James Westfall Thompson

[1] The Wars of Religion (“The Cambridge Modern History,” Preface).

[2] In the appendix I have published the constitution of two of these provincial leagues hitherto unknown.

[3] MÉm. de Tavannes, 239.

[4] The constable Montmorency, in a letter to Queen Elizabeth dated June 30, 1559, says that the accident happened “yesterday,” i. e., June 29.—C. S. P. Eng. For., No. 698. Almost all the sources, however, give June 30. Cf. Castelnau, Book I, chap. i. Throckmorton gives June 30. See p. 3, note 1.

[5] The origin of the Scotch Guard goes back to the Hundred Years’ War. In 1420, five years after the battle of Agincourt, when Henry V was in possession of all of northern France, the dauphin, Charles VII, sent the count of VendÔme to Scotland to ask for assistance in virtue of the ancient league between the two nations. In 1421 a body of 1,000 Scots arrived in France under the earl of Buchan. They fought at BaugÉ in Anjou in that year, but were almost all destroyed in 1424 in the furious battle of Verneuil. The remnant, in honor of their services, became the king’s own guard. See Skene, The Book of Pluscarden, II, xix-xxi, xxvi-xxix; Houston, L’Escosse franÇois (Discours des alliances commencÉes depuis l’an sept cents septante, et continuÉes jusques À present, entre les couronnes de France et d’Escosse), Paris, 1608; Forbes Leith, The Scots Men-at-Arms and Life Guards in France, from Their Formation until Their Final Dissolution, 2 vols., 1882. The Guard consisted of the principal captain, the lieutenant, and the ensign, the marÉchal-de-loges, three commis, eighty archers of the guard, twenty-four archers of the corps; the pay of whom amounted annually to 51,800 francs, or 6,475 pounds sterling.—C. S. P. For., No. 544, December, 1559.

[6] Claude Haton, whose Catholic prejudice was strong, believed this reluctance to be feigned (MÉmoires, I, 107).

[7] D’AubignÉ, Book II, chap, xiv, says the blow raised the King’s visor, and that the end of the lance, which was bound with a morne, or ring, to dull the point, crashed through the helmet like a bludgeon. Tavannes, chap, xiv, says that the King had failed to take the precaution to fasten his visor down.

[8] Throckmorton to the Lords in Council, C. S. P. For., June 30, 1559.

[9] D’AubignÉ, loc. cit. La Place, 20, says that the King spoke to the cardinal of Lorraine. De Thou, Book II, 674, on the authority of BrantÔme, doubts it.

[10] The Palais des Tournelles stood in the present Place Royale. It was torn down in 1575.

[11] Throckmorton, loc. cit.

[12] The constable Montmorency to Queen Elizabeth, C. S. P. For., No. 898, June 30, 1559. Throckmorton, ibid., No. 928, July 4, “doubted the King would lose his eye.”

[13] C. S. P. For., No. 950, July 8, 1559. De Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, I, 432, has published Vesalius’ official report. Henry II had a body-physician who also enjoyed a European reputation. This was Fernal. He was the author of a Latin work upon pathology which was translated into French in 1660 under the title: La pathologie de Jean Fernal, premier medicin de Henry II, roy de France, ouvrage trÈs-utile À tous ceux qui s’appliquent À la connoissance du corps humain.

[14] There is an account of the funeral in Arch. cur., III, 309-48. The MS account of the funeral expenses is in the Phillipps Collection, 2,995. Compare Galembert, Funerailles du roy Henri II, Roole des parties et somme de deniers pour le faict des dits obsÈques et pompes funÈbres. PubliÉ avec une introduction. Paris, Fontaine, 1869.

[15] See the description of Throckmorton, written to Queen Elizabeth, C. S. P. For., No. 1,190, August 15, 1559.

[16] C. S. P. For., No. 1,242, August 25, 1559.

[17] Rel. vÉn., I, 195. “De fort petit sens,” says La Planche, 202.

[18] Throckmorton to Cecil, June 30, 1559, C. S. P. For., 899.

[19] And yet the evil nature of Henry II’s reign may be exaggerated. An extended and critical history of his reign is still to be written. Claude Haton, no mean observer of economic conditions says: “En ce temps et par tout le rÈgne du dit feu roy, faisoit bon vivre en France, et estoient toutes denrÉes et marchandises À bon marchÉ, exceptÉ le grain et le vin, qui enchÉrissoient certaines annÉes plus que d’aultres, selon la stÉrilitÉ, et toutesfois esdittes treize annÉes de son rÈgne n’ont estÉ que trois ans de chertÉ de grain et de vin, et n’a valu le blÉ froment, en la plus chÈre des dittes trois annÉes, que 14 et 15. s. t. le bichet (À la mesure de Provins), et les aultres grains au prix le prix, et ne duroit telle chertÉ que trois moys pour le plus.” A valuable table of prices of food stuffs follows.—Claude Haton, I, 112, 113.

[20] See De Ruble, “Le traitÉ de Cateau-CambrÉsis,” Revue d’hist. diplomatique (1887), 385, and the more extensive work (1889) with the same title by this author.

[21] On the general situation between the wounding and the death of Henry II see NÉg. Tosc., III, 400.

[22] Castelnau, Book I, chap. i. He was sixteen on January 19, 1560. Cf. Castan, “La naissance des enfans du roi Henri de Valois,” Revue des savants, 6^me sÉr., III.

[23] Throckmorton to the queen, July 18, 1559, C. S. P. For., No. 1,009. This information was given to the council and a deputation of the Parlement, but no official proclamation was made.—D’AubignÉ, I, 243, n. 1.

[24] Claude Haton, I, 106; Tavannes, 245. The deposed beauty surrendered the keys of the royal cabinets and some bags of precious jewels to the new queen, La Planche, 204; Baschet, 494, dispatch of the Venetian ambassador, July 12, 1559. Cf. Guiffrey, Lettres inÉdites de Diane de Poitiers, 1866; Imbart de St. Amand, Revue des deux mondes, August 15, 1866, p. 984. For light upon her extravagance see Chevalier, Archives royales de Chenonceau: Comptes des recettes et despences faites en la Chastellenie de Chenonceau, par Diane de Poitiers, duchesse de Valentinois, dame de Chenonceau et autres lieux (Techener, 1864). Hay, Diane de Poitiers, la grande sÉnÉschale de Normandie, duchesse de Valentinois, is a sumptuously illustrated history.

[25] C. S. P. For., No. 1,024, July 19, 1559.

[26] Castelnau, Book I, chap, ii; C. S. P. For., No. 972, July 11, 1559; No. 1,080, July 27, 1559.

[27] La Planche, 208; Claude Haton, I, 108; Paulin Paris, NÉgociations, 108, note.

[28] Tavannes, 245; Paris, NÉgociations relatives au rÈgne de FranÇois II, 61, 76, 80, 83, 86; La Planche, 207; C. S. P. For., No. 1,121, August 4, 1559; ibid., August 1, 1559, No. 1,101, Throckmorton to the Queen: “The French ... are in fear because of the king of Spain, who has not as yet restored S. Quentin’s, Ham nor Chastelet, the Spanish garrisons of which daily make courses into the country as far as Noyon, about which the governor of Compegny has written to the King, adding that it were as good to have war as such a peace.” C. S. P. For., July 13, 1559, No. 985, Throckmorton to the Queen: “It is thought that the treaty already made is void by the French King’s death; ... that the king of Spain, seeing his advantage and knowing the state of France better than he did when he made that peace, will either make new demands, or constrain France to do as he will have them, who would be loath to break with him again.”

[29] Tavannes, op. cit.

[30] Jacques d’Alban de St. AndrÉ, born in the Lyonnais, marshal 1547, favorite of Henry II. He was taken prisoner at the battle of St. Quentin. After the death of Henry II, fearing prosecution for his enormous stealings in office, he became the tool of the Guises. See La Planche, 205, 206; Livre des marchands, 438, 439; and especially Boyvin du Villars, 904 ff., on his administration in Provence.

[31] Brissac was governor of Piedmont under Henry II, where he sustained the interests of France so energetically that Philip hated him. The Guises made great efforts to attach him to their party, with the hope of playing him against the Bourbons and Montmorencys (Paris, NÉgociations, 73, note). After the peace of Cateau-CambrÉsis, the fortresses of the duke of Savoy were dismantled, to the intense anger of the latter. Cf. Fillon Collection, 2,654: Letter of July 16, 1560, to the duchess of Mantua, complaining that the people of Caluz have revolted against the authority of the marshal Brissac. This hard feeling probably explains Brissac’s transfer to the government of Picardy, in January, 1560, to the chagrin of the prince of CondÉ, who asked for the place (Varillas, Hist. de FranÇois II, II, 35; De Thou, Book XXV, 518) after the marriage of Emanuel Philibert to the sister of Henry II. See Marchand, Charles I de CossÉ, comte de Brissac, Paris, 1889, chap. xvi.

[32] La Place, 26.

[33] C. S. P. For., Nos. 1,121, 1,149, August 4 and August 8, 1559.

[34] C. S. P. For., No. 972, July 11, 1559.

[35] Tavannes, 244. In Spain it was the prevailing belief that France had been compelled to make the peace of Cateau-CambrÉsis more through the troubles caused by the affairs of religion than from any other necessity; cf. C. S. P. Ven., No. 57, 1559. This suspicion is confirmed by Tavannes, who says that the settlement of matters still pending under the terms of the treaty was hastened by the Guises through knowledge that the state of affairs in France was exceedingly unsatisfactory to many of the nobles and fear that their power would be openly rebelled against (Tavannes, 245; C. S. P. For., No. 590, January 18, 1560, and No. 26, October 5, 1559).

[36] The pretext was Montmorency’s complaint because his son Damville was not given the government of Provence, which St. AndrÉ had held (Rel. vÉn., I, 435; cf. NÉg. Tosc., III, 401).

[37] “Vieil routier.”—La Planche, 207.

[38] “Le connestable ... resigna bien d’estat de grand-maistre entre les mains du roy, mais purement et simplement, et non en faveur du dict de Guyse, dÉclarant assez qu’il ne cÉdoit en rien À son adversaire.”—La Planche, 216. Cf. D’AubignÉ, I, 245, Book II, chap. xiv; Rel. vÉn., I, 393; Tavannes, 245; Castlenau, Book I, chap. ii; Baschet, La diplomatie venÉtienne, 495. La Place, 26, is in error. An attempt was made to soften Montmorency’s fall by making his eldest son a marshal of France; Tavannes, 245; C. S. P. For., No. 376, December 5, 1559.

[39] La Planche, 203.

[40] Castelnau, Book I, chap. iii.

[41] See the interesting analysis of public opinion by La Planche, 203. On p. 208 he gives a highly drawn picture of the venality of the parlements, whose “ancienne splendeur estoit desja esvannoye peu À peu,” while they were frequented by “les soliciteurs des courtisans, et les advocats favoris des grands,” in whose precincts justice was not possible for simple, honest folk. He is as bitter in speaking of the conseil des affaires and the conseil privÉ, but it must be remembered that the author was a Protestant and imbued with hatred against the government because of its persecution of the Huguenots. See Tavannes’ (p. 243) eulogy of the French bar which is nearer the truth.

[42] For Henry II’s policy toward Protestantism see De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, 244-48; Weiss, La chambre ardente, Introd.; Hauser, “De l’humanisme et de la rÉforme en France,” Rev. hist., LXIV (1897), 258, minimizes the intellectual causes of the French Reformation.

[43] The origin of this word has been much discussed. In the early period of the Reformation in France, all religious schismatics save the Vaudois, whose historical identity was different and familiar, were called “Lutherans.” The Venetian ambassador so characterized the French Protestants in a dispatch to the signory in 1558 (Relazione de Giovanni Sorano, ed. Alberi, I, 2, 409). Boyvin du Villars (Book XII, 204) employs this same term in 1560.

The etymology of the word “Huguenot,” most commonly accepted is that which derives it from the German word Eidgenossen (confederacy) which designated the Swiss Confederates (see Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 660). The word in Geneva was naturally not German but French or Savoyard. It is variously spelled—Eydgenots, Eygenots, Eyguenots. But this derivation, though the best supported, is opposed by the eminent philologist, LittrÉ. Grandmaison, Bulletin Soc. hist. prot. franÇ., LI (January, 1902), argues against the German origin of the word and gives examples of its appearance as a French surname from the fourteenth century onward. But how it came to be applied to the French Protestants he is unable to say. Cf. Weiss: “La dÉrivation du nom Huguenot,” Bull. Soc. hist. prot. franÇ., XLVIII, 12 (December, 1898). A note by A. Mazel states that in Languedoc the word was pronounced “Duganau,” which he conjectures to be a diminutive of “Fugou,” the great owl. If this is so, the origin of the word is akin to that of “Chouan” in the French Revolution. The earliest use of the word “Huguenot” in Languedoc is in Devic and Vaisette, Histoire du Languedoc, XI, 342. It undoubtedly was a term of reproach, ibid., XI, 374, note; cf. Claude Haton, I, 121. Without attempting to pronounce upon the origin of the word, I subjoin some allusions which I have come upon. Castelnau, Book II, chap, vii, says: “qui depuis s’appelÈrent huguenots en France, dont l’Étymologie fut prise À la conjuration d’Amboise, lors que ceux qui devoient prÉsenter la requeste, comme Éperdus de crainte, fuyoient de tous costÉs. Quelques femmes des villages dirent que c’estoient pauvres gens, qui ne valloient pas des huguenots, qui estoient une forte petite monnoye, encore pire que des mailles, du temps de Hugues Capet d’oÙ vint en usage que par moquerie l’on les appelloit huguenots.” Henri Estienne and La Place, 34, say the word arose from the circumstance that the Calvinists of Tours used to go outside of the Porte du roy Huguon to worship. La Planche’s derivation is a study in folklore (p. 262, col. i).

The Venetian ambassador wrote in 1563: “In quel tempo medesimo fu tra questi principalmente, che cercorno di seminar la false dottrina un predicator della regina di Navarra, madre del presente re di Navarra, nominate Ugo, il quale alienÒ prima l’animo di quella regina dalla religion cattolica, e poi cercÒ d’alienare e di corromper, come fece, infiniti altri uomini e donne delli piÙ grandi.”—Rel. vÉn., II, 50. A unique explanation, which I have not found noticed elsewhere is preserved by Jean de Gaufreton, Chronique bordelaise (1877), I, 92: “En cette annÉe les catholiques commencÈrent d’appeller les LuthÉriens et protestants ‘Huguenots,’ et les autres nomÈrent les catholicques papistes À cause, qu’ils tenoyent le parti du pape, et qu’ils soustenoyent son authoritÉ. Mais la raison pourquoy les LuthÉriens furent appellÉes Huguenots procÈde de ce que les princes protestants d’Allemagne et LuthÉriens ayant envoyÉ une solemnelle ambassade au roy, À la requÊte des LuthÉriens et protestants de France pour demander libre exercice du LuthÉranisme en son royaume, en faveur des dits LuthÉriens franÇais, comme le chef de cette ambassade voulut en sa premiÈre audience parler latin devant le roy, assistÉ des messieurs de son conseil, il ne put jamais dire que les deux mots À sÇavait ‘hue nos’ et s’arresta tout court. Despuis les courtisans appellÈrent les LuthÉriens franÇois ‘hue nos,’ et en suite ‘Huguenots.’”

[44] Isambert, XIII, 494.

[45] Weiss, La chambre ardente, Paris, 1889, a study of liberty of conscience under Henry II, based upon about five hundred arrÊts rendered by the Parlement of Paris between May, 1547, and March, 1550. Before its creation heresy was dealt with by the regular courts. In Bulletin des comitÉs historiques (1850), 173 (“Inventaire des lettres relatives À l’histoire de France aux archives de BÂle”), there is noted a letter of the King written in 1552 to the effect that those who have been arrested for heresy at Lyons shall not be dealt with unjustly; but the King reiterates his determination not to permit any new religious doctrine to obtain. In the very month before his death, in June, 1559, the edict of Ecouan prescribed the death penalty for all heretics, without the least limitation or restriction, and with injunctions to the judges not to mitigate the punishment, as they had done for some years (Castelnau, Book I, chap. iii). The Huguenots regarded Henry II’s death as a judgment of God.—C. S. P. For., No. 899, June 30, 1559: “They let not openly to say the King’s dissolute life and his tyranny to the professors of the gospel hath procured God’s vengeance.” A letter of Diane de Poitiers in the Catalogue de la collection TrÉmont, No. 424, proves that some of the property confiscated from the Huguenots was given by the King to his favorite.

[46] Vargas, Histoire de FranÇois II, 314.

[47] Granvella to Philip II, June 14, 1561—Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VI, 569.

[48] Armstrong, Wars of Religion in France, 4, 5. Cf. De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, 246. The establishment of the Jesuits was not approved in France until after the death of Henry II, owing to the resistance of the mendicant orders and the Sorbonne.—Claude Haton, II, 636.

[49] Castelnau, Book I, chap. iii.

[50] C. S. P. For., No. 950, July 8, 1559.

[51] MÉm. de CondÉ, I, 264.

[52] He had been converted by Hotman, the famous Huguenot pamphleteer.—Weiss, 31.

[53] Weiss, op. cit.; Castelnau, Book I, chap. iii. La Planche, 209-12 and 235, 236, gives an account of his sufferings and death. The MÉm. de CondÉ, I, 217 ff., contain part of the trial.

[54] Castelnau, Book I, chap. v, and especially La Planche, 220-22.

[55] La Planche, 237.

[56] Ibid., 226.

[57] La Place, 28.

[58] Upon the patriotism and loyalty of the French magistracy see the notable extract from a letter of the Spanish ambassador, April 29, 1560, in Rev. hist., XIV, 78. Cf. the address of M. Alfred Levesque, “Le barreau et la libertÉ sous les Valois: discours prononcÉ À la sÉance d’ouverture des confÉrences de l’ordre des avocats,” November 28, 1846.

[59] C. S. P. For., No. 451, December 21, 1559. Carriages came into use in the sixteenth century, the practice being borrowed from Italy. Catherine de Medici was the first queen who possessed one. For interesting information on this subject see Burgon, Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham, I, 242, 305, 383, 486, 487; Ellis, Letters, Series II, I, 253; Strutt, Dresses, II, 90, and a paper in Archeologia, XX, 426 ff.

[60] Castelnau, Book I, chap. v; La Planche, 232-34.

[61] Robert Stuart, who claimed to be a relative of Mary Stuart, was suspected of the murder. It was he who killed the constable Montmorency at the battle of St. Denis in 1567.—D’AubignÉ, I, 255. Another upon whom suspicion rested was the natural son of the cardinal of Meudon, whom Minard had persuaded to leave all his property to the poor.—NÉg. Tosc., III, 407.

[62] D’AubignÉ, I, 255, II, chap. xvi. Two edicts were issued on December 17 from Chambord. See Isambert, XIV, 12.

[63] La Place, 28.

[64] La Planche, 209.

[65] La Place, 41; Tavannes, 241. “There be two kinds of the people whom the Papists term Huguenots, viz., Huguenots of religion, and Huguenots of State. The one of these perceiving that the cardinal works to ruin them, and their own peculiar force not sufficient to withstand his malice, have shown appearance that they will join with the other, who seeing themselves excluded from all government, and those of Guise to usurp the whole authority, presently practise a firm faction and league between themselves, either part promising to support the other.”—C. S. P. For., No. 2,235, May 31, 1568.

[66] Rel. vÉn., I, 523-25; II, 57; Davila, VI, 359. Claude Haton emphatically asserts the feudal purposes of the Huguenot noblesse: “Les grand seigneurs de la ligue condÉienne et cause huguenoticque s’atendoient d’estre haults eslevez, non És offices royaux, mais au partage du royaume qu’ilz espÉroient faire entre eux en le contonnant par provinces, desquelles ilz prÉtendoient d’estre seigneurs souverains, sans recognoistre roy ni aultre personne par dessus eux.”—I, 291. Tavannes characterizes the Huguenot association in 1572 as “demi-democratique et demi-aristocratique” (Panth. lit., 413). The identification of Calvinism with the political purposes of the nobles is shown in the following letter of the cardinal de Tournon to King Henri II, written “De Bains de Lucques, 9 juillet 1559”: “L’une des principal ruses de ces malheureux est de commencer, s’ils peuvent, À semer leur venin et mauvaise doctrine par les plus Grands, les attirer et gaigner À eux, afin de pouvoir aprÈs tout plus aisÉment & sans punition, infecter & gaster le reste & s’aider À un besoin de leur force & authoritÉ.”—Ribier, II, 807.

The cardinal Tournon and the admiral Hennebault had been trusted with the duties of affairs of state after the fall of the constable Montmorency in 1541. When Henry II came to the throne Montmorency was restored to office and Tournon fell. After the death of Henry II the queen mother proposed the return of Cardinal Tournon. The Guises at first hesitated, but soon yielded, first because the cardinal was the personal enemy of the constable, and second, because he was very hostile to the reformed religion (Rev. hist., XIV, 72, 73).

[67] From an admirable article by E. Armstrong, “The Political Theory of the Huguenots,” Eng. Hist Rev., IV, 13 ff. Cf. Weill, Les thÉories sur le pouvoir royal en France pendant les guerres de religion, Paris, 1891.

[68] See the observations of La Place, 41-45.

[69] It is true that De Thou so says: “et Établir en France une rÉpublique semblable À celle des Suisses,” Book XXV, 501, but it is to be remembered that De Thou was writing late in the reign of Henry IV, and read back into the past the republicanism of 1572.

[70] See the eminently sane remarks of Tavannes, 260.

[71] Cf. Castelnau, Book I, chap. vi.

[72] The avarice and dishonesty of the cardinal, it is said, even went so far as to force Catherine de Medici to divide with him the fees arising from the confirmation of offices and the privileges accorded towns and municipal corporations in the time of Henry II, which sums lawfully went to her; and even then he is said to have fraudulently estimated them in livres instead of Écus d’or.—La Planche, 208. The Écu d’or was worth two livres tournois in the reign of Francis I, so that the cardinal’s little trick cut the sum in half.

[73] See the character sketch in Rel. vÉn., I, 437-39.

[74] Cf. La Place, 28.

[75] Baschet, 497, 498.

[76] See C. S. P. For., 1559-61, passim.

[77] Ibid., No. 405, December 12, 1559. The duchess of Lorraine was a daughter of Christian II, the exiled ruler of Denmark. On this question see the long note (with references appended) in Poulet, I, 126. Cf. Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, I, 132. There is little doubt that Philip II and the Guises contemplated such a move (Languet, Epist., secr., II, 22, 30, 34). The war going on between Denmark and Sweden favored the project. This war lasted for seven years (Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, I, 103, 104; Raumer, II, 211).

[78] La Planche, 273.

[79] C. S. P. For., No. 451, December 5, 1559.

[80] Tavannes, 245; La Place, 27, 51; La Planche, 216; C. S. P. Ven., No. 272, 1506.

[81] La Planche, 212. “Il Cardinale de Lorraine È quÀ Papa e re,” NÉg. Tosc., III, 404, August 27, 1559.

[82] La Planche, 212; La Place, 28; Rev. hist., XIV, 67, 68. On the economic discontent due to the extravagance of Henry II, see Rev. hist., XIV, 71. Claude Haton, I, 110-12 gives a favorable contemporary judgment.

[83] The act revoking many of the alienations of the royal domain fell hardest upon the followers of the constable and of Diane de Poitiers (Rev. hist., XIV, 71, 72).

[84] Rel. vÉn., I, 431. See the character-sketch by Suriano in Rel. vÉn., II, 47; C. S. P. Ven., No. 272, 1561.

[85] La Planche, 212.

[86] Throckmorton to the Queen, C. S. P. Eng. For., No. 1,244, August 25, 1559.

[87] La Planche, 216.

[88] Ibid., 212, 216.

[89] Weiss, L’Espagne sous Philippe II, I, 115, 16. The queen of Spain, in company with Antoine of Navarre and Jeanne d’Albret, arrived at Pau on December 21, having proceeded from Bordeaux. Great preparations were made for her reception and she was nobly entertained. The king and queen of Navarre did their part with great magnificence. The maÎtre des postes of Spain arrived at Pau the same day as Her Majesty did, with instructions how she was to conduct herself toward the Spanish nobles by whom she was to be met on her arrival in Spain.—“Extraict,” written in a French hand, indorsed “My Lord Ambassador,” C. S. P. For., II, No. 469, December 21, 1559. The king and queen of Navarre and the cardinal Bourbon conducted her to the frontiers and then returned; the prince of Roche-sur-Yon went through with her to Guadalajara and carried to Philip the order of St. Michael (C. S. P. For., No. 337, November 29, 1559: Killigrew and Jones to the Queen). Philip II planned to meet his spouse at Guadalajara and thence go to Toledo, where the marriage festivities were to be celebrated until Shrovetide (C. S. P. For., No. 354: Challoner to Cecil from Brussels). At the celebration, the duke of Infantado, whose guest the King was at Guadalajara, had sixty shepherds clad in cloth-of-gold (C. S. P. For., No. 540, January 24, 1560). The marriage was accomplished on January 20, 1560 (C. S. P. For., No. 540, January 24, 1560: statement of Granvella to Challoner). The French were offended because, at the receiving of the Queen-Catholic at Guadalajara, the verse of the forty-fifth Psalm was sung, “Audi, filia, et vide, etc.,” which the French disliked much, “concluding that they did not have altogether that which they looked for at King Philip’s hands by means of his wife” (C. S. P. For., No. 591, January 18, 1560: Killigrew and Jones to Cecil).

[90] See a letter of Francis II to the bishop of Limoges, May 21, 1506, “De l’ambassadeur espagnol, Perrenot de Chantonnay, et de ses intrigues,” in Paris, NÉgociations, 584. Thomas Perrenot, sieur de Chantonnay, was a younger brother of the cardinal Granvella and was a native of BesanÇon. He was named Spanish ambassador in France after the treaty of Cateau-CambrÉsis (Paris, NÉg. relatives au rÈgne de FranÇois II, 56-60). His official correspondence is in the Archives nationales at Paris, K. 1,492 ff. Quite as valuable is the private correspondence he maintained with his brother and Margaret of Parma, transcripts of which are in the Brussels archives. The originals are divided between BesanÇon and Vienna. M. Paris pertinently says of him: “On ne sait pas assez toutes des manoeuvres de ce personnage.”—NÉgociations relatives au rÈgne de FranÇois II, 56, note. A history of his public career would be a cross-section of the history of the times. He spoke French and German fluently and had a knowledge of Spanish and Italian. Catherine de Medici feared and hated him and in August, 1560, demanded his recall in vain.—Paris, NÉgociations, etc., 873. In 1564 he was transferred to Vienna (R. Q. H., January, 1879, 19, 20) and was succeeded by Alava. All the official correspondence of the epoch abounds with allusions to him. See Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 393, 400, 402, 518, 592; VIII, 353, 383, 387, 457, 513, 523, 557, 568, 574, 594, 679; IX, 1, 36, 65, 94-102, 136, 154, 166, 169, 177, 182-98, 225, 421, 264, 345-52, 358, 361, 377-81, 394, 415, 430, 434-37, 446, 452, 461, 468, 482, 489, 510, 514, 522, 538, 540-43, 549-52, 556-58, 562-64, 567, 568, 581-89, 602-9, 615, 625, 628, 654, 668, 671; Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II, II, 27, 48, 89, 108, 121, 163, 171-74; Poulet, Correspondance du cardinal de Granvelle, I, 565, note; R. Q. H., January, 1879, 10-12. Some of his letters which were intercepted by the Huguenots are published in the MÉmoires de CondÉ. M. Paillard has printed a portion of those relating to the conspiracy of Amboise in the Rev. hist., XIV; at pp. 64, 65 is a brief sketch of the ambassador’s life. See also Weiss’s introduction to edition of Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, I.

[91] C. S. P. For., No. 543.

[92] Ibid., No. 508, December 27. Throckmorton wrote to the council on February 4, 1560: “At present the French have to bestir themselves for the good and quiet of their own country, as factions in religion are springing up everywhere.”—Ibid., No. 685. Indeed, the chancellor at this time for three days refused to sign an order necessary for the prosecution of the war in Scotland, on the ground of the dangers at home and the necessity of harboring the government’s resources (ibid., No. 292, November 18, 1559: Killigrew and Jones to Cecil). Among the financial expedients resorted to at this time was an order in December, 1559, that all posts and postmasters should henceforth be deprived of the fees which they enjoyed which amounted to 100,000 crowns yearly, and for compensation to them the price of letters was increased a fourth part (ibid., No. 508, December, 1559). On May 29, 1560, a royal ordinance abolished the King’s support of the post entirely and some new ordinances of Parlement were calculated to increase the revenue by 2,000,000 francs (ibid., No. 550, January 6, 1560). In February the King raised a loan of 7,000 francs at 8 per cent. from the Parisians (ibid., No. 750, February 20, 1560: Throckmorton to the Queen).

[93] “Six score commissions are sent forth for the persecution for religion.”—Ibid., No. 451: Killigrew and Jones to the Queen, December 18, 1559. This was just after the murder of the president Minard. “The Cardinal of Lorraine lately sent a bag full of commissions for persecution to be done about Poitiers and certain letters which he carried apart in his bosom; the messenger was met and the letters taken from him.”—Ibid., No. 590, January 18, 1560. One of these—“Lettre de roi À tous les ÉvÊques de son royaume”—is preserved in K. 1,494, fol. 4. It is dated January 28, 1560.

[94] NÉg. Tosc., III, 408, January 22, 1560. On January 29 a poor man, a binder of books, was condemned to be burned for heresy at Rouen. While riding in a cart between two friars to be burned, a quarrel was made with a sergeant who convoyed him and he was unhorsed, the poor man was taken out of the cart, his hands were loosed, and a cloak was thrown over him, and he was conveyed out of the hands of his enemies. The justices and the governors, having knowledge of this, commanded the gates to be shut, and, making a search that night, found him again and burned him next day. And at his burning were three hundred men-at-arms, for fear of the people (C. S. P. For., No. 708, February 8, 1560).

[95] C. S. P. For., No. 256, November 14, 1559; ibid., Ven., No. 132, March 6, 1560.

[96] Baschet, I, 559; cf. NÉg. Tosc., III, 310, January, 1560.

[97] The fear of attempts being made to assassinate them or the King haunted the cardinal and his brother. In November the French King, while out hunting near Blois, became so terrified, that he returned to court, and orders were given to the Scotch Guard to wear jack and mail and pistols (C. S. P. For., No. 166, November 15, 1559); in December rumors reached the cardinal’s ears that his own death and that of the duke of Guise was sworn (ibid., No. 528); in January the use of tabourins and masks in court pleasures was forbidden on account of the fear which the cardinal of Lorraine had of being assassinated (ibid., No. 658, January 28, 1559). De Thou says the cardinal was “natura timidus.”—Book XXV. The wearing of pistols and firearms was prohibited by two edicts, the one of July 3, 1559, the other of December 17, 1559. The law also forbade the wearing of long sleeves or cloaks or even top boots, in which a pistol or a poignard might be concealed. Both measures were attributed with good reason to the timidity of the cardinal of Lorraine.

[98] “Les protestans de France se mettans devant les yeux l’example de leurs voisins.”—Castelnau, Book I, chap. vii.

[99] La Planche, 237.

[100] Ibid.; Castelnau, Book I, chap. viii. The Huguenots did not intend to take up arms against the person of the King or to force Francis II to change the religion of the state. The assertion that these were their purposes was an adroit stroke of the Guises (Rev. hist., XIV, 85, 101).

[101] Rel. vÉn., I, 525.

[102] Volrad of Mansfeldt and Grumbach, counselor of the elector palatine, but personal enemies of the cardinal of Lorraine, had been drawn by sympathy into the plan, and on March 4, through their influence, Hotman was received by the elector at Heidelberg, who gave Hotman a letter of credit to the king of Navarre and the prince of CondÉ. See Dareste, “Extraits de la correspondance inÉdite de FranÇois Hotman,” MÉm. de l’AcadÉmie des sciences morales et politiques, CIV (1897), 649.

[103] After the failure of the conspiracy, during the course of the investigation set on foot by the government, the constable was accused of complicity in the affair but vigorously denied it in a remonstrance laid before the Parlement (La Place, 37, gives a part of the text; Castelnau, Book II, chap, xi), and while condemning the conspiracy artfully contrived to imply that the Guises were to be blamed for much (La Planche, 269). De Thou, II, 778, perhaps reproduces the actual language of the constable before the Parlement, his father having been president of the body at this time. But in the early winter Montmorency had visited his lands in Poitou and Angoumois, and his daughter, Madame de la Tremouille, having quitted his usual place of residence at Chantilly, and traveled in those quarters of France which, it will be observed, are identical with those wherein the conspiracy of Amboise was hatched (La Place, 32). Is it reasonable to believe that a man of his political acumen and state of feeling at the time toward the Guises could have been unaware of at least something of what was in preparation? The strongest evidence in favor of the innocence of the constable is the fact that his two nephews, the cardinal de ChÂtillon and the admiral Coligny were undoubtedly without knowledge of the plot. See the proofs in Delaborde, Vie de Coligny, I, 391-414; D’AubignÉ, ed. De Ruble, I, 263, n. 6; Paillard, “Additions critiques À l’histoire de la conjuration d’Amboise,” Rev. hist., XIV (1880), 70, 71. It is hard, however, to believe that the constable had no information at all of what was on foot, considering his politics and his movements during the winter.

[104] La Place, 33; Le Laboureur, I, 386, says his first name was Jean.

[105] C. S. P. Ven., No. 137. He had been imprisoned for devising false evidence in a process of law (D’AubignÉ, ed. De Ruble, I, 258, n. 3). La Renaudie is said even to have gone to England to see Queen Elizabeth (Haag, La France protestante, I, 259). No reference is given, but from Hotman’s correspondence (Acad. des sc. moral. et polit., CIV [1877], 645) it is evident some one was so sent. The further fact that Mundt was approached in Strasburg and French proclamations printed in England were circulated in Normandy (C. S. P. For., 954, April 6, 1560) seems to sustain this view.

[106] La Place, 41; Castelnau, Book I, chap. viii.

[107] D’AubignÉ, Book II, chap, xvii; I, 259-61 gives the names of the provincial captains.

[108] La Planche, 239.

[109] Mundt, Elizabeth’s agent in Strasburg (he was also agent of the landgrave Philip of Hesse), was applied to and “thought that the Queen would not be wanting in kind offices. Already it is whispered,” he wrote, “that there is a great agreement among the nobility and others throughout France, who will no longer endure the haughty and adulterous rule of the Guises, and that some of the first rank in France are cognizant of the conspiracy who remain quiet; the rest will rise in arms against the Guises.”—C. S. P. For., No. 779, February 27, 1560. Cf. NÉg. Tosc., III, 409.

An added element of adventure was the participation of a certain nobleman of wealth who seems to have financially supported the conspiracy for self-advantage. This man imagined that the movement might be converted into a movement for the recovery of Metz from the French (letter of Hotman to Calvin, September 19, 1559). In Hotman’s eyes, to restore Metz to Germany was to restore it to Protestantism, but Calvin was cautious, for his sound policy distinguished between rebellion and constitutional restriction of tyranny. He sent Beza to Strasburg to attempt to prevent such an action. But the Senate of Strasburg seized upon the project, demanded liberty for the Protestants of Metz and TrÈves, abolished the Interim, interdicted the Catholic religion, and even expelled the Anabaptists from the city, to the jubilation of radical Protestants, who looked upon it as just reprisal for the repressive policy of the Guises in France.

[110] La Planche, 238.

[111] La Place, 23; La Planche, 238. Some thirty captains were party to it who were to be put in command of some companies of German lansquenets (La Place, 33). “Upward of sixty men, part foreigners and part native Frenchmen” came to aid the plot (C. S. P. Ven., No. 134, March 15, 1560).

[112] C. S. P. Ven., No. 125, March 16, 1560. The correspondence of the Spanish ambassador testifies to the fact that the Protestant soldiery was well paid, the money having been procured by spoliation of the churches. They gave to each footman 14 francs per month and to each horseman 16 sous per day.—Rev. hist., XIV, 104. The Venetian ambassador says the horsemen got 18 soldi, the footmen 10 daily (C. S. P. Ven., March 17, 1560).

[113] The Spanish Ambassador puts it upon the 6th. La Planche, Beza, Castelnau, De Thou, D’AubignÉ, La PopeliniÈre, Le Laboureur make March 10 the day. The discrepancy perhaps is to be accounted for by the circumstance that Avenelles had said that March 6 was the day designated, but the unexpected removal of the court from Blois to Amboise (La Place, 33; La Planche, 346) postponed the date of action. Cf. Rev. hist., XIV, 66, 85.

[114] Castelnau, ibid.; La Planche, 239, 246. The statement is confirmed by La Place, 33, 34, and La Planche, 255 who say that the petition was written in invisible ink and intrusted to one Bigne, a servant of La Renaudie, who having been captured after the death of his master, in order to save his life, revealed the secret of the document. The first article was couched in these terms: “Protestation faicte par le chef et tous les ceux du conseil de n’attenter aucune autre chose contre la Majestie du roy et les princes de son sang. Et estoit le but aussi de la dicte entreprise de faire observer d’ancienne coustume de la France par une legitime assemblÉe des estats.”—Tavannes, 247. Tavannes says Bigne directly said that CondÉ and Coligny were implicated. Other incriminating papers were found in the boots of the baron Castelnau (Rev. hist., XIV, 99, 100; La Planche, 254, 255).

[115] Castelnau, Book I, chap. xi. De Croze, Les Guises, les Valois et Philippe II, I, 60-70 (2 vols., Paris, 1866), shows admirably that there is no doubt of the formidable nature of the conspiracy of Amboise.

[116] It is said that the cardinal and his brother received intimations of danger from Spain, Italy, Savoy, Germany, and Flanders (La Place 32; Castelnau, Book I, chap, viii) and it is certain that the cardinal Granvella, Philip’s representative in the Netherlands, warned them. De Thou says that warnings came from Germany, Spain, Italy, and France. Paillard in Rev. hist., XIV, 81, is dubious about an Italian source, but it is confirmed by C. S. P. Ven., 137, March 6, 1560. He thinks that any Spanish source of information was impossible, for the reason that Philip II learned everything from Chantonnay. Granvella’s warning is acknowledged by Chantonnay in a letter of March 3, 1560, to his brother. He was expressly told that the aim of the conspiracy was to make away with the cardinal of Lorraine and all those of the house of Guise (Rev. hist., XIV, 80, 81). This is supported by the testimony of the constable and the Venetian ambassador (D’AubignÉ, I, 263, n. 3). It seems certain that this information was conveyed to the Guises by February 12 (Rev. hist., XIV, 83; MÉm. de CondÉ, I, 387; D’AubignÉ, Book II, chap. xvii). Dareste, “FranÇois Hotman et la conspiration d’Amboise,” BibliothÈque de l’Ecole des Chartes, sÉr. III, V, 361, thinks that Hotman’s own indiscreet boasting at Strasburg was responsible, at least in part, for the discovery of the plot.

The duke of Guise and his brother were in such fear that they wore shirts of chain mail underneath their vestments, and at night were guarded by pistoleers and men-at-arms. On the night of March 6, while at Blois, the alarm was so great that the duke, the cardinal, the grand-prior, and all the knights of the order there, watched all night long in the courtyard (C. S. P. For., No. 837, March 7, 1560).

[117] Castelnau, Book I, chap, viii; La Planche, 246, 247. He received one hundred Écus and a judicial post in Lorraine (De Thou, II, 774, ed. 1740).

[118] “Among the prisoners was a Gascon gentleman, one baron de Castelnau, who considering himself ill-used by the cardinal and the duke of Guise, with many other captains and soldiers, dissatisfied on account of non-payment of their arrears and because they had been dismissed from the Court, finding themselves without salary or any other means, and being half desperate, joined the other insurgents about religion and conspired against the cardinal and the duke of Guise.”—C. S. P. Ven., No. 135, March 16, 1560. Sancerre had known Castelnau during the late war, and when he sought to arrest him and his companions, they resisted. Although the city of Tours took up arms in the king’s name against them, they made their escape into the chÂteau de Noizay (Indre-et-Loire), between three and four leagues from Amboise, which belonged to the wife of Renay (La Place, 33. She had been maid of honor to Jeanne d’Albret, C. S. P. Ven., No. 135, March 16, 1560). Cf. C. S. P. For., March 21, 1560, and note, on p. 462—the account of Throckmorton. The two versions substantially agree.

[119] C. S. P. Ven. For., March 16, 1560.

[120] C. S. P. For., No. 859, March 15, 1560; ibid., Ven., No. 135, March 16.

[121] Rev. hist., XIV, 102; La Planche, 247; Arch. de la Gironde, XXIX, 8. Vieilleville was sent to pacify the Beauce and M. de Vassey, another knight of the order, to Maune, near Angers, to subdue a commotion there (C. S. P. For., 902, March 26, 1560).

[122] His orders at this hour are printed in the MÉm.-journ. du duc de Guise, 457; Mem. de CondÉ, I, 342; La PopeliniÈre, I, 166; cf. La Planche, 225, who gives the gist of them.

[123] Lettres-patentes du Roi Francois II au sÉnÉschal de Lyon “concernans la revelacion de grace que sa Ma^te veult faire À ceulx qui avaient conspirÉ contre l’estat de la religion et son royaume,” March 17, 1560.

[124] See the extended account in C. S. P. Ven., March 20, 1560; NÉg. Tosc., III 412-15.

[125] His corpse was hanged March 20, 1560, upon a gibbet before the court gate, and left there for two whole days, with an inscription at his feet running: “C’est La Renaudie dict la Forest, capitaine des rebelles, chef et autheur de la sÉdition” (La Place, 35; D’AubignÉ, I, 268, Book II, chap, xvii; C. S. P. For., 463, note, March 23, 1560).

[126] The sentencing to death of prisoners continued daily, several being sent for execution to Blois, Tours, Orleans, and other places, “that these acts of justice might be witnessed universally and be better known.”

[127] The instructions of the King are a curious witness of the fury of the Guises: “Je vous prye, y estant arrivÉ, faire si bonne dilligence que vous les puissiez chastier comme ils mÉritent, sans avoir aucune pitiÉ ny compassion d’eux.... Aussy je vous envoye des lettres dont le nom est en blanc et lesquelles vous ferez remplir À votre fantaisie, que j’escrips aux principaux seigneurs et gentilshommes dudit paÏs À ce qu’ils ayent À assembler leur voysins et vous accompaigner en ceste entreprinse.”—NÉgociations relatives au rÈgne de FranÇois II, 342, 343.

[128] Throckmorton wrote on February 27, 1560: “It is reported that the idols have been cast out of the churches throughout Aquitaine and that the same would speedily be done in Provence.”—C. S. P. For., No. 779. Later, on April 14, the Venetian ambassador reports that the insurgents in Provence “have stripped the churches, and mutilated the images.”—Ibid., Ven., No. 146. In DauphinÉ the achievements of Montbrun made him famous; see De Thou, Book XXV, 548 ff.

[129] Chantonnay to the duke of Sessa, March 24, 1560, K. 1,493, No. 45. At St. Malo the insurgents killed certain public officials and prevented an execution. On March 25 the cardinal of Bourbon went to Rouen; and on the same day there was a sermon in a wood without the town to above two thousand people. A priest and a clerk called them Lutherans and cast stones at them, and a riot ensued. Two days after the preacher was taken and burned (C. S. P. For., 930, March 30, 1560).

[130] C. S. P. Ven., No. 142, March 26, 1560.

[131] Ibid., No. 146, April 4, 1560; ibid., For., 952, April 6. The cardinal of Lorraine justified the drastic policy of the government, saying: “It will be more than necessary to apply violent remedies and proceed to fire and sword, as otherwise, unless provision be made, the alienation of this kingdom, coupled with that of Germany and England and Scotland, would by force draw Spain and Italy and the rest of Christendom to the same result.”—Ibid., Ven., No. 142, March 28, 1560.

[132] The court attended the spectacle of these executions “comme s’il eÛt ÉtÉ question de voir jouer quelque momerie.”—La Planche, 263.

[133] Monod, “La jeunesse d’Agrippa d’AubignÉ,” MÉm. de l’Acad. de Caen, 1884.

