XVIII. HENRY III AND THE POLITIQUES. THE PEACE OF MONSIEUR (1576) (part 2 of 2)

XVIII. HENRY III AND THE POLITIQUES. THE PEACE OF MONSIEUR (1576) (part 2 of 2)

[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 mœurs 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’œconomie 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’Elbœuf 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, 197_s_.

[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 cœur, 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.

[1163] Ibid., No. 1,806, November 3, 1567; No. 1,864 § 2, December 15, 1567. His resolution to assist the Huguenots led to the dismissal of his ambassador at the French court on December 17th.—Ibid., No. 1,889. In ibid., No. 1,956 there is an abstract of a long letter of the elector palatine written to Charles IX in remonstrance of the action of the King, and in justification of his own course.

[1164] A meeting of the electors was called for January 6, 1568, at Fulda, ostensibly for the purpose of preventing German enrolments for the war in France, but in reality that the Emperor might broach the possibility of recovering the Three Bishoprics.—Mundt to Cecil, January 6, 1568 in C. S. P. For., No. 1,927. I cannot understand how Hubert Languet could have fallen into the error of thinking that the queen mother made no opposition to the enlistment of troops in Germany for the Huguenot cause, as he says in Epp. Arc., I, 43. The statement puzzled Ranke (p. 233) who left it unsolved. The dispatch of Norris in C. S. P. For., No. 1,864, December 15, 1567, to the effect that Lignerolles was sent to Germany by the queen for this purpose clears up the matter. Catherine’s correspondence fails us on this head. But it is well known that many of her letters are scattered in private collections and were not procurable by La Ferrière.

[1165] Alva had no flattering opinion of the cardinal of Lorraine. In 1572 he wrote to Philip II: “Quand en faveur il est insolent et ne se souvient de personne, tandis que, quand il est en disgrace, il n’est bon à rien.”—Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, II, 267.

[1166] Gachard, ibid., I, 593, 594, Alva to Philip, November 1, 1567. On the margin of this dispatch Philip wrote this piece of casuistry with his own hand: “Me parece muy bien que hiziese lo que aqui dice, y tanto mas que aquello no hera romper la paz, pues yo no la hizé, ni la tengo, sino con el rey de Francia, y no con sus vasallos ereges, como seria, si esto se hiziese no estando él libre, como aqui se dice.”

[1167] “En caso de muerte del rey y de sus hermanos, tomarse ya la voz que el cardinal dize de rey de Francia para V. M., por el derecho de la reyna nuestra señora; que la ley salica, que dizen, es baya, y las armas la allanarian” (ibid., 594).

[1168] “Esto es el punto en que me parece que ay mas que mirar, porqué esto se podria mal hazer sin romper; y por otra parte, parece que seria duro dexar de abrazar á quien por tal causa se pone en mys manos; y pues creo que por este caso avra tiempo, qu’él me avise de su parecer sobre ello, segun allá estubienen las cosas.”—Gachard, loc. cit.

[1169] Philip II approved this.—Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II, I, 598: to Alva, November 12, 1567.

[1170] Gachard, I, 606-7, from Paris, December 4, 1567; Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis, Letter CLII; Correspondance de Philippe II, I, 605-7. The queen mother seems to have been frightened after the battle of St. Denis for she disclaims blame in advance, “before God and all the Christian princes,” if, in default of help, she be forced to make peace with the prince of Condé. At about the same time, she also wrote to Philip II in the same strain (quoted in part by Forneron, I, 348 from K. 1,507, No. 29). I do not find that this letter has been printed.

[1171] Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis, II, 62.

[1172] Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, I, 608.

[1173] “Porqué seria mala burla yr á meter fuego en casa agena, començandose á arder la propria.”—Ibid., 597: Alva to Philip II, November 6, 1567.

[1174] It was à propos of Catherine de Medici’s weakness at this time that the marshal Vieilleville bluntly said to Charles IX.: “Ce n’est point Votre Majesté qui a gagné la bataille [of St. Denis]; encore moins le prince de Condé. C’est le roi d’Espagne.”—Weiss, L’Espagne sous Philippe II, I, 119.

[1175] On the military state of Sens at this time see Charles IX’s postscript to his mother’s letter to Fourquevaux of December 7 in Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis, III, 89, note.

[1176] Norris, writing to Queen Elizabeth on December 15, in one place says, “the reiters are 4,000 with 4,000 lansquenets” (§2); later in the course of the same letter, which is a long one and probably the information of several days running, he says, “6,800 with 6,000 lansquenets” (C. S. P. For., No. 1,864, December 15, 1567). This seems to be confirmed by another report from France, December 26, which says “the reiters who have arrived amount to 6,500 men” (ibid., No. 1,882).

