accustomed to take during the time of litigation should be appropriated by the state, as well as the moneys of deceased bishops and monks. Moreover, one-quarter of the income should be taken of all beneficiaries actually resident in their benefices, in cases where the revenue was from 500 to 1,000 livres; of those having a revenue of 1,000 to 3,000 livres, one-third; of those with incomes running from 3,000 to 6,000 livres, one-half; of those ranging from 6,000 to 12,000 livres, two-thirds. Those of the clergy whose incomes exceeded 12,000 livres and above were to be permitted to retain 4,000 livres, the surplus being applied to liquidate the King’s debts, save in cases where the beneficiaries were bishops, archbishops, primates, and cardinals, to whom 6,000 livres revenue was to be allowed. As to the monastic orders, their whole treasury and revenues were to be appropriated, save enough for their support, for the maintenance of their buildings, and for charity. And this was not all: all houses, gardens, and real property within either cities or faubourgs not actually employed for ecclesiastical uses, were to be confiscated by the government; the clergy were to be made to pay taxes upon the rich furniture and works of art or adornment given them to enjoy either for a length of years or in perpetuity. Finally, all lands providing revenues, either in money or in kind, as oil, wine, and grain, in case of being let to contract or change of control, were to be declared redeemable. If these measures should prove insufficient, then recourse must be had to more drastic means, namely the direct sale of the property of the church. Twenty-six million livres’ worth of this could be readily sold, the speaker argued, which would be no more than one-third of the church’s possession; the remainder should be administered by a trustworthy commission, which, after paying the stipends of the clergy in the amounts above indicated, should devote the balance to the payment of the debts of the crown.[394]

This formidable programme, which suggests the policy actually followed by France in 1789, in spite of the hot declaration of the constable that the speaker presenting it ought to be hanged,[395] proved so reasonable that the government, without going to the extreme proposed, saw that the moment was a favorable one to secure important aid from the clergy. The clergy, on the other hand, were sharp enough to see that in order to save their property, they would have to make sacrifice of a portion of it. At first they offered the crown a bonus of ten million livres, which it refused as being too small a sum, and demanded a greater subsidy.[396] A temporary settlement at last was made on the basis of 1,600,000 livres annual revenue to be levied upon the vineyards of the clergy, in order to relieve the King’s present needs.[397] But something more fundamental than this had to be done, for these measures only supplied the King with funds for current expenses, and did not admit of redemption of the debt or resumption of the crown lands, which had been mortgaged for about thirty millions of francs. This matter was the subject of investigation and debate through the ensuing November and December. Finally, a scheme was worked out whereby the royal domain was all to be redeemed by the clergy within six years, and the remainder of the debt to be discharged within another six.[398]

The contract of Poissy-Pontoise presents two important stipulations: one, a gift of money to the King; second, the repurchase by the clergy of the domains of the crown and the redemption of the debt. If this contract had been observed, it would have rendered the other assemblies of the clergy useless, but the failure to execute it made necessary the subsequent assemblies of 1563 and 1567, which established a rule of periodicity, as it were, and fixed the next session at 1573. By 1567, the clergy had fulfilled its first obligation and declared itself ready to resume the second by giving to the provost of the merchants and to the Échevins of Paris the guarantees desired for the redemption of the rentes. But the King at the same time insisted upon the continuation of the subsidy of 1,600,000 livres. The clergy protested, demanding his adherence to the contract of Poissy. The crown enforced continuation, but as “an easement” waived claim to the “secular tithe” heretofore exacted, and granted to the clergy, for the first time, the right to collect taxes by its own agents, and the right to judge in a sovereign capacity all cases which might arise from these financial matters. The government observed this convention no better than the first, and in addition to extraordinary subventions—two million livres in 1572, nearly half of which was squandered by the duke of Anjou in Poland—resorted to compulsory alienations of church property, as in 1563, 1568, 1574, which were made upon order of the King, without recourse to papal affirmation. Purchasers were not wanting for the new credit. The rate of interest fell to 5 per cent. in the autumn of 1561 as a result of these expedients, and, provided civil war could be averted, it seemed probable that the dilapidated finances might be rehabilitated.[399]