[134] C. S. P. For., 1560, Introd. Hotman vented his disappointment at the failure of the conspiracy and his wrath because of the cruel policy of the Guises in a famous pamphlet directed against the cardinal of Lorraine. It bore the significant title “Le Tigre.” See De Thou, Book XXV, 512; Weill, 40, 98, Asse, “Un pamphlet en 1560,” Revue de France, January 1876, and Dareste, MÉm. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit., CIV (1877), 605. Hotman’s authorship of it remained undiscovered for years. A counselor named Du Lyon, believed to be the author of it, a printer named Martin, and a merchant of Rouen, who had sponsored it, were hanged in the Place Maubert (Castelnau, Book I, chap, xi; La Planche, 312, 313; La Place, 76, 77).

In 1875 M. Charles Read published this famous pamphlet in facsimile from the only existing copy which was rescued from the burning of the HÔtel-de-Ville in 1871. The text is accompanied with historical, literary, and bibliographical notes.

[135] The baggage of the prince of CondÉ was opened, it being expected to find therein letters or other writings relating to the conspiracy, and although excuses were made after the search, attributing it to thieves, yet as none of the contents were missing, the belief greatly prevailed of the search having been made for that purpose (C. S. P. Ven., No. 178, 1560).

On March 22 the prince of CondÉ was confronted with one of the condemned conspirators, but to the discomfiture of his enemies, no evidence against the prince could be elicited (C. S. P. For., No. 919, March 29 1560).

[136] La Planche, 267.

[137] Castelnau, Book I, chap. xi.

[138] La Planche, 268.

[139] May 6, 1560, Navarre to Throckmorton: “Has received a letter enclosing a proclamation of the Queen in which he sees it intimated that the princes and estates of France are to call her to their aid. As first prince of the blood he repudiates this, and hopes she will not mention him or the others in her proclamations again, as it will only injure them with the King” (written from Pau).—C. S. P. For., No. 40.

[140] MÉm. de CondÉ, I, 398; La PopeliniÈre, I, 170.

[141] C. S. P. For., No. 992, April 12, 1560.

[142] Ibid., No. 954, April 6, 1560; Chantonnay wrote to the duchess of Parma that Elizabeth was privy to the conspiracy (Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, II, 142).

[143] C. S. P. For., No. 992, April 12, 1560. The unfortunate baron Castelnau, in view of the fact that he was a knight of the order, was at first sentenced to the galleys for three years, but later, at the instance of the Guises, was condemned to die and was beheaded on March 29, along with the captain MazÈres, the duke of Nemours, the baron’s captor, being absolved from keeping his promise to spare his life (C. S. P. For., No. 952, April 6, 1560; La Planche, 264, 265; La Place, 34; D’AubignÉ, 268-70, Book II, chap. xvii). One of the most prominent of those arrested was the Scotchman, Robert Stuart, who had already been suspected of the murder of President Minard, and who claimed to be a relative of Mary Stuart. He was imprisoned in the Conciergerie and put to torture, but would admit nothing. It was he who shot the constable Montmorency on the battlefield of St. Denis. Stuart had the reputation of being able to make bullets, called Stuardes, which would pierce a cuirass. He himself was killed in turn at the battle of Jarnac by the marquis of Villars, count of Tende, who stabbed him with a dagger (Rev. hist., XIV, 93; Forneron, Histoire des ducs de Guise, II, 92).

[144] “A conspiracy to kill them both and then to take the King and give him masters and governors to bring him up in this wretched doctrine,” is the way the cardinal of Lorraine and his brother described it to the dowager queen of Scotland in a letter of March 20, 1560 (C. S. P. For., No. 870).

The King’s circular letter to the Parlements, bailiffs, and seneschals of the kingdom on March 30 declared that the conspirators “s’estoyent aidÉs de certains predicans venus de GenÈve.”—Mem. de CondÉ, I, 398.

[145] “It had been well if the Guises had not been so particularly named as the occasion of these unquietnesses, but that it had run in general terms,” wrote Throckmorton to Cecil (C. S. P. For., No. 954, April 6, 1560). Chantonnay advised the queen mother that, in order to avoid further difficulty, it was expedient for the Guises to retire from court for a season (La Place, 38).

[146] La Planche, 219, 20.

[147] Tavannes actually says she was privy to the conspiracy of Amboise, p. 247. During the reign of Henry II, Catherine de Medici had had no political influence. She was hated as an Italian (Rel. vÉn., I, 105). On one occasion only did she assert herself; “En 1557, À la nouvelle du dÉsastre de Saint-Quentin, qui ouvrait À l’Espagne les portes de la France, il y eut un moment d’indicible panique. Hommes d’État, hommes de guerre, tous avaient perdu la tÊte. Par un hasard heureux, Catherine se trouvait À Paris; seule elle conserva son sang-froid, et, de sa propre initiative, courant en l’hÔtel-de-ville et au parlement, et s’y montrant si Éloquente et Énergetique, elle arracha aux Échevins et aux membres du parlement un large subside et rendit du coeur À la grande ville.”—La FerriÈre “L’entrevue de Bayonne,” R. Q. H., XXXIV, 457.

[148] “Ut exorientes tumultus reprimeret,” Raynaldus, XXXIV, 72, col. 1; Chantonnay to Philip II, August 31, 1560, K. 1,493, No. 76; D’AubignÉ, I, 27; La Planche, 269. Shortly before the death of Henry II, Coligny had sought to resign his government, wishing to retain only his office of admiral but Henry refused to accept the resignation (Delaborde, I, 362). Coligny then endeavored to have his government of Picardy given to his nephew, the prince of CondÉ (Rev. hist., XIV, 74). Meanwhile he continued to hold the office of governor to prevent the Guises getting control of it (La Planche, 216). Finally in January, 1560, the admiral again went to court to present his resignation, and at the same time to urge the appointment of his nephew. This time it was accepted, and the prince of CondÉ was appointed to the post (La Planche, 217; Rev. hist., XIV, 74, 75).

[149] La Place, 36; C. S. P. For., No. 952.

[150] La Place, 38. On L’HÔpital see DuprÉ-Lasale, Michel de l’HÔpital avant son elÉvation au poste de chancellier de France, 2 vols., 1875; Amphoux, Michel de l’HÔpital et la libertÉ de conscience au XVI^e siÈcle; Guer, Die Kirchenpolitik d. Kanzlers Michel de l’HÔpital, 1877; Shaw, Michel de l’HÔpital and His Policy.

[151] La Place, 37.

[152] Castelnau, Book I, chap, xi; C. S. P. Ven., No. 174, 1560; Raynaldus, XXXIV, 66, col. 2; D’AubignÉ, I, 274, n. 3; La Planche, 305; La Place, 468, gives the text. The edict was not published, though, until July 17 (K. 1,494, folio 6).

[153] C. S. P. Ven., No. 193, August 30, 1560. The term “interim” was technically applied to a resolution of the sovereign, with or without the approbation of the diet or the estates of the country. By such an edict religious affairs were regulated provisionally, pending a final settlement by a general council of the church. The practice first obtained in Germany, where Charles V issued such a decree in favor of the Lutherans in 1548. See Rev. hist., XIV, 76, 77. “In modo che, restando ciascuno d’allora in dietro assicurato dalla paura che avea per innanzi, di poter esser inquisito, questo si puÒ dir che fosse uno tacito interim.”—Rel. vÉn., I, 414.

[154] “La reyne mÈre du roy, monstrant une bonne affection À l’admiral, le pria de la conseiller et l’advertir par lettres, souvent, de tous les moyens qu’il sÇauvoit et pourroit apprendre d’appaiser les troubles et sÉditions du royaume.”—Castelnau, Book I, chap. xi. Those of the Council who were unwilling to consent to such changes absented themselves. The marshals Brissac and St. AndrÉ did so, the one alleging ill health as his excuse, the other hatred of the king of Navarre (Rel. vÉn., I, 549).

[155] Castelnau, Book I, chap, xi; Rel. vÉn., I, 415 and n. 2.

[156] Davila, I, 295; Rel. vÉn., I, 413. “In the rural portions of Normandy, for unknown reasons, ‘Lutheranism’ had spread so much that to one district of that province was given the name of ‘Little Germany.’”—Hauser, American Hist. Rev., January, 1899, 225.

[157] The Tuscan ambassador, as early as April, 1560, advised his government of the likelihood of this feud (NÉg. dip. de la France avec la Toscane, III, 415-17 Rev. hist., XIV, 74).

[158] Nanteuil, near La FÈre (Aisne).

[159] La Place, 38.

[160] C. S. P. For., No. 232, June 24, 1560; D’AubignÉ, I, 276; MÉm. de CondÉ, I, 151.

[161] La Place, 41; D’AubignÉ, I, 277.

[162] La Place, 41.

[163] C. S. P. Ven., No. 149, 1560.

[164] Rel. vÉn., II, 139; NÉg. Tosc., III, 417. La Planche, 217, gives a sample lampoon.

[165] C. S. P. Ven., No. 151.

[166] Ibid., For., No. 992, April 12, 1560. On one occasion the police of Paris, when pursuing a murderer, entered a house at a venture, into which they thought the culprit had made his escape, where they found and arrested the man who printed and placarded over the walls of Paris the writings against the Guise family and against the cardinal (ibid., Ven., No. 178, 1560; NÉg. Tosc., III, 417, 418). The offending printer was hanged and then quartered (C. S. P. Ven., No. 186, July, 1560).

[167] C. S. P. Ven., No. 174; ibid., For., No. 232, June, 1560; No. 234, June 24, 1560; La Planche, 261. Francis II, during the course of this investigation, stayed at Maillebois, a house of D’O, the captain of the Scotch Guard, on the edge of Normandy (C. S. P. For., No. 233, June 24, 1560).

[168] D’Andelot and Coligny refused to make war upon the Scotch Calvinists (C. S. P. For., No. 168, June 7, 1560).

[169] “Rapport indiquant les preparatifs faits pour l’enterprise sur l’Ecosse, À Rouen, au HÂvre et À Dieppe,” K. 1,495, No. 2, 11 juillet 1560.

“The embarkment for Scotland hastens. Soldiers arrive daily from Dieppe and New Haven. At Caudebec, Harfleur, and New Haven there is exceeding great store of provision and munitions, sufficient for 25,000 men for six months.”—C. S. P. For., No. 233, June 24, 1560.

[170] Mundt to Cecil, from Strasburg, ibid., No. 52, May 7, 1560.

[171] Gresham to Cecil, ibid., No. 617, January 22, 1560: “The French king brings at least 20,000 footmen in Germany and he has taken up at Lyons as much money at interest as he can get.”

The count of Mansfeldt to the Queen, ibid., No. 33, May 5, 1560: “The French continue to raise troops and to buy horses and ammunition. Possibly these preparations are being made against the insurgents of France, but it is doubtful whether under pretense of invading Scotland.”

After the conspiracy of Amboise the duke of Ferrara sent 1,000 harquebusiers and the Pope 4,000 Italians (ibid., No. 952, April 6, 1560).

[172] C. S. P. Eng., No. 931. The clever Italian, in this case, had more discernment than Cecil, who thought that the French would rather “yield in some part than to lose their outward things by inward contentions.”—Cecil to Elizabeth, June 21, 1560; ibid., 1560-61, No. 152, n.; Keith, 414; Wright, I, 30.

[173] See letter of the cardinal of Lorraine and duke of Guise, Appendix I.

[174] C. S. P. For., No. 255, June 30, 1560. The news was concealed from Mary Stuart for ten days.

[175] PrÉcis d’articles arrÊtÉes conclus entre le commissionaire d’Angleterre et de la France: Affaires d’Ecosse (summary), K. 1493, No. 59, 6 juillet 1560.

Montluc, the bishop of Valence, the bishop of Amiens, and MM. de la Brose, d’Oysel, and Randau were the French ambassadors who accepted the terms offered by Cecil. Their commission was issued from Chenonceaux May 2, 1560. Montluc and Randau signed the instrument, an abstract of which is in C. S. P. For., No. 281, July 6, 1560. Castelnau, Book II, chaps, i-vi, gives an account of the Anglo-Scotch war. See the memoir of Montluc upon his mission, in Paulin Paris, NÉgociations, etc., 392; and Schickler, Hist. de France dans les archives privÉes de la Grande Bretagne, 6. The treaty may be found in Rymer, XV, 593; Keith, I, 291; Lesley, Hist. of Scotland (1828), 291.

[176] “The late peace was forced upon the French rather by necessity occasioned by their internal discord than from their desire for concord.”—Mundt to Cecil from Strasburg, August, 13, 1560, C. S. P. For., No. 416.

[177] Chantonnay to Philip II, June 27, 1560, K. 1493, 68c.

[178] NÉg. Tosc., III, 419, 420, May, 1560. Biragues, king’s lieutenant in Saluzzo, to the duke of Anjou, March 1, 1560, Collection Montigny, No. 298.

[179] C. S. P. For., No. 386, August 3, 1560. Throckmorton was told that “all in this country (Picardy) seem marvellously bent to the new religion.”—Ibid., No. 405, August 7, 1560.

[180] Ibid., No. 416, August 13, 1560.

[181] Ibid., Ven., No. 188, July 30, 1560.

[182] Ibid., For., No. 416, August 13, 1560.

[183] Ibid., No. 494, September 7, 1560.

[184] A pamphlet, issued in the nature of a petition and addressed to the king of Navarre and the princes of the blood, abounded in invective against them.—Castelnau, Book II, chap, vii; C. S. P. For., No. 168, June 7, 1560.

[185] C. S. P. Ven., No. 188, July 30, 1560.

[186] A vidame is a baron holding of a bishop. The vidame of Chartres was cousin-german of Maligny, suspected in the Amboise conspiracy. The vidame not having any children, Maligny and his brother were his sole heirs. The comte de Bastard has written a biography of him, Vie de Jean de FerriÈres, vidame de Chartres, Auxerre, 1885.

[187] C. S. P. Ven., No. 193, August 30, 1560.

The prince of CondÉ, during this summer, had repaired to Guyenne to see his brother, the king of Navarre, at Bordeaux where he protested against the Catholic policy of Antoine (La Planche, 276; La Place, 35). The brothers met on June 25 (Rochambeau, Lettres d’Antoine de Bourbon et de Jeanne d’Albret, 202). In his journey he inveighed against the usurpation of the Guises, and found a hearing from the noblesse and gentlemen of the south, who urged him and his brother to assume the place to which their rank entitled them. The Guises were kept informed of this journey of the prince by the marshal St. AndrÉ, who, under pretense of visiting his brothers, kept watch of CondÉ (La Planche, 314, 315; La Place, 53). The discovery of the plot was owing to the suspicious vigilance of the duke of Guise, who marked a Basque gentleman who appeared in Paris as a stranger bent on important business, and surmised that he had been sent by the king of Navarre. It was noticed that he had conferred with the vidame of Chartres, and so, “as he was returning ... to ... Navarre, the duke of Guise had him and his valises, with (his) letters and writings, seized at Etampes. In the valise many letters were found, said to have been addressed both to the king of Navarre and to his brother, the prince of CondÉ. Among them were letters of the constable and his son, Montmorency, though they were merely letters of ceremony; but those of importance were what the vidame wrote to the prince, part in cipher and part without.”—C. S. P. Ven., No. 193, Aug. 30, 1560. Cf. La Planche, 355-58; De Thou, III, 357; NÉgociations relatives au rÈgne de FranÇois II, 367; De Crue, 277, 278. The vidame of Chartres was arrested on August 29, 1560, by the provost-marshal and the lieutenant-criminal, at his lodgings in Paris, and carried through the streets upon a mule, “with a great rout of armed men to the Bastille.”—C. S. P. For., No. 483, September 3, 1560. Castelnau, Book II, chap, vii, says that the letters promised to assist the prince of CondÉ against all persons whatsoever except the King and the royal family. The Venetian ambassador says that there was enough in them “clearly to indicate that for many months there had been an intrigue.”—Ibid., Ven., No. 193, August 30, 1560. On the other hand, Throckmorton asserts that “the substance of the letter sent by the vidame to the king of Navarre is said to be so wisely written that it is thought that nothing can be laid to his charge.”—Ibid., For., No. 502, September 8, 1560. He was examined by the archbishop of Vienne and the president De Thou. Upon his arrest the vidame said “he was glad of it, for now the King would know of his innocence.”—Ibid., No. 502; La Place, 70.

[188] The treaty of Edinburgh between Scotland and England was signed on July 6, 1560 (C. S. P. Scot., IV, 42).

On July 28, 1560, Francis II, writing to the bishop of Limoges, says it is unnecessary to do more than inform the king of Spain that he has made peace with Scotland, which will leave him leisure to attend to the internal affairs of the realm and to thank him for his good offices (Teulet, I, 606); cf. C. S. P. For., July 28, 1560, 194, n.

[189] C. S. P. For., No. 345, July 19, 1560.

[190] Castelnau, Book II, chap, vii; C. S. P. For., No. 416, August 13, 1560, from Strasburg.

[191] C. S. P. For., No. 502, September 8, 1560.

[192] Ibid., No. 354, July 19, 1560.

[193] Ibid., No. 317, July 8, 1560; NÉg. Tosc., III, 421-23, June, 1560.

[194] At the assembly at Fontainebleau the King proposed four points for deliberation: (1) religion; (2) justice; (3) the debts of the crown; (4) means to relieve the people (NÉg. Tosc., III, 424, August 25, 1560). C. S. P. For., No. 442, August 20, 1560; La Place, 53; La Planche, 351; Castelnau, Book II, chap, viii, give the names of those present. The petitions are printed in MÉm. de CondÉ, II, 645. Picot, Hist. des États gÉnÉraux, II, 14, erroneously gives the date as August 23.

[195] C. S. P. Ven., No. 195, August 30, 1560; Castelnau, Book II, chap, viii, gives an abstract of the speech, in the third person. Cf. La Place, 54, 55.

[196] Castelnau, loc. cit.

[197] “En termes prolixes.”—De Thou, Book XXV, 525. It is printed in Œuvres complÈtes de L’HÔpital, ed. Dufey, I, 335.

[198] “They might see all states troubled and corrupted, religion, justice, and the nobility, every one of them ill-content, the people impoverished and greatly waxed cold in the zeal and good will they were wont to bear to their prince and his ministers.”—C. S. P. For., No. 442.

[199] La Planche, 352; Castelnau, Book II, chap. viii; the statement of the debt given by La Planche agrees exactly with C. S. P. For., 442.

[200] Castelnau, loc. cit.; La Planche, 352.

[201] See Reynaud, Jean de Montluc, evÊque de Valence, 1893.

[202] “Les derniers et plus jeunes conseillers opinent les premiers, afin que la libertÉ des advis ne soit diminuÉe ou retranchÉe par l’authoritÉ des princes ou premiers conseillers et seigneurs.”—Castelnau, Book II, chap. viii. He made a typically episcopal, not to say unctuous, address. Cf. La Place, 54; La Planche, 352; printed in MÉm. de CondÉ, I, 555; La PopeliniÈre, I, 192.

[203] La Planche, 352-61; La Place, 53-65.

[204] Reform in the collation of benefices was one of the important deliberations of the Council of Trent (Baguenault de la Puchesse, “Le Concile de Trente,” R. Q. H., October, 1869, 339).

[205] NÉg. Tosc., III, 424, August 29, 1560.

[206] Castelnau, Book II, chap, viii; La Planche, 361.

[207] C. S. P. For., No. 193, August 30, 1560; Paris, NÉgociations relatives au rÈgne de FranÇois II, 481; Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 149, n.; La Place, 68; La Planche, 363. “The government seems determined not to await the meeting of a council general, the decision of which will be tardy, but to convene a national one, assembling in a synod all bishops and other leading and intelligent churchmen of the kingdom, to consult and provide for the urgent need of France in matters of religion which admit of no delay.”—C. S. P. Ven., No. 142, 1560.

[208] La Place, 70.

[209] In Tours as early as April, 1560, a letter was published to all the governors and ministerial officials of the cities and provinces of the kingdom concerning the reformation of the church by means of a congregation of the prelates of the Gallican church to be assembled for a national council (C. S. P. Ven., No. 151, 1560).

[210] The ultra-Catholic party at Trent accused the cardinal of wanting to create an independent patriarchate out of the Gallican church. Desjardins. NÉg. de la France dans le Levant, II, 728.

As a matter of fact, at this season, the cardinal was disposed to favor the project of a national council, as he hoped thereby to enlarge the power and dignity of his office as primate of France. His ambition was to become a sort of French pope, so that “he would not have thought it wrong had all obedience to the pontiff ceased.”—Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), September 23, 1560.

[211] Maynier, Etude historique sur le concile de Trente (1545-62), 1874; Journal du concile de Trente, redigÉ par un secrÉtaire vÉnitien prÉsent aux sessions de 1562 À 1563, et publiÉ par Armand Baschet, avec d’autres documents diplomatiques relatifs À la mission des Ambassadeurs de France au concile; Desjardins, Le pouvoir civil au concile de Trente, Paris, 1869; Baguenault de la Puchesse, “Le concile de Trente,” R. Q. H., October, 1869.

[212] C. S. P. Ven., No. 161, 1560.

[213] Ibid., For., No. 232, June 24, 1560. When the Pope showed anger at the determination of France, the cardinal of Lorraine actually apologized for himself by saying that it was neither by his orders nor with his consent, but that the printers took the liberty to give the name of National Council to the “Congregation” which the King intended to convoke! (ibid., No. 174, 1560).

[214] Ibid., No. 569, September 8, 1560.

[215] Ibid., No. 615, October 8, 1560. The demands of the Protestants were as follows: (1) That the Council be convened in a free city of Germany; (2) that summons be not by a papal bull, but by the Emperor, who should provide them with safe-conducts; (3) that the Pope be subordinated to the Council; (4) that those of the Confession of Augsburg have a vote equally with the Catholics; (5) that the judgment be according to the Holy Scriptures, and not according to the decrees of the Pope; (6) that the prelates of the Council be absolved from the oath by which they are bound to the Pope and the Church of Rome; (7) that the acts of the Council of Trent be annulled (cf. C. S. P. For., No. 782, sec. 14).

[216] “A general council is necessary for abolishing these heresies; but ... especial care must be taken with the Emperor and the kings of France and Spain to decide what shall be settled therein.”—C. S. P. For., No. 416, August 13, 1560, from Strasburg.

[217] The Vatican understanding was that the former Council of Trent was to be continued; although in the bull the word continuation was not made use of, as in that of the jubilee, a show of deference thereby being made to the Emperor and the French King, who had demanded a new council. But the French government although it allowed the place, did not allow the continuation of the former Council of Trent convened by Paul III. For if it accepted the council as it was published by the bull, it would have had to accept all the articles which had been concluded in the former council. When it was argued that Philip II was satisfied with the continuation, Francis II replied that although continuation might suffice for the needs of his dominions, it would not do for France, the more so because Henry II of France having caused protest to be made in Trent of the nullity of that council, from its not having been free, his son could not think well of the continuation. (The reply of Francis II to Philip II, October, 1560, is in Paris, NÉgociations, 615-22. Cf. also the luminous accounts of Elizabeth’s agent in Venice, Guido Gianetti, C. S. P. For., No. 782, December 7, 1560; No. 815, December 21, 1560; and the dispatch of Throckmorton to the queen, of December 31, 1560, giving an account of a conversation with the king of Navarre, No. 832, §7.) In the reply made to Philip in October, 1560, the French King declared that, by the advice of his council, he had resolved upon an assembly of his prelates, from which nothing was to be feared for the apostolic see, it being intended only to provide the necessary remedies, and that it would not be a hindrance but rather an aid to the General Council, for when it came to open, the French prelates would be already assembled and “well informed as well of the evil as of the remedy,” and that when the Council at Trent should have once begun, it would put an end to the lesser assembly. As to the place of the council, the French at first preferred to have it meet in one of the Rhenish towns between Constance and Cologne, or at BesanÇon in Burgundy, which belonged to Philip II; later, in the answer to Don Antonio and in his letters to Rome, Francis II agreed to accept whatever place the Emperor and the Pope decided upon.

The new session of the Council of Trent was to be preceded by a general jubilee, giving power to confessors to absolve from all sins, even from that of having read prohibited books. The bull warmly exhorted the extirpation of heresy. This jubilee was first celebrated at Rome, on Sunday, November 24, 1560, by a procession, with the Pope walking at its head (C. S. P. For., No. 782, §§ 15, 16).

[218] La Place, 114; C. S. P. For., No. 630, October 12, 1560, from Venice.

[219] Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II, I, 191, Granvella to Antonio Perez from Brussels, August 9, 1560.

[220] Paris, NÉgociations, etc., 615-22; Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VI, 137, 149. Don Antonio arrived at the French court on September 23, and departed four days later (C. S. P. For., 619, Oct. 10, 1560). Philip II took the ground that any discussion looking toward the reformation of religion would not only imperil the faith, but prejudice his policy in Spain and the Netherlands; for if France should alter anything, he feared it would cause a schism universally (ibid., No. 619, Oct. 10, 1560). The growth of the reformation in Spain alone was already quite great enough to alarm him. In the early autumn of 1559, Miranda, the archbishop of Toledo, the archbishop of Seville, and twelve of “the most famous and best-learned religious men” in Spain had been arrested for heresy (ibid., No. 133, October 25, 1559), and at this time the inquisitors had just laid their hands on the brother of the admiral of Spain (ibid., No. 619, October 10, 1560). On this whole subject see Weiss, The Spanish Reformers, and Wiffen, Life and Writings of Juan de ValdÉs, 1865. Montluc accused Jeanne d’Albret of printing Calvinist catechisms and the New Testament in Spanish, in Basque, and in BÉarnais, and of secretly distributing them in Spain by colporteurs (La FerriÈre, Blaise de Montluc, 61).

[221] Paris, NÉgociations, 495; Forneron, Histoire de Philippe II, I, 225. The Venetian ambassador learned the news within less than a month (C. S. P. Ven., No. 199, September 28, 1560).

[222] This important offer was Philip’s answer to Francis II’s letter of August 31 and was made to L’Aubespine, the French ambassador in Spain, on September 13, 1560, as appears from the minutes of the Spanish chancellery in K. 1,493, No. 84. After the departure of Don Antonio, Catherine wrote a letter to Philip II, thanking him for the offer (Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 149).

The Venetian ambassador is particular and says he offered to put 3,500 troops in Flanders at the disposal of France, to place 2,000 infantry near Narbonne, and another 4,000 near Bayonne, besides “a large body of Spanish cavalry.”—C. S. P. Ven., No. 199, September 28, 1560. Throckmorton’s figures are 3,000 Spaniards from the Low Countries; 500 men-at-arms and 2,000 footmen, who would enter by way of Narbonne; and 3,000 through Navarre with 500 horses of that country (ibid., For., No. 619, § 13, October 10, 1560).

[223] C. S. P. Eng., No. 620, October 10, 1560.

[224] Ibid., For., No. 411, August 9, 1560.

[225] Ibid., No. 502, September 8, 1560; Chantonnay of Philip II, same date, K. 1,493, No. 83.

[226] Ibid., No. 619, §§ 13, 15, October 10, 1560. The gendarmerie is appointed to remain in divers countries according to an edict. Has been informed that there is a league in hand between him (the king of France) and the king of Spain. On the 16th there departed out of Paris ten cartloads of munitions and artillery, but whither it is to be conveyed and how it is to be employed he cannot learn (C. S. P. For., No. 655, October 22, 1560). On the 30th Du Bois passed bringing with him out of the places and forts in Picardy 1,000 footmen, who marched between this town and Rouen toward Anjou; but where they shall go is only known to himself and the duke of Guise. They keep together strong, as if they were in an enemy’s country. After them come 500 more (ibid., No. 692, Oct. 31, 1360). The Tuscan ambassador notices the ardor of Paris to contribute blood and treasure (NÉg. Tosc., III, 436).

[227] “From Strasburg: Frequent negotiations between the French King and the German princes. The Rhinegrave has departed into Hesse ... with Count John of Salm, who is also a French pensioner; where, by the landgrave’s permission and the dissimulation of the Saxon duke of Weimar, they have levied 2,000 cavalry to take into France, which they have partly collected in the territories of the abbot of Fulda on the boundaries of Hesse. The prefect of the Rhenish Circle, the count of Salm, being informed of this preparation of cavalry, assembled his captains at Worms, where it was decided that they would not be permitted to transport their cavalry into France. For a warning had been given in the Imperial Diet that no assembling or travelling of soldiers would be allowed unless by the express permission of the Emperor; for wherever they went they did great damage to the inhabitants.”—Ibid., No. 736, November 26, 1560.

[228] For the organization of Paris at this time see Livre des marchands, 423, 440-43.

[229] C. S. P. For., No. 665, October 22, 1560. The Venetian ambassador says 400,000 francs—twice the amount given by Throckmorton (C. S. P. Ven., 220, October 15, 1560).

[230] Ibid., No. 726, November 18, 1560.

[231] Ibid., No. 619, October 10, 1560.

[232] “The goods of divers Protestants have been seized and divers men dispatched by night and sent by water in sacks to seek heaven.”—Ibid., No. 726, November 18, 1560. Cf. La Planche, 226, 227, 233.

[233] D’AubignÉ, Book II, chap, xx; NÉg. Tosc., III, 424; for details see La Planche, 366-73.

[234] C. S. P. Ven., No. 200, October 15, 1560.

[235] On October 18 (La Planche, 378).

[236] “Very well armed and numbering more than 300 men in each company and several pieces of cannon.”—C. S. P. For., No. 665, October 25, 1560.

The people of Orleans were completely disarmed, even to knives, by an edict which required all arms to be deposited in the HÔtel-de-Ville (Despatches of Suriano [Huguenot Society], November 1, 1560).

[237] Paris, NÉgociations, etc., 486. Castelnau, Book II, chap. x, says the change was made because the Huguenots were numerous around Meaux (but so were they also around Orleans), and fear lest another conspiracy might be formed by having the place known so long in advance. A rumor was current that the Huguenots were planning to surprise it. I believe the real reason to be the more central location of Orleans.

[238] “On his arrival with his brethren, the cardinal of Bourbon and the prince of CondÉ, the prince was taken before the Council who committed him prisoner to MM. de Bressey and Chauverey, two captains, with 200 archers. The king of Navarre goes at liberty but is as it were a prisoner.”—C. S. P. For., No. 716, § 18, November 17, 1560; La Place, 73; Castelnau, Book II, chap. x; NÉg. Tosc., III, 425. La Planche, 381, describes the method of his imprisonment.

[239] La Planche, 380; C. S. P. For., No. 725, November 18, 1560; NÉg. Tosc., III, 425, 426.

[240] “Qu’il avoit faict et faisoit plusieurs entreprises contre luy (le roi) et l’estat de bon royaume.”—La Planche, 380; Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), November 10, 1560.

[241] La Place, 38; La Planche, 378; Castelnau, Book II, chap. x; Rel. vÉn., I, 557; BrantÔme, III, 278.

[242] Yet he was so carefully watched that he was practically a prisoner—“tanquam captivus,” says Throckmorton to Lord Robert Dudley (C. S. P. For., No. 721, 1560). Damville was also regarded with suspicion.

[243] Ibid., No. 716, § 18, November 17, 1560.

[244] Castelnau, Book II, chap. ix; La Planche, 318-38, gives the text of one, which is significant because it is almost wholly a political indictment of the Guises; next to nothing is said touching religion, conclusive evidence that the Huguenot party was much more political than religious.

[245] La Planche, 375, 376.

[246] Ibid., 318.

[247] “Qu’il seroit meilleur pour elle d’entretenir les choses en l’estat qu’elles estoyent, sans rien innover.”—Ibid., 313.

[248] Ibid., 316, 317.

[249] Baschet, La diplomatie vÉnitienne, 499.

[250] Rel. vÉn., II, 65.

[251] The more one considers the arrest of the prince of CondÉ, the more certain it seems that Catherine de Medici inspired it. The Venetian ambassador believed Catherine was at the bottom of his arrest; see Baschet, 500, 501.

[252] “The bishop of Valence says ... that the meeting of Fontainebleau would turn into a general assembly of the three estates of France.”—C. S. P. For., No. 445, August 22, 1560.

[253] La Planche, 218.

[254] See the scathing comparison of the house of Guise with that of Montmorency: “La plus ancienne yssue du premier chrestien du premier du royaume de la chrestientÉ.”—Livre des marchands, 428-30.

[255] “Messieurs de Guyse vouloyent venir aux armes pour effacer ceste poursuite des estats et rÉformation de l’Église la poursuitte que nous avions si justement commencÉe de leur faire rendre compte de leurs dons excessifs, c’est-À-dire de leurs larcins, et de leur maniement des finances, ou plustost de leurs finesses.”—Ibid., 456.

The petition of the estates of Touraine, assembled at Tours on October 26, 1560, to the King, is a good example of this popular demand. The articles reflect the state of the times (C. S. P. For., No. 681). In connection with this authentic petition compare the imaginary “discours du drapier” in a fancied meeting of the estates-general, as given in Livre des marchands, 427-40, the satirical forerunner of the greatest political satire of the sixteenth century, the Satyre MenippÉe.

[256] La Planche, 260.

[257] Cf. La Place, 47-49, 110-13; La Planche, 342; and especially the indictment in Livre des marchands, 436-58.

[258] To be exact, 43,700,000 livres (Isambert, XIV, 63). Part of it was held by the Swiss cantons: “The French King is conferring with the Swiss about paying his debts, and offers two-thirds with a quarter for interest, and to pay the whole within three years; which conditions they refuse, and desire him either to stand to his written promises or that the matter shall be discussed in some place appointed in Switzerland.”—C. S. P. For., No. 763, December 3, 1560, from Strasburg.

[259] “In so much as it was necessary for him to find the wherewithal to satisfy some of these obligations, the late king had abolished certain of them and reduced others; he had let 50,000 footmen be billeted upon the cities of the kingdom and caused money to be raised by the imposition of subsidies, so much so that he had found it necessary in some places to diminish the taille, the people having abandoned the county of Normandy.”—C. S. P. For., No. 658, January 28, 1560; cf. La Place, 47; Livre des marchands, 447, 448; NÉg. Tosc., III, 405 and 455.

[260] “The soldiers through necessity have begun to rob.”—C. S. P. For., ibid.

[261] La Place, 48.

[262] La Place, 49.

[263] “Interrogatoire d’un des agens du prince de CondÉ,” Arch. cur., sÉr. I, IV, 35. Madame de Roye, Coligny’s sister and mother-in-law of Louis of CondÉ, was also seized in the expectation of finding papers in her possession which would incriminate CondÉ, Lattoy, the advocate, and Bouchart, the king of Navarre’s chancellor (Castelnau, Book II, chap. ix; La Planche, 381; Frederick, count palatine of the Rhine, to Elizabeth, from Heidelberg, C. S. P. For., No. 721, November 17, 1560; No. 737, §8, November 28, 1560; No. 781, December 7, 1560; De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, 282 ff.).

[264] “MM. de Guise avoient asseurÉ le pape et le roi d’Espagne de chasser du royaume les huguenots; desseignent (aprÈs le procÈs du prince de CondÉ et luy executÉ) d’envoyer de la gendarmerie et de gens de pied sous la charge des sieurs de Sainct AndrÉ, Termes, Brissac et Sipierre, leurs amis, pour chasser les hÉrÉtiques et faire obeyr le roy.”—Tavannes, 257 (1560).

[265] MÉm. de CondÉ, II, 379; Chantonnay to Philip II, November 28, K. 1,493, No. 108; Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), November 22; Claude Haton, I, 130, 131.

[266] This action was a legal subterfuge, as Castelnau, Book II, chap. xii, no friend of CondÉ, is honest enough to admit, citing several precedents in favor of CondÉ. Cf. La Place, 73-75; La Planche, 400-2; D’AubignÉ, I, 294, 295.

[267] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), November 25, 1560.

[268] Francis II, always had been of a frail constitution, and in his passion for hunting seems to have over-exerted himself. “The constitution of his body is such as the physicians do say he cannot be long lived, and thereunto he hath by this too timely and inordinate exercise now in his youth added an evil accident.”—Throckmorton to Elizabeth, C. S. P. For., No. 738, November 28, 1560; Chantonnay to Philip II, same date, K. 1,493, No. 108. He fell ill about November 20, seemingly with a catarrh (Suriano, November 20, 25), accompanied by headache and pain in the ear, of which he died on the night of December 5 at the eleventh hour, although the physicians, on December 1, “mistrusted no danger of his life” (C. S. P. For., No. 758). Throckmorton elsewhere calls the King’s disease “an impostume in the head.”—Ibid., No. 771, December 6, 1560; cf. La Planche, 413, 418; D’AubignÉ, I, 299. Very probably the disease was mastoiditis—an affection of the mastoid bone back of the ear, induced by chronic catarrh which finally affected the brain. Suriano says: “Il corpo del morto Re È stato aperto et hanno trovato guasto tutto il cervello, in modo che per diligentia delli medici non si haveria potuto risanarlo” (December 8, 1560.)

[269] D’AubignÉ, I, 300, and n. 2. The vidame of Chartres, who had been confined in the Bastille, “though allowed to take the air” (C. S. P. For., No. 764, December 3, 1560), was released also, but died almost immediately (La Place, 78-79, gives a eulogy of him). See Lemoisne, “FranÇois de VendÔme, vidame de Chartes,” Positions de thÈses de l’Ecole des Chartes, 1901, 89. His death enriched the house of Montmorency, for he left the lordship of Milly-en-Gatinois, worth 3,000 crowns yearly, to Damville, the constable’s second son (C. S. P. For., No. 832, §10, December 31, 1560). The will is printed in Bib. de l’Ec. d. Chartes, 1849, 342; it is dated December 23.

[270] Rel. vÉn., I, 543. On the situation after death of Francis II see Weill, chap. ii.

[271] C. S. P. For., No. 764, December 3, 1560, Edwards to Cecil from Rouen.

[272] “Lettres-patentes du roi Charles IX; pardon-gÉnÉral au sujet des affaires de religion.” The Spanish ambassador had been summoned to the court that he might write to Philip II to stand ready to offer assistance in case of need.—Despatches of Suriano [Huguenot Society], December 3, 1560; K. 1,493, No. 113, December 3, 1560. Chantonnay’s correspondence shows that the Spanish King was fully informed of the progress of events in France, which is confirmed by Throckmorton. “The King of Spain has given order to stay the five thousand Spaniards in the Low Countries who were to go to Sicily ... the posts run apace and often between the kings of France and Spain.”—C. S. P. For., No. 737, November 28, 1560.

[273] La Place, 76; Claude Haton, I, 116.

[274] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), December 3, 1560.

[275] C. S. P. For., No. 773, December 6, 1560. “They have not only already good forces in this town at their devotion, but have sent for more men-at-arms to be here with all diligence ... so that if they cannot get it by good means, they see none other surety for themselves but to get it by such means as they can best devise ... if the Guise forces and party be best, they will not fail to betrap them all and to stand for it whatever it costs them.”—C. S. P. For., No. 771, December 6, 1560. Catherine de Medici detested Mary Stuart. She called her “notre petite reinette Écossaise.”

[276] Claude Haton, I, 118, 119. The Guises wanted, above all, to prevent the undivided regency of Catherine de Medici and even cited the Salic law as a bar to such result (Chantonnay to Philip II, December 28, 1560; K. 1,494, No. 12). They favored the regency of the pliable Antoine of Bourbon, or a combination of the king of Navarre and the queen mother. In either event a galaxy of the Guises was to surround the throne, I. e., the cardinals of Tournon and Lorraine, the duke of Guise, the chancellor and the two marshals Brissac and St. AndrÉ; cf. NÉg. Tosc., III, 434, and De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, 288-90, a good brief statement.

[277] Catherine sent the sieur de Lansac at once to the constable at Etampes (cf. D’AubignÉ, I, 299, and n. 2) who in turn went to consult with his son, Damville, at Chantilly, where he was kept by his wife’s illness, those two in turn conferring with the princess of CondÉ (La Place, 76).

[278] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), December 18, 1560.

[279] How much Antoine yielded to the temptation the following report of an interview between Throckmorton and the king of Navarre shows: “Throckmorton said that there was a bruit that the Spaniards had passage given them by Bayonne and other forts of the French King. The king of Navarre said that it was true, and that he was about to verify the letters that are yet denied.”—C. S. P. For., No. 732, December 31, 1560, § 7.

On Sardinia see Rel. vÉn., I, 555. Even the prospect of becoming emperor was held out to him (ibid., I, 559; II, 76).

[280] “Although the duke of Guise is popular, above all with the nobility, yet everybody so detests the cardinal of Lorraine that if the matter depended upon universal suffrage, not only could he have no part in the government, but perhaps not in the world! It is cynically reported that his Right Reverend and Lordship took the precaution to send his favorite and precious effects early into Lorraine.”—C. S. P. Ven., No. 221, December 16, 1560.

[281] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), December 18, 1560; Rel. vÉn., I, 433. “I found the court very much altered ... not one of the house of Guise.”—C. S. P. For., No. 832, December 31, 1560.

[282] Claude Haton, I, 11.

[283] The law of France, by ordinance of Charles V, had for generations provided that the king’s majority was attained when he was fourteen years of age; but the King’s uncles claimed that the meaning of the law was that the King’s majority was not reached until the end of his fourteenth year, i. e., upon his fifteenth birthday, which, in the case of Charles IX, would not be until June 27, 1564. This ingenious argument was sustained by various authors subsidized by the Guises, who went farther and argued away the regency of the queen mother also, in spite of the precedents of Blanche of Castille and Anne of Beaujeu, on the ground of the Salic law (Chantonnay to Philip II, December 28, 1560; K. 1,494, No. 12).

[284] D’AubignÉ, I, 302; Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 176; Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), March 29, 1561; C. S. P. For., No. 77, § 3, March 31, 1560; La Place, 120, 121; De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, 299.

[285] Cf. Viollet, Inst. polit. de la France, II, 95.

[286] The arrangement of executive offices at this time was very different from that of a modern government. Instead of there being a single secretary for foreign affairs, there were individual secretaries for each country—one for Italy, one for Spain, one for Flanders, one for Germany, etc., and each one attended to his own business. This eliminated one more power in the government, exactly as Catherine wanted.

[287] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), March 29, 1561. “The King is young and the constable has now a great authority in the realm.... But if they recover their authority, it is to be feared that they will use more extremity than they did before, and that therefore the queen cannot but fear his danger in this case.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,030, February 26, 1561, § 6.

[288] See the remarkable character-sketch of the Venetian ambassador in Rel. vÉn., I, 425-27.

[289] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), December 8, 1560. On the efforts of the Guises to control the States-General of 1560 see Weill, 40.

[290] D’AubignÉ, I, 304; Paris, NÉgociations, 789.

[291] La Place, 85, 87.

[292] Castelnau, Book III, chap. ii. In this connection the following observation is of interest: “A disputation has lately been at Rome among the cardinals, and the Pope has had the hearing of what is the cause that France is thus rebelled from them. The Romans would conclude that the dissolute living of the French cardinals, bishops and clergy, was the cause; but the French party and the bishop, who is ambassador there, say that nothing has wrought so much in France as of late the practice in Rome of divers of the nobility of France where they have seen such dissolute living of the clergymen as returning into France they have persuaded the rest that the clergy of Rome is of no religion.”—C. S. P. For., No. 822, December 28, 1560.

[293] The address is printed in extenso in Œuvres complÈtes de l’HÔpital, I, 375 ff.

[294] Suriano, December 20; D’AubignÉ, I, 303, 304; La Place, 88, 109. “The estates assembled on December 13, but have done little or nothing; divers of them will not put forth such things as they were instructed in, now the king is dead.”—C. S. P. For., No. 832, December 31, 1560.

[295] La Planche, 389-96; D’AubignÉ, I, 305, 306.

[296] Cf. C. S. P. Ven., No. 237, February 17, 1561.

[297] La Place, 93.

[298] Ibid., 93-109.

[299] La Place, 109; La Planche, 397; D’AubignÉ, I, 307.

[300] Castelnau, Book III, chap. ii.

[301] C. S. P. Ven., No. 237, February 17, 1561. The action practically flouted a papal bull of November 20, 1560, convening the Council at Trent, which was intended to anticipate and prevent any such action as this at Orleans (La Planche, 403).