[1177] Ibid., No. 1,864 §2, No. 1,882, December 15-26, 1567. The reiters came “with certain pieces of artillery and 700 or 800 empty wagons, trusting to be no greater losers by this dissension than by the last” (ibid., No. 1,864, §3. Norris to Elizabeth).

[1178] Ibid., No. 1,889, December 28, 1567; No. 1,911, January 3, 1568. In ibid., Nos. 1,976 and 2,011, the following is given as the strength of the two armies: “Army of the King, 20,600 horsemen and 10,000 Swiss footmen; the numbers of the other footmen are not set down. Condé’s army, footmen 13,000; horsemen 11,900 where of reiters 6,200”—January, 1568. List of the troops of the prince of Condé with their commanders, amounting in all to 15,000 or 16,000 foot, and 14,000 horse, exclusive of those in garrison or serving in other parts of France—February 15, 1568. Norris wrote in February, 1568: “The prince has crossed the Seine, and is at present nothing inferior in number to the King’s army in infantry, but they are not esteemed so good for battle by reason of the Switzers. He has 3,000 more cavalry than the king has.”—Ibid., No. 1,981.

[1179] C. S. P. For., No. 1,864, §4, December 15, 1567. Names of the different noblemen commanding in the army of the King of France (ibid., No. 1,918, January 4, 1568). Letters-patent of Charles IX, dated December 16, 1567, ordered the exodus of all of the “pretended Reformed religion” from Paris and enjoined the seizure of all their benefices and lands, which were to be annexed to the crown property, and the sale of all the goods of such subjects (ibid., Nos. 1,877, 1,878, December 21-24, 1567). In January a supplementary order commanded the sale of all goods and movables of those with the prince of Condé, and the annexation of all their lands and hereditaments to the crown (ibid., 1,914, January 3, 1568)—decrees which “were not left unexecuted in any point to the utmost” (Norris to Cecil, ibid., No. 1,889, December 28, 1567, §1). Cf. Charles IX’s letters-patent of February 21, 1568, bidding that the houses and real property held by base tenure belonging to rebels shall be sold in the same manner as personal property (ibid., No. 2,200, February 21, 1568). The same sort of measures were practiced elsewhere. For instance, in Agen, Protestant merchants suffered confiscation of grain and wine to the amount of 1,014 livres, 7 sous (Arch. Commun., Agen, Reg. CC, 302).

[1180] The original letter of Charles IX, written from Paris, December 17, 1567 to the duke of Anjou, reciting the terms of peace to be presented to the prince of Condé was sold in Paris in 1845. The duke’s instructions were to renew hostilities if the terms were not accepted. In Coll. Godefroy, XCVI, No. 8, is the safe-conduct given to the cardinal Châtillon by the duke of Anjou. It is dated December 25, 1567.

[1181] C. S. P. For., No. 1,890, January 4, 1568.

[1182] Ibid., No. 1,919, January 4, 1568.

[1183] Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, II, 7, to Alva, January 22, 1568.

[1184] C. S. P. Ven., No. 430, September 11, 1568; “A Florentine merchant greatly esteemed by these majesties and very useful to them in money matters called upon me today and gave me information concerning the king’s inability from want of money to continue the war.” Account of the sums of money paid to the troops, native and foreign, in the French king’s service during the month of January 1568, amounting to 987,052 livres, or 116,646£ 9_s._ sterling. The amounts reduced from French to English money by Cecil (C. S. P. For., No. 1,978, January 1568).

[1185] Ibid., No. 1,914, January 3, 1568. For an amusing instance see No. 1,670.

[1186] Ibid., No. 2,024, February 12, 1568.

[1187] C. S. P. For., No. 2,024, §1, February 24, 1568.

[1188] “The King’s army, finding what disorder the want of a good head has bred hitherto, are now content to accept any, be it not a marshal of France. It is now said that Mons. de Tavannes shall be M. d’Anjou’s lieutenant” (ibid., No. 2,024, February 24, 1568).

[1189] Some of them were captured by the King’s forces in a skirmish near Châtillon between the duke of Nevers and Montgomery, and broken upon the wheel. The poor wretches under the torture compromised twenty-five others of the Guard, who on March 6 were also horribly put to death (ibid., No. 2,062, March 12, 1568). After the peace of Longjumeau the Scotch captains who had joined the prince of Condé were deprived of their commissions, although the action was contrary to the edict. In fact a reorganization of the whole maison du roi was made (ibid., No. 2,135, April 18, No. 2,178, May 12, 1568). The vacancies were filled by Swiss instead (ibid., Nos. 1,981, 1,987, February 1 and 6, 1568), so that the famous Scotch Guard in the end became the King’s Swiss Guard, which lasted down to the Revolution.

[1190] Ibid., No. 1,981, February 1, 1568.

[1191] He was accused of having “pretermitted many fair occasions to have fought with the prince.”