Simultaneous with the sitting of the estates at Pontoise to settle the financial issue, the religious issue was being debated by the doctrinal leaders of Catholicism and Calvinism, at Poissy.[400] This solemn assembly had been summoned in June to meet on the second of the following month,[401] in spite of the opposition of the clergy and Spain, who warned Catherine that such a concession would lead to disaster.[402] But delay ensued, and the assembly did not actually convene until September, for the members were slow in coming.[403] The conditions governing the meeting at Poissy were published in council on August 8, namely, that the clergy should not be umpires; that the princes of the blood should preside at the disputation, and that the different proceedings should be faithfully recorded by trustworthy persons.[404] With respect to the other matters the Calvinists were required to make some concessions in order to avoid the reproach of seeming to evade the colloquy. While awaiting the formal opening of the conference at Poissy, Beza was invited by the court to speak before the King, the queen mother, the king of Navarre, and the Council. He was listened to with great attention by all until he began to deny the Real Presence, when the Catholic party tried to stop his address, exclaiming that it was blasphemy, and Beza and his partisans would certainly have been ejected if their opponents had not been restrained by the royal authority and compelled to listen to the end. At its conclusion the cardinal Tournon exhorted the King to continue firm in the faith of his ancestors,[405] and not to permit France to be reduced to the Swiss cantonal system.[406]

Many of the clergy said that it was not pertinent for the colloquy to determine these points, but that it was for the General Council to decide; moreover, it was argued that as the delegates of the Spanish clergy would shortly be coming through France on their way to Trent, why should not they assist as well as the others?[407] Catherine, it is said, had intended that there should be no disputation about dogma. But there is some reason to believe that she confounded dogma with the rites and observances of the church,[408] and it is certain that the Huguenots were determined to push their privilege of free speech to the very limit. Indeed, the conditions predicated by Beza formed the substance of a petition presented by the Reformed leaders to Charles IX.[409]

When the conference met a great attempt to maintain secrecy was made. No one was permitted to enter except those who had been formally appointed;[410] the duke of Guise carried the keys to the conference hall, and careful search was made at the beginning of each sitting to find any who might be hid.[411]

The principal points in dispute turned upon the use of images; the administration of the sacrament of baptism; the communion; the mass; the laying-on of hands and the vocation of ministers, and finally the consideration of a possible accord in doctrine, in which points the usages of the primitive church and the reasons of separation were involved.[412]

On the second day of the conference (September 16) the cardinal of Lorraine spoke, dwelling upon these principal points: first, that the King, being a member of the church and not its head, could not set himself up as a judge in matters of religion and faith, but was subject to the church like every other Christian; second, the definition of the authority of the church was extended even over princes.[413]

Before long, however, it became evident, both that the attempt to reconcile the Catholic and the Calvinist parties was an impossibility, and that the government’s policy of accommodation was exciting discontent.[414] The demands of the Huguenots, based on Beza’s arguments, were as follows:

1. That bishops, abbots, and other ecclesiastics should not be constituted in any way judges of the Huguenots, in view of the fact that they were their opponents.