[302] There was also a technical argument based on the fact that in the bull of the Council the words “sublata suspensione” were interpreted to mean that the Pope intended to continue the Council already commenced, and that the decrees already made were to be valid; which offended France. The cardinal of Lorraine was the one who raised these difficulties, though he tried to give the opposite impression; from him came the opposition to the words of the bull (C. S. P. Ven., No. 229, January 7, 1561; Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), January 14, 1561).

[303] C. S. P. Ven., No. 237, January 23, 1561; La Place, 124-26, practically paraphrases the edicts.

[304] Rel. vÉn., I, 443.

[305] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), February 17, 1561.

[306] Castelnau, Book III, chap, ii, says 42,000,000; Throckmorton put the figures at 43,000,000: C. S. P. For., No. 1,032, February 26, 1561; cf. No. 988, February 12, 1561; Suriano, the Venetian ambassador, also gives the amount as eighteen million crowns (ibid., Ven., No. 237, February 17, 1561). This would approximate $75,000,000.

The debt of the King to the Genoese, Germans, Milanese, Florentines, and Lucca amounted to 644,287 ducats (ibid., For., No. 1,432, October 5, 1560).

[307] Dareste, Histoire de France, III, 456, 457.

[308] Lorenzo Contarini in 1550 speaks with satisfaction of the even balance of the finances; Soranzo in 1556 speaks of their disorder (cf. Ranke, FranzÖsische Geschichte, Book VII, chap, iv, n. 2).

[309] An ordinance of 1270 authorized a loan of 100,000 livres tournois for the crusade that culminated in disaster before Tunis. Cf. G. Servois, “Emprunts de St. Louis en Palestine et en Afrique,” BibliothÈque de l’Ecole des Chartes, sÉr. IV, IV, 117. Philip III borrowed of his great vassals and from the Flemish towns (Langlois, Le rÈgne de Philippe le Hardi, chap. v).

[310] Boutaric, La France sous Philippe le Bel, 297.

[311] The preamble of the letters-patent of Francis I, bearing date of September 2, 1522, makes this fact clear; for in that document alienation is made by the government of the “aids, gabelles and impositions” of Paris, the fees of the “grand butchery of Beauvais,” the rates upon the sale of wine, both wholesale and retail, and of fish, as security for the loan made. Cf. VÜhrer, Histoire de la dette publique en France, I, 15-26; Lavisse, Histoire de France, V, Part I, 241, 242.

[312] Esmein, Histoire du droit franÇais, 631-34.

[313] VÜhrer, Histoire de la dette publique en France, I, 22-25.

[314] Gold was at a premium, the payments for gold crowns and pistolets being above their valuation. All foreign coins were rated high: English “rose” nobles = 6 francs, 12 sous; “angels” = 4 francs, 6 sous; imperials and Phillipes were current at the same rate as “angels” (C. S. P. For., No. 1,076, February 20, 1561). The gold crown was passable at 51 francs tournois; the pistolet gold and weight, 49 francs (ibid., No. 886, January 17, 1561). Prices of commodities were also high. The duke of Bedford, who came over in February 1561 as a special envoy of Elizabeth, reports, February 26: “France is the dearest country I ever came in.”—Ibid., No. 1,031. Cf. the confession of Richard Sweete, an English fugitive in France, who was forced to return home on account of “hard times.” “Within one month they came back from Paris, partly upon the death of the French king and partly for that victuals were there so dear that they could not live.”—Ibid., II, No. 36, October 5, 1559.

Without attempting to go at length into the intricate subject of the various kinds of money current in France in the sixteenth century, something yet is to be said upon the subject in order to make clear the working of these and other economic sources. In the sixteenth century, as during the Middle Ages, the standard of value was the livre tournois, divided into sous and deniers (1 livre = 20 sous; 1 sou = 12 deniers). The livre tournois was really a hypothetical coin and was merely used as a unit of calculation. The French gold coin was the Écu d’or which varied in value between 1 livre, 16 sous, and 2 livres, 5 sous. In 1561 it was equivalent to 2 livres in round numbers. The teston was a silver coin of a value of 10 or 11 sous and was sometimes called a crown or a franc by the English. The sou originally was made of an amalgam of silver and copper and the denier or penny of red copper.

The English during their long occupation of Normandy in the fifteenth century, and owing to their commercial communication with Flanders, introduced the pound sterling or “estrelin” (easterling) (Du Cange, Glossarium, s. v. “Esterlingus;” Ruding, Annals of the Coinage, I, 7; Le Blanc, TraitÉ historique des monnaies de France, 82). Though much more stable than other coinage—except the Venetian ducat and the florin—it nevertheless slowly depreciated. Elizabeth in 1561 rechristened it the gold “sovereign.” It was worth about 8 livres tournois in 1561 (Avenel, “La fortune mobiliÈre dans l’histoire,” Revue des deux mondes, July 15, 1892, 784, 785). The French peasantry still in certain parts of France estimate in terms of ancient coinage. The pistole, by origin a Spanish coin current in Flanders and the Milanais, was forbidden circulation as far back as Louis XIV. Yet the peasants of Lower Normandy at the cattle fairs today will estimate the price of their animals in ancient terms. Similarly the Breton peasantry talk of rÉaux (real), the last vestige of Brittany’s commercial relations with Spain (Avenel, op. cit., 783).

The actual value of these coins in modern terms has been much debated. M. de Wailly estimated the value of the livre tournois in 1561 at 3 francs, 78 centimes. The vicomte d’Avenel thinks these figures too high and has adopted 3 francs, 11 centimes as a mean value for the years between 1561 and 1572. M. Lavasseur prefers the round number of 3 francs. On the basis of the last estimate one sou would be equivalent to 15 centimes and 1 denier to 1.2 centimes in terms of modern French money. But these figures mean nothing until the purchasing power of money at this time is established. In this particular, estimates have varied all the way from 3 to 12 and even to 17 and 20. M. Lemmonier inclines to the ratio of 5 for the middle of the sixteenth century. For an admirably clear and succinct account of the value of French money in the sixteenth century, see Lavisse, Histoire de France, Vol. V, Part I, pp. 266-69. Larger references will be found in the bibliography appended to the chapter.

But whatever the ratio may have been, the decline in the purchasing power of money was great. Between 1492 and 1544 Europe imported 279 millions worth (in francs) of gold and silver. In the single year 1545, when the famous mines of Potosi were opened, 492,000,000 francs’ worth were brought into Europe. The purchasing power of money is estimated to have fallen one-quarter between 1520 and 1540 and one-half by the year 1600. After the peace of Cateau-CambrÉsis when peaceful relations were renewed between France and Spain, France particularly felt the disturbing effect of the new conditions. According to the vicomte d’Avenel (op. cit.), from 1541-61 the livre tournois was valued at 3 francs, 34 centimes; from 1561-72 at 3 francs, 11 centimes; from 1575-79 at 2 francs, 88 centimes. “Un capital de 1,000 livres qui valait 22,000 francs en 1200, n’en valait plus intrinsÈquement que 16,000 en 1300; 7,530 en 1400; 6,460 en 1500, et Était tombÉ en 1600 À 2,570 francs.”—Revue des deux mondes, July 15, 1892, 800.

One is astonished not to find greater complaints about the “hard times” in the chronicles and other sources of the period. To be sure, the misery did not reach its acutest stage until the time of the League, when the difference between the price of food stuffs and daily wages was outrageous. For example, since 1500 the wage of the laboring man had increased but 30 per cent., whereas the price of grain had increased 400 per cent. At the accession of Louis XII, wheat had cost four francs per hectolitre and the peasant earned sixteen centimes a day; at the accession of Henry IV (in 1590), wheat sold for twenty francs per hectolitre and the daily wage of the peasant was but seventy-eight centimes (Avenel, “Le pouvoir de l’argent,” Revue des deux mondes, April 15, 1892, 838).

[315] Castelnau, Book III, chap. ii.

[316] La Planche, 112; C. S. P. For., No. 990, February 12, 1561.

[317] La Planche, 113.

[318] C. S. P. For., No. 889, January 16, 1561; No. 890, February 12, 1561.

[319] C. S. P. Ven., No. 237, February 17, 1561.

[320] La Place, 121.

[321] “They mean to levy the greatest subsidy that was ever granted in France. The chief burden rests with the clergy, who give eight-tenths; the lawyers, merchants, and common people are highly rated also. They reckon to levy 18,000,000 francs.”—C. S. P. For., No. 483, September 3, 1560.

[322] “The Pope has given faculty to the King to sell of the revenues of the church by the year, and has granted the like to the French King, meaning to serve them to execute ... the order now to be taken at the General Council.”—Ibid., No. 777, December 7, 1560, from Toledo. A similar arrangement was made in Spain with Philip II, in order to restore his depleted finances.

[323] Ibid., No. 850, January 1, 1561.

[324] The ordonnance of the King proroguing the estates did not appear until a month later, March 25, 1561.

[325] La Place, III; C. S. P. For., No. 938, February 12, 1561. In a letter dated January 22, 1561, to Peter Martyr, Hotman gives an admirable account of the session of the States-General at Orleans. See Dareste, “FranÇois Hotman,” MÉm. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit., CIV, 654-56.

[326] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), March 1, 1561.

[327] C. S. P. For., No. 49, March 18, 1561.

[328] Ibid., Ven., No. 242, March 3, 1561.

[329] La Place, 129; La PopeliniÈre, I, 244; De Thou, IV, 66, 67. The king of Navarre, most of the princes of the blood, cardinals, and nobles being present, chief among whom were the duke of Guise and the cardinal of Lorraine. The prince was declared innocent, all the information brought against him was pronounced false and the letters, forgeries. This rehabilitation was also extended to the vidame of Chartres and Madame de Roye, Coligny’s sister and mother of the princess of CondÉ, and the parlementary arrÊt was ordered to be proclaimed in all the courts of parlement of the realm (C. S. P. For., No. 265, § 8, June 23, 1561).

[330] NÉg. Tosc., III, 467, and note.

[331] Ordonnance gÉnÉrale des États assemblÉs À OrlÉans, p. 5; Isambert, XIV, 65. In pursuance of this legislation the cardinal of Lorraine resigned a few of his pluralities. He gave the bishopric of Metz to his brother, the cardinal of Guise, and retained for himself the archbishopric of Rheims, with the Abbeys of St. RÉmy and St. Denis (Claude Haton, I, 234). On April 1, 1561, the action of the States-General was affirmed in a royal edict which commanded the bishops to return to their dioceses and there reside under pain of seizure of their temporalities, and in every bailiwick in France inventories were to be made of the whole revenues of the priest (Isambert, XIV, 101). It was followed by an edict dealing with the administration of the hospitals and support of the poor (ibid., 105), designed to put an end to corrupt practice on the part of unprincipled and avaricious priests who did not wish to reside at home and so sold their cures to presbyters. Those who had numerous benefices found means to excuse themselves from residence in their cures, in virtue of an article of the edict, which provided that ecclesiastics who had numerous cures, which they held par dispense, or other benefices or charges requiring actual residence in some other church, and who could not by this means reside in their parishes, by residing in one of the parishes or other churches in which they had a benefice or office requiring residence, were exempt from residing in their other cures, provided that they committed them to the care of capable vicars. In virtue of this article they were permitted the enjoyment of their revenues after having satisfied the king’s officers in each bailiwick. Cf. Claude Haton, I, 221, 222. The revenues of hospitals were assumed control of by the government, and the administration thereof was committed to the care of special administrators. Local judicial officers instead of the clergy, as formerly, were to supervise the distribution of money, wood, wine, and provisions, to priors, monks, nuns, and the poor.

The hospitals of various towns of France and in particular the hÔtels-dieu at Paris and Troyes, had already, even before this, been governed by lay commissioners. For a complaint of bad administration of the HÔtel-Dieu at Provins by the lay officers, who enriched themselves at the expense of the poor, and let the house run down, for which reason the King was requested to restore the administration to the clergy, see Claude Haton, I, 223.

[332] The letter which the bishop of Limoges, the French ambassador in Madrid, wrote “aprÈs la mort de FranÇois II,” detailing the Spanish monarch’s fear, is almost prophetic (Paris, NÉgociations relatives au rÈgne de FranÇois II, 782-85).

[333] Philip II, to Charles IX, January 4, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 13; to Mary Stuart, January 7, K. 1,495, No. 17; C. S. P. For., No. 870, January 10, 1561. He arrived on the evening of January 23. Cf. Don Juan de Manrique and Chantonnay to Philip II, January 28, 1561, K. 1,494, No. 55, giving an account of his reception at the French court. He left about February 10, 1561 (C. S. P. For., Nos. 933, January 23, 1561, and 984, February 11, 1561).

[334] C. S. P. For., No. 11, March 4, 1561; Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), February 19, 1651. A letter of December 26, 1560, to the King, published in the Revue d’hist. diplomatique, XIII, No. 4 (1899), 604, “DÉpÊches de Sebastien de l’Aubespine,” states the real mission of Don Juan de Manrique.

[335] The queen mother to the bishop of Rennes, April 11, 1561, Correspondance de. Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 186. The latter’s reply is in Paris, NÉgociations, etc., 871, May 26, 1561. Cf. Castelnau, I, 555.

[336] Lacombe, Catherine de MÉdicis entre Guise et CondÉ, 108. The edict was actually a confirmation of the edict of Romorantin. See MÉm. de CoudÉ, II, 266; text of the Edict of Romorantin in Isambert, XIV, 31.

[337] Letter of Charles IX, January 23, 1561, Opera Calvini, XVIII, 337. The reply of the senate under date of January 28 is at 343-45.

[338] C. S. P. Ven., Nos. 250, 272, April, 1561. Coligny’s house was a favorite rendezvous. He never went to mass, and when his wife gave birth to a child in the spring of 1561 he had it baptized openly in the popular tongue, according to the Calvinist form (C. S. P. For., Nos. 933, 984, 1561).

[339] For the rise of Protestantism in Normandy see Le Hardy, Histoire du protestantisme en Normandie depuis son origine jusqu’ À la publication de l’Edit de Nantes, Caen, 1869; Lessens, Naissance et progrÈs de l’hÉrÉsie de Dieppe, 1557-1609: Publication faite pour la I^Ére fois d’aprÈs le MS de la biblioth. publ. av. une introd. et des notes, Rouen, 1877; Hauser, “The French Reformation and the Popular Classes,” American Historical Review, January, 1899.

[340] Archives de la Gironde, XIII, 132; XVII, 256.

[341] “There is not one single province uncontaminated,” wrote Suriano, the Venetian ambassador on April 17, 1561 (C. S. P Ven., 272).

[342] See a. long letter of Hotman published by Dareste in Rev. hist., XCVII, March-April, 1908, p. 299.

[343] C. S. P. For., 857, January 1, 1561.

[344] NÉg. Tosc., III, 456.

[345] C. S. P. For., No. 124, April 20, 1561.

[346] C. S. P. For., No. 155, April 30; C.S.P. Ven., No. 255, May 2, and No. 258, May 14, 1561.

[347] Suriano says this hostility of Paris toward Protestantism was greater, perhaps, because it was favored by the nobles, who were naturally hated—“la plebe di questa CittÀ che per professione È nemica delle nove sette, forse perchÈ sono favorite dalli nobili, li quali sono odiati per natura.”—Op. cit., May 2, 1561. Cf. May 16, ab init. (Huguenot Society of London).

[348] “RequÊte de la Sorbonne au roi,” K. 1,495, No. 74, without date but seemingly of this time.

[349] C. S. P., Ven. No. 259, May 16, 1561.

[350] Ibid., For., No. 158, April, 1561; cf. No. 124, April 20, 1561.

[351] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 188, and n. 1.

[352] C. S. P. Ven., No. 259, May 16, 1561.

[353] January 4, 1561; K. 1,495, No. 15.

[354] Ibid., No. 16.

[355] On the whole see De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, 294, 295.

[356] January 31, 1561; K. 1,494 No. 21.

[357] For an example of Chantonnay’s way of working see De Crue, 296, 297, and the letters in K. 1,494, No. 54, January 15, 1561, and No. 56, February 1, 1561.

[358] This important document which has not been published by M. Louis Paris, or elsewhere that I can find, is in K. 1,494, No. 70 (printed in Appendix II).

[359] La Place, 122, 123.

[360] This is the judgment of both Catholic and Huguenot historians; e.g., Castelnau, Book III, chap. v, and Benoist, Historie de l’Édit de Nantes, Book I, 29, who says that the chief motive of St. AndrÉ and the constable in forming the Triumvirate was fear of being compelled to pay back the immense sums which they had embezzled. Yet the constable in 1561 was a poor man as the result of the heavy sums of ransom he and his house had been obliged to pay during the late war. See De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, 236.

[361] La Place, 123; Ruble, III, 71; De Crue, 303; Chantonnay to Philip II, April 7, K. 1,494, B. 12, 73; April 9, B. 12, 75. Cf. MÉmoires de CondÉ, III, 210 ff.: “Sommaire des choses premiÈrement accordÉes entre les ducs de Montmorency, Connestable et De Guyse, ... et le Mareschal Sainct AndrÉ, pour la Conspiration du Triumvirate, et depuis mises en dÉlibÉration À l’entrÉe du SacrÉ et Sainct Concile de Trente, et arrestÉe entre les Parties en leur privÉ Conseil faict contre les HÉrÉticques et contre le Roy de Navarre en tant qu’il gouverne et conduit mal les affaires de Charles IX.”

[362] La Planche, 454.

[363] NÉg. Tosc., III, 448.

[364] Rel. vÉn., I, 534.

[365] The original letter is preserved in the MusÉe des Archives Nationales, No. 665. See the MÉmoires de CondÉ, III, 395.

[366] Philip II to the constable, the cardinal of Lorraine, and Antoine of Navarre, April 14 and June 12, 1561, Archives nat., K. 1,495, B. 13, 33, 44. Admission of this step thus early is made in the MÉmoires du duc de Guise, ed. Michaud et Poujoulat, sÉr. I, V, 464. The Huguenots were early apprised of it by the interception of a messenger of the Triumvirate near Orleans. Cf. Bref discours et vÉritable des principalles conjurations de la maison de Guyse, Paris, 1565, 5, 6.

[367] C. S. P. Ven., No. 259, May 16, 1561.

[368] Cf. De Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, III, 251 ff.

[369] On Palm Sunday (1561) Antoine went to mass, for which Pius IV hastened to congratulate him and the church (K. 1,494, No. 74, April 8, 1561), and for some time after Easter he continued to go to mass, and refrained from eating flesh on the days prohibited by the church (C. S. P. For., No. 248, May 18, 1561). But within a month, he is discovered having public preaching in his house by a Protestant minister, and “daily service in the vulgar tongue” (ibid., No. 265, §13, June 23, 1561).

[370] “Como todas actiones no se goviernan siempre con la razon.”—Granvella to Philip II, May 13, 1561, Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VI, 541.

[371] Chantonnay’s letter of April 18, 1562, is almost entirely given up to a report of a conversation between him and the marshal St. AndrÉ upon this question. It is very interesting (K. 1,497, No. 24).

[372] K. 1,497, No. 33.

[373] See Vargas to Philip II, from Rome, September 30, 1561, in Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VI, 357, where he tells the king of one of Antoine’s speeches. One of the minor duties of Don Juan de Manrique’s mission to France in January, 1561, had been to give Antoine hope in that quarter, in which policy Spain’s grand master of artillery, and the papal nuncio worked together. The nuncio was Hippolyte d’Este, the cardinal of Ferrara. His correspondence is published in NÉgociations ou lettres d’affaires ecclÉsiastiques et politiques escrites au Pape Pie IV et au Cardinal BorromÉe, par Hippolyte d’Est, cardinal de Ferrare, legat en France au commencement des guerres civiles, Paris, 1658.

[374] K. 1,497, No. 28.

[375] “Sa principal espÉrance de ce costÉ-la [Sardinia], se fonde sur les bons et vigoureux offices qu’il se promet de nostre Saint-PÈre.”—Letter II, from St. Germain, January 10, 1561. NÉgociations ... du cardinal de Ferrare, Lettre XXXIV, June 26, 1562.

Don Juan de Manrique suggested to Antoine—“Que s’il vouloit repudir la reine sa femme, comme hÉrÉtique qu’elle estoit, les Seigneurs de Guise luy feroient espouser leur NiÈce, veuve de Francis II.”

[376] Apparently the Sardinians were prepared to say something for themselves in the matter. For St. Sulpice, the French ambassador in Spain, who succeeded L’Aubespine, on October 8, 1562, writes to Antoine to this effect: “On lui a rapportÉ ‘comme les galÈres d’Espagne, venant d’Italie À Barcelone, et passant prÈs de la Saidaigne, les habitans du pays, s’Étaient mis en armes avec contenance de vouloir dÉfendre l’abordÉe de leurs portes ausd. galÈres, de quoi s’Étant depuis venus justifier par deÇa; ils avaient remontrÉ qu’ils avaient entendu que ce roi les voulait bailler À un autre prince et qu’ils craignaient que lesd. galÈres y vinssent pour les contraindre de la recevoir À sgr., ce qu’ils ne voulaient permettre, le supplÉant de ne les aliÉner de sa courrone,’” etc.—L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 83. His correspondence abounds with allusions to Sardinia, e. g., 17, 25, 35, 37, 79, 83, 84, 90, etc.

[377] In the presence of the king of Navarre, the constable, the dukes of Guise, Nevers, Montpensier, and Aumale, and of spiritual lords, the cardinal of Lorraine, who was archbishop of Rheims, and the bishops of Laon, Langres, ChÂlons, Noyon, and Beauvais, the last being the cardinal ChÂtillon, the only prominent Huguenot, who attended the coronation. The prince of CondÉ, the admiral, the duke de Longueville, the marshal Montmorency, and his brother Damville, were not present, because they would not assist at mass (“M. Damville is the constable’s best-beloved son, a Knight of the Order, one of the paragons of the court and a favourer of the reformed faith.”—C. S. P. For., No. 395, §3, August 11, 1561). For a detailed account of the particulars and party issues manifested at the ceremony see De Crue, 309, 310, Catherine de Medici apparently took her time to advise Philip II of the coronation, for her letter (without date) was not received by the King until June 17, K. 1,494, No. 44.

[378] This mightily offended the Triumvirate, and the duke of Guise, the constable, and the marshal St. AndrÉ forthwith left the court in high dudgeon.

Rochambeau, Lettres d’Antoine de Bourbon et de Jeanne d’Albret, Inventaire Sommaire, No. CXLIII, 27 juin 1561—“Attestation de Catherine de MÉdicis et Antoine de Bourbon, pour affirmer que la retraite du duc du Guyse, de conestable de Montmorency, et du mareschal de St. AndrÉ n’est due qu’au seul respect et affection qu’ils portent au service du roi et au repos de ses sujets.”—Bib. Nat., F. Fr., 3,194, fol. 5.

[379] “ProcÈs-verbal de la reconcilation entre le prince de CondÉ et le duc de Guise en presence du roi Charles IX,” in K. 1,494, No. 92; NÉg. Tosc., III, 460; C. S. P. For., Nos. 449, August 24, 1561, 461, August 30, 1561; La Place, 139, 140.

[380] “Requeste prÉsentÉ au roi par les Deputez des Eglises esparses parmi le royaume de France.” A printed copy is to be found in K. 1,495, No. 42. It is a really eloquent petition.

[381] Castelnau, Book III, chap, iii; C. S. P. For., No. 304, §3, July 13, 1561.

[382] Suriano definitely says the edict of July was the work of the chancellor. He gives a summary of the edict in a despatch of July 27, 1561 (Huguenot Society).

[383] Cf. C. S. P. For., 1561, No. 237; Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), June 25, 1561.

[384] Chantonnay to Philip II, July 24, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 52; C. S. P. For., No. 321, §2, Paris, July 16, 1561.

[385] Isambert, Anc. lois franÇ., XIV, 109 (Edit sur la religion, sur le moyen de tenir le peuple en paix, et sur la rÉpression des sÉditieux).

[386] Suriano, August 25; NÉg. Tosc., III, 453-58; Castelnau, Book III; C. S. P. For., No. 357; Beza, Hist. ecclÉs., I, 294 (ed. 1841); La Place, 130; D’AubignÉ, I, 309.

[387] Castelnau, Book III, chap. iii; he admirably depicts the divided state of mind of the Parlement which resulted in the edict taking this neutral form. Suriano pithily observes: “Con questi dispareri le cose del Regno patiscono assai, et non si puÒ far niuna deliberatione d’importanza che sia ferma et rissoluta, et di quÀ hanno havuto origine tanti editti nel fatto di Religione che sono stati publicati li mesi passati, li quali non solamente sono ambigui, ma diversi l’uno dall’altro et spesse volte contrarii, donde li heretici hanno preso tanto fomento che sono fatti piÙ indurati et piÙ ostinati che mai” (June 26, 1561).

Charles IX sent the Sieur d’Ozances to Spain to soften Philip’s anger as much as possible. In a letter of July 18, from St. Germain to his ambassador in Spain, after stating the motives which have led him to dispatch D’Ozances, he adds: “Au demeurant, je ne doubte point qu’on sÈme de beaulx bruictz par delÀ, touchant le faict de la Religion, et qu’on ne nous face beaucoup plus malades que nous ne sommes; et, pour ceste occasion il m’a semblÉ qu’il serait fort À propos que le Sr. d’Auzances feist entendre au Roy, mon bon frÈre, les termes en quoy nous en sommes.” Then follow details upon the edict of pacification. This letter was sold at auction in 1877. It is catalogued in the Inventaire des autographes et des documents historiques composant la collection de M. Benjamin Fillon, Paris, Charavay, 1877 (Series I, 34, No. 132—“Lettre de Charles IX contre-sig. Robertet, À l’ÉvÊque de limoges, ambassadeur en espagne; St. Germain, 18 juillet, 1561”).

[388] Claude Haton, I, 122.

[389] Ibid., I, 129. In consequence of this state of things we find numerous ordinances passed in the summer of 1561 in restraint of violence; cf. “Edit sur la religion, sur le moyen de tenir le peuple en paix et sur la rÉpression des sÉditieux, July 1561,” Isambert, XIV, 109; “Edit pour remedier aux troubles, et sur la rÉpression des sÉditieux,” October 20, 1561, ibid., XIV, 122; “Edit sur le port d’armes À feu, la vente de ces armes et les formalitÉs À suivre par les fabricants,” October 21, 1561, ibid., XIV, 123.

[390] C. S. P. Ven., No. 237, February 17, 1561, says: “one representative with absolute authority to treat and conclude what might be approved by the majority of votes.” But La Place, III, 121, says two representatives were chosen from each bailiwick. Cf. De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, 300.

[391] The estates of the Ile-de-France demanded that the council and government of the King should be formed according to the ancient constitution of the realm; that the accounts of the previous administration should be examined; that the queen mother should be removed from the government and be content with being guardian of the King’s person; that no stranger be admitted to be of the council; that no cardinal, bishop, or other ecclesiastical person having made suit to the Pope, should have any place in the Privy Council, not even the cardinal Bourbon, though he was a prince of the blood, unless he resigned his hat; that the king of Navarre be regent of the realm with the title of lieutenant-general, and that with him be joined a council of the princes of the blood and others; that the admiral and M. de Rochefoucault should have charge of the education of the King. On these conditions the Estates offered to discharge the King’s debts in six years; but in the event of refusal, they declared that the King must live upon the incomes of the royal domain, much of which was mortgaged (C. S. P. For., No. 77, sec. 3, March 31). Cf. Despatches of Michele Suriano (Huguenot Society), June 10, 1561; De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, 300, 301; letter of Hotman to Bullinger, April 2, 1561 in MÉm. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit., CIV (1877), 656; NÉg. Tosc., III, 455-58. For other information, see “Remonstrances du tiers-État du baillage de Provins,” in Claude Haton, II, 1137; “Remonstrance ... des villes de Champagne,” ibid., III, 1140, which shows the economic distress.

[392] La Place, 158 ff.; La PopeliniÈre, I, 271 ff.; D’AubignÉ, Book II, chap, xvi; Beza, Hist. ecclÉs., ed. 1840, I, 320 ff.; L’HÔpital, Œuvres complÈtes, I, 485 ff. De Thou, Book XXVIII, 74-77; Claude Haton, I, 155. A test vote, however, on religion was taken, resulting in 62 votes for liberty of worship in the case of the Huguenots, and 80 against it (letter of Hotman in Rev. hist., XCVII, March-April, 1908, 300).

[393] C. S. P. For., No. 396, August 11, 1561; La Place, 146, 147, 150.

[394] La Place, 150-52; De Thou, IV, 74, 75. The full text, unpublished, of this discourse is in F. Fr., 3970, a volume which contains much unused material for the history of the estates of Pontoise. L’HÔpital’s address is one of the documents.

[395] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), August 24, 1561.

[396] C. S. P. For., No. 538, §5, September 26, 1561.

[397] De Crue, 312, 313; De Thou, IV, 74; NÉg. Tosc., III, 461; Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, III, 160; Rel. vÉn., II, 21; K. 1,494, fol. 94. Notwithstanding this relief, the King demanded a further subsidy amounting to three million gold crowns from the local Estates to be paid in the following January (C. S. P. For., No. 682, §10, November 26, 1561).

[398] Ibid.; cf. No. 750, §7, December 28, 1561. Most of this debt was held by Paris. It amounted to 7,560,056 livres.

[399] Rel. vÉn., I, 409-11. Upon the whole question, see De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, chap. xiv; Esmein, Histoire du droit franÇais, 632-33.

[400] De Ruble, Le colloque de Poissy (1889); Klipfel, Le colloque de Poissy (1867).

[401] C. S. P. For., No. 265, §9, June 23, 1561; La Place, 131.

[402] Paris, NÉgociations relatives au rÈgne de FranÇois II, 550, 615-22; Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VI, 137; Klipfel, Quis fuerit in Gallia factionum status, Paris 1863, 23.

[403] Theodore Beza, “the Huguenot pope,” did not reach the court until August 23, where he was cordially received by the prince of CondÉ, before whom he preached “in open audience, whereat was a great press” (C. S. P. For., No. 461, August 30, 1561). For the active agency of Beza at court before the assembly at Poissy met, see La Place, 155-57.

[404] The Sorbonne protested against the whole proceeding, but its request was not granted (La Place, 154; cf. C. S. P. For., No. 458, August 28, 1561, No. 485, September 8, 1561).

[405] C. S. P. For., No. 492, September 10, 1561.

[406] “Far diventar questo Regno cantoni di Svizzeri” ... (Despatches of Suriano [Huguenot Society], Aug. 15, 1561; cf. English Hist. Review, VIII, 135). Elsewhere the Venetian ambassador says: “E cosi si va alla via di redurre quella provincia a stato populare, come Svizzeri; e distruggere la monarchia e il regno.”—Rel. vÉn., I, 538. De Thou, Book XXV, observes: “Qui primam, quam Deo debebant, fidem irritam fecissent; qua semel violate, minime dubitaverint regem ipsum petere quo regnum everterent, et confusis ordinibus, in rei publicae formam, Helvetiorum exemplo, redigerent.”

[407] C. S. P. For., No. 421, August 19, 1561; ibid., Ven., No. 280, September 8, 1561.

[408] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), September 18, 1561.

[409] “Demandes des ministres protestantes au roi,” K. 1,494, No. 95.

[410] Upon the personnel of the assembly, see the references in D’AubignÉ, I, 315, n. 4.

[411] C. S. P. For., No. 516, §7, September 20, 1561.

[412] “Paroles prononcÉes par Theodore de Beza touchant le sacrement.”—K. 1,495, No. 77. 1, “Profession de foi concertÉ par les prÉlats de France;” 2, “PremiÈre proposition des Catholiques; premiÈre proposition des hÉrÉtiques.”—Latin, K. 1,495, No. 78; cf. Rel. vÉn., II, 75.

[413] The cardinal’s definition of the church was, “the company of Christians in which is comprised both reprobates and heretics, and which has been recognized always, everywhere, and by all, and which alone had the right of interpreting Scripture.”—C. S. P. For., No. 507, September 17, 1561; cf. Suriano (Huguenot Society), September 22. His address is given at length in La Place, 179 ff. It was published at the time. Suriano, August 23, 1561, says all the delegates “made very long speeches.” Upon the doctrinal tactics of the cardinal of Lorraine at the colloquy of Poissy, see the letters of Languet, Epist. secr., II, 139, September 20, 1561; 159, November 26, 1561.

[414] The first president of the Parlement of Paris was committed to keeping his house because of offensive agitation (C. S. P. For., No. 461, August 30, 1561).

[415] Proposition de ThÉodore de BÈze, K. 1,494, No. 96.

[416] C. S. P. Ven., No. 280, September 8, 1561.

[417] C. S. P. For., No. 511, September 19, 1561.

[418] Not being a Frenchman, but an Italian—his name was Pietro Martire Vermigli—he received a separate safe-conduct (Suriano [Huguenot Society], August 23; Rev. hist., XCVII, March-April, 1908, p. 302).

[419] La Place, 199.

[420] C. S. P. For., No. 602, October 1, 2 1561. For a description of the last days of the Colloquy, see Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), October 16, 1561.

[421] C. S. P. For., No. 624, October 18, 1561. In K. 1,495, No. 66, is a rÉsumÉ by the Spanish chancellery of Chantonnay’s dispatches dealing with the colloquy.

[422] C. S. P. For., No. 753, from Strasburg, December 30, 1561. Writing just a week earlier, on December 23, to his sovereign, Chantonnay strongly condemned the course of Catherine at Poissy because it had militated against the authority of Trent, and had given courage to the heretics to continue their synods.—K. 1,494, No. 104. Other references to the Colloquy of Poissy are De Thou, IV, 84 ff.; De Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, 76 ff.; Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, Introd., ci, 239. Chantonnay’s correspondence, covering both the colloquy and the meeting of the estates at Pontoise, is in K. 1,494, No. 89, August 5; No. 90, August 20; No. 101, September 12 (especially valuable for the financial settlement); No. 102, September 15.

[423] C. S. P. For., No. 659, §10, November 14, 1561. Of these the chancellor was the more aggressive, opposing the efforts of the clerical party to delay and obstruct action (D’AubignÉ, I, 311).

[424] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 248; C. S. P. For., Nos. 225 and 245, June 6-13, 1561; No. 273, June 23, 1561. The choice was a tactless one on the part of the Pope and one certain to antagonize Catherine de Medici as well as the political Huguenots, for the cardinal was a relative of the Guises by marriage. Don Luigo d’Este, the duke of Ferrara’s brother, was the son of Alphonso d’Este and Lucretia Borgia. He resigned his place in the church and married the duchess of Estouteville, a marriage indicating the Guise policy of aggrandisement (C. S. P. For., No. 904, March 27, 1560). The marriage made bitter feeling between the House of Ferrara and the Guises. “There is a breach between the Dukes of Ferrara and Guise touching the former’s mother, who, being very rich, and lately fallen out with her son, had secretly sent to the Duke of Guise, a gentleman with a message that she would come to France and end her life there and be as his mother. Word was sent her that she would be welcome; and if her son would not permit her to come with her substance, he would take into his hands the assignation made by the late king upon certain lands for the payment of 100,000 crowns yearly to the Duke till such time as 600,000 crowns, borrowed from him at the Duke of Guise’s last voyage to Rome, were paid off. The Duke keeps his mother with good watch for fear of her escaping to France.”—C. S. P. For., No. 446, August 22, 1561. The cardinal traveled with great pomp, having no less than four hundred horses in his train.

[425] C. S. P. For., No. 538, §1, September 26, 1561.

[426] D’AubignÉ, I, 311; Rel. vÉn., II, 87; C. S. P. For., No. 602, October 12, 1561.

[427] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), September 23, 1561.

[428] Ibid., October 22, 1561. For further details of the negotiations, see ibid., November 3, 1561; C. S. P. For., No. 682, §9, November 26; Baschet, Journal du Concile de Trente, 89.

[429] Philip II to Catherine, September 29, 1561; to Charles, ibid., K. 1,495, No. 72. To Chantonnay he wrote three days later: “TambiÉn hazed entender Á la Reyna como por este camino perdera su hijo, esse reyno y la obediencia de sus vassalos.”—K. 1,495, No. 80. The words were not merely urgent advice—they implied a threat.

[430] Weiss, L’Espagne sous Phillippe II, I, 114, 115; cf. Forneron, Histoire de Philippe II, I, 253, n. 3. See also the remarkable “Rapport sur une confÉrence entre l’ambassadeur de France et le duc d’Albe, au sujet des affaires du roi de Navarre et des troubles pour cause de la religion” (French transcript, apparently of a report of the Spanish chancellery), in K. 1,496, No. 136, December 20, 1561. The Pope indorsed the proposition of Spanish intervention in France (Vargas to Philippe II, November 7, 1561, in Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VI, 398, 404).

[431] “Aux villes et pays oÙ ils sont lÀ declaires leur bailler quelques lieux prochaine hors des dictes villes”—RÉsumÉ des points principaux traitÉs par l’ambassadeur de France auprÈs du roi Philippe II (Communications du duc d’Alba), November 9, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 58; “Propositions faites par M. d’Ozance et l’ambassadeur ordinaire en Espagne, l’ÉvÊque de Limoges, dans deux audiences À eux donnÉes par le roi Philippe II” (RÉsumÉ avec annotations), Minute, Notes de chancellerie, K. 1,495, No. 69, Madrid, September 17, 1561; “Points principaux d’une nÉgociation spÉciale de M. d’Ozance, envoyÉ de Catherine de MÉdici avec rÉponses notÉes À la marge, point par point: Communications au duc d’Albe aprÈs une dÉliberation du Conseil d’État, prise lui absent,” November 12, 1561, K. 1,495 No. 89; “PrÉcis des points traitÉs par M. d’Ozance et de l’Aubespine, ambassadeur de France,” K. 1,495, No. 94, December 10, 1561; “RÉponses À faire par ordre de Philippe II À M. d’Ozance, sur les nouvelles propositions de cet ambassadeur,” K. 1,495, No. 98, December 15, 1561; “Memento addressÉ par l’ÉvÊque de Limoges au duc d’Albe” (Note À communiquer au roi Philippe II), K. 1,495 No. 100, December 20, 1561; Philip II to Chantonnay: “Avis de ce qu’on a rÉpondu À M. d’Ozance,” December 21, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 102; “Rapport sur une confÉrence entre l’ambassadeur du France et le duc d’Albe, au sujet des affaires du roi de Navarre et des troubles pour cause de la religion” (copiÉ en FranÇais), K. 1,496, folio 136, Madrid, December 20, 1561.

[432] Summary of Philip II’s letter to Chantonnay of January 18, 1562, in K. 1,496, No. 34.

[433] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), November 4, 1561. The Journal du Concile de Trente (ed. Baschet), 89, says the intention was to carry him into Lorraine, to prevent his becoming tainted with heresy. Lignerolles, an intimate of the duke of Nemours, later confessed the latter’s complicity in the plot to kidnap the young prince and spirit him away to Savoy, but the affair was hushed up and Lignerolles was shortly afterward released. The prince de Joinville, Guise’s son, seems to have been more actively interested than his father. The correspondence between Chantonnay and Philip leaves no room for doubt of the fact that Nemours was acting as the agent of Spain (K. 1,494, No. 106, October 31, from St. Cloud; No. 114, November 28, 1561), although Philip repudiated complicity in a letter to Catherine (K. 1,495, No. 90, November 27, 1561), and Chantonnay declared the whole story was a trick of the Huguenots.

[434] D’AubignÉ, 321. Chantonnay seems to have been apprehensive lest the circumstances might precipitate the civil war which every one feared (Letter to Philip II, November 28, 1561, K. 1,494, No. 114), and seized the opportunity afforded by it to read the queen mother a lecture. The ambassador “used great threatenings toward the queen mother and the king of Navarre for their proceedings in religion.”—C. S. P. For., No. 659, §§1, 2.

Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, III, 245-50; De Crue, Anne de Montmorency, 315, 316. The official inquiry entitled, “EnquÊte sur l’enlÈvement du duc d’Orleans,” is in F. Fr. 6,608.

[435] C. S. P. For., No. 715, §1, December 12, 1561.

[436] Despatches of Michele Suriano (Huguenot Society), November 3, 1561; C. S. P. For., No. 659, §5, November 14, 1561.

[437] C. S. P. For., No. 717, §7, December 13, 1561. For some of the famous Catholic preachers of Paris in 1561, see Claude Haton, I, 213, 214, and notes.

[438] Claude Haton, I, 177, 178.

[439] C. S. P. For., No. 617, October 15, 1561.

[440] C. S. P. For., No. 304, §4, July 23, 1561.

[441] K. 1,495, No.47, June 19, 1561. Cf. Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), October 1. Upon these insurrections in the south, see D’AubignÉ, I, 322-26; De Thou, II, 235 ff. (ed. 1740); MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 636; Long, La rÉforme et les guerres de religion en DauphinÉ; Pierre Gilles, Hist. ecclÉs. des Églises rÉformÉes vaudoises, chap. xxii; Hist. du Languedoc, V, 211.

[442] “Aulx petites villes, elles se sont ralliez les unes avec les autres en ung faict, ung monopole et une ligue ensemble.”—MÉmoires-journaux du duc de Guise (M. & P., sÉr. I, VI, 467, col. 2); Letter of Joyeuse to the constable; duplicate to the duke of Guise (September 16, 1561). For the work of this league see pp. 468-71. Guillaume, vicomte de Joyeuse; was lieutenant to the governor of Languedoc and later a marshal of France.

[443] These princes were Wolfgang William, duke of Deuxponts; William, landgrave of Hesse; Frederick the Pious, count palatine of the Rhine (D’AubignÉ, I, 333, 334; Le Laboureur, I, 673). The leading Protestant princes of Germany were Augustus, elector of Saxony; Joachim II, margrave of Brandenburg, John Frederick duke of Saxony; Christopher, duke of WÜrttemberg; Wolfgang William, duke of Deuxponts (ZweibrÜcken); John Albert, duke of Mecklenberg; John the Elder, duke of Holstein; Joachim Ernest, prince of Anhalt, and Charles, margrave of Baden. These are enumerated in a letter of Hotman, December 31, 1560. See MÉm. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit., CIV, 653, and Bulletin de la soc. prot. franÇ., 1860.

[444] MÉm. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit., CIV (1877), 66; C. S. P. For., No. 399, August 12, 1561.

[445] C. S. P. For., No. 319, July 15, 1561, from Strasburg. Hotman visited the elector palatine at Germersheim; the landgrave of Hesse at Cassel; the elector of Saxony at Leipsic, whence he went to Stuttgart. He did not see the duke of WÜrttemberg in person, and was compelled to write to him instead. (See his letter, September 27, 1561, in MÉm. de l’Acad des sc. moral. et polit., CIV, 660.) Thence he went to Heidelberg, from which point he wrote a second letter to the duke of WÜrttemberg, and one to the duke of Deuxponts.

[446] La Place, 121, 122; C. S. P. Ven., No. 249; Arch. nat., K. 1,495, folio 47, Chantonnay to Philip II, June 19, 1561.

[447] C. S. P. For., No. 736, November 26, 1561.

[448] Chantonnay’s correspondence shows that agents of the duke of Guise were busy in Germany as early as October, 1561, K. 1,494, No. 105, October 28, 1561. Cf. Hubert Languet, Epist. secr., II, 142, 159, 202; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, I, 216-18, 226-52; Bulletin de la soc. de l’histoire du prot. franÇais, XXIV.

[449] C. S. P. For., No. 724, §2, December 14, 1561.

[450] C. S. P. For., No. 602, October 11, 1561, from Rome.

[451] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VI, 432-43: “Rapport secret du secretaire Courtville,” December, 1561.

[452] Cf. Montluc, bishop of Valence, “Discours sur le bruit qui court que nous aurons la guerre À cause de la religion,” MÉm. de CondÉ, ed. London, III, 73-82. A note adds: “Ce discours se trouve aussi au fol. 61 recto du MS R et il est À la suite d’une lettre de M. de Chantonnay, du 24 mars 1561. Il dit À la fin de cette lettre, que l’on disoit communement que ce Discours Étoit de l’ÉvÊque de Valence (Montluc). Ce Discours a ÉtÉ copiÉ dans ce MS sur l’Édition qui en fut faite dans le tems.”