[1192] Ibid., No. 2,024, §2, February 24, 1568.

[1193] Claude Haton, I, 498 and note; C. S. P. For., No. 1,833, November 24, 1567.

[1194] Claude Haton, I, 524.

[1195] These high prices were partly owing to the fact that speculators had bought up much of the grain, which rose in April to between 60 and 70 livres per muid. But in May, with the promise of a good harvest, the price dropped over one-half, from 15 sous tournois per bichet to 7 sous 6 deniers, to the great regret of the merchants who had counted upon a scarcity. On the other hand, the price of oats went higher, being sold at from 10 to 12 sous per bichet, or boisseau, for there was very little to be had after the passage of the troops; and because it ripened earlier, almost all of it was taken (Claude Haton, II, 523).

[1196] C. S. P. For., No. 2,024, February 24, 1568.

[1197] So ominous was the temper of the Parisians that even the minor gates of the Louvre were equipped with drawbridges (ibid., No. 2,040, §4, March 1, 1568). Part of the indignation of Paris was due to the outrages of some reiters in the King’s army from Luxembourg and Lorraine, who robbed priests and despoiled churches, notwithstanding that they were in Catholic service, so much so that “the Parisians had rather had the prince of Condé’s people should approach Paris as they” (ibid., Nos. 2,040, 2,041, March 1, 1568).

[1198] Rel. vén., II, 145.

[1199] C. S. P. For., No. 2,040, §3, March 1, 1568.

[1200] Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis, III, 136. La Rochelle was already the Huguenots’ most important point and already large supplies of gunpowder and ammunition, chiefly from England, were being brought in there (cf. the captain of La Rochelle to Queen Elizabeth, C. S. P. For., No. 2,057, March 10, 1568). La Popelinière, XII, 68-70, has a dissertation upon the history and institutions of La Rochelle.

The peace of Longjumeau put an end to Montluc’s plan for the seizure of La Rochelle, for which he had received the King’s sanction in February. See the documents in F. Fr. 15,544, fol. 187; 15,548, foll. 163 ff.

[1201] In the controversy between the count palatine and the King the former had asked that the word “perpetual” be inserted in the edict, so that the edict might not be revoked at will (C. S. P. For., No. 1,968, 1567-68).

[1202] The balance was to be paid in two instalments at Frankfurt (C. S. P. For., No. 2,135, April 18, 1568). All gifts and pensions were revoked until the debt was paid (ibid., No. 2,248, June 4, 1568). In Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, Nos. 35, 41-43 are a number of documents dealing with the pay of the reiters at this time. The whole sum required for the reiters was 1,440,000 livres, and the government at once set to work to collect it. The first collection seems to have been a sort of don patriotique made by a house-to-house visitation, showing how pressing was the necessity. The government tried to borrow the money which John Casimir had raised for the Protestants, but which was not used on account of the peace, and offered to pay 16 per cent. interest for it (C. S. P. For., March 28, 1568). On March 23 the King issued letters patent forbidding all notaries and others receiving any contract for annuities or mortgages before the sum of 1,400,000 livres tournois had been raised (ibid., No. 2,085). The duke of Alva was in a state of great anxiety for fear lest the reiters would come into the Netherlands and thought he discovered a plot to throw St. Omer into their hands (ibid., No. 2,230, April 25, 1568).

All the records abound with allusions to the rapacity of the reiters: “La nazione tedesca, nazione avara” (Rel. vén., II, 125 and notes).

“Les reîtres trouvaient beaucoup meilleur l’argent qu’on leur promettait d’Angleterre que les cidres de Normandie.”—La Noue.

“L’importunità dei Tedeschi che mai cessavano de domandare donazioni o paghe.”—Davila, I, 137.

“Ils consommeraient un gouffre d’argent—Facheux, avares, importuns.”—Brantôme, III, 196, 310.

[1203] But restricted as they were, the terms yet mightily offended the Guises, especially the cardinal of Lorraine who “did marvellously storm that the king would condescend to any peace with his subjects, whereat the king said he would agree thereto ‘maugre luy.’” (On the entire negotiations see C. S. P. For., No. 2,025, Feb. 24; Nos. 2,040-41, March 1-4; No. 2,054, March 9; Nos. 2,057, 2,058, March 10-11; No. 2,092, March 27, 1568). The final draft was completed on March 23; the edict was signed by Charles IX on March 26. It was published at Paris on the next day (ibid., Nos. 2,092-93).

[1204] Ibid., No. 2,058, March 11, 1568. Granvella expressed fear of universal famine in France, followed by the plague (Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II, II, 17).

[1205] The preachers and the doctors in Paris in their sermons decried the King and his Council (Claude Haton, II, 527 and note; cf. ibid., 531; Rel. vén., II, 121).