2. That all points of difference be judged and decided according to the simple word of God, as contained in the New and Old Testaments, since the Reformed faith was founded on this alone, and that where any difficulties arose concerning the interpretation of words, reference should be made to the original Hebrew and Greek text.[415]

This second article was a rock of contention from the very beginning. The whole Catholic doctrine of tradition having equal weight with Scripture was denied in this article. It was manifest, indeed, from the first that three things would not be suffered to be considered: (1) a change of religion; (2) the authority of the Pope; (3) the possible alienation of church property.[416] This state of things, together with the fact that the prolongation of the session entailed great expense,[417] brought about a change of plan. Five persons, the bishop of Valence, the archbishop of Sens, and MM. Salignac, d’Espence, and Boutellier, were appointed by the queen and agreed to by the clergy, to confer with five representatives of the Calvinists, viz., Peter Martyr,[418] Beza, De Gallars, Marborat, and D’Espine.[419] Within ten days more the prelates and ministers had ceased to confer and were taking their departure.[420] The assembly of Poissy dissolved of itself on October 18, having accomplished nothing,[421] except doctrinally still further to disunite the Protestant world, which otherwise might possibly have had a council of its own, composed of French, Scotch, English, Germans, Danes, Swiss and Swedes, to face the Council of Trent.[422]

Two days later the cardinal and the duke of Guise departed from the court, in spite of the urgency of the queen mother to have them remain, accompanied by the dukes of Nemours and Longueville and other great personages and mustering six or seven hundred horse. Outwardly there was no sign of disaffection. Immediately afterward the constable also left, expressing dissatisfaction with the tolerant policy of the government. It was plain throughout the proceedings at Pontoise (and at Poissy) that the chancellor of France, L’HÔpital, and the admiral, had the chief direction of affairs in their hands, although the queen mother and the king of Navarre had the greater show of authority.[423]

The Vatican had been an anxious observer of affairs in France, and early in June, 1561, the Pope had resolved to send the cardinal of Ferrara, Hippolyte d’Este, to France as legate.[424] The principal points of his mission to the French court, where he arrived on September 14, were to entreat the French crown that the annates might still remain as the Pope’s revenue; that there might be no change of religion and observance in the church; to solicit the King to recognize the Council of Trent and to break off the colloquy at Poissy.[425] But when the legate presented his credentials, at the instance of the chancellor, who impugned his powers, the estates protested against the entry of any of the Pope’s bulls or letters without the King’s consent and seal.[426] The Parlement of Paris went even farther, and refused to confirm the King’s letters-patent. But the King’s council overrode this resolution, and recognized the legate’s credentials, although L’HÔpital steadfastly refused to affix the seal of state to the council’s action.

The cardinal began his negotiations by offering on the part of the Pope to resign the tenths and subsidies exacted by the church, and promising all the help His Holiness could give with honor, on condition that the resolution of the estates of Orleans, prohibiting payment of the annates, which the estates of Pontoise had reasserted, should not be executed. The nuncio argued that this action was a violation of the concordat of 1516, and that the principle in the case had been decided by the council of Basel, and accepted by Charles VII in the Pragmatic Sanction. Accordingly, the nuncio asked for a revocation of the actions taken touching the property of the church, and that things be restored to the state in which they originally were.[427] But the cardinal’s arguments were of no effect. The execution of the new law went forward. The first province where it was applied was Guyenne—within the government of the king of Navarre, then Touraine, and the Orleannais.[428]

An even more interested observer, perhaps, of French affairs than the Pope, was Philip of Spain. The progress of heresy in France, the seizure of the property of the church there, the attitude of the French crown toward the Council of Trent, the uncertainty of Antoine of Bourbon’s conduct—these were all disquieting facts to the Spanish ruler. Philip curtly told Catherine and her son that her government must abandon its policy of weakness and dissimulation, that too many souls were being imperiled by her course, and that coercive measures must be used.[429] The duke of Alva had the boldness to declare that unless the government of France revived the rigorous suppressive measures of Henry II, and punished every heretic, His Catholic Majesty was resolved to sacrifice the welfare of Spain and even his own life in order to stamp out a pest which he regarded as menacing to both France and Spain.[430] Singly and together the bishop of the Limoges (who was still at the Spanish court) and D’Ozances, while deploring the malice of the times and “the disasters of which everyone knew,” tried to justify their government on the ground that Calvinism had become a necessary evil in France and that it was better to give it qualified toleration than to plunge the country into fire and war. They pointed to the deliberations of the assembly of Fontainebleau, to the States-General of Orleans, to the arrÊts of the Parlement, and the findings of Pontoise and Poissy in proof; they asserted that the queen mother and the king of Navarre—they were cautious not to style him thus in Philip’s presence, however—were “of perfect and sincere intention” not to let heresy increase in France; “the scandal and outrage” of heretical preaching never would be permitted in Paris or at the court, although it was necessary to permit the Protestants to have their own worship outside of some of the towns; that the purpose of the crown was fixed never to change or alter the true religion; that France was not hostile to the Council of Trent, but in her distress was naturally impatient; and finally they importuned the king of Spain not to show his anger, but to give “advice and comfort” for the sake of the friendship which existed between their country and his, and for the repose of Christendom.[431]