[453] On November 23, 1561, Charles IX wrote to the bishop of Limoges in regard to Philip II: “Dites-lui que je le prie si l’on luy a donnÉ quelques doubtes et soupÇons de mes dÉportements, qu’il vous en dye quelcun et ce qu’il la mys en doubte, affin que s’il veult prendre tant de paynes d’envoyer ung homme fidelle en lieux oÙ il aura oppinion qu’on fera quelques prÉparatifs, je luy face cognoistre que c’est une pure menterie.”—Catalogue ... de lettres autographes de feu M. de Lajariette, Charavay, Paris, 1860, No. 667. Five days later, on November 28, 1561, Catherine de Medici wrote to the same ambassador: “Je me dÉfie tent de seux qui sont mal contens ... car je ne veos ni ne suys conselliÉe de venir aus armes.”—Collection de lettres autographes ayant appartenu À M. FossÉ-Darcosse, Paris, Techener, 1861, No. 193.

[454] Hist. du Languedoc, V, 211. Philip II was reputed to have spent 350,000 crowns of his wife’s dowry in Germany (C. S. P. For., No. 659, §18, November 14, 1561). Catherine sent a special agent, Rambouillet, into Germany to assist Hotman in discovering information about Spain’s intrigues there (C. S. P. For., No. 713, December, 1561; MÉm. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit., CIV [1877], 661). D’Ozances in Spain received special instructions to decipher Philip II’s conduct if possible.

[455] C. S. P. For., No. 265, §11, June 23, 1561. This was in consequence of the apprehension aroused early in May by the appearance of a large body of Spanish infantry and cavalry to survey Abbeville whence they returned toward Guisnes (ibid., No. 248, from Paris, May 18, 1561).

[456] Ibid., No. 712, December 9, 1561, from Strasburg; No. 717, §6, December 13, 1561, from Paris. There had been some anxiety lest the Emperor might avail himself of the distraction in France to seize the Three Bishoprics. But at this moment, on account of the activity of both the Turk and the Muscovite, and because he was angry with the Pope over the Council of Trent, Ferdinand, was friendly to France and cordially received Marillac, the bishop of Vienne (D’AubignÉ, I, 332, 333).

[457] “Le conseil du roi, voyant que les mouvements les plus divers agitaient le royaume, dÉcide que chaque gouverneur, lieutenant, sÉnÉschal et autres ministres, se rendissent À leurs gouvernements.”—Baschet, Journal du Concile de Trente, 89.

[458] C. S. P. For., No. 595, October 9, 1561; No. 602, October 12, 1561; No. 624, October 18, 1561; No. 659, §20, November 14, 1561. The appointments of Coligny and CondÉ never became operative, owing to the outbreak of civil war early in the next year. They are important only as they reflect Catherine’s policy of caution and craft.

[459] Ibid., No. 729. Thomas Shakerley was an Englishman by birth, who had once been a page to Edward VI, while the latter was prince. He had left England nine years before and had spent most of his time in Rome, where, becoming an organist, he “obtained the estimation of a cunning player for the substance and solemnity of music.” He came to France in the suite of the cardinal of Ferrara. The Spanish ambassador approached him with an offer to enter the secret service of Spain, which Shakerley patriotically communicated to Throckmorton (ibid., No. 730, §5, December 18; No. 750, §10, December 28, 1561).

[460] On December 27, the Protestants congregated in the Faubourg St. Marceau, whereupon the priests and Papists assembled at St. Medard and determined to attack them. One of the Protestant soldiers going to remonstrate was run through. The Protestants who were appointed to guard the assembly, seeing this, ran to his succor, but were driven back by the numbers. Other Protestants coming up put their attackers to rout and forced their way into the church, when the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon, the King’s lieutenant, arrived with a strong force of horse and foot and carried off several to the ChÂtelet (ibid., No. 783, January 4, 1561; MÉm. de CondÉ, II, 541 ff.; Claude Haton, 179, and note; Arch. cur., IV, 63 ff.; and an article in MÉm. de la soc. de l’hist. de Paris, 1886).

[461] C. S. P. For., No. 758, §13, December 31, 1561.

[462] Ibid., No. 789, §2, January 8, 1562. The prince de la Roche-sur-Yon passed for a Calvinist, while the marshal Montmorency was a liberal Catholic. The queen mother hoped the change would be acceptable to both parties. Another reason for this change was that the constable and the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon were the principals in a law-suit involving 10,000 ducats income. It was possible for the lieutenant of Paris to use influence with the Parlement of Paris before which the case was to be tried, and this more obviously favored the constable’s side of the suit. Cf. details in Chantonnay’s letter to Philip II, January 5, 1562, K. 1,497, B. 15.

[463] C. S. P. For., No. 925; cf. Castelnau’s description of the bandits in the Faubourg St. Marcel, Book III, chap. v.

[464] C. S. P. For., No. 789, §2, January 6, 1562.

[465] Archives de la Gironde, VIII, 207. The King sent a special officer to put the offenders to death and destroy the village, but it is significant that this commission was not intrusted to Villars, who was sublieutenant in Languedoc and notorious for his treatment of the Huguenots (C. S. P. For., No. 750, §10, December 28, 1561).

[466] Claude Haton, I, 195-98, 236, 237. His spleen is evidenced, though, in saying that: “À cause de la grande libertÉ À mal faire et dire qui leur estoit permise sans aulcune punition de justice ... si le plus grand larron et voleur du pays eust estÉ prins prisonnier il eust eschappÉ À tout danger voire À la mort, moyennant qu’il se feust dÉclarÉ Huguenot et de la nouvelle prÉtendue religion.”—Ibid., I, 124. This is one of the earliest characterizations of the Huguenot faith. It was afterward currently referred to as the “R. P. R.”

[467] Archives de la Gironde, XV, 57.

[468] Claude Haton, I, 194, 195, and note.

[469] Chantonnay to Philip II, January 5, 1562, K. 1,497, B. 15. The Spanish ambassador violently expostulated with Catherine de Medici, Antoine of Bourbon, and others after this address was over (K. 1,497, January 11, 1562), for which Philip II commended him (K. 1,496, No. 34, 3 verso).

[470] Isambert, XIV, 124-29; Raynaldus, XXXIV, 292, 293. The original document is on exhibition in the MusÉe des Archives at Paris. It is catalogued K. 674, No. 4. Although authorized on January 17, the edict was not printed until March 13, 1562 (C. S. P. For., No. 930, §11; 934, §1). The Edict of July had been only negative in its character, simply forbidding judges and the magistrates from pursuing the Huguenots, but not in any sense recognizing their religion. Castelnau, Book I, chap. ii, makes this very clear. The Edict encountered strong opposition in the Parlement, which twice rejected it by a plurality vote (C. S. P. For., No. 849, January 28, 1562; Claude Haton, I, 185, 186). Benoist, Histoire de l’Edit de Nantes, I, Appendix, gives the text together with the first and second mandamus of the King, February 14 and March 11, 1562, expressly enjoining the Parlement “to proceed to the reading, publishing, and registering of the said ordinance, laying aside all delays and difficulties.” The first mandamus, “DÉclaration et interprÉtation du roy sur certains mots et articles contenus dans l’edict du XVII de janvier 1561,” declared that magistrates were not officers within the meaning of the edict (Isambert, XIV, 129, n. 2). Klipfel, Le colloque de Poissy, chap. iii, makes the point that the Parlement of Paris was criminally wrong in arraigning itself upon the side of violence and encouraging the intolerance of the populace. The Parlement of Rouen was more complacent, and seems promptly to have registered it (C. S. P. For., No. 891, §10, February 16, 1562).

The Edict of January is sometimes wrongly dated January 17, 1561. The error arises from the confusion of the calendar in the sixteenth century. In 1561 the year in France legally began at Easter, which, of course threw January 17, into the year 1561. But in 1564 a royal ordonnance abolished this usage and established January 1 as the beginning of the year, which brought forward January 17 into its proper year, 1562. The reform of the calendar by Gregory XIII would alter the date of the month also, according to modern reckoning. But it is simpler to let established dates stand. Henry III authorized the use of the Gregorian calendar in France in 1582. For a lucid account of these changes see Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, Introd., x-xi by the baron de Ruble.

[471] Baschet, Journal du Concile de Trente, 71.

[472] Claude Haton, I, 177, and n. 1. For other details see Castelnau, Book III, chap. i; Rel. vÉn., II, 71.

[473] Lettres de Pasquier, II, 96. Mignet characterizes the provisions of the Edict of January as “gÉnÉrÉuses, simples, et sages.” Mignet, “Les lettres de Calvin” (Journal des savants, 1859, p. 762), and Haag, La France protestante, Introd., xix, as “le plus libÉral Édit qui ait ÉtÉ obtenu par les rÉformÉs jusqu’À celui de Nantes.”

[474] C. S. P. For., No. 789, §1, January 8, 1562, and cf. No. 750, §3, December 28, 1561. The importation of money from Germany into Lorraine was no secret.

[475] Ibid., No. 729, §3, December 16, 1561. Catherine de Medici, however, could speak the language (ibid., No. 2,155, December 3, 1571).

[476] Ibid., No. 729, §3, December 16, 1561. Chantonnay was morally the leader of the Triumvirate, beyond a doubt, and guided its policy. “The king of Navarre, the duke of Guise, the constable, the cardinal of Ferrara, the marshals St. AndrÉ, Brissac, and Termes, the cardinal Tournon, have joined together to overthrow the Protestant religion and exterminate the favorers thereof—which enterprise is pushed forward by the Spanish ambassador here and Spanish threatenings.”—C. S. P. For., No. 934, §1, March 14, 1562.

[477] Ibid., No. 758, §12, December 1; No. 531, §4, September 23, 1561.

[478] Antoine de Bourbon to Philip II December 7, 1561, K. 1,494, No. 116 (not in Rochambeau).

[479] Despatches of Michele Suriano (Huguenot Society), October 18, 1561. The whole letter is exceedingly interesting.

[480] The Jesuits had long tried to get a legal status in France. Henry II, was favorable to them, but the Parlement of Paris, the secular clergy, and the Sorbonne were bitterly opposed. The Act of Poissy recognized the Jesuits as a college but not as a religious order, to the anger of the Sorbonne. See Douarche, L’UniversitÉ de Paris et les Jesuites, Paris, 1888, chap. iv. At the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits from France in 1761, in reply to the question of the crown as to their legal status, the cardinal de Choiseul made the following answer: “Lorsqu’ils ont ÉtÉ reÇus en France l’an 1561, par le concours des deux puissances, ils se sont soumis et ont ÉtÉ astreints par la loi publique de leur Établissement À toute superintendance, jurisdiction et correction de l’ÉvÊque diocÉsain et À se conformer entiÈrement À la disposition du droit commun, avec la renonciation la plus formelle aux privilÈges contraires portÉs dans les quatre bulles par eux prÉsentÉes ou autres qu’ils pourraient obtenir À l’avenir.” ... “Le vÉritable État des JÉsuites en France parÂit donc Être, suivant les lois canoniques reÇues dans le royaume, l’État des rÉguliers soumis À la juridiction des ordinaires conformement au droit com mun.” Cf. Eugene Sol, Les rapports de la France avec l’Italie, d’aprÈs la sÉrie K. des Arch. Nat., Paris, 1905, 119, 120. The original document is in the Archives nationales, K. 1,361, N. 1, C.

[481] C. S. P. For., No. 934, §2, March 14, 1562.

[482] Ibid., No. 931, March 9, 1562.

[483] Ibid., No. 924, §8, March 6, 1562; cf. ibid., No. 715, §4, December 12, 1561: “The Spanish ambassador was wondrous hot with the queen.”

[484] Lettres du cardinal de Ferrare, No. 14, March 3, 1562.

[485] C. S. P. For., No. 891, February 16, 1562.

[486] Corresp. de Chantonnay, K. 1,497, No. 17, March 25, 1562. This circumstance is noticed by almost all the chroniclers: D’AubignÉ, Book V, chap, iii, 1; MÉm. de CondÉ, I, 76, 77; Arch. cur., VI, 59.

[487] Claude Haton, I, 189.

[488] Beza, Histoire ecclÉs., I, 416.

[489] Collection Godefroy (BibliothÈque de l’Institut), Vol. XCVII, folio 19, March 6, 1562.

[490] Inventaire des archives communales d’Agen, BB., “Inventaire sommaire,” XXX, 28 (April 17, 1562).

[491] D’AubignÉ, II, 7, gives a long list of cities where disturbances occurred.

[492] Vassy was a little town in the diocese of ChÂlons-sur-Marne, in a dependency of Joinville belonging to the Guises.

[493] In the MÉmoires de CondÉ, III, 124, there is an elaborate Protestant version of the massacre, preceded by a letter of the duke of Guise. The Guise account is in the MÉmoires du duc de Guise, 471-88. Cf. D’AubignÉ, 131; Arch. cur., IV, 103. The Spanish ambassador’s long letter of March 16 is in K. 1,497, No. 14. The quotation from Ranke is in his Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, 211.

[494] Correspondance de Chantonnay, March 20, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 16. Accounts of this event abound. See La PopeliniÈre, I, 287; Claude Haton, I, 208; D’AubignÉ, II, 10; a letter of Santa Croce in Arch. cur., VI, 55; La Noue, MÉm. milit., ed. Petitot, 128—very interesting; and a letter of an eye-witness in Bull. de la Soc. de l’hist. du prot. franÇ., XIII, 5.

On March 16, 1562, an ordinance of the king of Navarre enjoined the captains and lieutenants of each quarter of Paris who were elected by the bourgeoisie to appoint ensigns, corporals, and sergeants, and to enlist all the men capable of bearing arms in their divisions, both masters and servants (Capefigue, 234, 235).

[495] L’Aubespine to his brother, the bishop of Limoges, French ambassador at Madrid (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 22; C. S. P. Eng. For., No. 987, §7; manifesto of the prince of CondÉ to Elizabeth, April 7, 1562).

[496] This is D’AubignÉ’s comparison, II, 14, and n. 2.

[497] Delaborde, II, 48; Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 285, n.; C. S. P. For., No. 987, §12, March 31, 1562.

[498] “La mala reputacion que el chancellerio ne quanto À la fÉ.”—Correspondance de Chantonnay, K. 1,497, No. 16, March 20, 1562.

[499] Tavannes, 271; C. S. P. For., No. 943, March 20, 1652.

[500] Paris, NÉgociations relatives au rÈgne de FranÇois II, 880.

[501] “Monsieur le conestable ayst d’opinion que l’on (fasse) une lÈtre patente par laquelle le roy mon fils dÉclÈre qu’i ne voult poynt ronpre l’Édist dernier.... Ne distes rien deset que je vous dis de l’ambassadeur (Chantonnay) qui ayst yci, mÈs au contrÈre distes qu’i comense À se governer mieulx et plus dousement qu’i ne solet en mon endroyt.”—Catherine de Medici to St. Sulpice, circa April 11, 1562, in L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 15, 16. This is a characteristic example of the queen’s eccentric spelling.

[502] D’AubignÉ, II, 15.

[503] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 22; C. S. P. For., No. 967, March 31, 1562. Elizabeth wrote to CondÉ to “remember that in all affairs second attempts be even more dangerous than the first.”—C. S. P. For., No. 965, March 31, 1562. On the political theory of the Huguenots that the King was a captive and that they were struggling for his relief, see Weill, 66.

[504] C. S. P. For., No. 969, March 31, 1562.

[505] Correspondance de Chantonnay, March 25, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 17. He reports also that a boat was captured coming down the Seine loaded with 4,000 arquebuses and other ammunition, all of which was taken to the HÔtel-de-Ville.

[506] Correspondance de Chantonnay, K. 1,497, No. 17, March 25, 1562.

[507] C. S. P. For., No. 967, §12, March 31, 1562.

[508] Correspondance de Chantonnay, April 2-4, K. 1,497, No. 18; April 11, ibid., No. 22.

[509] La Noue, MÉmoires, chap. ii, has described this march.

[510] Correspondance de Chantonnay, April 8 and 11, 1562, K. 1,497, Nos. 21, 22.

[511] C. S. P. Ven., No. 283.

[512] According to Hotman who had left Orleans on May 29, the Huguenot forces consisted of 15,000 foot and 5,000 horse.—Letter to the landgrave, June 7, 1562, in Rev. hist., XCVII March-April, 1908, p. 304.

[513] CondÉ had entered Orleans on April 2. On the 7th he wrote to the Reformed churches of France, requiring men and money in the interest of the deliverance of the King and the queen mother and the freedom of the Christian religion (MÉmoires de CondÉ, II, 212).

[514] Correspondance de Chantonnay, April 11 1562, K. 1,497, No. 22.

[515] Ibid., No. 21, April 8, 1562; De Ruble’s edition of D’AubignÉ, II, 18-20; C. S. P. For., No. 997, April 10, 1562; No. 1,043, §2, April 24, 1562. Cf. Boulanger, “La rÉforme dans la province du Maine,” Revue des Soc. savant. des dÉpart., 2^e sÉr., VII (1862), 548.

[516] “Leurs desseins cachÉs ont autre racine que celle de la religion, encores qu’ils le veuillant couvrir de ce manteau.”—Catherine de Medici to St. Sulpice, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 59, August 9, 1562.

[517] “DÉclaration faicte par monsieur le prince de CondÉ, pour monstrer les raisons qui l’ont contrainct d’entreprendre la dÉfense de l’authoritÉ du roy, du gouvernement de la royne, et du repos de Çe royaume” (Orleans, 1562); cf. C. S. P. For., No. 1,003, Orleans, April 1, 1562.

The prince of CondÉ is said to have issued a coinage of his own at this time with the superscription, “Louis XIII.” Chantonnay, however, says that they were medals (K. 1,497, No. 27, May 2, 1562). See the memoir of Secousse: “Dissertation oÙ l’on examine s’il est vrai qu’il ait ÉtÉ frappÉ, pendant la vie de Louis I^er, prince de CondÉ, une monnie sur laquelle on lui ait donnÉ le titre de roi de France,” MÉm. de l’Acad. roy. des inscrip. et bell. lettres, XVII (1751); Poulet, Correspondance du cardinal de Granvelle, III, 85. Whitehead, Gaspard de Coligny, 303, is convinced the story is a fabrication.

[518] Correspondance de Chantonnay, April 11, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 22.

[519] K. 1,497, No. 21, April 8, 1562.

[520] C. S. P. For., No. 1,013, §12, April 17, 1562.

[521] Archives curieuses, sÉr. I, IV, 175.

[522] Rouen was taken in the night of April 15. Floquet, Histoire du parlement de Normandie, II, 380.

[523] Raynal, Histoire du Berry, IV, 35.

[524] The stopping of the couriers in the service of Spain by the Huguenots was a source of great anxiety to Chantonnay. April 8 he wrote to Philip advising that the couriers be sent via Perpignan and Lyons in order to avoid being intercepted, as the Huguenots commanded the whole line of the Loire. Cf. Letters to Philip II, April 24, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 25; K. 1,497, No. 21; K. 1,497, No. 28.

His letter of May 5 (K. 1,497, No. 28) describes the adventure of a courier bearing a dispatch of the bishop of Limoges. He was given twenty blows with a knife, but managed to escape. St. Sulpice reports a similar experience of “le chevaucher de Bayonne” in a letter to Catherine, June 30, 1562. D’Andelot intercepted a letter from the duke of Alva (K. 1,497, No. 26, April 28, 1562) and the prince of CondÉ one from the bishop of Limoges to Catherine de Medici (K. 1,497, No. 33). The activity of the Huguenots in Gascony gave the French and Spanish governments special disquietude because they continually overhauled the couriers bearing official dispatches between Paris and Madrid. The letters of St. Sulpice contain many complaints because of the rifling of his correspondence (see pp. 30, 35, 37, 38, 41, 59). But the Huguenots were not the only ones who scrutinized letters unduly. Philip II frequently asked to be shown the letters of Charles IX and his mother to his wife, so that St. Sulpice advised Catherine always to send two letters, one of which was to be a “dummy” to be shown to the King (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 136). The Spanish ambassador told Philip he would have to come out into the open and declare war to protect his own interests (K. 1,497, No. 26, April 25, 1562). He anticipated as early as this the probable combination of the French Huguenots and the Dutch rebels, and warned Margaret of Parma to be on her guard (Correspondance de Chantonnay, K. 1,497, Nos. 30, 33, to Philip II).

[525] C. S. P. For., No. 1,043, §2, April 24, 1562.

[526] On April 24 the cardinal of Lorraine came to Paris with 1,000 horse (C. S. P. For., No. 1,043, §11, April 24, 1562; Corresp. de Chantonnay, April 28, K. 1,497, No. 2).

[527] This famous document, which is dated April 21, 1562, is in K. 1,496, B, 14, No. 61, and is on exhibition in the MusÉe des Archives. Chantonnay’s letter to Philip II on April 24 sheds an interesting light on the situation. In it the ambassador advises the King to write personally to the queen mother, but not to write individually to the others, but rather a single letter, because if Antoine of Navarre were not addressed as King of Navarre he would refuse to receive it, whereas if the letter were written to all in common, this complication might be avoided (K. 1,497, No. 25).

[528] The Spanish King acceded to this request on June 8, 1562 (Philip II to Margaret of Parma; Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, II, 218-23.)

He promised to send 10,000 foot and 3,000 cavalry, chiefly Italians and Germans; cf. De Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, IV, 214. At about the same time the constable appealed to Rome through Santa Croce, for a loan of 200,000 Écus and a body of soldiers (Arch. cur., VI, 86).

[529] The Swiss Diet, which met at Soleure on May 22, offered 6,000 infantry to be commanded by the captain Froelich (Letter of Hotman in Revue hist., XCVII, March-April, 1908, 305).

[530] C. S. P. For., No. 6, §1, May 2, 1562. The Spanish ambassador was deeply incensed at Catherine for making this new overture. The intermediary was the Rhinegrave, but Chantonnay persuaded the leaders not to recognize him (Corresp. de Chantonnay, April 28, 1562; K. 1,497, No. 26). The duke of Savoy offered to furnish 10,000 footmen and 600 horse, 3,000 of the former and 200 of the latter to be at his expense. This was the fruit of Chantonnay’s interview with Moreta, the Savoyard ambassador, early in April, when he discussed with him a possible restoration of the fortresses in Piedmont (K. 1,497, No. 21, April 8, 1562).

[531] The Pope offered to give 50,000 crowns per month.

[532] “Suisses, lansquenetz et reystres, seront en ce pays devant la fin de ce moys, sans vostre secours d’Espagne.”—L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 24, June 12, 1562. It must be understood that in many European states, especially those of Germany, the maintenance of regular troops did not yet obtain as a practice. Instead, the princes depended upon mercenary forces recruited by some distinguished captain. These troops, which answered to the condottieri of Italy were called Lanzknechts or Reiters. Languet stigmatizes this practice in Epist. ad Camerariam, 28; cf. Arch. d’Orange-Nassau, I, 104. In Protestant Germany there was a feeling that the policy of France threatened to extinguish the gospel in other regions besides France and therefore should be opposed by common consent. The elector palatine, the landgrave, and Charles, margrave of Baden, planned to send an embassy into France in the name of the Protestant princes to allay the dissensions there, and to ask that the same liberty of religion might be granted as was allowed by the edict of January 17. Many advocated an open league between all the Protestant states for mutual protection, in the hope that the mere knowledge of such a league would restrain their adversaries (C. S. P. For., No. 11, May 2, 1562). Opinion was divided in Germany as to whether CondÉ also should make foreign enrolments, or whether the territories of those who had suffered these levies to be made should be invaded by the Lutherans. Agents of the Guises circulated a printed apology for the massacre at Vassy (D’AubignÉ, II, 16, and n. 2; La PopeliniÈre, I, 327).

Rambouillet and D’Oysel, the agents of France in these countries (St. Sulpice, 77; Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 364) made much of the King of Spain’s aid and carried credentials from Chantonnay. The duke of Guise even sent an agent, the count of Roussy, to England, to discover Elizabeth’s intentions, and to ascertain the military state of her kingdom (cf. Beza, Hist. des Églises rÉformÉes, ed. of Toulouse, I, 373; De Ruble, IV, 103 ff.; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 13; C. S. P. For., No. 1,037, April 21, 1562).

The argument of the Catholics with the German Protestant princes and imperial cities was that the Huguenots were political dissidents and rebels, and that religion was a pretext with them (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 65). In order to counteract this teaching the Huguenots circulated a pamphlet written by Hotman throughout the Rhine provinces which attempted to neutralize the differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism. (This curious pamphlet is printed in MÉm. de CondÉ, II, 524; La PopeliniÈre, I, 325. In this capacity Hotman was invaluable. Some of his letters at this time are in MÉm. de l’Acad., CIV, 662-65.)

The German princes as a whole tried to prevent soldiers from going out of Germany. The landgrave Philip of Hesse arrested an officer of cavalry who was secretly enlisting horsemen in Hesse and who said he was doing so for Roggendorf, tore up the officer’s commission before his face, and made him swear to leave his castle without a passport. The duke of WÜrttemberg also took care that no volunteers should march through MontbÉliard into France, and Strasburg forbade anyone to enlist under severe penalties. The bishops of the Rhine kept quiet; only in Lorraine and the Three Bishoprics was Catholic enlisting unimpeded. The recruiting-sergeant of the Guises in Germany was the famous Roggendorf, a Frisian by birth who had been driven out of his native land in 1548 and since then had lived the life of an adventurer, part of the time in Turkey. (See an interesting note in Poulet, I, 542, with references.) On April 8 the king of Navarre in the name of Charles IX, signed a convention with him engaging the services of 1,200 German mounted pistoleers and four cornettes of footmen of 300 men each (D’AubignÉ, II, 33, n.). These forces entered France late in July and reached the camp at Blois on August 7 (D’AubignÉ, II, 76, n. 3).

One reason why the Protestant princes of Germany were unable immediately to make strong protest to the French crown was that the envoys of the elector palatine, the dukes of Deuxponts and WÜrttemberg, the landgrave of Hesse and the margrave of Baden, were unprovided for a month with letters of safe conduct, by the precaution of the Guises, with the result that Roggendorf led 1,200 cavalry in the first week in May across the Rhine and through TrÈves into France for the Guises, though the Protestant princes did all they could to hinder the passage and expostulated with the bishops of TrÈves and Cologne for allowing them to be levied in their territories. Failing greater things, the Protestant princes of Germany, in July, 1562, put Roggendorf under the ban in their respective states (cf. C. S. P. For., Nos. 244 and 269, June 13 and July, 1562). In the end, despite the enterprise of the Guises, the French Catholics may be said to have been unsuccessful beyond the Rhine, that is in Germany proper, but not in Switzerland or the episcopal states. D’Oysel, who was sent by Charles IX in July to Heidelberg (D’AubignÉ, II, 97, and n. 1; Le Laboureur, I, 430) received a short and definite answer “which showed him how groundless were his hopes of aid from that quarter, a document to which so much importance was attributed that it was forthwith printed for wider circulation” (C. S. P. For., No. 414, August 3, 1562, and the Introduction, xi).

The king of Spain’s captains had money and were ordered that as soon as soldiers were taken from Germany into France they should enlist men for the defense of his territories (C. S. P. For., No. 11, May 2, 1562). In the bishopric of TrÈves soldiers were enrolled easily, as the passage from thence to France was short (ibid., No. 74, May 19, 1562).

In Switzerland the Huguenots endeavored to prevail upon the Protestant cantons to prevent the Catholic cantons from lending support to Guise (C. S. P. Ven., No. 285, April 29, 1562). The Guises asked for a levy of foot from the papist cantons of Switzerland in the King’s name (Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 289, April 8, 1562). The cantons promised to send 15 ensigns; but the Protestant cantons especially Bern, told the prince of CondÉ that they would not suffer any soldiers to be levied against him in their territory, on pain of confiscation of goods. Nevertheless the Catholic Swiss managed to make some enrolments, the men quitting home on July 8. On August 7 these mercenaries arrived at Blois, having come by way of Franche ComtÉ (De Thou, Book XXX). They were commanded by Captain Froelich (see D’AubignÉ, II, 148; Zurlauben, Hist. milit. des Suisses, IV, 287 ff.; Letter of Hotman in Rev. hist., XCVII, March-April, 1908, 307).

[533] Correspondance de Chantonnay, K. 1,497, No. 22.

[534] “La fleur du monde.”—L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 41. For details see ibid., 24, 26-29, 36-38, 41, 50-54; Correspondance du cardinal de Ferrare, Letter 40, July 3, 1562; D’AubignÉ, II, 91, and n. 2; Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, 220.

[535] St. Sulpice was dubious of Philip II’s purpose and suspected political designs “sous le titre de notre secours” (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 39). Nevertheless he believed in Philip’s methods of repression—even the Inquisition. See his letter to the French ambassador at Trent on p. 28.

[536] C. S. P. For., No. 46, §3, May 11; No. 86, §1, May 23, 1562. Cf. No. 248—Challoner to Elizabeth from Bilboa, June 24, 1562. Spain established a naval base at La RÉole to help Noailles, lieutenant of the King in Guyenne (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 61).

[537] Correspondance de Chantonnay, K. 1,497, No. 21, April 8, 1562; C. S. P. Eng. For., No. 1,058, April 27, 1562; ibid., No. 6, §2, May 2, 1562.

[538] Correspondance de Chantonnay, K. 1,497, No. 33, May 2, 1562. Philip has commented on the margin to the effect that if the Catholics were as active as the Huguenots they would be better off.

[539] Chantonnay particularly notices this in a dispatch of April 18, 1562, K. 1,497. So also does the Tuscan ambassador (NÉg. Tosc., III, 481, June, 1562). Traveling in France was dangerous (Windebank to Cecil, C. S. P. Dom., XXII, 53, April 8, 1562).

[540] C. S. P. Dom., XXII, 60, April 17, 1562. Paris wore red and yellow ribbons—the Guise colors. “Ceux de Paris disent publiquement qu’on doit renvoyer la reine en Italie et qu’ils ne veulent plus avoir de roi qui ne soit catholique. Ils en ont d’ailleurs un que Dieu leur a donnÉ, c’est le grand ‘roi de Guise.’” Letter of Hotman in Rev. hist., XCVII, March-April, 1908, 305.

[541] D’AubignÉ, Book II, chap. iv.

[542] Correspondance de Chantonnay, K. 1,497, No. 36, May 28, 1562.

[543] The importance of Lyons so near the cantons of Switzerland and Geneva is emphasized in NÉg. Tosc., III, 488, July 6, 1562.

[544] Correspondance de Chantonnay, April 24, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 25. On the situation in Rouen, see MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 302 ff.; and the diary of a citizen in Revue retrospective, V, 97. Montgomery who was in western Normandy about Vire sent the King’s letter back to him after polluting it with filth, at least so says Chantonnay, K. 1,497, No. 27, May 2, 1562.

[545] See Carel, Histoire de la ville de Caen sous Charles IX, Henri III et Henri IV, Caen, 1886.

[546] The duke of Bouillon, commandant of Caen Castle, made an attempt to restrain the populace (C. S. P. For., No. 303, §7, July 12, 1562). He posed as a neutral, but ultimately became a Huguenot.

[547] C. S. P. For., No. 101, May 27, 1562.

[548] Ibid., No. 68, May 18, 1562; cf. No. 69, §10.

[549] C. S. P. For., No. 69, §16, May 18, 1562.

[550] Forbes, II, 8; cf. Planche, Histoire de Bourgogne, IV, 556.

[551] Upon these negotiations see MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 384, 388, 392, 393, 395.

[552] C. S. P. For., No. 106, §2, May 28, 1562. The King’s army had but twenty-two pieces of artillery at the beginning of the first civil war (Rel. vÉn., II, 101).

[553] C. S. P. For., No. 107, May 28, 1562; No. 174, June 9; MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 462. Another edict of the King put the military government of Paris in the hands of the provost of the merchants and the Échevins of the city (“DÉclaration portant permission au PrÉvost des Marchands et aux Echevins de la Ville de Paris, d’Établir Ès Quartiers d’icelle, des Capitaines, Caporaux, Sergents des Bandes, et autres Officiers Catholiques. A Monceaux, le 17 May 1562;” also in Ordonnances de Charles IX, par Robert Estienne, fol. 187; MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 447), in compliance with a popular request made a week earlier; “Ordonnance du Roy, donnÉe en consÉquence de la RequÊte des Habitans de Paris, par laquelle il leur est permis de faire armes ceux que dans cette Ville sont en État de porter les armes, et d’en former des Compagnies, sous des Capitaines qui seront par eux choisesr,” May 10, 1562 (MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 422, 423). The Venetian ambassador wisely observed “PerciochÈ dar liberamente l’armi in mano ad un populo cosi grande e cosi furiosi, benchÈ fosse cattolico, non era farse cosa molto prudente.”—Rel. vÉn., II, 98; cf. NÉg. Tosc., III, 280.

[554] See Chantonnay’s letter to Philip II of May 28, inclosing the edict and giving these and other details, K. 1,497, No. 36.

[555] “Cependant tout se ruyne et se font tous les jours infiniz meurdres et saccagemens de part et d’autre vous verrez par les chemyn’s une partye de la pitiÉ qui y est, et ce royaume au plus callamiteux estat qu’il est possible.”—L’Aubespine À l’EvÊque de Limoges, June 10, 1562; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 22.

[556] Chaumet, “ProcÈs-verbal des titres et ornements brÛlÉs par les protestants,” Les protestants et le CathÉdrale d’AngoulÊme en 1562, in Bull. de la Soc. arch., etc. 4^e sÉr., VI, 1868-69 (AngoulÊme, 1870), 497.

Gellibert des Seguins, Aubeterre en 1562; “EnquÊte sur le passage des protestants en cette ville, le pillage de l’Église Saint-Jacques et la destruction des titres et papiers du chapitre,” Bull. de la Soc. arch., etc., 1862, 3^e sÉr., IV (AngoulÊme, 1864).

[557] The strife in Toulouse was occasioned by an edict of the parlement of Toulouse (May 2) forbidding Calvinist worship and the wearing of arms by the Huguenots (K. 1,495, No. 35; a printed copy of the edict). Both parties fought for three days for possession of the HÔtel-de-Ville where arms were stored. Nearly 5,000 Protestants, it is said, were killed (Corresp. de Chantonnay, 1497, No. 36, May 28, 1562; Commentaires de Montluc, Book V, 234-37,) La PopeliniÈre (who saw it), I, 311 ff.; D’AubignÉ, Book II, chap. iv; Lettres du cardinal de Ferrare, No. 30, June 23, 1562; cf. Histoire vÉritable de la mutinerie, tumulte et sedition faite par les prestres de St. Medard contre les Fideles, le Samedy XXVII juin de 1562; Bosquet, Histoire sur les troubles advenus en la ville de Tolose, l’an 1562, le dix-septiesme may, Nouv. Édition, avec notes, Paris, 1862; Histoire de la dÉlivrance de la ville de Toulouse, 1862.

[558] Stanclift, Queen Elizabeth and the French Protestants (1559-60), Leipzig, 1892.

[559] Coll. des lettres autographes, Hotel Drouot, March 18, 1899, No. 19; Cardinal ChÂtillon to the queen mother, May 28, 1562, protesting that peace is impossible without the banishment of the Guises from court. Cf. R. Q. H., January 1879, 14, 15.

[560] “Tous jours sur le point que messieurs de Guise, conestable et mareschal de St. AndrÉ se retirent de la cour.”—L’Aubespine, sÉcretaire d’État À son frÈre M. de Limoges, ambassadeur en Espagne, June 10, 1562; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 22; cf. the same to the same, June 12, p 24. On these unsuccessful negotiations, see D’AubignÉ, II, 33-35; La PopeliniÈre, I, 323; MÉm. de. CondÉ, 489; La Noue, MÉm., Book I, chap, ii; Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, IV, chap. xix.

CondÉ further justified the revolt of the Huguenots on the ground that the King and his mother were “prisoners” in the hands of the Triumvirate, but the statement was too transparent to be believed. Catherine herself, in order to disprove it, took the King to Monceaux with her (Corresp. de Chantonnay, May 28, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 36), whence she wrote to the Parlement of Paris explaining the reason of her action. The Parlement promptly approved her course. MÉm.—journaux du duc de Guise, 495, col. 2: “Acte par lequel la ReinemÈre et le Roy de Navarre declarent que la retraite voluntaire que font de la cour du duc de Guise, le Connestable et le mareschal de St. AndrÉ, ne pourra porter prÉjudice À leur honneur” (May 28, 1562).

[561] “Nostre camps et À douse lyeu d’Orleans et byentot nous voyront set que en sera.”—Catherine de Medici to Elizabeth of Spain, June 13 or 14, 1562, in L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 31.

[562] A parley was held with the usual lack of success on June 21 between the prince of CondÉ and his brother at Beaugency, which was neutralized for the purpose (D’AubignÉ, II, 37, and n. 4). The baron de Ruble discovered the correspondence of the principals in the interview. The king of Navarre exhorted his brother to accept the conditions offered by the King, i. e., to let the Huguenots dwell peaceably in their houses until a council settled the matters in dispute. He promised in any event that the Protestants should have liberty of conscience. But when the prince insisted on having the edict enforced in Paris even, Antoine replied that the crown would never consent to such terms (C. S. P. For., No. 329, §§1, 2, July 17, 1562). Even while the truce existed straggling prisoners were taken daily by either side. (For other military details, see MÉm. de La Noue [ed. PanthÉon litt.], 284; D’AubignÉ, II, 39, 40; Beza, Histoire des Églises rÉformÉes, I, 540, 541; and the “Discours ou rÉcit des opÉrations des deux armÉes catholique et protestante dans les premiers jours de juillet,” in De Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, IV, 414).

[563] Not so the royal troops, which were quartered upon the towns of the region and nearly consumed the people by their exactions (Claude Haton, I, 279).

[564] The Catholics, in derision, called the Huguenot gentry “millers.” During the interview on June 9 between the prince and the queen mother, the latter said: “Vos gens sont meusniers, mon cousin,” a fling which the prince of CondÉ more than matched by the rejoinder: “C’est pour toucher vous asnes, madame!” This anecdote is related by D’AubignÉ, II, 35.

[565] Cf. Guise’s letter to the cardinal of Lorraine, Appendix III; C. S. P. For., No. 238; No. 264, §3, June 29.

[566] Ibid., No. 425, August 5, 1562; Archives de la Gironde, XVII, 270. The constable seized Tours and Villars ChÂtellerault (D’AubignÉ, II, 41-44). For the operations of Burie in PÉrigord, see Archives de la Gironde, XVII, 271. At Bazas a local judge, with the aid of Spanish troops actually crucified some Calvinists (ibid., XV, 57).

[567] La Noue admits that the boasted discipline of the Huguenots was disgraced by their atrocities here (MÉm. milit., chap. xvi; cf. C. S. P. Ven., No. 288, July 16, 1562).

[568] On the war in Lyonnais, DauphinÉ, Provence, and Languedoc, see D’AubignÉ, Book III, chap. vii. The notes are valuable. Des Adresse proclaimed all Catholics in Lyonnais, Burgundy, DauphinÉ, and Limousin rebels to the King (C. S. P. For., 340). He was not a Huguenot in the proper sense, but rebelled against the King, and sided with the Huguenots because he was jealous of La Mothe Gondrin, who was made lieutenant du roi instead of himself in DauphinÉ (see D’AubignÉ, II, 49, n. 5).

[569] D’AubignÉ, II, 48. He recovered ChÂlons-sur-Marne in June and Macon in August (Tavannes, 339, 343).

[570] It was at this moment that D’Andelot was sent to Germany for succor (C. S. P. For., No. 374, §7, July 27, 1562).

[571] At Pont Audemer the duke caused a preacher to be hanged, and afterward some of the best citizens and even boys (C. S. P. Ven., 355, July 23, 1562). There was also fear lest the English would land troops in Guyenne (Archives de la Gironde, XVII, 284).

[572] C. S. P. Ven., No. 354, July 23, 1562; Claude Haton, I, 301; C. S. P. For., 185, June 13, 1562; cf. 246, §24; but see the duke of Aumale’s disclaimer to the queen mother, of July 9, asserting that those of Rouen, Dieppe, and Havre were plundering indiscriminately (Appendix IV).

[573] D’AubignÉ, II, 52-73. The prince of Orange found himself in a very difficult position. His principality was continually exposed to the attacks of the king of France and those of the Pope from Avignon. Moreover, the conduct of the Huguenots compromised him on account of their violence toward the priests in the sanctuaries (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, I, 71, 72; Raumer, II, 2111561).

[574] Forneron, Histoire de Philippe II, I, 294. Montluc is unequaled in the keenness of his political penetration. The baron de Ruble says with truth that the old soldier rivals Hotman and Bodin in this respect. Witness the paragraph written in December, 1563, to be found in the memoir he sent to Damville justifying his resignation of the lieutenancy of Guyenne (Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 297, 298 and note).

[575] There are few more interesting annals in the history of war than the racy, egotistical, garrulous, yet sometimes pithy narrative of this veteran leader. The fifth book of Montluc’s Commentaires is wholly taken up with the war in Guyenne in 1562-63. His correspondence during the same period is in IV, 111-225; add Beza, Histoire des Églises rÉformÉes, which is remarkably accurate and impartial.

[576] Coll. TrÉmont, No. 51.—Antoine de Bourbon to M. de Jarnac, from the camp at Gien, September 12, 1562, relative to sending forces into the south to join those of Burie and Montluc.

[577] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, II, 345, and note. His title was “conservateur de la Guyenne” (O’Reilly, Histoire de Bordeaux, 221).

[578] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, II, 357.

[579] Ibid., 416, 421.

[580] “The French spared the women there, but the Spaniards killed them, saying they were Lutherans disguised. These ruffians slew some 300 prisoners in cold blood—not a man escaped saving two that I saved.”—Montluc, II, 457, 458. When these Spaniards later mutinied and deserted in the summer of 1563, not even the Catholics regretted their departure (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 144, 152). For the terms on which they came, see Montluc, IV, 452, 453; D’AubignÉ, II, 91, n. 2; 94, n. 4.

[581] See Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 37 ff.; De Thou, Book XXXIII; D’AubignÉ, II, 95; Bull. de la Soc. de l’hist., du prot. franÇ., II (1854), 230; C. S. P. For., 837 and 415, §12 (1562). I have purposely built this account upon Montluc’s narration in Book V of his Commentaires. An additional source for Lectoure and the battle of Vergt is his long letter to Philip II, published in L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 84-86; add also De Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, 244-56.

[582] MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 756: “Fragment d’une lettre de l’ambassadeur du duc de Savoye, À la Cour de France. De Paris du dernier de juillet, 1562;” cf. NÉg. Tosc., III, 492, 493.

[583] See an article by De Crue, “Un emprunt des Huguenots franÇais en Allemagne et en Suisse (1562). Pleins pouvoirs donnÉes À M. d’Andelot par le prince de CondÉ—Orleans, 7 juillet, 1562,” Rev. d’hist. dip., 1889, 195.

[584] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 77; C. S. P. For., 884, October 9, 1562. His instructions are in MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 630. See a letter of Hotman, July 27, 1562, to the elector palatine, MÉm. de l’Acad. des inscrip. et belles-lettres, CIV, 668. The original is in the archives at Stuttgart. This letter was communicated to the duke of WÜrttemberg by the count palatine and was sufficient temptation to lead the first of the famous hordes of German reiters across the border into France.

[585] Claude Haton, 267. See in the MÉm. de CondÉ, III, some letters relating to the coming of the reiters in this year.

[586] “Ceux-ci [reiters] sont toujours prÊts À se battre, mais en tout le reste, ils n’obÉissent À personne et montrent la plus grande cruautÉ. Ils pillent tout, et cela ne leur suffit pas. Ils dÉvastent tout et dÉtruisent les vins et les rÉcoltes.”—Letter of Hotman in Rev. hist., XCVII, March-April, 1908, 311.

[587] Claude Haton, I, 294.

[588] Ibid. From an account in the Record Office, indorsed by Cecil, we know what the wages of these hireling troops were: “The pay of every reiter is 15 florins the month. The entertainment of the ritmeisters is a florin for every horse, and each cornet contains 300 men. The lieutenants have, besides the pay of one reiter, 80 florins. The ensign, besides the pay of one reiter, has 60 florins, eight officers having, besides a reiter’s pay, 15 florins apiece. The wage and appointment of 4,000 reiters with their officers per mensem equals 122,048 livres tournois, equals 81,532 florins. The colonel 3,000 florins; 15 officers equals 300 florins. To every ten reiters there must be allowed a carriage with four horses, at 30 florins per month. Total (not counting the money rebated) 127,448 livres tournois, or 84,966 florins. Total expense for four months, counting the levy, 569,792 livres tournois equals 379,861 florins.