The appeal fell upon deaf ears. Philip coldly replied that it was useless for France to expect the advice or assistance of Spain so long as her government tolerated heresy in any degree whatsoever; that those at the court who were Huguenots, like the admiral and the prince of CondÉ, should be sent away forthwith, and all others should be coerced; that from the point of view of religion it was blasphemy to permit the Huguenots to have any places of worship, and from the political point of view it was suicide to tolerate them, for “there could never be new things in religion without loss of obedience to the temporal power,” in proof of which the King pointed out that in certain of the provinces of France the people were refusing to pay tithes and taxes, at the same time triumphantly asserting that he was better informed of things happening in France than in Spain; that as to the Council of Trent, the Germans would have nothing to do with it and Spain had no need of it, while France was torn by heretical controversy, so that it might well be said that the council sat for the benefit of France alone.[432]

One of the points upon which Philip II dwelt with earnestness in the interviews he granted the two ambassadors of France was the vicious education under which Charles IX’s brother Henry, duke of Orleans, was being brought up. He emphatically condemned the Huguenot environment of the young prince. It did not seem a coincidence therefore, when a plot was discovered in November to seize the duke of Orleans—afterward Henry III—who was to have been made capo di parti by the Catholics. It was even said the conspirators aimed also to remove the king and queen of Navarre, CondÉ, and the admiral, by poison. The duke of Nemours was charged with being the principal author of it, and was to have carried the young duke off to Lorraine or Savoy.[433] This supposition was given greater probability when the whole company of the Guises suddenly left the court and departed for Lorraine. But Catherine was not yet intimidated, though she prudently dropped the investigation which she had set on foot when she discovered clues that led to the Escurial and the Vatican.[434] In spite of the omens, she still adhered to a middle course. The government resolved to send twenty-five bishops and two archbishops to Trent, although they went “very unwillingly.”[435] At the same time permission was granted to the ministers of the Reformed churches to preach in private houses or in gardens environed with houses (the erection of churches being prohibited), if it was done without tumult.[436] At court the ministers of the Reformed churches preached one day, when the queen of Navarre, the prince of CondÉ, and the admiral would be present. The next day either some Cordelier, Jesuit, Jacobin, Minim, or other of the cloistered sects, preached, on which occasion, the King, the queen mother, the king of Navarre, the cardinal of Ferrara, accompanied by those who leaned toward the see of Rome, would be present. But moderation was exacted of both sects. On one occasion a famous preacher of the Minims, who had won some credit with the Catholics for his railings, was in the night secretly taken from his lodgings and carried to the court to answer for his rabid utterances.[437]

But it was increasingly manifest that events, both within and without France, were passing beyond the grasp of the government. The Huguenots, sometimes from fear no doubt, but not infrequently for effrontery, went to their services with pistols and matchlocks, in spite of the laws against the bearing of arms; and they even were bold enough to march through the streets singing their psalms, to the anger and scandal of Catholic Christians.[438] An outbreak was imminent at any time.