“For levying 6,000 lansknechts: for their levying, a crown per month. The pay of every ensign of 300 men per month, 3,500 livres tournois. The whole expense for four months 395,000 livres tournois equals 263,337 florins. Sum total with other expenses, 1,759,792 livres tournois equals 211,174,175, 2d.”

[589] D’Andelot passed the Rhine on September 22, too late to relieve Bourges.

[590] See Claude Haton’s vivid description of this recruiting. The new levies did great damage to the country of Brie and Champagne, for they were kept in villages for more than five weeks before going to camp, and all this time the reiters were approaching closely (I, 295).

[591] Claude Haton, I, 295. He adds that Catherine de Medici sent him secret orders to do so. But there is no evidence of this in her correspondence, and D’Aumale’s subsequent blunder in 1569 by which the Huguenots were able to get possession of La CharitÉ justifies the inference that his action was due to incapacity as a general.

[592] The long presence of the reiters in France during the civil wars introduced many German words into the French language, for example biÈre (Bier); blocus (Blockhaus); boulevard (Bollwerk); bourgmestre (Burgmeister); canapsa (Knapsack); carousser (Garaus machen); castine (Kalkstein); halte (halt); trinquer (trinken) and of course reitre (Reiter) and lansquenet (Lanzknecht). See Nyrop, Grammaire historique de la langue franÇaise, I, 51. Rabelais abounds with such words, e. g., “Je ne suis de cas importuns lifrelofres qui, par force, poultraige et violence, contraignent les lans et compaignons trinquer, voire carous et alluz qui pis est.” Rabelais, Book IV, prologue. So also in Book IV, prol.: “Je n’y ay entendu que le hault allemant.”

[593] In Provins, on their own initiative, the townspeople taxed their town, bailiwick, and rÉssort (sÉnÉchausÉe) to the amount of 7,000 livres tournois, the sum being imposed upon persons of every class, those who had gone to the war in the King’s service alone being exempted. This levy created great discontent, especially among the clergy, who appealed against the bailiff and the gens du roi to the Court of Aids, alleging that the levy was made without royal commission and without the consent of those interested. The bailiff compromised by promising the clergy to restore the money paid by them and not to demand more of them, and so the process was dropped (Claude Haton, I, 296, 297).

[594] On the siege of Bourges see D’AubignÉ, II, 77 ff.; Raynal, Hist. du Berry, IV; MÉm. des antiq. de France, sÉr. III (1855), II, 191 ff.; NÉg. Tosc., III, 494, 495; Boyer, Doc. relat. au rÉgime de l’artillerie de la ville de Bourges dans le XVI^e siÈcle, 641; in Bull. du ComitÉ de la langue, de l’hist. et des arts de la France, III, 1855-56. The capitulation of Bourges is in MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 634. See also the “Journal of Jean Glaumeau,” edited by M. Bourquelot in MÉm. de la Soc. des antiq. de France, XXII. Philip II expressed his displeasure at the terms to St. Sulpice, saying, “que aulcunes des conditions semblaient du tout assez convenables des sujetz À leur roi” (L’ambassade de St. Sulpice, 70, 75. Alva’s opinion is given at p. 78).

[595] Claude Haton, I, 285. Philip II told St. Sulpice “quant un voyage de Normandie, bien qu’il l’estimait Être bien entrepris, qu’il semblait qu’il eut ÉtÉ meilleur de s’adresser À Orleans, oÙ Étaient les chefs, afin qu’ils ne se grossissent d’avantage.”—L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 75.

[596] C. S. P. For., No. 374, §7, July 27, 1562; No. 510, §1, August 10, 1562. For the operations of the reiters around Paris in the summer of 1562 see D’AubignÉ, Book III, chap. xii; De Ruble’s notes are valuable.

[597] Daval, Histoire de la rÉformation À Dieppe, 1557-1657. Publ. pour la I^re fois avec introd. et notes par E. Lesens (SociÉtÉ rouennaise de bibliophiles. 2 vols., 1879).

[598] C. S. P. For., Nos. 975, 976, 1,002. This solicitation was in the nature of an acknowledgment of an expression of interest in them made by the English queen. For as far back as March she had sent assurances of her interest to CondÉ and the admiral (ibid., No. 965, March 3, 1562).

[599] C. S. P. For., No. 973, April 1, 1562.

[600] Ibid., No. 1,013, §13, April 17, 1562. Elizabeth considered the suggestion of her ambassador so favorable that she sent Sir Henry Sidney to France in the spring to aid Throckmorton. See the instructions in C. S. P. For., Nos. 1,063, 1,064, April 28, 1562.

[601] “Et il assure que bien qu’elle prenne À dÉpit de voir que les catholiques soient secourus de deÇa, elle est persuadÉe que son meilleur est de se contenir et regarder de loin ce qui adviendra.”—L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 55, July, 1562.

[602] “RÉponses du duc d’Albe À St. Sulpice, October 8, 1562,” L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 79; cf. 92, 93, 103.

[603] Throckmorton, English ambassador in France, urgently pressed such a policy, “even though it cost a million crowns” (C. S. P. For., No. 418, August 4, 1562). It was in the form of alternative offers to the Huguenots. Upon receipt of Havre-de-Grace, England was to deliver three hostages in guaranty of the compact, to the count palatine of the Rhine, and to pay in Strasburg 70,000 crowns; also to deliver at Dieppe 40,000 crowns within twenty days after the receipt of Havre-de-Grace, and 30,000 crowns within twenty days following, to be employed by CondÉ upon the defenses of Rouen and Dieppe and in the rest of Normandy, with the understanding that Havre-de-Grace was to be delivered to France upon the restoration of Calais, and the repayment of the 140,000 crowns advanced. The second offer was to this effect: Upon receipt of Havre-de-Grace, England was to deliver three hostages and deposit 70,000 crowns in Germany, and to send 6,000 men into Normandy to serve at Rouen and Dieppe (C. S. P. For., No. 268, July, 1562; cf. Nos. 662, 663). After prolonged negotiations which were conducted by the vidame of Chartres, the treaty of Hampton Court was framed on these lines, on September 10, 1562 (MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 689; MÉm. du duc de Nevers, I, 131; D’AubignÉ, II, 79, 80). Elizabeth’s proclamation and justification of her action is at p. 693 of MÉm. de CondÉ.

The alliance between the prince of CondÉ and the English, with the implied loss of Calais to France, more than any other fact, reconciled Catherine de Medici to Spanish assistance. After August she personally urged this aid (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 58, 59). Still Philip emphatically gave her to understand that “si l’ambassadeur de Espagne avait fait espÉrer que son maÎtre dÉclarerait la guerre aux Anglais il avait dÉpassÉ ses instructions, car les Espagnols Étaient depuis si longtemps liÉs avec ces peuples qu’il Était impossible de rompre cette alliance.”—St. Sulpice to Charles IX, November 12, 1562 (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 93).

The constable was at Yvetot in October, 1562, at the time of the descent of the English upon Havre and wrote to Charles IX that he was unable to take the field. At a later season he complains to Catherine of the calumnies heaped upon him, and bluntly says “that he is not in the humor to endure such things.”—Coll. de St. PÉtersbourg, CIII, letters pertaining to the house of Montmorency; La FerriÈre, Rapport, 46.

[604] Archambault to St. Sulpice, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 71; Charles IX to St. Sulpice, September 15, ibid., 74. The camps on the Loire were broken up on September 14, only sufficient forces being left to invest Orleans. The soldiers were sent to Normandy via Montargis, Angerville-la-RiviÈre, and Etampes, leaving posts at Gien, Beaugency, and Pithiviers to keep the lines open between north and south and to prevent D’Andelot from getting to Orleans.

On the siege of Rouen, see Claude Haton, I, 286-89. The city was taken October 26 (Floquet, Hist. du Parlement de Normandie, II, 435).

On Huguenot excesses in Rouen, see an arrÊt of the Parlement of Rouen, August 26, 1562, in MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 613, and another ordering prayers for the capture of Fort St. Catherine, October 7 (ibid., IV, 41).

[605] See his singular letter to Cecil of July 29, 1562, in C. S. P. For., No. 389.

[606] Cf. articles for the English agent Vaughan, of August 30, in Cecil’s handwriting (ibid., No. 550).

[607] Ibid., No. 763, Vaughan to Cecil, October 4, 1562; Forbes, II, 89.

[608] C. S. P. For., No. 790, October 7, 1562; Forbes, II, 93.

[609] Cf. C. S. P. For., No. 803, October 8, 1562; Forbes, II, 101; report of a military expert to Cecil.

[610] It was taken by assault by the duke of Guise (Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 414, note; Claude Haton, I, 285; MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 41).

[611] The English aid had been divided into three bodies, that portion which entered Rouen being only the vanguard. It was the middle portion which followed in ships up the river and was captured by Damville. The third body was of the rear guard and returned to Havre-de-Grace (C. S. P. Ven., No. 302, October 14, 1562). In the fight off Caudebec 200 English were killed, and 80 made prisoners, all of whom were hanged by the French—a more rigorous punishment than even sixteenth-century war nominally allowed (ibid., For., Nos. 870, 872, October 17, 18, 1562).

[612] Ibid., No. 901, October 23, 1562.

[613] C. S. P. Ven., October 27, 1562.

[614] Ibid., For., 932, §4, October 30, 1562.

[615] For details see Corresp. de Catherine de MÉd., I, 420, note; Claude Haton, I, 287-91; and a relation in Arch. cur., IV, sÉr. 1, 67. Also in MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 116. The same volume has some letters addressed to the queen of Navarre upon his death. Cf. Le Laboureur, III, 887. Claude Haton, I, 292, 293, has an interesting eulogy of him.

[616] Charles IX and his mother were eye-witnesses of this struggle, viewing it from a window of the convent of St. Catherine “from which they could see all that took place within and without the city.”—C. S. P. Ven., October 18, 1562.

[617] It had been the queen’s hope that Rouen might be saved from sack, and with this object she had offered 70,000 francs to the French troops if they would refrain from pillage. But such a hope was slight, for Rouen was the second city of the realm and one of great wealth (C. S. P. Ven., October 17, 1562). Moreover, “Guise proclaimed before the assault that none should fall to any spoil before execution of man, woman, and child” (ibid., For., No. 920, Vaughan to Cecil, October 28, 1562). Catherine de Medici also throws the responsibility upon the duke of Guise (Corresp., I, 430). For other details of the sack, see Castelnau, Book III, chap. xii. “Le ravage de ceste ville fut À la mesure de sa grandeur et À sa richesse,” is D’AubignÉ’s laconic statement (II, 88). Fortunately, for the sake of humanity, the sack was stayed after the first day. The German troopers committed the worst outrages. The marshal Montmorency is to be given credit for mitigating the horrors. Montgomery, though at first reported captured, escaped to Havre, having disguised himself by shaving off his beard (C. S. P. For., No. 939, October 30, 1562), and abandoned his wife and children, to the indignation of Vaughan, who vented his outraged sentiments to Cecil: “A man of that courage to steal away, leaving his wife and children behind him” (ibid., No. 920, October 28, 1562).

Among those in Rouen who were officially executed were a Huguenot pastor by the name of Marlorat, with two elders of the church, a merchant and burgess of the city, named Jean Bigot, and one Coton; Montreville, chief president of Rouen, De Cros, some time governor of Havre-de-Grace, eight Scotchmen who had passports of Mary Stuart to serve under Guise, and some French priests (D’AubignÉ, II, 88; C. S. P. For., No. 950, §14, October 31, 1562; No. 984, §2, November 4, 1562).

[618] C. S. P. Ven., No. 307, October 31, 1562; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 91; “MontgomÉry qui les faisait tenir s’est sauvÉ, laissant le peuple livrÉ À la boucherie.”—Letter of Catherine de Medici to St. Sulpice.

[619] Orleans had 1,200 horsemen and 5,000 footmen in it, besides the inhabitants, with provisions to last six months. Almost all the weak places had been fortified with platforms, ravelins, and parapets. The counterscarp was roughly finished. There were nine or ten cannon and culverins with a good store of powder. The greatest menace was the plague which daily diminished the number of the Protestants (C. S. P. Eng., 596, §6, September 9, 1562—report of Throckmorton who was on the ground).

[620] C. S. P. Ven., October 17, 1562. The Spanish ambassador had foreseen the possibility of such a contingency and early in April had cautioned Philip II not to play upon Antoine’s expectations to the point of exasperation (K. 1,497, No. 17).

[621] C. S. P. Eng., 1,050, November 14, 1562.

[622] “His arm is rotten and they have mangled him in the breast and other parts so pitifully”—in the endeavor to cut out the mortified flesh.—C. S. P. For., 1,040, Smith to Cecil, November 12, 1562. Cf. No. 932, October 30; for other details see C. S. P. Ven., November 8, 9, 10, 13, 1562; MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 116; D’AubignÉ, II, 85. The knowledge of his death was kept a secret for two days (C. S. P. For., 1,079, November 20, 1562). The Spanish court wore mourning for four days in honor of his memory (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 103). He was a “trimmer” to the last, on his deathbed professing the confession of Augsburg, as a doctrine intermediate between Catholicism and Calvinism (Despatch of Barbaro [Huguenot Society], November 25, 1562).

[623] “Le roi catholique est content que la reine mÈre ait l’entier gouvernement des affaires, tout en ayant prÈs d’elle le cardinal de Bourbon.”—L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 109, January 19, 1562 (1563).

[624] “Il y eut toujours dans la ville quatre corps de garde, Charles IX ordonna d’Établir À Etampes un magasin de vivre pour fournir son armÉe.”—Annales du GÂtinais, XIX, 105.

[625] C. S. P. Eng., No. 1,070, November 20, 1562.

[626] Claude Haton, I, 305.

[627] C. S. P. For., 193, December 5, 1562; ibid., Ven., December 3; Forbes II, 27. La Noue gives a motive which led CondÉ to besiege Paris: “Non en intention de forcer la ville, mais pour faire les Parisiens, qu’il estimoit les soufflets de la guerre et la cuisine dont elle se nourissoit.”—MÉm. milit. de la Noue, chap. ix.

[628] Charles IX to St. Sulpice December 11, 1562; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 98; Despatch of Barbaro (Huguenot Society), December 7, 1562.

[629] Yet although the negotiations of the prince of CondÉ at this time were tentative and the statements of the crown not intended by it to obtain, nevertheless the claims advanced are to be observed, because the lines along which religious toleration was to develop in France and the outlines of subsequent edicts of toleration, like those of Amboise, Longjumeau, and Bergerac, are foreshadowed in the articles proposed now.

CondÉ first proposed the following three articles: (1) liberty of conscience with free exercise of religion where demanded; (2) security of life and property unto all; (3) the summons of a free council within six months, or, if that were impossible, then a general assembly of the realm. To these proposals the government replied that Calvinist preaching would not be permitted under any circumstances in Lyons and other frontier towns, which were defined, nor near those with a governor and garrison, nor in those towns which were seats of the parlements. CondÉ then modified the Huguenot demands, as follows: (1) That Calvinist preaching be permitted in the suburbs of frontier towns, or in certain ones so appointed; (2) that it should obtain only in those other places where it was practiced before the war began; (3) except that it should be lawful for all gentlemen and all nobles to have private service in their own houses; (4) all persons residing in places where preaching was not permitted should be suffered to go to the nearest towns or other places for the exercise of their religion, without molestation. In reply, the government excepted Paris and the banlieue from these stipulations. All these conditions the government and CondÉ accepted on December 3, 1562, Lyons being declared not to be a frontier city within the construction of the articles. Certain minor stipulations followed as to amnesty, recovery of property, etc. Cf. C. S. P. For., No. 1,219, December 9, 1562; Beza, Hist. des Églises rÉformÉes, II, 121 ff., ed. 1841.

[630] “M. de Nevers has already here from 800 to 1,000 horse. They look for 600 foot and horsemen, Spaniards and Gascons and Piedmontese, to arrive shortly. All this while they had driven the prince off with talk.”—C. S. P. For., 1,168, December 1, 1562—Smith to Throckmorton. These reinforcements reached Paris on the night of December 7, 1562; there were 10 ensigns of Gascons (40 or 50 in an ensign), in all about 500 or 600 men; of the Spaniards, 14 ensigns, “better filled,” about 2,500-3,000, all footmen, and few armed. Their weapons were arquebuses and pikes, and some bills and halberds. “With them a marvellous number of rascals, women and baggage” (Smith to Cecil, C. S. P. For., No. 1,205, December 7, 1562; cf. Barbaro [Huguenot Society], December 7, 1562. The Venetian ambassador went out to view them). These reinforcements are much exaggerated in the MÉm. de CondÉ (V, 103, 104, ed. London), which rates the Gascons as 3,000 and the Spaniards as 4,000.

[631] C. S. P. Ven., December 3 and 14, 1562. For an extreme example of Chantonnay’s overbearing policy, see Barbaro’s account of a conversation with the Spanish ambassador in the letter of January 25, 1563.

[632] Ibid., For., 1,183, December 3, 1562; No. 1,238, §7, December 13, 1562. It is fair to say, though, that CondÉ was almost without artillery, having but eight guns, so that there was no possibility of breaking the wall. The only way to take the city would have been by an assault with scaling-ladders (letter of Hotman in Rev. hist., XCVII, March-April, 1908, 311).

[633] Claude Haton, I, 307; C. S. P. Ven., No. 314, December 11, 1562. See Throckmorton’s earnest plea in C. S. P. For., 1,195, December 6, 1562, for sending financial assistance to him. The English intervention in Normandy was demonstrated to be a safe and profitable venture; besides other advantages which they might draw from Rouen, Havre, and Dieppe (which could safely be recovered) the archbishopric of Rouen was worth 50,000 francs; the two abbeys inside the town 10,000; the abbey of FÉcamp 40,000 francs; the benefices within the town valuable; the gabelle in salt and other royal rights in Rouen and Dieppe worth 50,000 crowns, which would double when the English merchants came, so that the military occupation of Normandy would cost less than the profits therefrom. But arguments were in vain to persuade Elizabeth’s double policy of caution and parsimony. Sir Nicholas drove Smith’s warning of December 7 home by another one to Elizabeth, urging her “to deal substantially” with CondÉ, “for wanting the queen’s force of men it is not likely he will be strong enough to accomplish his intents.”

[634] Too late the English government was alive to the danger of its losing all, owing to the narrow policy hitherto pursued, and Cecil hurried Richard Worseley, captain of the Isle of Wight, off to Portsmouth on December 7 to secure 5,000 pounds, as earnest of more money to be sent into France in aid of the Huguenots, whence he was to hasten to Havre, warn the earl of Warwick not to give credit to any reports of peace unless so informed by Throckmorton or Smith, and see that the town was speedily fortified and guarded (C. S. P. For., No. 1,033, December 7, 1562; Forbes, II, 124, 125).

[635] Claude Haton, I, 307; C. S. P. For., No. 1,240, December 13, 1562.

[636] C. S. P. For., No. 1,238, December 13, 1562. On December 14, 1562, CondÉ wrote anxiously from his camp at St. Arneuil asking for succor, especially that Montgomery, who had gone to England for assistance, might be sent to him. (See Appendix V.) Montgomery was in Portsmouth with Sir Hugh Poulet, who was commissioned to bring over the balance of 15,000 pounds to Havre (C. S. P. For., No. 1,270, December 16, 1562).

[637] Ibid., No. 1,276, December 18, 1562; No. 1,278, December 19, 1562.

[638] Guise had 22 cannon; CondÉ’s artillery consisted of 4 field-pieces, 2 cannon, and a culverin, which “never shot a shot” (Throckmorton to the Queen, C. S. P. For., January 3, 1563. He was an eye-witness of the battle. Forbes, II, 251).

[639] Claude Haton, I, 308, 309. Cf. note for other references.

[640] C. S. P. Eng., No. 228, 229, January 3, 1562; the admiral to Montgomery (Delaborde, Gaspard de Coligny, II, 180), December 28, 1562, from the camp at Avarot; cf. C. S. P. Eng., No. 181, January 2, 1563—the admiral to Queen Elizabeth; Forbes, II, 247.

[641] De Thou, Book XXXIV, and Le Laboureur’s additions to Castelnau, II, 81.

[642] “They did not strike a stroke” and “were defeated in running away.”—C. S. P. For., January 3, 1563; Forbes, II, 251.

[643] Claude Haton, I, 311.

[644] For contemporary accounts of the battle of Dreux, see: “Discours de la bataille,” in MÉm. du duc de Guise, ed. Michaud, 497 ff.; Beza, Histoire des Églises rÉformÉes, I, 605 ff.; D’AubignÉ, Book III, chaps. xiii, xiv; Tavannes, 392 ff.; La Noue, MÉm. milit., chap. x; De Thou, Book XXXIV; C. S. P. Eng., No. 1,282, abstract of a printed pamphlet; No. 1,316, December 21; No. 1,323, December 22, 1562—letter of the admiral to the earl of Warwick; to Queen Elizabeth, Delaborde, II, 178, 179. For details as to the number of prisoners, etc., see C. S. P. For., Nos. 1,286-88, 1,316, 1,317, 1,335, §§4-6; 1,334, 1,353, §6; 1,563, Nos. 12, 22, 28, narrative of Spanish troops. Excellent accounts of the battle are to be consulted in De Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, II, 366 ff.; Whitehead, Gaspard de Coligny, 140-45; and the duke of Aumale’s History of the Princes of CondÉ (Eng. trans.), I, 150-68. The standard treatment of the subject is Coynart, L’AnnÉe 1562 et la bataille de Dreux: Étude historique et militaire; extraits divers, correspondance officielles du temps (1894).

Montaigne has an interesting essay upon some peculiar incidents of the battle. Two curious occurrences happened. The duke of Guise was the first to alight from his horse and courteously receive the prince of CondÉ (C. S. P. For., No. 1,326, December 26, 1562); the two slept in the same bed that night (ibid., Ven., December 21, 1562). The duke of Aumale was unhorsed and nearly the whole army rode and trampled over him, yet he was unhurt, owing to the heavy suit of armor he wore (ibid., For., No. 375, §3, 1563; cf. No. 400, §2).

[645] The Parlement ordered the bishops of France to declare that in all parishes those who knew who were Huguenots should denounce them within nine days to their priests under pain of excommunication. This practice led to a large exodus of the Huguenots in many of the towns (Claude Haton, I, 312, 316, 317, and note, 318).

[646] The German form of the name was Bessenstein.

[647] C. S. P. For., No. 14, §2, January 3, 1563.

[648] Ibid., No. 16, §2, January 3, 1563, and No. 32—D’Andelot to Elizabeth from Orleans, January 5, 1563; cf. Forbes, II, 263.

[649] Sarpi, Histoire du Concile de Trent, Book VII, chap. xlviii.

[650] C. S. P. For., No. 15, §1, January 3, 1563.

[651] Ibid., Eng. For., No. 35, January 6, 1563; Forbes, II, 270; No. 54, §2, January 7; No. 69, §1, January 11, 1563.

[652] La Mothe FÉnÉlon to St. Sulpice, December 17, 1562; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 103, 104.

[653] C. S. P. Ven., December 27, 1562.

[654] Randolph wrote to Cecil on January 5, 1563: “We thought ourselves happy till we heard of the prince’s taking, but despair not as longe as the admiral kepethe the feeldes.”—C. S. P. Scot., I, 1, 160.

[655] Ibid., For., No. 83, January 13, 1563; No. 84, §3, same date; No. 109, §6, January 17; No. 137, §5, January 23, 1563.

[656] Ibid., No. 83, §3, January 13, 1563.

[657] “Coll. d’un ancien amateur,” HÔtel Drouot, February 10, 1877, No. 34: Eleanor de Roye to Catherine de Medici from Orleans, December 22, 1562, asking that pity be taken upon the prince of CondÉ; C. S. P. For., No. 35, January 6, 1563; Forbes, II, 270; No. 146, §3: “This night (January 24) CondÉ was brought into this town with a strong guard. He came on horseback, and was brought through the town in a coach covered with black velvet, by torch-light, and the windows of the coach open; but the torch was so carried that none could see him.” The government had good reason to fear an attempt would be made to rescue him while he was at Chartres.

[658] “A ce soir bien tard j’ay receu la lettre qu’il vous a pleu m’escripre par la poste et vous puis asseurer Madame qu’il y a deux jours que Madame la Princesse et mon nepveu Dandelot veullent vous envoyer la response et advis de mon nepveu monsieur l’admiral et de toute leur compaigne. Mais je les en ay engarder sur la tente qu’auyons au retour du Plessis qui devoit estre samedy au matin pour estre rendu certain de vostre volontÉ, À quoy les voys tous fort affectionnÉs pour faire une bonne paix,” etc., etc.—Montmorency to Catherine de MÉdicis, OrlÉans, 12 janvier 1563 (Fillon Collection, No. 2652).

[659] C. S. P. For., No. 35, §2, January 6, 1563; Forbes, II, 270.

[660] Catherine expressed this determination as far back as October 20 in a letter to St. Sulpice (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 87; C. S. P. For., No. 37, January 6, 1563).

[661] C. S. P. Ven., February 2, 1563.

[662] Cf. L’Ambassade St. Sulpice, 93, 108, 114, 116, and Corresp. de Cath. de MÉd., I, 508, 548. This was the real mission of Don Fernando de Toledo, a bastard son of the duke of Alva and grand prior of the order of St. John in Castile, who was sent to France to congratulate Charles IX on the victory of Dreux (cf. C. S. P. For., No. 187, January 29, 1563, from Madrid; No. 190, January 30, from Madrid; No. 234, February 3, from Madrid). St. Sulpice this early surmised that Alva, at any rate, though he did not yet so suspect the political designs of Philip II, desired the continuation of civil war in France in order that Spain might profit by her distress, and so wrote to Catherine de Medici.—L’ambassade de St. Sulpice, 93, November 12, 1562. In consequence of this attitude, religious and political, the arguments of France fell upon deaf ears (see ibid., 122, and note).

[663] Cf. C. S. P. For., No. 35, §2, January 6, 1563; No. 109, § 4, January 17; No. 182, §9, January 28; Forbes, II, 270, 287.

[664] C. S. P. Ven., February 6, 1563.

[665] Ibid., For., No. 234, February 3, 1563, from Madrid. No. 194, January 30, 1563. The money was used to purchase the services of 3,000 reiters and some new levies of Swiss. Pending their arrival, Charles IX called out the arriÈre-ban—cavalry of the nobility obliged to serve upon call—to prosecute the war (C. S. P. Ven., February 17, 1563). See the interesting account of the interception of 13,000 Écus d’or probably by the Huguenots, though it may have been by robbers, sent from Flanders in February, 1563 (Paillard, “De tournement au profit des Huguenots d’un subsidÉ envoyÉ par Philippe II À Catherine de MÉdicis,” Rev. hist., II, 490).

[666] C. S. P. For., No. 145, January 24, 1563; Forbes, II, 300.

[667] Ibid., Eng. For., No. 289, February 12, 1562. “If the admiral,” wrote the earl, “should, for want of present aid, be discomfited and driven to make composition, they may reckon not only upon the whole power of France being bent against this place (Harfleur), but that the same will, with the assistance of Spain and Scotland and their confederates, be also undoubtedly extended against England. But if he be now aided with 10,000 men and 200,000 crowns, further inconvenience will be stayed and may serve a better purpose than the employment at another time of a far greater number at larger charges. It would be better for the queen to convert a good part of her plate into coin than slack her aid.”—Ibid., Eng., No. 290, February 12, 1563; add Nos. 285, 287. Warwick in seconding Coligny’s appeal (ibid., For., No. 294, February 12, 1563) urged haste in the matter of the money, as “if it is not sent in time it will be the ruin of the cause through mutiny of the reiters, who may even kill the admiral;” moreover, as the admiral’s forces were all cavalry, English infantry was wanted.

[668] C. S. P. For., Nos. 265, 276, 280, 282, 289, February, 1563.

[669] Ibid., Eng., No. 291. Throckmorton’s report of his conference with Admiral Coligny, February 12, 1563. It is astonishing, after this display of selfishness and greed, that Coligny should still have retained patience with, and faith in, Elizabeth.

[670] The duke was short of heavy guns and had to send to Paris for them to come to Corbeil by water, from thence to Montargis, and so after by land to the river. The defenders had improvised a mill on the island into a fortress but after the arrival of the heavy guns, so hot a fire was poured upon them that they were compelled to retire across the bridge, “leaving many to the mercy of the fish” (Claude Haton, I, 319).

[671] C. S. P. For., No. 323, February 17, 1563. Both D’AubignÉ, Book III, chap. xvi, and La Noue, MÉm. milit., chap. x, have vivid accounts of this siege; cf. also De Thou, Book XXXIV.

[672] Barbaro gives details of the havoc wrought by this explosion (C. S. P. Ven., January 28, 1563); cf. C. S. P. For., No. 239, § 3, No. 323, § 18, February 17, 1563.

[673] Throckmorton wrote to Cecil on February 21: “He is to be pitied, for every hour he is in danger of his life and of being betrayed by his reiters.”—C. S. P. For., No. 333, §§1, 5, 9, February 20, 1563; No. 339, February 21, 1562.

[674] Ibid., No. 374, March 1, 1563; Forbes, II, 332.

[675] Montgomery to the Rhinegrave, Dieppe, 8 fevrier, 1563: “Les habitans du plat pays m’ont faict entendre qu’ils seroient prestz de se joindre À moy si je me vouloys metre en campagne pour les deffendre des oppressions, pilleries et sacagementz qu’ilz disent estre exercÉs par ceux qui vous suivent. Monsieur l’admiral [Coligny] n’est [pas] au pays [l’OrlÉannais] que me mandez ou À tout le moings qu’il a faict une extrÈme diligence et est plus prÈs de nous qu’on ne cuyde, en delliberation de metre bientost une fin À ces troubles, pour nous faire tous jouyr du rang que nous debrons tenir prez la personne du Roi comme ses vrays subjets et loyaulx serviteurs.”—Fillon Collection.

[676] C. S. P. For., No. 352, Warwick to the council, February 25, 1563; cf. Forbes, II, 336; C. S. P. Eng. For., No. 327, §3, February 18, 1563; Forbes, II, 334, 380, March 1, 1563; cf. Nos. 333, 344.

[677] The money reached Havre on February 25 and was brought by Beauvoir, Briquemault, and Throckmorton under guard of eight pieces of artillery to Caen at once (Delaborde, II, 226, 227). The reiters received their pay at once. For some curious information about the avarice of the reiters and the pay given them, see Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 129, note; VII, 407.

[678] C. S. P. For., 391; Forbes, II, 346.

[679] Catherine wrote with truth: “Ce royaume est rÉduit en telle extrÉmitÉ que la necessitÉ veut que l’on ne perde l’occasion de faire pacifier, principalement pour jeter hors les Étrangers, mÊmement les Anglais.”—L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 101.

[680] “La guerre,” said Catherine with words of simple dignity, which were repeated in the instructions of the special envoys sent to notify the court of Vienna and Madrid, the Vatican and the Council of Trent, “a tellement appauvri le royaume qu’il est rÉduit À un État digne de commisÉration. La voie des armes Était impossible; le remÈde propre À un tel mal, l’expÉrience a dÉmontrÉ, c’est un libre et gÉnÉral concile.”—Corresp. de Cath. de MÉd., II, Introd., v. Philip II, reproached the regent of Parma for not lending assistance to France. See her letter justifying her conduct in Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 266, August 12, 1563.

[681] The marshal Brissac succeeded to the command (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 120). For the influence of the death of the duke of Guise in France, see Forneron, Hist. des ducs de Guise, II, 80; upon Flanders, Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 52, 61, 65; Gachard, Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 245. For interesting details see D’AubignÉ, Book III, chap. xx; MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 243; C. S. P. For., No. 332, February 20, 1563; No. 354, §§2-5, February 26, 1562, both from Smith to Queen Elizabeth, written from Blois. Cf. Forbes, II, 159; 361, §§1-8, 17, February 26, 424, §10 March 8, 1563; C. S. P. Ven., letters of February 23, 27, and March 2, 23, 1563. It is said the duke received warning from Montluc and Madame de St. AndrÉ, but that the word arrived too late. The news of his death was kept from Mary Stuart for some time. See C. S. P. Scotland, VI, No. 1,173, March 10, 1563; VIII, No. 17, March 18, 1563; No. 30, April 1, 1563; No. 31, April 10, 1563. On the political theory of assassination, see Weill, 69.

Poltrot was put to death on March 18; for the trial, see MÉm.-journ. de FranÇois, de Lorraine (Michaud Coll.), 506, 537 ff.; Paulin Paris, Cabinet hist., I^Ère part., III, 49 ff. A conspicuous instance of the high-mindedness of Jeanne d’Albret is the letter of consolation she wrote to the duchess of Guise after the assassination of the duke (La FerriÈre, Rapport, 39).

[682] C. S. P. For., No. 422, March 8, 1562; Forbes, II, 350, 354, 356; C. S. P. For., No. 437, March 12, 1563; ibid., No. 424, §§25-27; No. 435, March 11, 1562, CondÉ to Smith.

[683] Ibid., No. 473; 481, March 20, the Rhinegrave to Warwick on the basis of a letter of the queen mother (Beza, II, 17, ed. 1841).

[684] C. S. P. For., Nos. 395, §2, March 3, 1563; 419, §5, March 7; 424, §§3, 4; Forbes, II. “La retarder d’un jour,” said De Losses in one of the sessions of the King’s council, “c’Était exposer la ville de Paris au sac et au pillage, laisser le roi et la reine À la merci des protestants encore aux armes.” M. Gonnor, later the marshal Matignon, dwelt upon the miserable state of the country and concluded: “Je parle sans passion. Je ne suis pas huguenot et je supplie la cour de ne pas diffÉrer l’enrÉgistrement de l’Édit.”—Corresp. de Cath. de MÉd., II, Introd., iii.

[685] “TraitÉ politique par lequel en quelque sorte la gentilhommerie provinciale s’isolait du puritanisme de GÉnÈve.”—Capefigue, 260.

[686] “C’est trop grand pitiÉ que de limiter ainssy certains lieux pour servir À Dieu, comme s’il ne vouloit estre en tous endroicts.”—Fillon Collection, 2,657, the admiral to the landgrave from Caen, March 16, 1563.

[687] “Edict et dÉclaration faite par le roy Charles IX sur la pacification des troubles de ce Royaume: le 19 mars 1563,” Par., Rob. Estienne, 1563; Isambert, XIV, 135. The various pieces showing the evolution of the edict are to be found in MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 305, 333, 356, 498, 504. Cf. C. S. P. For., Nos. 428, 430, 431 (March 10, 1563).

Biron was sent into Provence in 1563 with instructions to give an account to the King of the manner in which justice was administered there and how the edict was executed. He was also to find the count of Tendes and Sommerive and express the King’s displeasure of their conduct. The royal instructions are evidence of the sincerity with which the government started to execute the edict (La FerriÈre, Rapport, 46; cf. Collection TrÉmont, sÉr. 3, p. 124).

[688] C. S. P. For., No. 424, §16; No. 590, April 8, 1563; Forbes, II, 379.

[689] C. S. P. Ven., March 23, 1563. “Response faicte par le Roy (Charles IX) et son Conseil, aux Presidens et Conseillers de sa Cour de Parlement de Paris: Sur la remonstrance faicte À sa dicte maiestÉ, concernant la dÉclaration de sa MaioritÉ, et ordonnance faicte pour le bien, et repos publique de son Royaume” (Lyons, Rigaud, 1563).

In the first week of May the King summoned the members of the Parlement of Paris and the authorities of the city to St. Germain, commanding them before the week was out to obey the Edict of Toleration, to release those imprisoned for religion, and to lay down their arms (C. S. P. For., No. 703, §3, May 4, 1563). Paris finally published the edict, but observed it slightly, the Parlement admitting the “graces” of the edict, but saying it could not in its conscience allow two religions (ibid., No. 1190, 835, June 2, 1563). For an example of the violence of the capital see No. 895, June 15, 1562. The public criers and the very horses which they used in the crying of the edict in the city of Paris were in danger of being killed by the populace, which poured out of the mouths of the streets (Claude Haton, I, 328).

[690] “Le peuple y est fort sedicieux.”—Fourquevaux to St. Sulpice, October 13, 1563, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 165.

[691] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., iv.

[692] C. S. P. Ven., March 29, April 10 and 20, 1563. On the prince de Porcien, see Le Laboureur, I, 389; also an article by Delaborde in Bulletin de la Soc. prot. franÇ., XVIII, 2. Claude Haton gives some vivid details about this retirement of the reiters (Vol. I, p. 355). Cf. Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 15, 16, 42. On the case of the Three Bishoprics see St. Sulpice, ibid.; C. S. P. Ven., March 29, April 10, 1563; C. S. P. For., Nos. 323, §8, and 419, §5, 420, 455; NÉg. Tosc., III, 403.

[693] Claude Haton, I, 279, 280.

[694] See the interesting account of an unsuccessful attempt by the reiters to storm a chÂteau (Claude Haton, I, 347-49).

[695] Claude Haton, I, 354.

[696] Quoted by Forneron, I, 277, note 1.

[697] C. S. P. Ven., April 21, 1563.

[698] Correspund de Cath. de MÉd. Introd., cxlv-vi; cf. R. Q. H., October 1869, 349-51. Charles IX was firmly resolved to enforce the national traditions of the French monarchy with reference to the papacy. The fearless speech of Du Ferrier occasioned a sensation in the council. France was accused of wishing, like England, to secede from Rome and found a national church and it was even proposed to hand the ambassador over to the Inquisition (FrÉmy, Un ambassadeur libÉral sous Charles IX et Henri III, 1880, p. 49). So energetic were the remonstrances of Lansac that he was derisively called the “ambassador of the Huguenots” (FrÉmy, 21).

On April 15, 1563, the King wrote to the cardinal of Lorraine to inform him that, having grown impatient at the slowness of the Council of Trent, he was sending the president Biragues to Trent and then to the Emperor with a mission to have the council transferred to a freer place if possible. The King declared that if the reforms demanded by Christianity were not accorded and confirmed by the council, France would not hesitate to convoke a national council. (See the instruction to D’Oysel in Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 1-3, note.)

[699] “Articles de l’alÉgation de messieurs les ambassadeurs, estant de present À la cour; envoyez, l’un par nostre saint pÈre le Pape, l’autre par l’Empereur, Roy des Romains, l’autre par le Roy d’Espaigne, et le Prince de Piedmont. Au Roy de France et princes de son sang, au mois de Fevrier, 1563,” MÉm. de CondÉ, V, 406-8; cf. L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 135 and 167.

[700] Lansac and Du Ferrier were the ambassadors of France at Trent. Lansac’s instructions, which outline the policy of France, are in Baschet, Journal du Concile de Trente, etc., 251-65; add D’AubignÉ, Book III, chap. xxi; St. Sulpice, 28, 64, 102, 114, 130, 141, 160-63. On Lansac, see Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, Index; upon Du Ferrier, consult FrÉmy, Un ambassadeur libÉral sous Charles IX et Henri III, 1880.

The cardinal of Lorraine, while agreeing with Philip II, as to religion and heresy, looked with resentment upon the King’s attempt to appropriate the political destiny of Mary Stuart to his own ends (St. Sulpice to Lansac, December 15, 1562, p. 103). The whole council was filled with disaffection; 150 out of the 230 members present were Italians, most of these pensioners of Rome, so that the others resented their preponderance (Lansac to St. Sulpice, February 10, 1563, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 115).

There were conflicts as to precedence; some of the ambassadors like Lansac and Du Ferrier believed in qualified toleration of Protestants (St. Sulpice, 115); many of the members, while believing in the enlargement of the Pope’s prerogatives in religious affairs, were opposed to a reduction of governmental rights of control over ecclesiastical temporalities. Philip II’s attitude in this respect was identical with that of Charles IX—each wanted to exercise political control over the church within his kingdom (St. Sulpice, 198). Even the cardinal of Lorraine was an advocate of temporal independence (St. Sulpice, 161). See Baschet, Journal du Concile de Trente; the Appendix has a valuable bibliography of the history of the Council of Trent. M. Baguenault de la Puchesse’ article in R. Q. H., 1869, may be added. The cardinal of Lorraine left Trent on March 23. M. Baschet questions (p. 214): “Que sont devenues toutes les dÉpÊches qu’il a du Écrire À la Reine mÈre, tant sur sa nÉgociation avec l’Empereur, que sur sa visite À la Republique de Venise et son voyage en Cour de Rome, pour l’accomplissement desquels il s’Était deplacÉ de sa rÉsidence au Concile?” He was not aware of the fact, when he wrote in 1870, that Count Hector de la FerriÈre had shortly before discovered them in the archives at St. Petersburg (La FerriÈre, Deux annÉes de mission À Saint Petersbourg, 51). For the cardinal’s mission to Venice see R. Q. H., October 1869, 349, 350, and 385, note.

[701] Forbes, II, 271; C. S. P. For., No. 1,193, §5, December 5, 1562. Granvella to the King, March 10, 1563; Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 239; cf. Philip to Margaret of Parma, May 16, ibid., I, 249.

[702] The fear was amply justified. Granvella wrote to his sovereign on December 22, 1563: “Le situation actuelle de la France est plus fÂcheuse qui j’aie vue depuis la mort du roi FranÇois.”—Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 284. Gachard, Rapport sur les archives de Lille, 218, cites a remark made in 1562: “Messieurs, acoustez bien ce qui adviendra en France entre les catholicques et les Huguenots; cas, au son flageolet de Franche il vous faudra danser par dechÀ.”

[703] On this subject see La FerriÈre, La Normandie À l’Étranger, and his article entitled, “La paix de Troyes avec l’Angleterre,” R. Q. H., XXXIII, 36 ff. Much of the article is reprinted from the introduction to Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II.

[704] C. S. P. For., No. 443, March 13, 1563, Smith to D’Andelot; cf. 511, the Privy Council to Warwick, March 23, 1563; Forbes, II, 363.

[705] The prince of Eboli and the duke of Alva proposed that Havre-de-Grace be put temporarily into the hands of Philip II, he to mediate between England and France! (St. Sulpice to Charles IX, July 11, 1563, and to Catherine, August 27; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 137, 151.)

[706] C. S. P. For., No. 498, March 22, 1563, Elizabeth to Smith.

[707] Ibid., Ven., No. 319, January 24, 1563.

[708] Charles IX to St. Sulpice, June 20, 1563; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 122, 123.

[709] Ibid., 136.

[710] Neither Coligny nor D’Andelot could be prevailed upon to serve in the war against England, although believing they had been shabbily treated by Elizabeth. The admiral openly refused; D’Andelot feigned illness; CondÉ alone, of the Huguenot leaders, bore arms against his former ally—“l’honneur de la France couvrait son ingratitude.”—Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., xii, xiii, xvii; cf. C. S. P. For., Nos. 498, 511, 541, and especially 548, March, 1563. Elizabeth had replied to the envoy sent to her by the prince of CondÉ to notify her of the peace made by the prince with the King and to treat for the restitution of Havre-de-Grace, that as the envoy had neither power nor commission from the King, she would not negotiate with him, and that nothing must be said about Havre-de-Grace unless the affairs of Calais were first adjusted (C. S. P. Ven., May 18, 1563).

[711] Ibid., For., No. 936, April 17, 1563. Warwick in a letter to Lord Robert Dudley and Cecil of April 23, 1563, estimates the French force around Havre at 10,000 French and 6,000 Swiss (ibid., No. 659; Forbes, II, 398).

[712] C. S. P. For., No. 652, Mundt to Cecil, April 20, 1563, from Strasburg; cf. No. 659, Warwick to the Privy Council on the authority of the Rhinegrave, April 23, 1563; Forbes, II, 398. Nevertheless, the French continued to fortify Metz against the future (C. S. P. For., No. 705, May 4, 1563).

[713] The church complied by mortgaging its possessions to this amount (Claude Haton, I, 330). They were redeemed in the March following (Catherine de Medici to St. Sulpice, December 22, 1563; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 203); Journal de Bruslart, 141. The transaction cost the church 3,230,000 livres. Some of the clergy claimed that the King had no right to do this without papal authorization (Claude Haton, loc. cit.).