In Paris, on October 12, the Protestants assembled together to the number of 7,000 or 8,000 to hear one of their ministers preach, half a mile from the town. The Catholics thereupon shut the gates to prevent their re-entry. Finding the gates closed, the Protestants forced them, and many were wounded and some slain on both sides.[439] From the provinces word had come in July that the duke of Montpensier, going to his house in Touraine for the burial of his mother, and finding numbers in many towns who made open profession of Calvinism, by virtue of his governorship of that country, imprisoned about one hundred and forty in Chinon. Whereupon the people, not forgetting his conduct toward them in the previous reign, when he razed the houses of several who were reported to him to be Huguenots, assembled in great numbers—about 12,000 or 15,000, we are told—surely a great exaggeration, and marched so fast upon him that he was besieged in his house and forced to release all the prisoners in order to appease the multitude.[440]

The organized nature of the Huguenot agitations in various localities, especially in southern France, did not escape the keen observation of Philip’s ambassador.[441] At Montpellier in Languedoc the Protestant organizations, by September, had taken the form of a definite league, with the sweeping motto: “No mass, no more than at Geneva,” whose operations were so thorough that many Catholics were on the point of emigrating to Catalonia.[442]

Quite as formidable as armed and insurrectionary religion at home was the drift of the negotiations of both parties abroad. The formation of the Triumvirate had been taken as a sign by both parties that the issue between them was, as in Germany before the Smalkald war, likely soon to pass from religious difference and political rivalry into military combat; and both sides accordingly prepared against this fatal day. Naturally, the Protestant German princes who had followed the proceedings at Poissy with intense interest[443] were the ones looked to for assistance by the Huguenots. In May, 1561, the prince of CondÉ had sent Hotman to the chief German princes, begging them not to desert the cause of the true religion in France and saying that Philip II was endeavoring to terrify the queen from making any concessions to the Huguenots.[444] The fact that some of these, as the count palatine of the Rhine, and the landgrave of Thuringia were Calvinists, while others were Lutherans, was not an insuperable barrier to co-operation, although the Lutherans wished that the confession of Augsburg might first be recognized in France. But the prevailing opinion was that the adherents of both of the Protestant faiths should first unite in endeavoring to secure freedom of worship and liberty of conscience in France, and then they might proceed to establish uniformity of religion, if possible.[445] Two propositions were made to the German princes. The first was that if the Guises, or any of their confederates, tried to enlist soldiers in Germany, measures should be taken to stop the effort; secondly, that if the Guises or their accomplices resorted to the use of arms against CondÉ and Coligny and were supported by Spain, then assistance should be given them. Some of the German princes agreed at once to this latter proposition, provided the expenses of such military support were defrayed by the Huguenots; but others thought that the matter could only be settled in a general assembly of the princes. The circle of Huguenot negotiations at this moment was a wide one and their prospects were bright. For at this time Denmark, too, was suing for French favor. Among the ambassadors who came to offer the condolences of their sovereigns for the death of Francis II and to congratulate young Charles, had come an envoy of the Danish king proposing the marriage of his sister to a French prince and himself to marry Mary Stuart. This proposed Franco-Danish alliance could have produced no other effect than to facilitate the Protestant cause in France.[446] On the other hand, the prospect of Swiss support of the Catholic cause in France was not good. Aside from the great expense this alliance had always entailed, the number of the Catholic cantons had been diminished by the secession of Glaris, which had lately gone over to Protestantism, in consequence of which the rest, seeing themselves weakened, had asked aid from the duke of Savoy and the Pope.[447]

The Catholics adroitly emphasized the difference between the two Protestant faiths, with the hope not only of preventing Lutheran support of the Huguenots, but even of securing their aid against the French Calvinists. The duke of Guise went in person to confer with the duke of WÜrttemberg at Saverne (February 15, 1562),[448] while Philip II redoubled his efforts to alienate the king of Navarre.[449] The support of the Spanish monarch was the vital factor in French politics. The French Calvinists had no single most powerful ally to support them, such as the Catholic party enjoyed in the assistance of Spain. England was the only Protestant power capable of being a rival to Spain, and England was too cautious or too much occupied with home politics to risk embroilment abroad.