[714] The rate was fixed at five livres for each measure of wine, and at 6 sous, 8 deniers, for each queue (Claude Haton, I, 330, 331). The farm of this gabelle was sold at Provins for the sum of 600 livres.

[715] “ ... Led. prince dit avoir moyen de faire sortir ... les Allemans qu’il a en grand nombre.”—L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 101; C. S. P. For., Nos. 688; 748, §§13, 20; 753, §§5, 10; No. 764 (anno 1563); C. S. P. Ven., No. 326, May 18, 1563.

[716] C. S. P. Eng. For., No. 750, §§6, 7, May 16, 1563; No. 753, §5, May 17; No. 770, May 20, 1563.

[717] C. S. P. For., 584, April 5, 1563; Forbes, II, 573.

[718] Warwick had barely 5,000 men of all sorts to defend the town (C. S. P. For., No. 680, Muster of April 29-30, 1563). There was much sickness. Food was scarce. “The estate of victuals here,” wrote the earl to the Privy Council on April 30, “rests now upon a scarce proportion of one month in bread and corn (of beer we can make no further account than as long as we are masters of water, to brew), having neither flesh, fish, butter, nor cheese, nor any meat of the queen’s store but bacon for two days. The clerk of the store here is as bare in money as victuals.... The enemy’s chief hope for taking this town rests upon famine.”—C. S. P. For., No. 676; Forbes, II, 402. Warwick pointed out, however, that if the queen “would put forth a power upon the sea” and keep the mouth of the Seine open, as well as prevent relief from being brought from Flanders and Brittany, Havre might be saved. “Their whole relief must come to them by Picardy side, which will not suffice long; neither can they be victualled by land any way, if the commodities of the seas be by this means taken away.”—C. S. P. Dom., XXVII, 15, January 12, 1563. Cf. XXVIII, 48, May 8, 1563.

[719] C. S. P. For., No. 786; Forbes, II, 427.

[720] C. S. P. Ven., No. 328, May 28, 1563.

[721] Rel. vÉn., I, 375.

[722] Ibid., I, 429.

[723] C. S. P. Ven., No. 338, July 27, 1563; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 141, 142.

[724] I have come upon an interesting item in the history of the art of war in connection with this siege of Havre. In January, 1563, a Corsican, resident in Spain, by the name of Pietro Paolo del Delfino offered his services to St. Sulpice. “Il va dans l’eau,” wrote the ambassador to Catherine, “et m’a assurÉ qu’avec certains engins il empÉchera que nul navire venant d’Angleterre puisse aborder aud. Havre sans grand danger.” In June Delfino arrived at Bois de Vincennes, where he was well received, according to his own statement (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 112, and n. 4). But I do not find any further mention of him. Was this invention a sort of torpedo? We know that shells were first used in the siege of Orleans in this year.

[725] C. S. P. Ven., No. 341, August 6, 1563; on the progress of the siege and the condition of Havre cf. ibid., For., 1563, Nos. 754, §6; 762, 806, §§4, 5; 828, 835, 852, §4; 853, §4; 857, §8; 871, 881, 894, 907, §2; 941, 967, 973, §2; 977, §4; 982, §9; 998, 1007, 1021, 1024, 1026, §7; 1044, §4; 1049, 1081, 1086, 1100, 1208, 1296. In Appendix VI is a letter of Admiral Clinton to Lord Burghley, July 31, 1563, in which he says that the plague, not the arms of France, has conquered them.

[726] C. S. P. Ven., No. 343, August 14, 1563.

[727] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., xxvi-xxviii; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 177, 194, 195.

[728] “Adieu le droit de Calais,” wrote Robertet, Charles IX’s secretary, on July 4, 1561, to St. Sulpice (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 142).

[729] C. S. P. Ven., 347, November 11, 1563; ibid., For., No. 6, January 4, 1564; No. 47, January 15.

[730] Ibid., Ven., No. 348, November 18, 1563; Archives de la Gironde, XVII, 293.

[731] The text of the treaty is in Rymer’s Foedera, XV, 640. La FerriÈre has an extended account of the negotiations in Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., xxxiv-xliv. For other details see C. S. P. For., 1564, Nos. 6, 47, 250-53, 297, 307-10, 314, 347, 363, 364. On the great commercial importance of the treaty of Troyes, see De Ruble, Le traitÉ de Cateau-CambrÉsis, 193, 194.

[732] C. S. P. Ven., 1564, No. 388.

[733] “A Paris arriva toute la maison de Lorraine vestue de deuil, pour faire une solemnelle demande de justice exemplaire sur la mort du duc de Guise.”—D’AubignÉ, II, 204; the request bearing date September 26, 1563, is in MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 667.

Coligny was so fearful of suffering violence in Paris from the bigotry of the populace or at the instigation of the Guises, that he would not enter the city.

[734] On these feuds see C. S. P. For., anno 1563, No. 748, §§1-6, 15; No. 753, §1; No. 770; No. 896, §3; No. 912, §4; No. 1,003, §3; No. 1,212; No. 1,233, §4; No. 1,249; No. 1,287: No. 1,337, §3; No. 1431; No. 1,445, §8; Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, letters of April 20, 30, May 1, 21, 27, 31.

[735] C. S. P. For., No. 1,558, December 29, 1563. “Le connÉtable lui mÊme, tout en Étant homme de bien catholique, Était cependant carnale, et voulait avoir appui des deux cotÉs.”—Baschet, Journal du Concile de Trente, 240.

[736] For examples see C. S. P. For., No. 982, §§1, 2, an episode of the last week of June, 1563; ibid., Ven., No. 333; Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., xxix.

[737] A law was made in August forbidding the wearing of any weapon but sword and dagger; concealment of firearms was an offense punishable by confiscation of lands and goods (Edict of Caen, August 24, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 147; C. S. P. For., No. 1,394, October 1563; ibid., No. 912).

[738] C. S. P. For., No. 1,003, July 14, 1563; ibid., Ven., No. 330, June 10.

[739] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., xxxii, xxxiii (many examples).

[740] C. S. P. For., Nos. 896, §§3, 17; 912 §4.

[741] Ibid., Nos. 1,155, 1,387, 1,394, 1,431, 1,445, anno 1563.

[742] The fisheries of France, however, were profitable. “They quietly make their herring fishery ... without impeachment.... Their fish-markets were never better furnished.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,356, Throckmorton to the queen November 1, 1563.

[743] Castelnau, Book V, chaps. vii-ix.

[744] “Instructions pour le Sieur de Lansac, envoyÉ en Espagne, janvier 1564,” L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 223.

[745] August 18, 1563. The officiai promulgation is in MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 574. DÉclaration faicte par le Roy en sa majoritÉ tenant son lict de justice en sa cour de Parlement de Rouen, Robert Estienne, Paris, 1563.

[746] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 101, 102; R. Q. H., XXIV, 459; Claude Haton, I, 363, and n. 2; Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., xxiii; C. S. P. For., No. 1,190, September, 1563.

The declaration, by a technicality, contravened the testament of Charles V (1374), which for centuries had been the law regulating the King’s majority. Charles IX was born on June 17, 1550, so that he was in his fourteenth year, though not yet fourteen years old. The Parlement of Paris for more than a month refused to register the edict, not on political, but on religious grounds. It objected to “la mention de l’Édit de pacification d’Amboise, introduite sans motif dans la dÉclaration de l’Édit de la majoritÉ, ce que semblait reconnaÎtre deux religions.”—Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., xxiv. The Venetian ambassador gives an interesting character-sketch of Charles IX at this time (Rel. vÉn., I, 419).

[747] The estates of Burgundy declared in a memorial that it was impossible to maintain double worship in France and petitioned that Protestant worship might be abolished in that province, May 18, 1563 (D’AubignÉ, II, 205; MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 413; Castelnau, Book V, chap. vi.)

[748] “S’Étaient tous dÉpartis avec une hÂte extrÈme causÉe sur la disposition du pape.”—Testu to Catherine de Medici, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 207. “Les ÉvÊques franÇais se dÉclarent obligÉs de partir, se voyant privÉs de ressources.”—Baschet, Journal du Concile de Trente, 239.

[749] The Pope sent the bishop of Vintimilla to Spain to persuade Philip II to enforce the Tridentine decrees in favor of the counter-Reformation (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 174, 200, 217, 218). See also a letter of Luna, Philip II’s ambassador at Trent, of November 17, 1563, in Correspondencia de los principes de Alemania con Felipe II, y de los Embajadores de Este en la Corti di Vienna (1556-98) in “Documentos inÉditos,” CI, 24.

[750] Annales Raynaldi, 1564, No. 1; LabbÉ, XIV, 939; cf. R. Q. H., October, (1869), 402.

[751] For the grounds of objection see R. Q. H. (October, 1869), 365, 366, and 401-8; FrÉmy, Diplomates du temps de la Ligue, 45. In Vol. LXXXVI, Coll. de St. PÉtersbourg, is a collection of letters, many of them from Lansac and the cardinal of Lorraine while at the Council of Trent. These are the letters whose disappearance Baschet wondered at and deplored (La FerriÈre, Rapport, 58).

[752] Charles IX to St. Sulpice, February 26,1564, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 229; D’AubignÉ. II, 223; L’Estoile, I, 19; Bulletin de la Soc. prot. franÇ., XXIV, 412. Catherine makes no allusion to this scene in her letter to Elizabeth of Spain at this season (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 237). But on a subsequent occasion, when the cardinal of Lorraine dropped the remark that the Council of Trent ought to be called Spanish, the queen mother replied “qu’il avait raison, et que aussi lui mÊme s’Était montrÉ tel et plus de ce parti que de tout autre.”—Ibid., 383.

[753] R. Q. H., XXXIV, 462; FrÉmy, Diplomates de la ligue, chap. i.

[754] Tavannes, 291.

[755] Vargas, Spanish ambassador in Rome, to the cardinal Granvella, February 22, 1561 (Papiers d’État du card. de Granvelle, VI, 512, 513; R. Q. H., XXXIV, 460).

[756] On January 16, 1562, Granvella wrote to Perez from Brussels that it was already impossible to prevent this (Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 198).

[757] Philip II to Quadra, Spanish ambassador in England, August 4, 1562 (Papiers d’etat du cardinal de Granvelle, VI, 606).

[758] La PopeliniÈre, Book VIII, 591, 634, gives the text of these appeals.

[759] “Les États ne payeraient un maravÉdis aux bandes d’ordonnance si on voulait envoyer celles-ci en France.”—Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 206.

[760] “Pour coupper la racine du mal, il ny puisse avoir de plus courte voye, ny de meilleur expÉdient que alluy d’armes.”—Lettres du cardinal de Ferrare, Letter xxx, 1563.

[761] “AprÈs la dÉclaration que seigneurs ont envoyÉe en Espagne des deniers qu’ils y ont demandez, ils ne voyant pas qu’on se haste beaucoup de leur respondre.”—Ibid.

[762] NÉg. Tosc., III, 492.

[763] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VI, 620, September 13, 1563. It is interesting to observe the objections of Margaret of Parma and Granvella. According to the former, “l’impossibilitÉ de donner secours au roi de France Était notoire, À moins qu’on ne voulÛt la perte et la ruine totale des Pays-Bas.”—Gachard, Philippe II et les Pays-Bas, I, 211; Margaret to Philip, August 6, from Brussels. The latter deplores the reduction of the forces of the country because “les ligues et confÉdÉrations (c’est ainsi qu’on les appelle) formÉes contre lui, continuent.”—Ibid., August 6, 1562. Three future patriots of the Netherlands were in this session of the Council of State—William of Orange, Egmont and Hoorne. Cf. Gachard’s note.

[764] La PopeliniÈre, Book viii, 499; Rel. vÉn. II, 99.

[765] “Cependant la ligue ne s’est pas renfermÉe dans l’enceinte de Paris. Paris, qui l’avait incertaine et hesitante encore, la renvoya aux provinces, toute brÛlante et toute armÉe. Elle s’associa À leur intÉrÊts, rÉflÉta leur passions et leur caractÈre, feroce en Languedoc, durement obstinÉe en Bretagne, partout modifiÉe dans sa nature et sa durÉe par la politique locale des municipalitÉs.”—OuvrÉ, Essai sur l’histoire de la ligue À Poitiers (1855), 6.

[766] Ranke, Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, 226, notices this contrast between the north and the south.

[767] This local organization did not seem strong enough for Montluc, whose activity against the Protestants in 1562 was already notable and who was suspicious lest some Huguenots might creep into the body and betray it; so the power was taken out of the hands of the jurats of the city at his suggestion and vested in the hands of Tilladet, governor of Bordeaux, who also had possession of the keys of the city. This proceeding was destined to be revolutionary in the development of the municipality. The jurats pleaded their ancient privileges, which were as old as the English domination, which Louis XI had confirmed after the wars of the English in France were over. But the parlement of Bordeaux approved the change and thus the form of government of the greatest city of the Gironde was altered by stress of circumstances (O’Reilly, Hist. de Bordeaux, II, 241-44; Montluc, Lettres et commentaires, IV, 214, note). Cf. Gaullieur, Histoire de la rÉformation À Bordeaux et dans le ressort du parlement de Guyenne. Tome I, “Les origines et la premiÈre guerre de religion jusqu’À la paix d’Amboise” (1523-63), Paris, 1848.

[768] “Tellement que les pauvres fidÈles trembloyent dans Aix et plusieurs firent constraints de s’enfuyr.”—MÉm. de. CondÉ, IV, 240. At p. 278 is an account of the formation of this league. Cf. Discours vÉritable des guerre et troubles advenus au Pays de Provence en l’an 1562.

[769] This was Henri Damville, the second son of the constable Montmorency.

[770] This association, in the words of D’AubignÉ, was the “prototype et premier example de toutes les ligues qui ont despuis paru en France.”—Vol. II, 137. Extended accounts of its origin may be found in the Annales de Toulouse, II, 62 ff.; De Thou, IV, Book XXXIV, 496, 497; La PopeliniÈre, Book VIII, 602, gives the text of the compact, which shows the financial measures adopted in the support of the league; Lettres et commentaires de Montluc, ed. De Ruble, II, 398; Hist. du Languedoc, V, 249 ff. Protestant accounts are in Beza, Book X; D’AubignÉ, III, chap, xviii.

[771] Commentaires (Eng. trans.), Book V, 232.

[772] “Ordonnance de Blaise de Montluc, chevalier de l’ordre et lieutenant du roi en Guyenne, sur l’opinion qui devoit estres les sujets fidÈles À sa MajestÉ en la sÉnÉ-chaussÉe d’Agenois, et sur l’ordre qu’ils devoient tenir pour rÉsister aux entreprises des sujets rebelles.”—Ruble, Comment. et Lettres de Montluc, IV, 190; La Faille, Annales de Toulouse, II, 62. The preamble is a recital of Catholic grievances and Huguenot violence.

[773] D’AubignÉ, II, 213, and n. 6; Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 214.

[774] C. S. P. For., No. 1,000, anno 1563.

[775] Mourin, La rÉforme et la ligue en Anjou, 21, 22.

[776] It is interesting to observe how history is repeating itself in the formation of these local associations or confraternities against the Huguenots. In 1212 in the course of the war against the Albigenses the “Confraternitas ad ecclesiae defensionem Massiliae instituta” was formed at Marseilles by Arnaud, the papal legate. See MartÈne, Thesaurus anecdotorum, sub anno.

[777] Martin, Histoire de France, IX, 201; Anquetil, I, 213.

[778] “Si la RÉforme acquit une si grande importance, au point que les esprits superficiels y virent l’origine des libertÉs actuelles, c’est qu’auparavant avait ÉclatÉ une rÉvolution sociale et Économique, dont les luttes religieuses ne furent que les arriÈre-maux. Tant que les historiens, dans leurs Études sur la RÉforme, ne tiendront pas compte de ce dernier point de vue, ils n’Écriront À son sujet que les romans ou des pamphlets.”—Funck-Brentano, Introd. to new ed. of MontchrÉtien’s L’Œconomie politique, LXXI.

[779] Hauser, “The Reformation and the Popular Classes in France in the Sixteenth Century,” American Historical Review, January, 1899, 220.

[780] See Hauser, Ouvriers du temps passÉ; Pariset, Histoire de la fabrique lyonnaise, 1901; Roussel, “Un livre de main au XVI^e siÈcle,” Revue internationale de sociologie, XIII (1905), 102, 521, 825.

[781] Eberstadt, “Der franzÖsische Gewerberecht und die Schaffung staatlicher Gesetzgebung und Verwaltung in Frankreich vom dreizehnten Jahrhundert bis 1581,” Schmoller’s Forschungen, XVII, Pt. II, 270. This is a pioneer work in the economic subject here briefly outlined. The reader will find Unwin’s Industrial Development in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, London, 1905, an admirable survey of the same subject, dealing chiefly with England, but with frequent reference to the continent, where the conditions were much the same. There is a copious bibliography prefixed to the work. The article by M. Hauser referred to in the American Historical Review, January, 1899, should also be examined.

[782] Weiss, La chambre ardente, cxlv. The early identification of the French nobility with Calvinism has been exaggerated. One must be cautious in the use of the term “nobility,” for it is to be remembered that the eldest son received the largest share of the inheritance and that younger sons and small nobles, in many instances, had much in common with the small farmers in the provinces. As Mr. Armstrong aptly says: “All that separated them from their neighbors was ‘privilege,’ and to this they clung all the more desperately.”—Armstrong, The French Wars of Religion, 4. In the decade between 1550 and 1560 there is an increase in the number of aristocratic names identified with French Protestantism, but it was not till 1557 that the first great noble espoused its cause and that covertly. This was Antoine of Bourbon. In the same year Coligny and D’Andelot also inclined to it (Whitehead, Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, 63-66). On the whole matter, see Lavisse, Histoire de France, V, Pt. II, 238-42.

[783] Relazione IV, 242. The great store-house of information on this head is M. Noel Weiss, La chambre ardente, 1889—the trials for heresy during the years 1547-49 of the reign of Henry II—a book which has revolutionized the point of view of the history of the French Reformation (see a review of this work in English Hist. Review, VI, 770).

In the town of Provins there were but a few Huguenots. Among them were 1 doctor; 2 lawyers; a notary; 1 barber and surgeon; 1 dyer; 3 apothecaries; 1 draper; 1 fuller; 1 salt dealer.—Claude Haton, I, 124, 125.

[784] It would be a narrow view of the history of France at this time to infer that religious and economic changes were the only sort. The truth is, the reigns of Francis I and of Henry II, were an age of transition in religion, in institutions, even in manners.

“La corruption des bonnes moeurs a continuÉ en tous estatz, tant ecclesiastique que aultres, depuis les cardinaux jusques aux simples prebstres, et depuis le roy jusques aux simples villagloix. Chascun a voulu suyvre son plaisir; on a dÉlaissÉ mesme l’ancienne coustume de s’habiller. De temps immÉmorial, nul homme de France n’avoit estÉ tondu ni portÉ longue barbe avant le rÉgne dudit feu roy; ains tous les hommes, garÇons et campagnons portoient longs cheveux et la barbe rasÉe au menton.... Les prebstres et Évesques se sont faict tondre des derniers; et ont portÉ longue barbe, ce qui a estÉ trouve fort estranger depuis le commencement du rÈgne dudit feu roy, ont commencÉ les nouvelles faÇons aux habillemens toutes contraires À l’antiquitÉ, et a semblÉ la France estre ung nouveau peuple ou ung monde renouvelÉ.”—Claude Haton, I, 112.

[785] The cahier of the estates of Orleans was published at the eve of the French Revolution (Recueil des cahiers gÉnÉraux des trois ordres, chap. i).

[786] Isambert, XIV, 63 ff.

[787] I am indebted for much of this information to M. Henri Hauser, “Les questions industrielles et commercielles aux Etats de 1560,” Revue des cours, XIII, No. 6, December 15, 1904. Cf. Funck-Brentano, Introd. to MontchrÉtien, TraictÉ de l’oeconomie politique, LXXIV-VI.

[788] Hauser, “The Reformation and the Popular Classes in France in the Sixteenth Century,” American Historical Review, January 1899, p. 223. “The trade-unions fell under the sway of the religious brotherhoods, which excluded the non-Catholics and were soon to lead the revolutionary movement of the League.”—Ibid., 227.

[789] “L’origine des ligues en ce royaume vient des Huguenots.”—Tavannes, 222; Martin, Histoire de France, IX, 125.

“En face des Protestants, qui s’associaient et s’organisaient contre les catholiques, ceux-ci avaient de bonne heure formÉ des unions locales pour rÉsister aux entreprises des hÉrÉtiques. Ces premiÈres ligues ont seulement un but religieux. Elles sont gÉnÉralement composÉes de bourgeois dÉvouÉ À la royautÉ et sincÈrement Émus des dangers auxquels est exposÉ la catholicisme.”—La grande encyc., XXII, 234, s. v. “Ligue,” article by M. de VaissiÈre.

“La jalousie entre les deux Religions ne se borna pas l’Émulation d’une plus grande rÉgularitÉ; elles cherchÈrent s’appuyer l’une contre l’autre de la force des confÉdÉrations et des serments. Depuis longtemps la Romaine entretenoit dans son sein des associations connues sous le nom de confrÉries. Elles avoient des lieux et des jours d’assemblÉe fixÉs, une police, des repas, des exercices, des deniers communs. Il ne fut question que d’ajouter À ce la un serment d’employer ses biens et sa vie pour la dÉfense de la Foi attaquÉe. Avec cette formule, les confrÉries devinrent comme d’elles-mÊmes, dans chaque ville, des corps de troupes prÊtes À agir au grÉ des chefs, et leur banniÈres, des Étendarts militaires.”—Anquetil, I, 213.

[790] Coligny expressly denied having made any promise to return Calais to England, and as to the occupation of Havre, he said: “J’en ignorais les termes jusqu’À la venue de Throckmorton en Normandie, et lorsque j’en ai signÉ la confirmation, je n’ai jamais pu croire qu’il y eut autre clause que l’assurance donnÉe À la reine du remboursement des sommes qu’elle nous avanÇait.”—Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., xiii. See the extended discussion of this controverted subject in Whitehead, Gaspard de Coligny, Appendix I, where he shows that the admiral is to be exonerated from the odium of having sought to betray Havre-de-Grace into the hands of the English and puts the blame for this article of the treaty of Hampton Court upon the vidame de Chartres.

[791] The conduct of La Rochelle in the fourth civil war is the most pronounced instance of Huguenot willingness to subordinate French territory to a foreign domination and this action was of the municipality, not of a single Huguenot leader, nor did it, of course, imply the subjection of the government of France to English rule as the Triumvirate contemplated in the case of Spain.

[792] MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 93: “TraictÉ d’Association faicte par Monseigneur le Prince de CondÉ avec les Princes, Chevaliers de l’Ordre, Seigneurs, Capitaines, Gentilhommes et autres de tous estats, qui sont entrez, ou entreront cy-apres, en la dicte association, pour maintenir l’honneur de Dieu, le repos de ce royaume, et l’estat et libertÉ du Roy sous le gouvernement de la Roy sa mere.”

The third article provides for implicit obedience to the prince of CondÉ, “chef et conducteur de toute la Compagnie,” i. e., the army; there was no league. Minute regulations follow for the government of the camp, for services of prayer both morning and evening, etc. The fourth article, which has to do with the ways and means of raising revenue, is the nearest approach to political organization: “ ... nous jurons and promettons devant Dieu et ses Anges nous tenir prests de tout ce qui fait en nostre pouvoir, comme d’argent; d’armes, chevaux de service, et toutes les autres choses requises, pour nous trouver au premier Mandement du dict Seigneur Prince.”—MÉm. de CondÉ, III, 210-15. Cf. La PopeliniÈre, Book VIII, 582 ff., upon the same subject.

[793] In 1567 when the Huguenot chiefs tried to seize Charles IX by surprise at Meaux, thus precipitating the second civil war, the Venetian ambassador, Correro, expressed astonishment at the perfection of the Huguenot organization (Rel. vÉn., II, 115).

[794] Edit de confirmation de l’Édit de pacification du 19 Mars 1562, sec. 6: “Nous ... prohibons et dÉfendons, sur peine de crime de leze-majestÉ À tous nos dits sujets, quels qu’ils soient, qu’ils n’ayent À faire practique, avoir intelligence, envoyer ne recevoir lettres ne messages, escrire en chiffre n’autre escriture feincte, ne desguisÉe, À princes estrangers, ne aucuns de leur subjects et serviteurs, pour chose concernant nostre estat sans nostre sceu et exprÈs congÉ et permission.”—Isambert, Recueil des lois, XIV, 145; the “Ordonnance explicative” of April 7 is on p. 333; cf. MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 311; La PopeliniÈre, Book X, 724.

[795] We find repeated orders for their dissolution, e. g., F. Fr. 15,876, fol. 201.

[796] Lettres-patentes of Charles IX extended the right of Protestant worship to Condom, St. SevÈre, and Dax, towns which did not figure in the edict of March 19 (Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 257, 272, and notes). A royal ordinance was later issued giving a list of those towns where Calvinist worship was permitted, specifying that it must be conducted in the faubourgs, however (MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 338).

[797] Within a month the government received anonymous information of Candalle’s activity (Archives de la Gironde, XXI, 14 [April 16, 1563]). Cf. “Lettre de Candalle À la reine, du mai 20, 1563” (F. Fr. 15,875, fol. 495). In the same volume, fol. 491, is a joint declaration of the gentlemen of Guyenne upon the purposes of this association.

[798] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 214.

[799] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 552, col. 2. At the same time Catherine wrote to certain members of the Parlement of Bordeaux. Montluc’s reply, both the personal letter he wrote to the queen mother (April 11), and the more official remonstrance he forwarded to the King, is a palpable lie. He wrote to the queen “Je vous puis asseurer ... que despuis la nouvelle de la paix, il n’y a eu traictÉ d’association aucune; que, au moindre mot que j’en ay dict, tout ne soit cessÉ comme s’il n’en avoit jamais estÉ parle.”—Commentaires et lettres, IV, 206. Cf. his similar declaration to Charles IX, on p. 214. The clergy of Bordeaux sustained Montluc in this deception, and when the queen’s suspicion continued, justified the association on the ground of religion. Corresp. de Catherine de MÉd., I, 552, note. Candalle in a letter of May 20, 1563, still evaded the truth in writing to the queen (F. Fr., 15,876, fol. 495), and Catherine, upon more suspicious information from d’Escars, determined to satisfy herself of certain facts, and sent two commissioners to Guyenne to secure better information (Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 270, note). Unfortunately for the government, the Parlement of Bordeaux resented their coming as an invasion of their jurisdiction, and the inquiry degenerated into a quarrel between the Parlement and the commissioners (ibid., IV, 292, n. 1; Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 114, 115).

[800] Claude Haton, I, 266.

[801] “A Lyon, les catholiques y sont pour le jour d’huy en plus grand nombre des troiz partz pour une que les huguenotz; mais les dits huguenotz sont les principaulx et ceulx qui ont les forces en mains.”—Granvella to the emperor Ferdinand I, April 12, 1564, Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 467.

[802] The coast trade with England and Holland probably explains the prevalence of Protestantism in Lower Normandy, at least in part. But the reasons of the prevalence of rural Huguenotism on an extensive scale in Normandy are quite obscure. On this subject see La FerriÈre, Normandie À l’Étranger, 2-5, 82; Hauser, “The French Reformation and the French People in the Sixteenth Century,” American Historical Review, January 1899, 225, 226.

[803] Hauser, op. cit., 226, 227. I find in Montluc an interesting allusion to the prevalence of the Reformed belief among the peasantry of Guyenne, which M. Hauser has not noticed. It occurs in a letter of “Instruction au cappitaine Monluc [Pierre-Bertrand, called captain Peyrot] de ce qu’il dira À la royne et au roy de Navarre, de la part du sieur de Monluc, touchant l’État de Guyenne,” March 25, 1561, and is as follows: “Et ce, À cause des insollences, scandalles et contemnements que les paisans dudit paÏs leur ont faict depuis ung an en cÀ,” etc.—Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 115.

[804] Hauser, “The French Reformation and the French People in the Sixteenth Century,” American Hist. Review, January 1899, 224. For further information upon this change in the condition of the lower and middle classes in France in the sixteenth century see Avenel, “La fortune mobiliÈre dans l’histoire,” Revue des deux mondes, August 1, 1892, pp. 605, 606; idem, “La propriÉtÉ fonciÈre de Philippe-Auguste À NapolÉon,” Revue des deux mondes, February 1, 1893, pp. 128, 129; April 15, 1893, pp. 796, 797, 801-3, 812, 813; August 15, 1893, pp. 853-55; Lavisse, Histoire de France, V, Pt. I, 262-65.

[805] Remonstrance sent to the Pope out of France, C. S. P. For., No. 1453 (1562).

[806] Ibid.

[807] Rel. vÉn., II, 121.

[808] Du Bois, La ligue: documents relatifs À la Picardie d’aprÈs les registres de l’Échevinage d’Amiens (1859), 5.

[809] MÉm. de CondÉ, II, 812.

[810] Montluc, Letter 48, March 25, 1561, Comment. et lettres, IV, 115. “Cette apprÉciation de Montluc est digne d’Être signalÉe À cause de sa conformitÉ absolue avec les conclusions de l’Érudition actuelle. On admit gÉnÉralement que le parti protestant, À l’Époque mÊme de sa plus grande force, n’a jamais comptÉ plus de dixiÈme de la population en France.”—Note appended by M. de Ruble.

[811] Synodicon in Gallia, I, lix.

[812] A Venetian syndicate interested in France in 1566 estimated the population to be between fifteen and sixteen millions (Rel. vÉn., III, 149). I assume this estimate to be more reliable than most. According to Levasseur, economically France could support a population of 20,000,000 in the sixteenth century (Foville, “La population franÇaise,” Revue des deux mondes, November 15, 1891, 306).

[813] C. S. P. For., No. 935, §4, March 14, 1562.

[814] Upon the details of this famous tour see Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., xlv ff.; D’AubignÉ, Book IV, chap iv; Jouan, Voyage du roi Charles IX, new ed.; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 243, 254, 255, 270, 272, 274-76, 287, 300, 319.

[815] Rel. vÉn., I, 108.

[816] C. S. P. For., No. 43, March 7, 1574.

[817] “EntrÉe du roy Charles IX et de la reyne-mÈre Catherine de MÉdicis en la ville de Sens, le 15 mars 1563,” Relation extraite du MSS d’Eracle Cartault, chanoine, et des dÉliberations de l’HÔtel-de-Ville. PrÉface de M. H. Monceaux, 1882.

[818] Coutant, “DÉpenses du roi Charles IX À Troyes le mercredi 5 avril 1564 aprÈs PÂques,” Annuaire admin., etc., pour 1860 (Troyes); “Depenses du roi Charles IX À Troyes le samedi 8 avril 1564,” Annuaire admin., etc., pour 1859 (Troyes).

[819] Claude Haton, I, 364.

[820] The visit of the King to Bar-le-Duc (to attend the baptism of the child-prince Henry of Lorraine) profoundly stirred the Calvinists of France and Switzerland. Charles IX in person, Ernest of Mansfeldt, governor of Luxembourg, representing Philip II, and the dowager-duchess of Lorraine, Christine of Denmark, acted as god-parents.

[821] Fourquevaux to St. Sulpice, May 19, 1564, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 266.

[822] Armstrong, French Wars of Religion, 22, admirably observes: “Geneva was practically a French republic, constantly recruited by raw refugee material, and circulating in return trained ministers and money, giving unity to measures which local separation was likely to dissolve. Hence came the propagandism, the organization for victory, the reorganization after defeat, the esprit de corps, the religious zeal which whipped up flagging political or military energies.”

[823] See a letter of Alva in K. 1,502. Montluc later informed Philip II of it (Commentaires et lettres, V, 25, letter of June, 1565). The rumor seems not to have passed unheeded, for the marshal Vieilleville cautioned the King and his mother to be moderate in their course, saying that the Huguenots were many and the soldiers few (Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 632). On the state of Geneva at this time see Roget, L’Église et l’État À GenÈve du vivant de Calvin; Étude d’histoire politico-ecclÉsiastique, 1867.

[824] The constable to St. Sulpice, June 21, 1564, in L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 273.

[825] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 275, 276; NÉg. Tosc., III, 515, 516; Nyd (l’abbÉ) “Notes Écrites en 1566, À la fin d’un missel de l’abbaye de Malgrivier (evÉnements rel. À Lyon, 1562-66),” Bull. du Com. de la langue, de l’hist. et des arts de la France, IV, 300 (1857). The copper and lead mines of the Lyonnais had been profitable in the Middle Ages, but the wars of the English in France and the Black Death ruined the industry. See Jars, “Notice historique des mines du Lyonnais, Forez et Beaujolais,” MS, BibliothÉque de Lyons, No. 1,470.

[826] Rel. vÉn., I, 35-37.

[827] A letter of his published by La FerriÈre, Deux annÉes de mission À St. PÉtersbourg, Paris (1867), 56, 57, casts an interesting light upon the state of the city at this time.

[828] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 266.

[829] La Cuisine, Histoire du parlement de Bourgogne, I, 60; Castelnau, Book V, chap. vi, says the petition was printed. The bishop of Orleans, Jean de Morvilliers, in a letter dated August 21, 1563, called the queen mother’s attention to this growing prejudice (FrÉmy, Les diplomates de la Ligue, 30-32).

[830] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 129-31. Philip II, as has been observed, expressed his disapproval of this practice (ibid., 152), and when the French government endeavored to make it apply to the property of the French church in the Low Countries, he set his foot down hard (ibid., 188). An endeavor was made to restrain speculation in church property by law.

[831] For details see ibid., 152, 156, 165, 185, 186, 226.

[832] Castelnau, Book V, chaps. vi and x is very clear in the statement of various motives.

[833] Claude Haton, I, 368.

[834] See the wonderful word-picture drawn by Castelnau at the beginning of Book V, and Montluc, Books V, VI, passim. For the brigandage that prevailed see Montluc, IV, 343 (letter to the King from Agen, March 26, 1564).

[835] Franklin, “La vie d’autrefois,” Hygiene, chap. ii, especially pp. 67-75. For the plague of 1563-64 in Languedoc see Hist. de Languedoc, XI, 447 (Toulouse), 464 (Montpellier, NÎmes, Castres, etc.). It was at its height in July, 1564. It seems to have come into Languedoc from Spain. See also Papiers d’État du card. de Granvelle (March 11, 1564), VII, 387, 401; VIII, 36, 382, 470; C. S. P. For. (1564), Introd., xi-xii, and Nos. 544-53, §2; No. 592; Claude Haton I, 332. Those exposed to the infection were required to carry white wands as a sign (C. S. P. Ven., No. 824, November 20, 1580).

[836] Claude Haton, I, 332.

[837] Vingtrinier, La peste À Lyon, 1901.

[838] C. S. P. For., No. 553 (1564).

[839] On the state of medical science at this time see Franklin, “La vie d’autrefois,” Hygiene, chap. ii; cf. C. S. P. For., No. 544, July 1, 1564 (summary of a pamphlet printed by the city authorities).

[840] Claude Haton, I, 224-28.

[841] Claude Haton, I, 332.

[842] “Non-seulement la France fut agitÉe en ceste annÉe de guerres, diminution des biens de la terre et de peste, mais aussi fut remplie et fort tormentÉe des voleurs, larrons et sacrilÈges, qui de nuict et de jour tenoient les champs et forcoient les Églises et maisons, pour voller et piller les biens d’icelles pour vivre et s’entretenir.”—MÉmoires de Claude Haton, I, 332 (1562).

Smith declared that Lyons was the “most fearful and inhuman town he had ever seen. Men show themselves more fearful and inhuman than pagans.”—C. S. P. For., No. 553, July 12, 1564.

[843] Castelnau, Book V, chap. x.

[844] Claude Haton, I, 378.

[845] C. S. P. For., No. 327, §11, April 14, 1564; No. 389, §12, May 12, 1564.

[846] Ibid., No. 755, October 21, 1565.

[847] Jeanne d’Albret had an interview with Catherine after the court left Macon; she demanded possession of Henry of BÉarn, and leave to return to her estates. But the queen mother, feeling that to grant either of these requests might injure her cause with Philip II, sought to satisfy her with the gift of 150,000 livres and the assignment of VendÔme as the place of her residence (Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, Introd., II, l).

[848] C. S. P. For., No. 384, §7; Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 529. His opinion of the synod is expressed in Vol. VIII, 17; Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 179, note; Claude Haton, I, 384.

[849] C. S. P. For., No. 358.

[850] Castelnau, Book V, chap. x, p. 284, attests this miscarriage of justice.

[851] C. S. P. For., 755, October 21, 1564.

[852] No one can read the Huguenot historian, La PopeliniÈre, Vol. II, Book XI, without prejudice, and not be convinced of the fact that the French Protestants infringed both the letter and the spirit of the Edict of Amboise. The fact that Damville, who had succeeded his father the constable as governor of Languedoc in 1562, and who was a moderate Catholic, was required to be so drastic in his measures of repression that the Protestants complained of him to Charles IX, supports this view. Cf. Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., l and li.

[853] Castelnau, Book V, chap. x; La PopeliniÈre, loc. cit.

[854] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 328; Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 398.

[855] It was rumored also that the queen mother was ready to sacrifice the Italian protÉgÉs of France to curry favor with Spain (Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 395-400, note; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 300, 335).

[856] “TraitÉ et renouvellement d’alliance entre Charles IX, roi de France, et Messieurs les Ligues de Suisse, faite et concluÉ en la ville de Fribourg, le 7 jour de DÉc., 1564” (Dumont, Corps dip., V, Pt. I, 129).

[857] Abridged from Rott, “Les missions diplomatiques de Pomponne de BelliÈvre en Suisse et aux Grisons (1560-74),” Rev. d’histoire diplomatique, XIV, 26-41 (1900); cf. Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 630, 631; D’AubignÉ, II, 210. M. Rott admirably observes (p. 42): “Ainsi donc, cinquante ans et plus avant Richelieu, la politique confessionnelle de la France s’inspirait dÉjÀ dans les rapports avec l’Étranger, de principes fort diffÉrents de ceux qui dirigeaient son action À l’interieur du royaume.”

[858] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 72. The prince of CondÉ had secured leave to leave the court in order to visit her at Vitry in May, where she then lay ill. Her mother was Madeleine de Mailly, sister of the admiral and granddaughter of Louise de Montmorency, sister of the old constable (ibid., VII, 630, and note; cf. C. S. P. For., 592, August 4, 1564).

[859] “All go and come by the cardinal of Lorraine, for without him nothing is done.”—Smith to Cecil, November 13, 1564, C. S. P. For., 793, §2.

[860] Granvella to Mary Stuart, November, 1564, Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 570; cf. 550, 591, 599.

Randolph to the earl of Leicester: “The prince of CondÉ is become a suitor here, supported by the cardinal.”—C. S. P. Scotland, IX, 67, November 7, 1564. Mary Stuart expressed her repugnance at such a prospect by saying: “Trewlye I am beholding to my uncle: so that yt be well with hym, he careth not what becommethe of me.”—Randolph to Cecil, C. S. P. Scot., II, 117, November 9, 1564. Another match, proposed simply for the purpose of leading CondÉ along, was between the young duke of Guise and the prince’s daughter, Margaret, who was a little child.—C. S. P. For., No. 642, §3; Smith to Cecil from Valence, September 1, 1564; No. 650, ibid., September 3, 1564; No. 784, November 7, 1564. Smith to Cecil: “News is that the prince of CondÉ and the cardinal of Lorraine have intervisited each other.” Cf. Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 127. Bolwiller who disapproved of these plans in the interest of Philip II (ibid., VIII, 381, note) evidently believed the prince won over to Catholicism (ibid., VIII, 156). A propos of CondÉ’s relapse he sarcastically wrote to Granvella on July 8, 1564: “Ce que l’on est en oppinion que L’Admiral et D’Andelot se doibvent renger et hanger leur robbe, si le font, lors me semblera-il veoir une vraye farce, et pourront les femmes dire lors estre dadvantaige constante que les hommes, mesme madame de Vandosme et duchesse de Ferrare demeurans en l’oppinion oÙ l’on les void.”—Ibid., VIII, 129.

[861] Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 106, note; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 164; C. S. P. Scot., II, 153, Randolph to Cecil, March 1-3, 1565. Mary Stuart in 1564 was twenty-two years of age, Charles IX barely fourteen (Papiers d’État du card. de Granvelle, VIII, 347, note).

[862] Cf. the luminous letter of Philip to Granvella, August 6, 1564, in Papiers d’État du card. de Granvelle, VIII, 215, 216.

[863] C. S. P. Ven., November 6, 1575.

[864] Fortunately for Philip, a whim of passion helped the Spanish King’s purposes, and Catherine and the Guises failing to carry the match between Mary Stuart and the prince were content to keep the prince alienated from his party. The prince of CondÉ had become enamored of one of the queen mother’s maids-of-honor, Isabel Limeuil, while the court was at Roussillon, and had seduced her.

On this liaison see Corresp. de Cath. de MÉd., II, 189, note; Louis Paris, NÉgociations, Introd. XXVI, XXVII; NÉg. Tosc., III, 572, and especially La FerriÈre, “Isabel de Limeuil,” Revue des deux mondes, December 1, 1883, 636 and the duc d’Aumale, Histoire des princes de CondÉ, I, Appendix, xix. A suggestion of the manners prevailing at court is found in the following information: “Orders are taken in the court that no gentleman shall talk with the queen’s maids, except it is in the queen’s presence, or in that of Madame la Princesse de la Roche-sur-Yon, except he be married; and if they sit upon a form or stool, he may sit by her, and if she sits in the form, he may kneel by her, but not lie long, as the fashion was in this court.”—C. S. P. For., 1091, April 11, 1565.

[865] Unknown to Charles IX, the Spanish ambassador Chantonnay, whose recall Catherine had insisted upon for months past and who was finally replaced late in 1564 by Alava, traversed the provinces of France in disguise, in the interest of his master, journeying through Auvergne, Rouergue, Toulouse, Agen and Bordeaux, before he reported at Madrid for new duty.

St. Sulpice to Catherine de Medici, June 12, 1564; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 711; Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 592. For some correspondence between Philip II and Granvella, and Granvella and Antonio Perez regarding Chantonnay’s recall see Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 251-53. Upon Chantonnay’s successor, Alava, see L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 227, 228, 236; Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 393; Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 359, 534; Poulet, I, 570, n. 1; Forneron, Histoire de Philippe II, II, 256.

On the secret service of Philip II, see Forneron, I, 218, 290, 334; II, 304, 305; Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 498, 499; VIII, 128, 182.

Alava exceeded his instructions in threatening France with war. Philip II, far from wishing war with France, repudiated his ambassador’s statements (R. Q. H., January, 1879, p. 23).

[866] Upon one of the fits of madness of Don Carlos see letter of the Bishop of Limoges to Catherine de Medici in La FerriÈre, Rapport, 48, 49. The Raumer Letters from Paris, Vol. I, chap. xv, contain an interesting account of Don Carlos, with long extracts from the sources. The editor rightly says that Ranke in his treatise on the affair of Don Carlos, as acute as it is circumstantial, has adopted the only right conclusion for the solution of this mysterious episode of history. See also Wiener JahrbÜcher, XLVI; Forneron, Hist. de Philippe II, II, 103 ff.; Louis Paris, NÉgociations, etc., 888; Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 317, note; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 17, 29, 101, 597; Lea, in Amer. Hist. Rev., January, 1905; English Hist. Rev., XIV, 335.

[867] Cf. Papiers d’État du card. de Granvelle, VIII, 334 and note; cf. 215, 343, 344, 595, 596. Philip found a new prospective husband for Mary Stuart in the person of the archduke Charles. He had abandoned the idea of marrying Mary Stuart to his son even before the death of Don Carlos.

[868] See R. Q. H., XXXIV, 461.

[869] Catherine turned to her own advantage an almost forgotten wish of Philip II that he might see her, expressed in July, 1560, when his anxiety was great because of her lenient policy toward the French Protestants (R. Q. H., XXXIV, 458).

[870] Challoner, English ambassador to Spain, to the queen: “Hardly shall a stranger by his countenance or words gather at any great alteration of mind, either to anger, or rejoicement, but after the fashion of a certain still flood;” quoted by Forneron, I, 319, n. 2, from Record Office MSS No. 466.

[871] See the extremely interesting account of the passing of the Turkish embassy through Provins, in Claude Haton, I, 342-44.

[872] On the conspiracy of Bajazet and his flight to Persia see D’AubignÉ, Book III, chap. xxviii.

[873] NÉgociations dans le Levant, II, 729.

[874] Ibid., 730.

[875] Spain suspected the Sultan was desirous of securing a French roadstead for his fleet during the siege of Malta. See Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 38, note; D’AubignÉ, 221, and n. 1; Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 162; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 398; R. Q. H., XXXIV, 473-78.

[876] Corresp. de Cath. de MÉd., II, Introd., lxxxvi, lxxxvii; R. Q. H., XXXIV, 470.

[877] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 14, Letter of March 27, 1562.

[878] Perez writes to Granvella on November 15, 1563: “La reine mÈre de France tourmente sa majestÉ catholique pour la dÉterminer À une entrevue.”—Papiers d’État du card, de Granvelle, VII, 256; and two weeks later (December 4, 1563) we find Philip II writing to Alva, saying that “L’ambassadeur de St. Sulpice lui a proposÉ une entrevue avec la reine de France,” and desiring the duke’s opinion in the matter (Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 277). The actual text is in Philip’s correspondence, No. XXVI.

[879] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 226.

[880] “Ne se passoit jour sans nouvelle sorte de combatz, passe-temps et plaizirs.... L’on drÉÇoit joustes, tournoy, commÉdies et tragoedies.”—Fourquevaux to St. Sulpice, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 266; cf. Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 466. For an account of one of these entertainments, see Castelnau, Book V, chap. vi.

[881] “Le pays est tel que vous avez entendu, pleins de montagnes et bandoliers.”—Catherine to St. Sulpice, January 9, 1564, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 331.

[882] Charles III had been educated in France and was a French pensioner to the amount of 250,000 francs annually (Rel. vÉn., I, 451). On this Spanish pressure to revoke the Edict of Amboise see Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 461, 468; Poulet, I, 576, note; Castelnau, Book V, chap. ix; R. Q. H., XXXIV, 462, 463. The Huguenots quickly divined it (Languet, Epist. secr., II, 268, November 18, 1563; Arch. d’Orange-Nassau, I, 136).

The anxiety of the French Protestants over the King’s visit of Lorraine is well expressed in the letter of Lazarus Schwendi to the Prince of Orange, August 22, 1564, in Arch. d’Orange-Nassau, I, 191.

[883] Ranke, Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, 226.

[884] Davila, Guerre civile di Francia, III, 144. On September 27, 1564, the prÉvÔt Morillon wrote to the cardinal Granvella: “L’Édit de France contre les apostatz me faict espÉrer que la royne mÈre passera plus avant, puisque la saison est À propos; et si elle ne le faict, je crains qu’elle et les siens le paieront.”—Papiers d’État du card. de Granvelle, VIII, 361.

[885] Castelnau Book V, chap. x. Granvella expressed impatience at Catherine’s slowness in repressing the Huguenots. See his letters to vice-chancellor Seld and Philip II at this time in Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 598, 599, 632, 633.

[886] Unless the order forbidding RenÉe of Ferrara to hold Protestant service even in private while at the court, be taken as the first; see R. Q. H., XXXIV, 467.

[887] Near Lyons, where on account of the plague the court was stopping July 17 to August 15; it belonged to the cardinal Tournon, who held it in apanage.

[888] Isambert, XIV, 166; Castelnau, Book V, chap. x; La PopeliniÈre, II, Book XI, 5, 6; ChÉruel, Histoire de l’administration monarchique de la France, I, 196.

[889] D’AubignÉ, II, 211. On the last complaint see Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 195, 203, and notes. These Catholic associations generally at this time went by the name of “ConfrÉries du St. Esprit,” as D’AubignÉ’s allusion shows.

[890] For an episode showing at once the manners of some in the court, and the Catholic intensity of the people of Marseilles, see Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 475.

[891] Lamathe, “DÉlibÉration des consuls de Nismes au sujet de l’entrÉe de Charles IX dans ladite ville (1564),” Rev. des Soc. savant des dÉpart., 5^e sÉrie, III (1872), 781.

[892] While here, Catherine dispatched the marshal Bourdillon into Guyenne for the purpose of dissolving the league formed at Cadillac on March 13, 1563 (D’AubignÉ, II, 213). As we shall see, the mission was fruitless.

[893] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., lviii. The editor adds: “De toutes les villes du Midi, c’Était [Beziers] celle qui comptait le plus de Protestants.” On account of the alarm evinced by the Huguenots of the south—300 gentlemen of Beziers visited the King in a body—Charles IX, when at Marseilles on November 4, “confirmed” the Edict of Amboise. Yet so apprehensive was the court that whenever it stopped an effort was made to disarm the local populace (C. S. P. For., No. 788-1564).

[894] On the incident of Catherine reading a MS chronicle about Blanche of Castile, see the extract of the Venetian ambassador in Baschet (La diplomatie vÉnetienne, 521, 522).

[895] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., lix.

[896] Claude Haton, I, 378.

[897] The order of the King of December 13, 1564, prohibiting any nobles whoever they might be, unless princes of the house of France, from entering the government of the Ile-de-France is still unpublished. It is preserved in a report of the Spanish ambassador, Arch. nat., K. 1,505, No. 31. It is to be distinguished from the general ordonnance of the year before—“Lettres du roy contenans defenses À toutes personnes de ne porter harquebuzes, pistoles, ni pistolets, ni autres bastons À feu, sur peine de confiscation de leurs armes et chevaulx,” Paris, 1564. Cf. Isambert, XIV, 142.

[898] All the historians notice this episode. See D’AubignÉ, Book IV, chap, v; Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., lix, lx, and 253-56 where the letters of the marshal and the queen mother on the subject are given. The editor, in a long note, sifts the evidence. Other accounts are in Claude Haton, I, 381-83 (other references in note); C. S. P. For., No. 942, January 24, 1564; MÉm. du duc de Nevers, V, 12, 13; Castelnau, Book VI, chap. ii.

In Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 600-2, is an account from the pen of Don Louis del Rio, an attachÉ of the Spanish embassy at Paris; and on pp. 655, 656 is the “Harangue de l’admiral de France À MM. de la court du parlement de Paris du 27 janvier 1565 avec la rÉponse.” The baron de Ruble has written the history of this incident in MÉm. de la Soc. de l’hist. de Paris de l’Ile-de-France, Vol. VI.

According to a letter of Mary Stuart to Queen Elizabeth, February 12, 1565, the resentment due to the old law-suit over Dammartin flashed out at this time. But it must have been a conjecture on her part, for she adds: “I have heard no word of the duke of Guise or monsieur d’Aumale.”—C. S. P. Scot., II, 146. The prince of CondÉ’s Catholic leanings at this critical moment are manifested in a letter to his sister, the abbess of Chelles, in which he states that he is annoyed at the outrage committed on the cardinal of Lorraine by the marshal Montmorency; that the union of these two houses is more than necessary; that if he had been with the cardinal, he would have given proof of his good-will by deeds. See Appendix VII.

[899] “Les confraires du Sainct-Esprit et autres reprenoient plus de viguer, et les provinces ne pouvoient plus souffrir les ministres ny les presches publics et particuliÈrs, et se sÉparoient entiÈrement des huguenots; qui estoient argumens certains qu’en peu de temps il se verroit quelque grand changement.”—Castelnau, Book VI, chap. ii.

[900] Ardent Catholics, like Cardinal Granvella, believed both the marshal Montmorency and Damville to be Protestants at heart (Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 278).

[901] “Des catholiques formÈrent des ‘unions’ pour dÉfendre l’honneur de Dieu et de la Sainte Eglise, et ces unions, en se rapprochant constituÈrent la Ligue.”—Beulier, “Pourquoi la France est-elle restÉe catholique au XVI^e siÈcle,” Revue anglo-romaine, January 11, 1896, 257. The Jesuits worked hard in France for Philip II. Forneron, II, 304, quotes an interesting letter to this effect from a Jesuit working in France.

[902] The procÈs-verbal of this league is in MÉmoires de CondÉ, ed. London, VI, 290-306. For the court’s sojourn at Agen see BarrÈre (l’abbÉ), “EntrÉe et sÉjour de Charles IX À Agen (1565),” Bull. du Com. de la langue, de l’hist. et des arts de la France I (1854), 472.

For the King’s sojourn at Condom (1565) see BarrÈre (l’abbÉ), ibid., 476.

[903] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 80, 81; De Thou, V, Book XXXVII, 32; Anquetil, I, 213.

[904] Collection Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 7, July 18, 1564.

[905] De Thou, IV, Book XXXVII, 32.

[906] A printed copy of this important dispatch, entitled “Coppie d’une lettre du sieur d’Aumale au sieur marquis d’Elboeuf son frÈre, sur l’association qu’ils delibÈrent faire contre la maison de Montmorency” (February 27, 1565), is to be found in the Bib. Nat., L b. 33: 172. It evidently was circulated as a political pamphlet by the Huguenots. But where is the original? Portions of it are as follows: “Mon frÈre ... j’ay receu de vostre homme la lettre que m’avez escripte.... J’en ay par plusieurs fois cy devant escript À Messieurs de Montpensier, d’Estampes, Cehavigny: par oÙ ils auroyent bien peu juger la volontÉ que j’ay tousjours lue de nous venger, et combien je desirerois l’association que vous dites (verso) prevoyant assez combien elle estoit necessaire non seulement pour nous, mais aussi pour tous les gens de bien À qui l’on en veult plus que jamais.

“Et pour ceste cause, mon frere, je trouverais merveilleusement bon que les dicts Sieurs y voulsissent entendre, laissant les villes, d’autant qu’il n’y a nulle asseurance en peuple, comme je l’ay derniÈrement encore cogneut. Mais avec la Noblesse, de ma part je suis tout resolu et prest, et n’y veux espargner aucune chose, et le plustost sera le meilleur. Qui me fait vous prier, de regarder et en bien adviser tous parensemble, et mesmes avec le seigneur de Montpensier, et de m’en mander ce que vous aurez deliberÉ, À fin que par lÀ je resolue avec les Seigneurs et Noblesse qui sont de deÇa et mes Gouverneurs, qui feront tout ce que je vouldray.

“Au demeurant, vous avez bien entendu le nombre de Chevaliers de l’Ordre qui ont estÉ faicts, qui sont bien pres de trente ou plus, dont monsieur de Brion en est des premiers. Aussi des preparatifs que lon fuit À la Court pour aller À Bayonne recevoir festoyer la Roine d’Espaigne.”

[907] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 80-86. I have used the seventeenth-century translation of Cotton, 274, 275, which preserves something of the spirit of the original. De Thou, never having seen the document in question, expresses his doubt of Montluc’s veracity in the matter, and argues the improbability of the King’s having followed Montluc’s advice on the ground that the crown had condemned all secret associations as destructive of domestic tranquillity. “Why should the King make a league with his subjects?” asks De Thou. “Far from deriving any advantage from it, would it not diminish his authority? Would the King not incite his subjects to do exactly what he wanted to avoid, and by his own example accustom them to town factions; to foment and support parties in the kingdom?”—De Thou, IV, Book XXXVII, 33. Unfortunately for the truth of De Thou’s hypothesis, the facts are the other way, for there is documentary proof that Charles IX followed out Montluc’s suggestion, and sent the declaration to all his officers requesting their adherence to it. The baron de Ruble discovered the proof in F. Fr. 20,461, fol. 58. See his edition of Montluc, III, 86, note; cf. D’AubignÉ, II, 218, and n. 6.

[908] The credit of having made this important discovery is due to the baron de Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 317-26, 329, 330, 346, 347, 362, 363. But it was Forneron who showed the world the magnitude of Montluc’s treason (Hist. de Philippe II, I, 293-330). Suspicion of Montluc’s course, however, prevailed in his own day. He was charged with having agreed to deliver over the province of Guyenne to Philip II in 1570 and issued a cartel against his adversaries denying that he had any intelligence with Spain. See Appendix VIII.

[909] D’Andelot’s appointment to this post created intense feeling among the Catholic officers. Strozzi, Brissac, and Charry openly refused to obey him (D’AubignÉ, II, 207; BrantÔme, V, 341).

[910] Forneron, I, 294, n. 3.

[911] Montluc, ed. De Ruble, IV, Introd., ix.

[912] It will be observed that Montluc independently had come to the same conclusion as Granvella.

[913] Montluc, ed. De Ruble, IV, 317-26, February 8, 1564.

[914] Forneron, I, 330. D’AubignÉ, II, 294, wrongly ascribes this plot to the Jesuits. The traditional Protestant account, attributed to Calignon, chancellor of Navarre, is printed in MÉm. du duc de Nevers, II, 579; also in MÉm. de Villeroy. The account in Arch. cur., VI, 281, is much colored. Catholic historians have denied the existence of such a plot, e. g., the abbÉ Garnier in MÉm. de l’Acad. des inscrip. (1787), Vol. L, 722. But since the publication of Montluc’s Correspondance there is no doubt of it.

[915] Forneron, I, 303-6. Cabie, L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 483, gives the text of the ambassador’s letter to Catherine, and his note of thanks to the queen’s embroiderer who divulged the plot.

[916] D’AubignÉ, II, 204, 205; MÉm. de CondÉ, IV, 669. Charles IX’s letter of November 30, 1563, to St. Sulpice gives some details of the process (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 186, 187).

[917] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 119, 120. Her letter to her daughter in Spain, not in the correspondence, which M. Cabie cites in L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 208, displays real courage. Charles IX said he could not abandon Jeanne d’Albret “sans Être vu dÉserter de ses plus proches parents” (ibid., 247). The instructions to Lansac, who was sent to Spain to protest in the name of France against the papal action, show fine scorn (ibid., 224).

[918] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 327, note.

[919] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 228: “RÉponse de Philippe II au sr. de Lansac en sa premiÈre audience, 18 fev. 1565.”

[920] Ibid., 247.

[921] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 5.

[922] Letter to St. Sulpice, February 10, 1563, ibid., 115.

[923] Ibid., 135.

[924] Pius IV was so perplexed that he tried to avoid pronouncing in the matter. “On avait dÉcidÉ, À la derniÈre fÊte de St. Pierre, de supprimer cette cÉrÉmonie, afin de n’offenser personne.”—Charles IX to St. Sulpice, July 24, 1563, ibid., 141.

[925] Du Ferrier, French ambassador at Venice to St. Sulpice, April 12, 1564, ibid., 252.

[926] Cf. the report of the conversation between Archbishop Cispontin, the papal secretary, and D’Oysel (ibid., 273, July, 1564).

[927] “Instructions donnÉes par Charles IX À L’Aubespine le jeune, envoyÉ en Espagne,” ibid., 277, June 24, 1564.

[928] Ibid., 279, 281, 282, 299. “It is an error to regard, as most historians do, the course of the relations of Philip II to the see of Rome as a single consistent development, for the earlier part of his reign was dominated by a principle utterly different from that which inspired the latter. In the sixties and early seventies the Spanish king devoted himself primarily to the maintenance of the principles of the counter-Reformation; he abandoned political advantage in the interest of the faith, united with the ancient foes of his house for the suppression of heresy, dedicated himself and his people to the cause of Catholicism.... But in the later seventies there came a change. The spirit of the counter-Reformation was waning in France: the old political lines of cleavage had begun to reappear; Philip began to discover that he was draining his land to the dregs in the interests of a foreign power who offered him no reciprocal advantages, and reluctantly exchanged his earlier attitude of abject devotion to the interests of the church for the more patriotic one of solicitude for the welfare of Spain.... Viewed from the Spanish standpoint, the story of this long development is a tragic but familiar one—reckless national sacrifice for the sake of an antiquated ideal, exhaustion in the interests of a foreign power, which uses and casts aside but never reciprocates. But it adds one more to the already long list of favorable revisions of the older and more hostile verdicts on the Spanish monarch. Philip’s attitude toward the papacy, though not always wise or statesmanlike, was at least far more honorable and loyal to the church than it is usually represented (as, for instance, by Philippson): the first part of his reign is marked by his single-hearted devotion to the cause of Rome, and even at the last that devotion does not falter, though the interests of his country forced him to adopt a more national policy toward the papacy than that with which he had begun.”—R. B. Merriman, Review of Herre, Papsttum und Papstwahl im Zeitalter Philipps II (Leipzig, 1907), in American Historical Review, October, 1908, pp. 117, 118.

[929] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 177, July 30, 1564; R. Q. H., 1869, p. 403.

[930] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 669.

[931] Granvella said as much to Philip II, July 14, 1563. See Papiers d’État du card. de Granvelle, VII, 124; cf. Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 277 (Philip II to Alva, December 14, 1563).

[932] Granvella to Perez, August 6, 1563, Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 177.

[933] Ibid., 231.

[934] Ibid., 262.

[935] See Paillard, Histoire des troubles de Valenciennes, 1560-67.

[936] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 270.

[937] For proof see ibid., 55, 56, and note.

[938] “Les Huguenots de France sollicitent continuellement ceulx des Pays-Bas pour se rÉvolter,” writes Granvella to the Emperor on June 3, 1564 (ibid., 18).

[939] Ibid., 99; cf. 104, note.

[940] Ibid., 23, 393; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 5, 275, 280, 284, 300, 305; Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 197s.

[941] “Si cela de la religion succÈde bien en France, les affaires vauldront de mieulx.”—Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 152, July 15, 1564.

[942] The presence of many Belgian students at the French universities undoubtedly contributed to this sympathy. See Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 372.

[943] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 390, 527, 550, 556, 593.

[944] Ibid., VII, 281.

[945] The counselor d’Assonleville wrote to Cardinal Granvella after the peace of Troyes, “Adieu, Callais! combien qu’elle nous duiroit bien hors de mains des FranÇois!”—Poulet, I, 570.

[946] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 191, 194, 209, 221. Each state appointed a commission in 1563 to adjust this difficulty and other border complications on the edge of Artois and Luxembourg (for instances, see L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 224, 227, 228, 240, 254), whose conferences were prolonged through the years 1564-65. See the long note in Gachard, Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 270.

In Collection Godefroy, XCIV, No. 16, will be found a “sommaire de la nÉgociation de Calais, entre le prÉsident SÉguier et le conseiller du Faur, dÉputÉs de Charles IX, et les ambassadeurs de Philippe II;” original, signed by SÉguier and Du Faur. In the same collection, XCVI, No. 6, is a delimitation treaty pertaining to the Picard frontier, signed by Harlay and Du Drac, at Gravelines, December 29, 1565. Charles IX refused to ratify it.

[947] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 18.

[948] “Un eslavon tan importante desta cadena.”—Ibid., VII, 215.

[949] For Granvella’s opinion of the demand for the Estates-General, see his letter to Philip II, April 18, 1564 (ibid., 492-94).

[950] Ibid., 294, note, and especially 495-97; cf. L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 188, 193.

[951] “Non admettre À couleur de la peste.”—Granvella to the duchess of Parma, Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 411.

[952] This was a mere threat, however, as such a course would have injured France as much as the Netherlands.

[953] See the letter of the president Viglius to Granvella, April 17, 1564, in Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 476; cf. 481. On this whole question, so far as England is concerned see Brugmans, England en de Nederland in de eerste Jaren von Elizabeth’s regeering (1558-67), Groningen, 1892; cf. English Historical Review, VIII, 358-60.

[954] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 496, 497. Cf. the observation of Assonleville in a letter to Granvella, Poulet, I, 570. The cardinal’s prophecy was partially fulfilled (Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 40, 41).

[955] “Qui est autant que couper la gorge aux marchands.”—“MÉmoire envoyÉ pour le roi de France À St. Sulpice,” January, 1564, in L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 210.

[956] See “Note du MinistÈre de France en rÉponse aux griefs presentÉs par l’ambassadeur d’Espagne” in Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 584-86. Other references to this commercial matter are in VII, 62, 164, 375, 411, 476, 481, 495-97, 584, 668; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 175, 181, 188, 191, 193, 194, 200, 206, 209, 210, 213, 217, 221, 224, 304, 350, 351; Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 6-15, 514, 515; Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 244, 246, 247; Poulet, I, 567, and n. 2. There is a memoir on the mission of Assonleville to England, April-June 6, 1563, in the Bulletin de la commission royale d’histoire, sÉr. III, I, 456 ff.

Undoubtedly Spain’s harsh commercial policy toward France was also influenced in part by jealousy of the commercial relations of France and England, for the treaty of Troyes established freedom of trade between the two nations. For the great importance of this treaty in the history of commerce see De Ruble, Le traitÉ de Cateau-CambrÉsis, 193-95.

[957] St. Sulpice sent this important information in a letter of January 22, 1565 (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 338).

[958] Ibid., 366. Catherine de Medici pushed her insistence perilously far, asserting that Alava, the Spanish ambassador in France, had intimated that objection would not be made to the presence of the prince of CondÉ, since his exclusion might endanger the peace. Philip II promptly declared that if Alava had made Catherine believe so, he had acted in violation of instructions. “MÉmoire envoyÉ À Catherine sur les rÉponses du roi catholique,” May 7, 1564, in L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 375.

[959] Egmont passed through Bordeaux on his way to Spain while the court was there (R. Q. H., XXIV, 479).

[960] The reasons for the selection of Bayonne are set forth in R. Q. H., XXXIV, 472.

[961] “Les lenteurs ... qui sont habituelles en Espagne.”—L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 363.

[962] F. Fr. 20,647, fol. 11. For other details of the preliminaries of Bayonne, see L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 335-38, 347, 350, 351, 353, 354, 357-60, 362, 363, 366, 374-78, 382.

[963] Cf. Recueil des choses notables qui ont estÉ faites À Bayonne Paris, 1566; and the MÉmoires de Marguerite de Navarre, Book I.

[964] See De Thou, Book XXVII; Mathieu, Histoire de France, I, 283; La PopeliniÈre, Book XI, 8. The prince of Orange and William of Hesse both believed that the massacre of St. Bartholomew was concerted at Bayonne (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 507; IV, 108).

[965] Some of the literature upon this famous interview is as follows: E. Marcks, Die Zusammenkunft von Bayonne: Das franzÖs. Staatsleben u. Spanien in d. J. 1563-67, Strassburg, 1889; Combes, L’entrevue de Bayonne de 1565, Paris, 1882; Maury, in Journal des savants, 1871; Loiseleur La St. BarthelÉmy, Paris, 1883; Lettenhove, La confÉrence de Bayonne, 1883; La FerriÈre, R. Q. H., XXXIV, 457, and the same in Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd.; Philippson, L’AthÉnÆum belge, July 1, 1882; De Croze, Les Guises, les Valois et Philippe II; Boutaric, La Saint BarthÉlemy, d’aprÈs les archives du Vatican (Bib. de l’Ecole des Chartes, sÉr. V, III, 1); Raumer, Frankreich und die BartholomÄusnacht, Leipzig, 1854; Wuttke, Zur Vorgeschichte der BartholomÄusnacht; Soldan, La Saint BarthÉlemy (French trans.), 1854.

[966] R. Q. H., XXXIV, 483, and n. 2.

[967] For Alva’s judgment on the government of France see Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 276; cf. L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 341-43.

[968] NÉg. Tosc., III, 523; R. Q. H., XXXIV, 492-512, n. 4. Alva frankly said that he wished the constable were gone with the rest—“el condestable que valierÁ mas que faltÁra como los otros.”—Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 277.

[969] The duke of Montpensier was a notoriously bigoted Catholic. The Venetian ambassador said of him: “Il quale È tenuto piÙ atto a governare un monasterio di frati che a comandare ad eserciti.”—Rel. vÉn., II, 155.

[970] R. Q. H., XXXIV, 485. Montluc put a memoir in Alva’s hands which proposed an alliance between the crowns of France and Spain for the purpose of crushing the Protestants in France. In event of the French king’s refusal to become a party to this alliance, Montluc outlined the means of defense which Philip II would have to resort to. This memoir is published by the baron de Ruble in Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 23 ff. In this striking document the veteran soldier, after setting forth his favorite thesis that French Calvinism was antimonarchical in its nature, makes a survey of the religious state of the provinces. He concludes that while Protestantism was rampant everywhere in France, in five-sixths of the country the Catholics were superior. The place of great danger is Guyenne. The mutual safety of France and Spain requires the subjugation of this province. France cannot or will not do this alone (cf. Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 342, n. 3; 343, n. 4). It remains, therefore, for the king of Spain to do so. This is the historical argument for all of Montluc’s subsequent course of treason with Philip II.

[971] This has been triumphantly proved by Count Hector de la FerriÈre, who has shown that M. Combes, L’Entrevue de Bayonne de 1565 et la question de St. BarthÉlemy d’aprÈs les archives de Simancas, Paris, 1881, has mistranslated the very documents upon which he relied (R. Q. H., XXXIV, 511 ff.).

[972] Pius V was elected pope January 17, 1566 (see Hilliger, Die Wahl Pius V zum PÄpste, 1907). He had been grand inquisitor before his elevation, and imparted a ferocious zeal to the holy office (see Bertelotti, Martiri di Libero Pensero e Vittime della Sta. Inquisizione nei Secoli, XVI, XVII, e XVIII, Rome, 1892). The violence of his character and his bigotry led to his committing several acts injurious to the Catholic cause, but it was due to him that the Spanish, Venetian, and papal fleets defeated the Turks at Lepanto. He wrote on March 28, 1569 to Catherine de Medici: “Si Votre MajestÉ continue, comme elle a fait constamment, dans la rectitude de son Âme? et dans la simplicitÉ de son coeur, À ne chercher que l’honneur de Dieu toutpuissent, et À combattre ouvertement et ardemment les ennemis de la religion catholique, jusqu’À ce qu’ils soient tous massacrÉs (ad internecionem usque), qu’elle soit assurÉe que le secours divin ne lui manquera jamais, et que Dieu lui prÉparera, ainsi qu’au roi, son fils, de plus grandes victoires: ce n’est que par l’extermination entiÈre des hÉrÉtiques (deletis omnibus haeritics) que le roi pourra rendre À ce noble royaume l’ancien culte de la religion catholique.”—Potter, Pie V, 35; letter of the Pope to Catherine de Medici, March 28, 1569. The original Latin version of this letter, the salient words of which are in parentheses above, is in Epistola SS. Pii V, ed. Gouban, III, 154, Antwerp, 1640. The editor was secretary to the marquis de Castel-Rodrigio, ambassador of Philip IV to the Holy See. An abridged edition was published by Potter, Lettres de St. Pie V sur les affaires religieuses de son temps en France, Paris, 1826. The letter is one of congratulation written to Catherine de Medici upon the Catholic victory of Jarnac and the death of the prince of CondÉ. (Cf. the letter of April 13, 1569, on p. 156 to the same effect.) Nevertheless, even the Pope regarded the total destruction of the French Protestants as a result more devoutly to be wished for than practicable. Pope Pius V, however, was not the first advocate of destruction, for as early as 1556 FranÇois Lepicart gave the same advice to Henry II: “Le roy devroit pour un temps contrefaire le luthÉrien parmi eux [the Protestants], afin que, prenant de lÀ occasion de s’assembler hautement partout, on pÛt faire main-basse sur eux tous, et en purger une bonne fois le royaume.”—Bayle’s Dictionary, art. “Rose.”

The doctrine of assassination for heresy originally proceeded from the mediaeval church, in which it can be traced back as far as the beginning of the Crusades. Urban II asserted that it was not murder to kill an excommunicated person, provided it was done from religious zeal. (“Non enim eos homicidas arbitramur quod adversus excommunicatos zelo catholicae matris ardentes, eorum quoslibet trucidasse contigerit.”—Migne, Epistolae Urbani, CLI, No. 122; Mansi, XX, 713; the same words are used by Ivo of Chartres, X, 331, and by Gratian in the Decretum [causa 32, quaestio 2, canon: De neptis].) The passage stands in the revised edition, to which Gregory XIII prefixed the injunction that nothing should be omitted, and the gloss gives the following paraphrase: “Non putamus eos esse homicidas qui zelo justitiae eos occiderunt.”

In 1208 Innocent III proscribed the count of Toulouse (Teulet, TrÉsor des Chartes, I, 316), and in the same pontificate the Fourth Lateran Council declared that the Pope might depose anyone who neglected the duty of exterminating heresy and might bestow his state on others (Harduin, Concilia, VII, 19). The same canon reappears in the Decreta of Gregory IX (Lib. iv, tit. 7. cap. 13). St. Thomas Aquinas declared that the loss of political rights was incurred by excommunication (Summa [ed. 1853], III, 51). The teaching that faith need not be kept with a heretic was well established by the church in the thirteenth century. It was pleaded by the Emperor in the case of Huss—“quoniam non est frangere fidem ei qui Deo fidem frangit.”—Palacky, Documenta Joannis Hussi, I, 540.

The spirit of this teaching survived in the sixteenth century. In 1561 some citizens of Lucca, having embraced the Protestant belief, were obliged to flee from the city. The government of the republic, under suggestion from Rome, passed a law on January 9, 1562, that whoever killed one of these refugees, though he had been outlawed, yet would his outlawry be reversed; and that if he himself needed not this privilege, it could be transferred to another (Archivio storico italiano, X, app. 176, 177). On January 20, Pope Pius IV wrote to congratulate the city on this pious legislation: “Legimus pia laudabiliaque decretaque civitatis istius Generale Consilium nuper fecit ad civitatem ipsam ab omni heresum labe integram conservandam.... Nec vero quicquam fieri potuisse judicamus, vel ad tuendum Dei honorem sanctius, vel ad conservandam vestre patrie salutem prudentius.”—Ibid., 178, 179.

When Henry of Valois made oath to respect liberty of conscience in Poland he was informed that it would be sin to observe the oath, but that if he broke it, the sin of making it would be regarded as a venial offense: “Minor fuit offensio, ubi mens ea praestandi quae pelebatur, defuit.”—Hosii, Opera, II, 367.

The Ridolfi plot, it may be added, casts a very clear light upon the teaching and conduct of Pius V.

[I owe some of the information given above to a curious accident. In 1899, among a number of books which I purchased in London, I found a number of fragmentary notes dealing with this question. There is nothing to indicate their authorship, but in recognition of the assistance of some scholar to me unknown this acknowledgment is made. It may be added that the books purchased dealt with France in the fourteenth century].

[973] This was Montluc’s idea, which he broached both to the cardinal of Lorraine and Philip II, in the form of an edict which he himself improvised, and which we know that the king of Spain actually read (Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 359-62). There are two Spanish translations of the first document in the Archives nationales. Philip indorsed the letter to Bardaxi in his own handwriting: “la carta para el cardinal de Lorena.”—Ibid., IV, 362, note.

[974] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, IX, 306; Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 368; letter of Margaret of Parma to Antonio Perez, September 27, 1565.

[975] The monotony of life and the tyranny of Spanish etiquette must have borne hard upon the little queen of Spain. But in the midst of the miseries of this “royal slavery,” as M. le comte de la FerriÈre calls it, it was a crowning humiliation to be condemned to be the instrument of Philip’s political intrigues. That her young spirit rebelled, though hopelessly, against the situationis evident, from a pitiful letter written by her to her brother’s ambassador in Spain (La FerriÈre, Rapport, 28).

[976] On Cardinal Pacheco see Poulet, I, 7, note and Index.

[977] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., lxxxiii, lxxxiv.

[978] The key to it was discovered in 1885. Suriano had been Venetian envoy at Trent. He was not the regular ambassador of the senate in France and his dispatches seem to have been in another key from that of Marc Antonio Barbaro the accredited ambassador.

[979] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., lxxxv.

[980] Combes, 47.

[981] “For a whole fortnight Catherine resisted the pressure of her daughter and the Spanish envoys, who found support in the drastic proposals of the leaders of the French Catholics. Within the last three days of the interview, however, concessions were made which satisfied Alva and his master, though Granvella and Alva exhibited some skepticism. The queen was prompted, ... not by Alva’s alleged threat that the King must lose his crown, or his brother Henry his head, but merely by her fear that the total failure of the interview would hinder the attainment of her ends. These concessions consisted in the engagement to accept the decrees of the Council of Trent and in an enigmatical promise of punishment or remedial measures. The latter, however, probably did not refer to the judicial murder or assassination of the Huguenot leaders—a scheme suggested by Montpensier’s confessor and welcomed by Alva—but to the expulsion of the ministers and subsequent enforcement of orthodoxy. The execution of these measures was postponed until the conclusion of the journey, but it seems probable that Catherine never seriously intended an act which would have been the inevitable sign of civil war.”—Armstrong in English Historical Review, VI, 578, 579 (review of Marcks, Die Zusammenkunft von Bayonne, Strasburg, 1889).

[982] For example La Noue, chap. xii (1567).

[983] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 509, 510; R. Q. H., XXXIV.

[984] “Tous les bruis que l’on fayst courer ne sont pas vray.... Et y a tent de noblÈse au demeurant que tou les souir À la sale du bal je panserÈs aystre À Baionne si j’y voyais reine ma fille,” writes Catherine to the duke of Guise (Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 315).

[985] Fourquevaux, I, 6, November 3, 1565. Cf. Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 326—Catherine to Fourquevaux, November 28, 1565.

[986] For the beginnings of Catherine’s negotiations in Poland see Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., cv, 404; Capefigue, 412 ff.

[987] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 320.

[988] “C’est la raretÉ et la chertÉ des vivres qui nous chasse,” said Catherine to the Venetian ambassador (cited by La FerriÈre, Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., cii).

[989] See the rhyme upon it in L’Estoile, ed. Michaud, series 2, Vol. I, p. 17.

[990] Cf. Babinet de Rencogne, “Sur un dÉbordement de la Charente et la chertÉ des vivres en 1481,” Bull. de la Soc. art., etc., 1860, 3^e sÉr., II, 3 (AngoulÊme, 1862).

[991] Cf. Boutiot. “Notes sur les inondations de la riviÈre de Seine À Troyes depuis les temps les plus reculÈs jusqu’ À nos jours,” Annuaire admin. pour 1864 (Troyes), p. 17.

[992] Claude Haton, I, 395-98. This statement, even if there were no other evidence, is confirmed for the south of France by the court’s experience in the foothills of the Pyrenees in January, 1565 (cf. Hist. du Languedoc, V, 465). For the west of France see Chroniques Fontenaisiennes (Paris, 1841), 84, 85, and the “Journal de Louvet,” published in the Revue d’Anjou in 1854. One quotation may suffice: “Au mois de febvrier, il tomba sy grande quantitÉ de neige au paÏs d’Anjou et fust l’hyver si froid, que les riviÈres furent glacÉes et qu’on marchoit et passont par-dessus, et que tous les lauriers et romarins gelÈrent, et qu’au dÉgel les eaux crurent et furent si grandes qu’elles rompirent des arches, ponts et chaussÉes, et fust ceste annÉe appelÉe l’annÉe du grand hyver.” I know of no article upon this subject as a whole. M. Joubert, Etude sur les misÈres de l’Anjou aux XV^e et XVI^e siÈcles, 1886, pp. 35 and 161, has a little to say. The subject deserves treatment. The sources of course are almost wholly local.

[993] Claude Haton, I, 331.

[994] Idem, I, 409.

[995] Catherine’s order to the marshal Montmorency, as governor of Paris, dated November 19, 1565, is in Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 325.

[996] The authorities of Provins made requisition of the grain possessed by private persons and appropriated all save that which was necessary for the owners, which was sold to the townspeople at the maximum price of 20 sous per boisseau. The abbot of St. Jacques and the prior of St. Ayoul baked bread to be distributed to the poor. One of the wealthy citizens from Easter till harvest made daily distribution of bread to more than three hundred poor, besides furnishing them with work (Claude Haton, I, 409).

The boisseau (Med. Latin, boissellus [Du Cange, s. v.]) was an ancient measure of capacity equivalent to 13.01 litres, approximately 12 quarts. In remote parts of France the term is still sometimes used to indicate a dÉcalitre. The boisseau was used for both dry and liquid measure. On the other hand the bichet (Med. Latin, bisselus and busellus, whence the English bushel) was a dry measure, representing from one-fifth to two-fifths of a hectolitre (from 4.4 to 8.8 gallons) according to the province. The setier, was a larger dry measure of 6 pecks (Paris measure). The muid (Latin modius) also was of variable capacity. That of Paris equaled 36 gallons. The queue du creu was a large wooden cask, about equivalent to a hogshead and a half, and was used only for wine. The calculations of terms of American money are on the theory that the livre tournois in 1565 was equivalent to 3.11 francs, according to the estimate of the vicomte d’Avenel in Revue des deux mondes, June 15, 1892, p. 795.

[997] Claude Haton, I, 418. For information on this subject see Reuss, La sorcellerie au 16^e et au 17 siÈcle, particuliÈrement en Alsace d’aprÈs des documents en partie inÉdits; Jarrin, La sorcellerie en Bresse et en Bugey (Bourges, 1877); Pfister, “Nicolas RÉmy et la sorcellerie en Lorraine À la fin du XVI^e siÈcle,” Revue hist., XCVII, 225.

[998] “Molins È cittÀ, ed À posta vicina all’ Alier, sopra il quale ha un ponte; È la principale del ducato di Borbon. Vi È un bellissimo palazzo, fabbricato giÀ dai duchi di Borbon, posto in fortezza, con bellissimi giardini e boschi e fontane, e ogni delicatezze conveniente a principe. Tra le altre cose vi È una parte dove vi si teniano de infinite sorte animali e ucelli, delli quali buona parte È andata de male; pur vi restano ancora molti francollini, molte galline d’India, molte starne, È altre simil cose; È vi son molti papagalli vi diverse sorte.”—Rel. vÉn., I, 32, 34.

[999] When the court was at Blois so great was the number of strangers that the Knights of the Order made a house-to-house canvass.

[1000] C. S. P. For., anno 1565, p. 524; cf. NÉg. Tosc., III, 523. For details upon the history of the six months between July and January, see Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, lxxxvii-cv.

[1001] C. S. P. For., anno 1566, No. 17. Before the end of the month the old scores were officially “shelved” by decrees of the King in council (January 29 and 31, 1566). Many of the sources allude to this hypocritical reconciliation: De Thou, V, Book XXIX, 184; Poulet I, 125—letter of Granvella from Rome; D’AubignÉ, II, 223-25; C. S. P. For., No. 57, January 29, 1566; Castelnau, Book VI, chap. ii.

[1002] C. S. P. For., No. 41, January 23, 1566.

[1003] C. S. P. For., No. 120, February 22, 1566.

[1004] Ibid., No. 150, March 6, 1566.

[1005] Ibid., No. 136, February 25, 1566. “The constable lies at Chantilly ill at ease.”—Ibid., No. 406, May 21, 1566. Poulet, I, 190, Morillon to Granvella, March 5.

[1006] C. S. P. For., anno 1566, Introd. The text of the ordonnance is in Isambert, XIV, 189; De Thou, Book XXXIX, 178-84, has much upon it. It is he who records the speeches of the King and the chancellor. It is interesting to observe that very similar conditions prevailed in Germany at this time. See the account of the Diet of Spires (1570) in Janssen, History of the German People, VIII, 75 ff.

[1007] Cf. Cheruel, Histoire de l’administration monarchique de la France, I, 196-203; Glasson, Histoire du droit et des institutions de la France, VIII, 170 ff.

[1008] The clergy of Guyenne were so incensed at this prohibition that they threatened to leave the country (Archives de la Gironde, XIII, 183).

[1009] See the case of the magnificence of the house of a Parisian shoemaker, who had purchased the estate of a king’s treasurer and enormously enriched himself with gold and silver. Under a pretext the queen mother secured entrance to the house. Claude Haton, I, 412, gives a detailed description of its magnificence.

According to an estimate of January 15, 1572, the income from the “Parties Casuelles,” that is to say, from offices vacated by the death of particular possessors thereof, and from the “Paulette,” was two million francs and yet the corruption in the administration was so great that the King received but a quarter of this amount (Cheruel, I, 208).

[1010] De Thou, V, Book XXXVII, 185; D’AubignÉ, II, 224; C. S. P. For., Nos. 343, 344, 347, 387, April 28; May 3-4, 16, 1566; Forneron, Hist. des ducs de Guise, II, 59.

[1011] “On ne sait encore quant on dÉlogera d’icy, combien que les laboureurs des champs ayent ja faict prÉsenter deux requestes au Roy pour se retirer et sa suite À Paris jusques À ce que la rÉcolte soit faict.”—Tronchon to M. de Cordes, July 4, 1567; quoted by the duc d’Aumale, Histoire des princes de CondÉ, I, Appendix XVI.

[1012] “Politique de bascule,” R. Q. H., XXVII, 274.

[1013] C. S. P. For., No. 275, April 12, 1566.

[1014] It was estimated that, beside footmen, captains, men-at-arms, there were 20,000 horsemen attached to the various factions (C. S. P. For., No. 470, May-June, 1566).

[1015] C. S. P. For., No. 667, August 21, 1566.

[1016] Ibid., No. 715, September 14, 1566.

[1017] Hugh Fitzwilliam to Cecil: “The constable is of great authority with the king and the queen mother; and being mortal enemy to the house of Guise is with his nephews and the Protestants for his life.”—C. S. P. For., No. 741, October 3, 1566.

[1018] NÉg. Tosc., III, 515. “A man might easily perceive by the sour countenance the queen made that she liked not all that he had said. After he had saluted divers persons the king made him somewhat too short an answer for so long a demand.”—C. S. P. For., No. 444, June 1, 1566.

[1019] “The king has made peace with his treasurers for a certain sum by the constable’s means, whereof something cleaves to his fingers.”—C. S. P. For., No. 733, §2, September 28, 1566.

[1020] According to the estimate of this syndicate France had a population of from fifteen to sixteen millions (Rel. vÉn., III, 149).

[1021] C. S. P. For., Nos. 1,111-15, April 18-19, 1567.

[1022] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, IX, 594, 595; Poulet, I, Introd., l-lii, n. 2; Gachard, Don Carlos et Philippe II, I, 303; C. S. P. For., No. 641, August 13, 1566. Coussemaker, Les troubles religieux du XVI^e siÈcle dans la Flandre maritime 1560-70; Van Velthoven, Documents pour servir À l’hist. des troubles religieux du XVI^e siÈcle dans le Brabant; Verly, La furie espagnole, 1565-95; Kervyn de Lettenhove, Les Huguenots et les Gueux: Etude hist. sur vingt-cinq annels du XVI^e siÈcle (1560-1585), Bruges, 1883-85, 6 vols.; Poulet, Correspondance du cardinal de Granvelle, I, Introd., lvii-lxxvi; II, Introd., iv-vii; De Thou, V, 204-37; D’AubignÉ, Book IV, chap. xxi.

[1023] The most notable of these was Francis Junius, who was driven out of Antwerp. The Spanish ambassador demanded his arrest but the prÉvÔt de l’hÔtel refused, alleging with right that Junius was the ambassador of the count palatine and entitled to immunity (Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., cviii).

[1024] On this famous siege of Malta see D’AubignÉ, Book IV, chap. xix; De Thou, Book XXXVIII. It was begun on May 17, 1565.

Mingled with this fear was apprehension lest even the Turk might become an ally of the Flemings and the Protestant French (Poulet, I, 357, Morillon to Granvelle). That it was not an utterly fantastic notion of him alone, see the letter of Margaret of Parma to Philip II, in Corresp. de Philippe II, I, No. 411, and Gachard, Corresp. de Guillaume le Taciturne, VI, 408.

[1025] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, I, 259-89; Poulet, I, 207; Gachard, La BibliothÈque Nationale À Paris, I, 88. “Avec la libertÉ des consciences, que aulcungs prÉtendent, nous ne nous trouverions pas mal si, suyvant l’exemple des FranÇois, nous tumbions aux mesmes inconvenientz.”—Letter of Granvella, April 9, 1566, in Poulet, I, 209.

[1026] Sir Francis Berty to Cecil: “The Prince of Orange since Wednesday shows himself openly to take the Gueux part, and divers of his men wear their badge. This town is marvellously desolated; great riches are conveyed out, chiefly by strangers.”—C. S. P. For., No. 582, July 20, 1566, from Antwerp.

[1027] Poulet, I, 307.