Both Rome and Spain at this moment took a resolute attitude. Shortly after the conference of Poissy came to an end, a consistory of the curia, on October 10, 1561, had resolved to resist the Protestants in France.[450] The counter-reformation programme deliberated at Trent recognized Philip II as the secular head of the movement (“À ceste fin d’un commun consentement le tout chef et conducteur de toute l’enterprise”) who was to wheedle or compel the king of Navarre to commit himself in favor of the Catholic cause in France, of which the duke of Guise was to be formally recognized as leader. The Spanish monarch was also to bring pressure to bear upon the Emperor to compel the Catholic princes of Germany to prevent the Lutherans and Rhenish Calvinists from supporting the Protestants of France. France must be saved from self-ruin for the sake both of religion and the preservation of other Catholic nations. Time and circumstances would show the hour of such intervention, but everything must be prepared in advance.[451]

Aside from his inflexible religious convictions, in Philip’s eyes, policy also pointed toward Spanish intervention in France. Spain, Spanish Burgundy, and Flanders were, as Montluc of Valence declared, “les trois plus belles fleurs de chapeau du roy Philippe;” each of them bordered France, and France lay between Spain and them, splitting the Spanish empire like a wedge. Under these circumstances the prevention of heresy in France was not merely an act of religious duty but an act dictated by political expediency. Moreover, Spain might territorially profit by such a policy. The son of Charles V dreamed of acquiring ducal Burgundy, which his father had failed to secure; the Three Bishoprics might be wrested away from Charles IX, either violently or as the price of Spanish aid, and joined to Franche ComtÉ they would materially strengthen Spain’s midcontinental road from Lombardy to the mouths of the Rhine.[452]

Fear of Spain and of the Guises gave Catherine de Medici more anxiety than the insurrections of the Huguenots.[453] The government was justly apprehensive of Philip II’s movements and warned Joyeuse to be on his guard against any effort to throw Spanish troops across the frontier.[454] Reinforcements were sent to Calais.[455] At the same time more captains and companies were sent to Metz, where Vieilleville, the governor, was ordered not to admit anyone known to be a Guisard into the city, as the Guises were suspected of wishing to hand it over to Philip.[456] Precautionary changes were also made in the military posts, in the case of those known to be well-affected to the Guises, the changes all being in favor of the Huguenot party.[457] De Gourdan was removed from Calais and the command given to the sieur de Grammont, who had married a sister of the vidame de Chartres; the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon was made king’s lieutenant in Paris; the admiral made governor of Normandy in place of the duke of Bouillon; CondÉ was sent to Picardy, where the marshal Brissac had lately resigned on account of illness.[458]

“Here is new fire, new green wood reeking, new smoke and much contrary wind blowing,” wrote Shakerley to Elizabeth’s ambassador, Throckmorton, on December 15, 1561.[459] The words were wisely as well as quaintly used. From the capital to every edge of France unrest, suspicion, conspiracy, insurrection prevailed. The Catholic orders began to fortify the abbeys. Every day Catherine’s determination to maintain an even balance of the two religions was producing greater tension and more heat. Violence was ominously on the increase.[460] Robbery was common under pretense of searching for heretics.[461] In the hope of bettering things, the crown relieved the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon of the lieutenancy and committed it to the marshal Montmorency, from whose religious moderation and popularity much was expected.[462] The capital of France at this season presented a strange and terrible appearance. Armed bands roamed the streets. The city more resembled a frontier city in a state of siege than a mercantile or university town. The students of the Sorbonne paraded the streets and went armed to mass, the authorities being powerless to control them.[463]