[1028] We know of Montigny’s treason from a dispatch of Granvella to Philip II, July 18, 1565, in which the cardinal tells the King that Montigny is still successfully pretending to be a Calvinist and is in correspondence with the ChÂtillons and Montmorency. He had already been at least nine months in the pay of Spain. He got 20 Écus per diem for one job (Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, IX, 404, 595). Montigny came to Paris ostensibly to attend the wedding of the duke of Nemours’ son to the admiral’s niece at Easter time. We get a line on Philip II’s methods at this point, for the Guises themselves were having secret and treasonable dealings with Spain, yet did not know of Montigny’s relation to Philip II and treated him with scorn and contempt (ibid.; Poulet, I, 329; cf. Finot, L’espionnage militaire dans les Pays-Bas entre la France et l’Espagne aux XVI^e et XVII^e siÈcles).

[1029] Poulet, I, 304; Edward Cook to Cecil: “Montgomery has told him that the French Protestants are resolved to succour those of Flanders.”—C. S. P. For., No. 661, August 18, 1566. This letter is analyzed in the Bull. de la comm. roy. d’histoire, 3^e sÉr., I, 129. Granvella’s confidant in Brussels, the prevost Morillon, wrote with truth on July 7: “Je croy que si avons mal cest annÉe ce ne sera du costel de France.”—Poulet, I, 350. Cf. Reiffenberg, Corresp. de Marguerite de Parme, 88; Gachard, Corresp. de Philippe II, I, 429, 431, 436; at p. 473 is a letter dated October 15 in Italian from the duchess of Parma to Philip expressing fear of Huguenot projects.

[1030] Louis of Nassau without doubt was in close connection with the leading French Protestants. See Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, I, 229; II, 196, 403. It was extremely difficult to repress the ardor of the Protestants at Valenciennes, owing to its nearness of the French border and the number of Calvinist preachers whom the Huguenots sent into the country in June, 1566 (ibid., II, 135). For the influx of Calvinist preachers into the country as early as 1561 see Languet, Epist. secr., II, 155. The prince of CondÉ was reputed to have sold a tapestry for 9,000 florins, which he gave to the cause there (Poulet, I, 439).

[1031] Montluc to Bardaxi, October 27, 1564: Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 368.

[1032] Poulet, I, 64; Reiffenberg, 91; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, II, 175, 178.

[1033] Corresp. de Philippe II, I, 433.

[1034] The government of Charles IX even winked at the secret levies made by the prince of CondÉ for the benefit of Louis of Nassau, from behind the mask of an official repudiation of the complicity of any French in Flanders, denying that the prince of CondÉ was ever in Antwerp in disguise (Poulet, I, 521, 3; Gachard, La BibliothÈque Nationale À Paris, II, 206). The last assertion, of course, was true. On July 24 a royal proclamation was issued at Alva’s instance, forbidding French subjects to go into the Low Countries “pour nÉgotiation ou autrement.”—Poulet, I, 364; Gachard, op. cit., II, 27.

[1035] “Hinc illae lachrymae et ille metus,” wrote the provost to Granvella (Poulet, I, 405). It was the wish of the Emperor that the King of Spain would go in person and without an army to the Low Countries in order to pacify it by kindness and not by force (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, II, 505; Raumer, I, 173, December, 1566). But Philip II could not make up his mind to come in person to the Netherlands, although advised to do so by all. For years he continued to entertain the thought and continually put it off. See a letter of the Duchess of Parma to Duke Henry of Brunswick upon the coming of the duke of Alva, January 1567, in Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 21 ff.

[1036] On April 3, 1565, St. Sulpice sent word to Charles IX that Philip II had sent Menendez to Florida “avec une bonne flotte et 600 hommes pour combattre les FranÇais et les passer au fil de l’ÉpÉe.”—L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 364. When Fourquevaux succeeded him the French government had not yet learned of the massacre. St. Sulpice’s fragmentary information is to be found at pp. 400, 401, 404, 414. The abortive efforts of France to secure redress are spread at length in Corresp. de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, 209, 330, 337, 338, 341, 342, 360; and in Fourquevaux, I, Nos. 4-7, 9, 15, 21, 28, 43, 47, 55, 66. The editor’s account in the Introd., xv-xxi is admirable. In the Correspondencia espaÑola, II, 126-28, is to be found Philip II’s letter to Chantonnay, February 28, 1566, in reply to the ambassador’s letter of advice about Coligny’s enterprise. The blood of French colonists who had been massacred in Florida cried out for vengeance, and from the hour of its knowledge the subject of reprisal was a matter of common talk in the Norman ports (C.S.P. Dom., Add., XIII, 227). On September 24, 1566, Sir Amyas Paulet, the English ambassador informed his government that he had information that a squadron was about to sail for this purpose, although it was “late for so long a voyage” (ibid., 31). On the whole history of this ill-fated colony see Gaillard, “La reprise de la Floride faite par le capit. Gourgues (1568),” Notices et extr. des manuscr. de la Biblioth. Nat., IV, and VII (1799); Gourgues, La reprise de la Floride, publiÉe avec les variantes, sur les MSS de la Bibl. Nat. par Ph. Tamizey de Larroque, 1867; Gafferel, Histoire de la Floride franÇaise, 1875; Parkman, The French in North America. The newest literature upon the subject is Woodbury Lowery, “Jean Ribaut and Queen Elizabeth,” American Historical Review, April, 1904, and the same author’s The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the United States: Florida, 1562-74 (New York, 1905).

[1037] De Thou, V, 37-40.

[1038] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 381, note. In 1558 Bolwiller made an inroad into France (Bulletin des comitÉs historiques, 1850, p. 774; a summary of a letter concerning this episode to be found in the archives of Basel). On Bolwiller see Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, IX, 36, note. The new plan was occasioned by the issue of letters-patent of Charles IX on October 9, 1564, forbidding sale or alienation of any regalian rights of the Three Bishoprics without his consent (text in Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 394).

[1039] Bolwiller to Granvella, October 16, 1564, on the written authority of Philip II (ibid., VIII, 429).

[1040] “Je tiens que les FranÇois, par voye de faict, y (Toul) mectront la main, comme ilz ont jÀ commencÉ, et le mesmes À Metz et Verdung.”—Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VII, 465; Granvella to the Emperor, April 12, 1564.

[1041] Ibid., VIII, 504-6.

[1042] Ibid., IX, 44. Granvella to Perez, February 26, 1565; p. 111, Philip II to Chantonnay, then stationed at Vienna, April 2, 1565. Bolwiller intrusted the action to Egelolf, seigneur de Ribeauspierre (the German form is Rapolstein), a noble of Upper Alsace. His mother was a FÜrstenburg. (See ibid., IX, 24, note.) Strange vicissitude, that a descendant of that house in the next century should have been Louis XIV’s right-hand agent in his seizures on the Rhine through the Chambers of RÉunion, playing an identically opposite part from that of his ancestors.

[1043] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, IX, 71—Bolwiller to the cardinal March 20, 1565.

Metz was early famous for its interest in the Reformation. The laxness of the episcopal discipline in the first part of the sixteenth century contributed to the growth of this spirit, and finally led to a Catholic reaction. The city was more inclined, however, to Calvinism than to Lutheranism. Charles V prohibited the exercise of the Lutheran faith, but nevertheless, the Protestants of Metz made an alliance with the Smalkald League. Under the French domination the city passed definitely from Lutheranism to Calvinism. The French governor, Vieilleville, was a moderate in policy and granted the Huguenots a church in the interior of the town. During the first civil war the Protestants in Metz remained tranquil, but soon afterward Farel visited the city for the third time, and thereafter the city’s religious activity was considerable. The cardinal of Lorraine suppressed Protestant preaching in the diocese and closed the church. When Charles IX visited Metz in 1564 the edifice was destroyed and Protestant worship was forbidden. After the death of the Marshal Vieilleville, the count de Retz was made governor. One of the motives of the support of the Huguenot cause by John Casimir, the prince palatine, was a promise made by the Huguenots that he would be given the governorship of Metz. On the subject as a whole see Thirion, Etude sur l’histoire du protestantisme À Metz et dans le pays Messin, Nancy, 1885; Le Coullon, Journal (1537-87) d’aprÈs le manuscrit original, publiÉ pour la premiÈre fois et annotÉ par E. de Bouteiller, Paris, Dumoulin, 1881.

[1044] Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, IX, 462, 463.

[1045] Granvella to Perez, October 15, 1565; ibid., IX, 594, 595.

[1046] See Philip II’s letter to Chantonnay, October 22, 1565; ibid., IX 609 ff.

[1047] He had served in Italy in 1555 and became the cardinal’s bailiff and revenue-collector in the bishopric of Metz after the treaty of Cateau-CambrÉsis (Commentaire et lettres de Montluc, I, 228).

[1048] For an account of the “Cardinal’s War” see De Thou, V, Book XXXVII, 37-40. There is another account in the MÉm. de CondÉ, V, 27, supposed to have been written by Salzedo himself. In F. Fr. 3, 197, folio 92, there is an unpublished letter of Salzedo’s (see Appendix IX), and another of the duke of Aumale upon this incident. Chantonnay comforted Philip for the disappointment over Metz by telling him, that while the restoration of the Three Bishoprics was indeed important, because of their bearing upon the situation in Flanders, the trouble had averted a marriage alliance between France and Austria which would have been more calamitous (Letter to Philip II, October 30, 1565, in Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, IX, 625).

Two years later we find the tricky cardinal of Lorraine still protesting his innocence to Catherine and praying her not to be suspicious of him (Letter of December 6, 1567, Fillon Collection, No. 316).

[1049] Forneron, I, 346, on the basis of Alva’s letter to Philip on May 19, 1566, and the cardinal’s own letter, written at the same time (both preserved in K. 1,505, No. 99, and K. 1,509), assumes that the secret intercourse between Philip II and the Guises began in the year 1566 and ascribes the immediate occasion of it to the troubles in the Low Countries. He missed the inception of it by a year. Granvella’s letter conclusively shows that it began in July, 1565. Every word of this letter is of weight. It is to be found in Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, IX, 399-402.

[1050] Johnson, Europe in the Sixteenth Century, 328. For interesting details by an eye-witness, see Bourgon, Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham, II, 121 ff.

[1051] Poulet, I, 509; Gachard, Don Carlos et Philippe II, 354; La BibliothÈque Nationale À Paris, II, 213. The disastrous news reached the King on September 5. For ten days he was ill with a high fever in consequence. Fourquevaux, writing from Segovia on September 11, to Charles IX, gives some details of Philip’s illness and how he was treated by the physicians and then adds: “Les Espagnols sont bien marriez d’entendre que les Lutheriens dud. pais (Flanders) ont commencÉ s’empoigner aux eglises et reliques, et À fere marier les prebtres et nonnains, avec infiniz autres maulx qu’ilz font, qui est le semblable commencement des doleurs qui advindrent en votre Royaume du temps des troubles.”—DÉpÊches de M. Fourquevaux, I, 124, 125.

[1052] The Austrian lands were invaded by the Turks in the autumn of 1566 (NÉgociations dans le Levant, II, 721; Languet, Epist. secr., I, 15).

[1053] It was a pose of Philip’s that the expedition was purely political; cf. Gachard, Les bibliothÈques de Madrid et de l’Escurial, 94 ff., based on the correspondence of the archbishop of Rossano.

[1054] Dispatch to Charles IX, December 9, 1566 (Fourquevaux, I, 147-52). He waited in great anxiety for instructions from Paris, daily growing more suspicious because the Spanish King said not a word to him on the subject, although he sent for him in audience on January 14, 1567 (ibid., 167-72; dispatches of Jan. 5 and 18, 1567). The tremendous financial operations of the Spanish government (consult Gachard, Don Carlos et Philippe II, II, 369, 370) filled him with alarm, and he made an unsuccessful effort to bribe the secretary of one of Philip II’s ministers. He gathered that the Spanish forces would likely sail for Barcelona and disembark at Nice or Genoa (ibid., 176, 177, February 13, 1567).

[1055] Forneron, I, 347, on authority of Alva’s dispatch in K. 1,507, No. 2; cf. NÉg. Tosc., III, 527.

[1056] Gachard, La BibliothÈque Nationale À Paris, II, 228. The dispatch was delayed on account of the illness of the courier and the heavy snows he encountered in the Pyrenees, and did not reach the ambassador until January 15, 1567 (Fourquevaux, I, 168). The correspondence of Bernardo d’Aspremont, viscount of Orthez, governor of Bayonne—unfortunately much scattered in the volumes of the BibliothÈque Nationale—shows the standing danger the southern provinces of France were in from Spanish invasion (Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 400, note).

[1057] Poulet, II, 183.

[1058] D’AubignÉ, II, 229, note.

[1059] Poulet, II, 495.

[1060] D’AubignÉ, II, 228; Zurlauben, Hist. milit. des Suisses, IV, 335.

[1061] We learn this from a letter of George Paulet. See Appendix X.

[1062] Poulet, II, 183; DÉpÊches de M. Fourquevaux, I, 173.

[1063] DÉpÊches de M. Fourquevaux, I, 174, February 4, 1567. Philip II took these military preparations of the French with remarkable equanimity—even Charles IX’s positive refusal to allow the Spanish army to traverse France (March 24, 1567). He seemed to be sincerely anxious to avoid friction with France (see his letter to Granvella, February 17, 1567, in Poulet, II, 255, 256). The danger in the Low Countries was too great to allow any outside controversy. The clandestine operation of Protestant preachers in Spain itself and the smuggling of heretical books into the land, concealed in casks of wine, disquieted him more than France did at this season. (For information on this head see Poulet, II, 126, 142, 199; NÉg. Tosc., III, 506; Weiss, Spanish Protestants in the Sixteenth Century.)

[1064] Fourquevaux (February 15, 1567), I, 180, 181. Granvella apparently, immediately after learning of the image breaking, and anticipating that either the King himself or the duke of Alva, would have to go to Brussels, sent a remarkable memoir to Philip II, in which he discusses all the various routes by which he might go, and the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. The physical difficulties of governing the Low Countries from Madrid are very evident (see Poulet, I, 469-80).

[1065] The Pope’s nuncio had pointed out to Philip II what a splendid achievement the overcoming of Geneva would be for Christendom. The scheme was an old one. See a letter of Pius IV to Francis II, June 14, 1560, in Raynaldus, XXXIV, 64, col. 2. The King, after some weeks of consideration, declared that he could not think of it; that even the duke of Savoy was against the project. (See Gachard, Corresp. de Philippe II, II, 552, and his Les bibliothÈques de Madrid et de l’Escurial, 100.) On the political ambition of the duke of Savoy see Rel. vÉn., I, 453. He had made a treaty with Bern in 1565 (Collection Godefroy, XCIV, fol. 21). There are three excellent German monographs on Switzerland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Planta, Die Geschichte von Graubunden in ihren HauptzÜgen, Bern, 1892; idem, Chronik der Familie von Planta, Zurich, 1892; Salis-Soglio, Die Familie von Salis, Lincau-im-B., 1891. For a review of the last two see English Historical Review, VIII, 588.

[1066] See Revue d’histoire diplomatique, XIV (1900), 45-47.

[1067] “Mais le faisant, c’estoit remectre le feu et le glaive dans la France plus et plus cruel qu’ilz n’y ont estÉ.”—DÉpÊches de M. Fourquevaux (March 15, 1567), I, 189.

[1068] I have given the figures of Mendoza, which probably is the strength of the forces when they arrived. The official roster is in the Correspondencia, No. CXXII.

[1069] “The front of every company by a new invention was flanked with fifteen supernumeraries, armed with musketoones, and rests wherein they laid the barrow that could not be managed by the hands. For before his time, such huge muskets as unmanageable were drawn upon carriages and only used at sieges, from whence being transmitted into the field, and those that carry them mixed with the lesser musketeers, they have been found extraordinarily serviceable in battle.”—Stapylton’s transl. of Strada, Book VI, 31.

BrantÔme’s statement is more graphic: “Il fut luy le premier qui leur donna en main les gros mousquetz, et que l’on veid les premiers en guerre et parmy les compagnies; et n’en avions point veu encores parmy leurs bandes, lors que nous allasmes pour le secours de Malte; dont despuis nous en avons pris l’usage parmy nos bandes, mais avec de grandes difficultÉz À y accoustumer nos soldats comme j’en parle au livre des couronnelz. Et ces mousquetz estonnzarent fort les Flamans, quand ilz les sentirent sonner À leurs oreilles; car ilz n’en avoient veu non plus que nous: et ceux qui les portoient les nommoit-on Mousquetaires; trÈs bien appoinctÉz et respectÉz, jusques À avoir de grands et forts gojatz qui les leur portoient, et avoient quatre ducats de paye; et ne leur portoient qu’en cheminant par pays: mais quand ce venoit en une faction, ou marchans en battaille, ou entrans en garde ou en quelque ville, les prenoient. Et eussiez dict que c’estoient des princes, tant ils estoient rogues et marchoient arrogamment et de belle grace: et lors de quelque combat ou escarmouche, vous eussiez ouy crier ces mots par grand respect: Salgan, salgan los mosqueteros! Afuera, afuera, adelante los mosqueteros! Soudain on leur faisoit place; et estoient respectÉz, voire plus que capitaines pour lors, À cause de la nouveautÉ, ainsy que toute nouveautÉ plaist.”—BrantÔme, Vies des Grands Capitaines: “Le Grand Duc d’Albe.”

[1070] Mendoza, Comentarios, II, chaps. i-iii. There is a French translation of this work by Loumier (Soc. de l’histoire de Belge), 2 vols., 1860.

[1071] “The duke arrived in the Low Countries offending none in his passage nor being himself offended by any one, though the French appeared in arms upon the marches of Burgundy and Colonel Tavannes by command from the French king with 4,000 foot and some troops were defence of course of the borders, ‘costed’ the Spanish army. Indeed I do not think that ever army marched so far and kept stricter rules of discipline, so that from Italy even to the Low Countries, not only no towns but not any cottage was forced or injured.”—Strada, VI, 31.

The only instance of plundering seems to have been in the case of the property of the prince of Orange in Burgundy (C. S. P. For., 1562, August 7, 1567). This discipline is all the more remarkable, considering the fact that there were fifteen hundred women with the army. “Lon a sceu le passaige du duc d’Albe et de sa trouppe; quon dict estre de six mille espaignolz et quinze cens femmes.”—Guyon to M. de Gordes, July 11, 1567. Cited by the duc d’Aumale, Histoire des princes de CondÉ, I, Appendix XVI.

[1072] Poulet, II, 183, December 25, 1566.

[1073] Morillon to Granvella, April 7, 1566: “Pas ce boult veult l’on gaigner le magistrat des villes et le peuple: que ne sera si facille comme l’on pense.”—Poulet, I, 203. The following is explicit: “Et dict encores plus que, s’il se fust joinct À la premiÈre lighe des seigneurs, la religion fust bien avant venue, car de lÀ, dict-il, ‘tanquam ex fonte emanasse has undas,’ et que le Roy le doibt entendri ainse et y pourveoir avant toutte euvre, puisque de celle lÀ est nÉe la seconde de la religion.”—Poulet, II, 75. Cf. 118: “la premiÈre lighe et la secunde engendrÉe d’icelle.”—Granvella to Viglius, November 23, 1566. As late as May 9, 1567, it is called “la gentille ligue” (Poulet, II, 434). Granvella, in a letter to Philip in 1563, attributed the formation of the association to Count Hoorne (Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 12). Noircarmes, who was better informed, makes Brederode the moving spirit of it (Poulet, II, 613, 614).

The Gueux even had a branch organization, though one historically different in origin, in Franche ComtÉ, in the ConfrÉrie de Ste. Barbe. The seigneurs of the house of Rye enjoyed high civil and ecclesiastical station in both Burgundies in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Marc and Claude FranÇois of Rye, father and son, were rivals and political enemies of the Perrenots—the family of Granvella and Chantonnay—and regarded them as upstarts. The ConfrÉrie de Ste. Barbe was organized by them in Franche ComtÉ on lines similar to the Gueux and had dealings with the latter—the members even wearing their emblem. Cardinal Granvella accused the seigneurs of Rye of aiming to establish Protestantism, in Franche ComtÉ from Flanders. This probably was true but in a less degree. Protestant agitation was a means to an end, not an end in itself, it seems to me. If otherwise, such a catholic title for the association is very singular. On the ConfrÉrie de Ste. Barbe consult Poulet, I, 29; II, 44, 141. I am somewhat inclined to think that Tavanne’s Confraternity of the Holy Spirit in ducal Burgundy may not impossibly have been influenced by the ConfrÉrie de Ste. Barbe in the adjoining county of Burgundy, for Tavannes had a long political conflict with the Parlement of DÔle in Franche-ComtÉ (see Collection Godefroy, CCLVII, Nos. 22, 23), and was familiar with things there.

[1074] Poulet, I, 223.

[1075] Ibid., II, 269. This revised form of the Gueux in which Calvinism is interjected is often alluded to as the “second league” in the letters which pass between Granvella and the provost Morillon, e. g., ibid., 280, 437, 600.

[1076] Poulet, II, 42.

[1077] For some examples see ibid., 183.

[1078] This organization seems to have been perfected by February, 1567. Poulet, II, 244, has a brief note on this matter. For an extended article see Bulletin historique et littÉraire de la sociÉtÉ de l’hist. du protestantisme FranÇais, March, 1879. Cf. Gachard, Corresp. de Guill. le Taciturne, II, cx, cxi, and notes. Marnix was treasurer-general of the confederation (Poulet, II, 262, n. 1).

[1079] Poulet, II, 335, 336, 396. “Sine qua factum nihil,” wrote the provost, whose conception of government was Draconian in simplicity, to his confidential friend (ibid., 353).

[1080] Ibid., 469 and 508.

[1081] Ibid., 396, 438.

[1082] See Gachard, Corresp. de Philippe II, 461, 471, 473; Poulet, I, 461, 521; II, 102, 106, 139, 143, 187, 394, 440, 451, 659, 675.

[1083] Morillon to Granvella, August 31, 1567, in Poulet, II, 605: “La premiÈre chose que l’on doibt faire sera de munir et asseurer les frontiÈres et renvoier chascun À son gouvernement, d’aultant que les FranÇois semblent voulloir esmouvoir, du moingz les Hugonaux.” The cardinal had advised the duke of Alva to do this in the May preceding, when he was at Genoa on his way northward (Poulet, II, 448, 454).

Montluc’s repeated warnings to Philip II, in the course of their secret correspondence, of the succor French Calvinists were giving to his Flemish rebels (K. 1,506, Nos. 46-48) led the King to enlarge the system of espionage which he maintained in France. The movements of the admiral, the prince of CondÉ, and other leaders, were carefully reported (Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 75, note). On the whole practice see Forneron, I, chap. xi.

[1084] Mundt to Cecil from Strasburg, July 8, 1567 (C. S. P. For., No. 1,418).

[1085] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, III, Introd., v.

[1086] Fourquevaux (July 17, 1567), I, 237. St. Sulpice had held similar language in 1564: “Le meilleur moyen pour le prince d’avoir la paix est d’Être toujours en État de repousser ses voisins.”—L’Ambassade de. St. Sulpice, 269.

[1087] C. S. P. For., No. 1,402, July 6, 1567. Sir Henry Norris writes to Cecil on March 25, 1567: “A better time than this could not be found to demand Calais, they being in such distrust of their own force, wherefore it might be understood that some preparation of arms was making in England.”—Ibid., No. 1,048. A year earlier than this Cecil had been advised to make common cause with the Emperor, the one to recover the Three Bishoprics, the other Calais (ibid., No. 326, April 29, 1566; cf. ibid., Ven., 394, July 3, 1567). There is a brief account of the negotiations in Bulletins de la Comm. royale d’histoire, sÉries IV, Vol. V, 386 ff. Cf. C. S. P. For. (1587), Nos. 1039, 1044, 1046, 1083.

[1088] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, III, Introd., iii; C. S. P. Ven., Nos. 389, May 16, 1567.

[1089] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, III, Introd., iv.

[1090] “The prince of CondÉ wrote to the queen mother against the king’s revoking the edict of pacification, who assured him on the faith of a princess that as long as she might prevail, she should never break it, and if he came to court, he would be as welcome as his heart could devise, and as for the Swiss they were to defend the frontiers in case the Spanish forces should attempt to surprise any peace.”—Norris to Queen Elizabeth, August 29, 1567, C. S. P. For., No. 1,644. Catherine de Medici ordered the dispersal of the Huguenot bands on the Picard border in 1567 (R. Q. H., January, 1899, p. 21).

[1091] The words are from a letter of Sir Henry Norris to the earl of Leicester in C. S. P. For., No. 1,537, July 21, 1567, and sound like a paraphrase of the admiral’s language. The implication is that Coligny’s withdrawal had some connection with the purported stealing of Alava’s cipher in the May before. See C. S. P. For., No. 1,230, May 24, 1567. But according to Fourquevaux, I, 227, the Spanish ambassador accused Catherine de Medici of the stealing, not Coligny. If this be true, then Coligny must have wanted to find a pretext for leaving the court without arousing the suspicion or animosity of the King, as might have been the case if he had done so openly out of sympathy for the prince of CondÉ. Claude Haton, I, 406, says that Coligny was piqued because Strozzi was given the command of the new forces instead of himself. The prince of CondÉ retired to ValÉry, Coligny to ChÂtillon. D’Andelot soon afterward followed suit, resigning his post as colonel-general of infantry on the ground that the marshal CossÉ refused to obey his orders, and retired to Tanlay near Tonnerre. The fine chÂteau is still standing.

Thenceforward it was of interest to the prince to stir up doubt and distrust among the Huguenots by misrepresenting the true reasons for the crown’s military preparation (Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, III, Introd., vi; C. S. P. For., anno 1567, p. 305).

[1092] C. S. P. For., No. 1,629, August 23, 1567.

[1093] Claude Haton, I, 405.

[1094] C. S. P. Ven., July 12, 1567.

[1095] La PopeliniÈre, XI, 36, 37.

[1096] See Rosseeuw-Saint-Hilaire, “Le duc d’Albe en Flandre. ProcÈs des comtes d’Egmont et de Hornes (1567-1568),” SÉances et travaux de l’Acad. des sc. moral et polit., 4^e sÉr., XVI (LXVI^e de la collect.), 1863, p. 480.

[1097] C. S. P. For., No. 1,155, May 1, 1567.

[1098] D’AubignÉ, I, Book IV, chap. vii.

[1099] This chÂteau was a gift to the prince of CondÉ by the widow of marshal St. AndrÉ, who was infatuated with him. After the prince’s second marriage she wedded Geoffrey de Caumont (Claude Haton, I, 363). See also ClÉment-Simon, La MarÉchale de Saint-AndrÉ et ses filles, Paris, 1896.

[1100] The rendezvous was at Rosay-en-Brie (La PopeliniÈre, Book XII, 37; D’AubignÉ, IV, chap, vii; Claude Haton, I, 424, 425).

[1101] The Venetian ambassador Correro, in his relation of the conspiracy, expresses astonishment that the secret of the Huguenot leaders did not leak out, and attributes the fact to the perfection of the Protestant organization (quoted by La FerriÈre in Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, III, ix). It seems to me that this feature was less due to perfect organization than to the promptitude with which CondÉ and Coligny endeavored to carry out the project. The lesson of the conspiracy of Amboise seven years before could not have been lost upon them. Moreover, the queen mother did have some intimation, notwithstanding her surprise when the shock came. For on September 10, while the court was staying at Monceaux, some armed bands of horsemen were seen hovering around, which caused the King’s hasty removal to Meaux (C. S. P. For., No. 1,683, September 13, 1567, Norris to Leicester). From that hour Catherine was on the alert, though she refused to attach alarmist importance to the signs she had seen until her eyes were opened.

[1102] Claude Haton, I, 434.

[1103] Zurlauben, Hist. milit. des Suisses, IV, 351; Laugel, “Les rÉgimens suisses au service de France pendant les guerres, de religion,” Revue des deux mondes, November 15, 1880, pp. 332 ff. Pfiffer had served in France during the first civil war and was made a colonel after the battle of Dreux. There is a life of him in German by Segesser, Ludwig Pfyffer und seine Zeit, Bern, 1880. Other versions of this incident are in D’AubignÉ, II, 230-32; Claude Haton, I, 428, 429; Castelnau, VI, chap. iv; De Thou, Book XLII; NÉg. Tosc., III, 530. La PopeliniÈre, XII, 38, 39, gives a good account of the behavior of the Swiss. The duke of Bouillon, an eye-witness of these incidents, has left a striking account in his MÉmoires, ed. Petitot, 75.

[1104] For Charles IX’s own version of the affair of Meaux see a letter of the King to the baron de Gordes, begun at Meaux and finished at Paris, September 28, 1567, in Duc d’Aumale, Histoire des princes de CondÉ, I, Appendix XXII. His letter to Montluc of the same date is in Archives de la Gironde, X, 437.

[1105] Rel. vÉn., II, 187.

[1106] The Guises made capital out of the event of Meaux and sedulously exploited the King’s animosity. Martin, Histoire de France, IX, 216, suggests that Charles IX’s conduct on St. Bartholomew’s Day may have been influenced by this episode.

[1107] Rel. vÉn., II, 112, 113.

[1108] “Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France Received and Enacted by Their First National Synod at Paris in 1559,” chap. vii, canon 1, published in Quick, Synodicon in Gallia, 2 vols., London, 1692.

The first consistorial regulation which we possess has been published by the Protestant pastor, Eugene Arnaud, from a manuscript at Grenoble. It bears the title “Articles Polytiques par l’Eglise RÉformÉe selon le S. Evangile, fait À Poitiers 1557.” See Synode gÉnÉral de Poitiers 1557, Synodes provinciaux de Lyon, Die, Peyraud, Montelimar et NÎmes en 1561 et 1562, assemblÉe des Etats du DauphinÉ en 1563, etc., par E. Arnaud. Grenoble, ed. Allier, 1872, 91 pages.

At the synod of Lyons (1563) the canons of the three preceding national synods held at Paris, Poitiers, and Orleans, were reduced to a single series of articles. The deliberations of most of the provincial synods still remain in manuscript or are lost (Frossard, Etude historique et bibliographique sur la discipline ecclÉsiastique des Églises rÉformÉes de France, 18).

[1109] Chap. vi, canon 1.

[1110] Chap. viii, canon 2. Chap. v, canon 1, provides that “a consistory shall be made up of those who govern it (the individual churches), to-wit, of its pastors and elders.” In some cases deacons discharged the elder’s office (chap. v, canon 2).

[1111] Chap. viii, canon 8. Elders were elected by the joint suffrage of pastor and people, upon oral nomination (chap. iii, canon 1).

[1112] Chap. viii, canon 9.

[1113] Chap. viii, canon 14.

[1114] Chap. viii, canon 15.

[1115] The synod of NÎmes in 1572 also divided Normandy into two provinces (Synodicon in Gallia, I, 111, 112). At the same time Metz was annexed to Champagne.

[1116] Rel. vÉn., II, 115, and n. B; Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, II, Book V, 338; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 107; MÉmoires de Philippi, 360, col. 1 (ed. Buchon); Collection Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 46; Claude Haton, I, 425.

[1117] The democratic revolutionary character of the Huguenot movement in Guyenne probably owes some of its intensity to the memory of the revolt of 1548 and the merciless suppression thereof (observation of M. Henri Hauser, Rev. hist., XCVII (March-April, 1908), 341, n. 6, a review of Courteault Blaise de Montluc).

[1118] “Temevano prima i cattolici, non perchÈ fossero inferiori di numero (che ... del popolo minuto non vi È la trigesima parte ugonotta; la nobilita È piÙ infetta; e s’io dicessi di un terzo, forse non fallirei); ma perchÈ questi; sebben pochi, erano perÒ uniti, concordi, e vigilantissimi nelle loro cose.”—Rel. vÉn., II, 120.

The Huguenots fired guns instead of ringing bells as a signal of alarm (ibid., 107). The tocsin, even before St. Bartholomew, was the Catholic signal.

[1119] Rel. vÉn., II, 115.

[1120] Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, I, 552; Ranke, Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, 287; Forneron, Les ducs de Guise, II, 221; Anquetil, Histoire des assemblÉes politiques des rÉformes de France, I, 18.

[1121] Forneron, II, 164 ff.; Hist. de Languedoc, V, 543, 544; Armstrong, “The Political Theories of the Huguenots,” English Historical Review, IV, 13; Merriam, History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau, 13-15; Beaudrillart, Jean Bodin et son temps.

[1122] “Si le roy tenoit sa loy, le royaulme en seroit mieulx rÉgy et gouvernÉ, les antiens, qui ont tenu les concilles, ont bien regardÉ À cella quant ilz ont uny nostre foy avec la continuation de la monarchie des princes, car ilz ont bien poysÉ que le peuple, qui est gouvernÉ sous ung monarque, est beaucoup plus assurÉ et tenu en la crainctÉ de Dieu et À l’obÉyssance qu’il doibt porter À son roy, que non celluy qui est soubz une rÉpublicque, en laquelle sa loy admene tout le monde et destruict les monarchies. Qui me voldra nyer que le roy prent ceste loy qu’il ne faille que sa personne mesmes et son royaulme soit rÉgy et gouvernÉ par les gens qui auront estÉ esleuz par les estatz, qui sera son conseil sans lequel le roy ne pourra faire chose aucune. Et s’il veult une chose et le conseil une aultre, le pays ne fera sinon ce que le conseil ordonnera, parce qu’il aura estÉ (esleu) par les estatz; et si le roy mesmes veult quelque chose pour luy ou pour aultre, fauldra que, le bonnet À la main, il le viegne demander À son conseil et les prier, lÀ oÙ en nostre loy il commende au conseil et À tous, tant que nous sommes. Que l’on regarde dÈs ceste genre ce que se faict en Angleterre et en Escosse, et si ce n’est plustost maniÈre d’aristocracie ou de dÉmocracie que non de monarchie. Et quand le roy sera grand, il voldra demander sa libertÉ, laquelle ne luy sera concÉdÉe et s’il faict semblant de la voloir avoir par force, son conseil mesmes luy couppera la guorge et feront un aultre roy À leur plaisir.”—Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 297, 298 (December 1563). The baron de Ruble, in a note remarks: “Nulle part peut-Être, pas mÊme dans les Écrits de FranÇois Hotman et de Bodin, les rÉformes politiques que promettait le calvinisme ne sont exposÉes avec autant de clartÉ que dans ce mÉmoire de Monluc.”

[1123] Paulet to Cecil, October 13, 1567; C. S. P. Dom., Add.

[1124] NÉg. Tosc., III, 549. On September 29, 1567, permission was given the populace of Paris to arm themselves.—Lettres patentes du Roy Charles IX pour l’establissement des capitaines de la ville de Paris et permission aux citizens d’icelle de prendre les armes. Felibien, Histoire de Paris, III, 703, 704.

[1125] La PopeliniÈre, XII, 39; Claude Haton, I, 439; La Noue, chap. xiv; C. S. P. For., No. 1,427, September 30, 1567. Norris gives the names of the towns taken by the prince of CondÉ’s forces.—State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth, Vol. XCIV No. 1,338. See Appendix XI. According to Baschet, La diplomatie vÉnitienne, 543 and note, the prince of CondÉ planned to burn Paris.

[1126] La PopeliniÈre, Book XII, 51, 51 bis. The slaughter at the bridge was terrible. The King’s captain and the color-bearer, who managed to escape to Paris, were hanged by Charles IX.—C. S. P. For., No. 1,804, November 2, 1567.

[1127] Ibid., No. 1,763, October 14, 1567.

[1128] Claude Haton, I, 444-46.

[1129] C. S. P. Ven., No. 407, October 18, 1567.

[1130] Claude Haton, I, 439-45, and La Noue, chap. xvi, give some graphic details.

[1131] Claude Haton, I, 444, 445.

[1132] “Ordonnance du Roy, portant permission À toutes personnes, d’apporter, et faire apporter, conduire et amener À Paris, tant par eau que par terre, toutes espÈces de vivres, bleds, vins et autres; sans payer pour iceux aucunes daces, subsides, ou imposition quelconques.”—Paris, R. Estienne, 1567.

[1133] “Lettre addressÉe aux Échevins de Rouen par un de leurs dÉlÉguÉs,” Bulletin de la SociÉtÉ de l’histoire de Normandie, 1875-80, p. 279. The whole letter is of interest.

[1134] Alva’s reply October 24, 1567, is in Correspondance de Philippe II, II, 594. Cf. Gachard, La BibliothÈque Nationale À Paris, I, 395; II, 459; and Histoire des troubles des Pays-Bas, ed. Piot, I, 293 (chap. xlvi).

[1135] C. S. P. For., No. 1,789, October 27, 1567.

[1136] These demands were presented in writing to the queen’s emissaries. De Thou, Book XLII; Claude Haton, I, 447; D’AubignÉ, II, 232-34, have summarized them. La PopeliniÈre, Book XII, 41-43 gives the text. There is a monograph by Baguenault de Puchesse: Jean de Morvillier, ÉvÊque d’OrlÉans: Etude sur la politique franÇaise au XVI^e siÈcle, d’aprÈs des documents inÉdits, Didier, Paris, 1870.

[1137] La PopeliniÈre, Book XII, 50 bis; C. S. P. For., No. 1,856, October 10, 1567.

[1138] Davila, I, 195.

[1139] C. S. P. For., No. 1,777, October 22, 1567.

[1140] A list of officers and the number of horsemen commanded by each who were sent to the king of France by the duke of Savoy.—C. S. P. For., No. 1,735, September, 1567.

[1141] He wrote to Philip II, to Emanuel Philibert of Savoy, and the Venetian government urging them to succor Charles IX “against the rebels and heretics” within his kingdom, and to the duke of Lorraine to stop the reiters.—Potter, Lettres de St. Pie V sur les affaires religieuses de son temps en France, Paris, 1828. To Philip II, October 13, 1567—Potter, p. 1 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 22, p. 50); to the duke of Savoy, October 18, 1567—Potter, p. 8 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 25, p. 54); to Priuli, Venetian ambassador in France, October 18—Potter, p. 6 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 24, p. 53). At the same time the Pope wrote to the duke of Nevers in terms of rejoicing that Charles IX had escaped at Meaux.—Potter, p. 3 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 23, p. 51), October 16, 1567. Within a month the Pope’s word began to be made good, for 10,000 pieces of gold were en route to France in the middle of November.—Potter, p. 10 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 26, p. 56), letter to the duke of Savoy of November 16, 1567. In it the Pope says he has written the duke of Lorraine to stop the reiters about to enter France.

[1142] The question of payment of the Swiss still remained to be settled and Charles IX was at his wits’ end and actually offered a mortgage of his frontier towns, save Lyons and the frontier of Burgundy, paying 5 per cent. interest in order to quiet the importunate demands of the cantons.—Revue d’histoire diplomatique, XIV (1900), 49, 50.

[1143] Request of Charles IX to the bishop of Mainz to permit the reiters to pass, December 9, 1567.—Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 4. John Casimir, second son of the elector palatine, Frederick III, levied troops for the Protestants. When protest was made against this action, he gave an evasive reply. See Languet, Epist. secr., I, 27; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, II, 163, 164; La Noue, ed. 1596, p. 897.

On the other hand the landgrave was hostile to the prince of CondÉ and was fearful also of compromising himself with the Emperor and Spain.—Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 128, 164; Languet, Epist. secr., I, 35.

[1144] C. S. P. For., No. 1,864, December 15, 1567.

[1145] This is shown by a passage in which the elector of Saxony makes mention of an alliance which the French nobles had offered (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 131, 134). Although the prince of CondÉ in December declared that he had not entered into a treaty with the Flemish Calvinists (ibid., 143), it is probable that these proposals were accepted some months later. There is in existence the minute of a treaty with CondÉ and Coligny dated August, 1568 (ibid., III, No. 321, p. 285).

[1146] C. S. P. For., No. 1,756, October 10, 1567.

[1147] La PopeliniÈre, XII, 52 bis; D’AubignÉ II, 236. La Noue himself, with characteristic modesty, scarcely mentions this feat.

[1148] “Journal de LÉpaulart relig. du monastÈre de Saint-Crepin-le-Grand de Soissons, sur la prise de cette ville par les Huguenots en 1567,” Bull. d. Soc. arch., XIV (Soissons, 1860).

[1149] C. S. P. For., No. 1,804, November 2, 1567. Metz was captured late in October by the Huguenots, but not the citadel.

[1150] Ibid., No. 1,822, November 16, 1567.

[1151] La PopeliniÈre, XII, 52.

[1152] On the identity and career of Robert Stuart, see Claude Haton, I, 458, n. 2.

[1153] C. S. P. Ven., No. 410, November 11, 1567. Montmorency lingered two days and died on November 12.

[1154] There are accounts of the battle of St. Denis in La Noue, MÉmoires, chap. xiv; MÉm. du duc de Bouillon, 379; D’AubignÉ, Book IV, chap. ix; Claude Haton, I, 457; NÉg. Tosc., III, 551 ff. The editor has subjoined a note (2) giving the literature of the subject.

[1155] Claude Haton, I, 495; Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, III, Introd., xv.

The duke of Guise was criticized for not having pursued the Huguenots more hotly and cut the road by Charenton, or Corbeil, or at the ford of Lagny, which might have been done, for their army was in great disorder and depressed on account of the losses which it had suffered. The reason of the delay is probably to be found in the fact that the breach between the Guises and the Montmorencys was wider than ever at this moment. For the duke of Montpensier and the duke of Montmorency each claimed command of the vanguard. The King finally decided in favor of the former, whereupon Montmorency laid down his command. See Claude Haton, I, 461, 462 and note; Bulletin de la SocietÉ d’histoire de Normandie, 1875-80, p. 279; C. S. P. For., No. 1,833, November 24; No. 1,837, November 29, 1567; NÉg. Tosc., III, 557.

[1156] Claude Haton, I, 495 and note.

[1157] The admiral sent Teligny to the King on November 13 for this purpose.—C. S. P. For., No. 1,822, November 16, 1567; cf. No. 1,836. We know, from a letter of Charles IX to his brother, what the King’s terms would have been: (1) in the case of nobles, authorization of Protestant worship to those possessed of high justice or possessors of “pleins fiefs de haubert” i. e., fiefs that were noble, yet did not confer title, provided it were conducted within their own dwellings in the presence of their families and not more than fifty outside persons, and without arms; (2) absolute limitation of other worship to the places specifically granted in the edict of Amboise; (3) surrender of places and property seized by the Huguenots; (4) suppression of the Protestant cult within the walls of Lyons, but permission to worship at two leagues’ distance from the city; (5) interdiction of levies of money or men in the future and the discontinuance of Protestant associations and synods.—Correspondance de Catherine de MÉdicis, II, Introd., xiv. It is a very remarkable fact that these precise terms had been recommended to Charles IX as a basis of settlement by Montluc in a memoir sent to the King in February 1565. See Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 3-9. Montluc made the further recommendation that the governments be divided by sÉnÉchaussÉes instead of by rivers, on the ground that rivers sometimes divided towns into two jurisdictions. His friction with Damville (cf. ibid., 103-6) probably accounts for the proposed change. Montluc also advised abolition of the vice-sÉnÉchaux (ibid., 8).

[1158] See the proclamation of Charles IX commanding the provost Paris to search out all gentlemen who have retired to their homes since the battle of St. Denis; and ordering them to return to the army under pain of forfeiture of their fiefs and property. Printed in Appendix XII. In the second part of Coll. de St. PÉtersbourg, Vol. XXI, is a group of letters from Charles IX to the duke of Anjou running from December 2, 1567. In every page the question of the military operations of the second civil war comes up. It is evident that the gentlemen of the maison du roi complained loudly of the service required of them, especially because they were so ill lodged.—La FerriÈre, Deux ans de mission À St. PÉtersbourg, 24.

[1159] During the occupation of the army all Protestant children who had been baptized in the Reformed religion by preachers were rebaptized according to the rites of the Roman religion, and godfathers and godmothers were given them and new names which were approved by the church.—Claude Haton, I, 512 and note.

[1160] Claude Haton, I, 504-12.

[1161] On December 6 he published a declaration in favor of the Huguenots.—Bulletin de la SociÉtÉ du prot. franÇ. XVI, 118. See also C. S. P. For., No. 1,920, the elector to Charles IX, January 4, 1568.

[1162] C. S. P. For., No. 1,911, from the camp at Dessay, January 3, 1568.