The condition in the provinces was as bad; only here the odds seem to have been in favor of the Protestants. In Guyenne a Huguenot mob sacked a town, committed many outrages, and finally besieged the governor, Burie, in his house.[464] A worse occurrence was the murder of Fumel, an eminent lawyer in Languedoc, as an “enemy of the religion.”[465] There were riots in Troyes, Orleans, Auxerre, Rouen, Meaux, VendÔme, Bourges, Lyons, Tours, Angers,[466] Bazas.[467] The Huguenots of Sens erected a church outside the town. Then finding that they outnumbered the Catholics they pillaged the treasury of the cathedral and robbed the monasteries.[468]

Still the queen mother persevered, taking her counsel from the chancellor L’HÔpital, the admiral Coligny, the prince of CondÉ, and his brother, D’Andelot, and adhered to her resolution to permit the Huguenots to enjoy freedom of worship. On January 3, 1562, the chancellor made an earnest plea for religious toleration before the Court of Parlement,[469] which was followed by the most decisive action the government had yet taken, namely the issuance of the famous edict of toleration of January 17, known as the Edict of January, which was the first that granted exercise of the Reformed religion in public.[470]

This edict was expressly declared to be provisional in its nature, pending the decisions of the Council of Trent, which, by a coincidence, was opened on the day following, January 18, 1562, the first formal session being set for the second Thursday in Lent.[471] The preamble recited that the government’s action was taken in consideration of the state of affairs prevailing in the kingdom; that it was not to be construed as approving the new religion; and that it was to remain in force no longer than the King should order; it deprecated the “disobedience, obstinacy, and evil intentions of the people” which made even provisional recognition of Calvinism necessary. Specifically, the edict provided for the restoration by the Huguenots of all property unlawfully possessed by them; it forbade them to erect any churches, either within or without the cities and towns (Art. 1) or to assemble for worship within the walls thereof either by day or night, or under arms (Arts. 2, 5). Protestant worship was required to be in the daytime, outside the town gates, in the open, or, if under cover, in buildings occasionally used, and not formally consecrated as churches. For this reason the Reformed ministers preached, some in the fields, others in gardens, old houses, and barns, according to their particular inclinations or convenience. For they were expressly forbidden to build any chapels, or meddle with the churches, upon any account. Access to their meetings was always to be permitted to the King’s officers, i.e., bailiffs, seneschals, provosts, or their lieutenants, but not to officers of judicature (Arts. 3, 6; and supplementary declaration of interpretation, February 14, 1562). Furthermore, the raising of money among the Huguenots was to be wholly voluntary and not in the form of assessment or imposition. They were to keep the political laws of the Roman church, as to holidays and marriage, in order to avoid litigation and confusion of property rights; and to refrain from harboring any person who might be accused, prosecuted, or condemned by the government, under penalty of a fine of 1,000 crowns, to be devoted to charity, together with whipping and banishment (Arts. 8, 9, 12). The use of reproachful or vituperative language touching the faith or practice of the Catholic church was made a misdemeanor (Art. 10). Finally, all Protestant synods or consistories were required to be held by permission of or in presence of the lieutenant-general of the province concerned, or his representative, and the statutes of the churches were to be communicated to him (Art. 7, and supplementary declaration and interpretation of February 14, 1562).

In order to prevent seditions, an edict was sent to the judges of the towns, in the name of the King, by which the authorities were ordered to disarm all Catholics in their towns of every species of weapon and to make them deposit their arms in the local city hall or other common point, where they were to be kept under the guard of the procureur and the Échevins.[472]

It is a question worthy of consideration, whether the preachings of the Reformed might not have been peaceably maintained after the Edict of January, the provisional form gradually being modified until complete religious toleration would have been secured, if Spain had not continued to tamper with French politics, and if the persistence of the political Huguenots had not continued to push things to such a point that at last the two causes, originally separate, became the obverse and reverse sides of the same issue and had to stand or fall together. On the other hand, had not these concessions of the crown been too long delayed? Was the edict “dead from birth,” as Pasquier wrote?[473]