[1206] C. S. P. For., No. 2,273, June 17, 1568; Hist. du Languedoc, V, 482 ff.; Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 18, 88, 142, 156; D’Aubigné, Book IV, chaps. xii-xiv.

[1207] C. S. P. For., Nos. 2,115, 2,135, April 8-10, 1568.

[1208] Hist. du Languedoc, V, 441.

[1209] For details see ibid., 443-64.

[1210] Montluc even ascribed the ravages of the plague to Damville in order to create popular prejudice against him! (Hist. du Languedoc, V, 449). His own words are: “Pour se montrer au peuple, qui avoit une marvelleuse envie de le voir, n’y pouvant arrêter à cause de la grande peste qui y est.” (Cf. his letters to Damville, December 31, 1567, and August 26, 1569, in Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 103 and 159.) Montluc was doubly incensed at this moment because the peace of Longjumeau canceled orders which he had received in February to attempt to take La Rochelle by sea (ibid., VII, 148 ff.; V, 107 note, 109 note, 184 note).

[1211] Bulletin de la Soc. acad. du Var, 1876.

[1212] Claude Haton, II, 525. He repeats at different times the current play upon words which designated these free-booting nobles as “gens-pille-hommes” (gentilhommes). In general, in his estimation, the nobility had much degenerated. See Vol. I, Introd., p. lxii.

[1213] Volunteer bands of searchers visited Huguenot houses, to inquire into their faith (C. S. P. For., No. 2,191, May 17, 1568). At the court, certain of the nobles promised Charles to assure for all members of their retinue to be good Catholics (ibid., Nos. 2,191, 2,235, 2,236, 2,243, 2,248, May 17 to June 4, 1568).

[1214] “D’Anjou has marvellously stomached these dealings, and has kept his chamber, having uttered most despiteful words against them of the religion, saying that he hoped to march upon their bellies” (C. S. P. For., No. 2,177, May 12, 1568).

[1215] Ibid., No. 2,115, §1, April 8, 1568.

[1216] See the revelations of Norris to Cecil in ibid., No. 2,100, March 30, 1568. As earnest of the royal purpose the marshal Montmorency set at once about disarming the people of Paris.

[1217] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 22, 23.

[1218] Probably neither the cardinal nor Montluc knew that the other had been in secret correspondence with Philip II. Knowing Philip’s methods, it is likely that he kept them in ignorance of it. This was his way (cf. Forneron, I, 327).

[1219] Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 328, 329, letter of March 5, 1564.

[1220] Ibid., V, 76, 77 and notes.

[1221] Ibid., V, 145.

[1222] Cited by Forneron, Histoire de Philippe II, I, 327.

[1223] The ordinance of Moulins specifically alluded to the growing popular nature of these confraternities: “Qu’on abolisse entièrement les confréries établies sous prétexte de religion parmi le petit peuple, les festins, les répas, les bâtons (bâtons de Confrérie, qui servent à porter aux confréries l’Image de quelque saint, ou la représentation de quelque mystère) et autres choses semblables, qui donnent lieu à la superstition, aux troubles, à la débauche, aux querelles, et aux monopoles” (De Thou, V, Book XXXIX, p. 183, in the article prohibiting them). But it was as impossible then as now to enforce a law in the face of a public opinion which did not sympathize with the provision. Public opinion not merely favored their formation; the very officers of the crown promoted their organization. La Popelinière, XI, 12, makes this point.

[1224] “Discorso sopra gli umori di Francia di M^[r]. Nazaret, 1570,” Barberini Library 3,269, fol. 63. See Appendix XIII.

[1225] D’Aubigné, III, 2.

[1226] Mémoires de Tavannes, ed. Michaud and Poujoulat, séries I, VIII, 288, 289; Pasquier, Book IV, letter 23; Collection Trémont, Nos. 1,367, 1,382; cf. La Popelinière, XI, 7-12; Pingaud, Les Saulx-Tavannes, p. 61.

[1227] State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth, XCVII, No. 1,711. A printed pamphlet. See Appendix XIV.

[1228] Raynal, Histoire du Berry, IV, 79-83. The text of the act is found in Thauvessière’s Histoire du Berry, 189.

[1229] The text is given in Claude Haton, II, 1152. Cf. Vicomte de Meaux, Luttes religieuses en France, 177, 178; Capefigue, La réforme et la ligue, 360.

[1230] Feret, Clermont-en-Beauvaisis pendant les troubles de la ligue, Clermont, 1853.

[1231] State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth, C, No. 1,863. See Appendix XV.

[1232] Hist. du Languedoc, XI, 509-10 and XII; Preuves, No. 300, p. cxiii; Cabinet historique, II, 217. This league was much more formal in its organization than any of the others. In addition to securing the authorization of the Parlement, the leaders had secured the sanction of Pius V in the March preceding. The bull was granted March 15.

[1233] Cabinet historique, II, 219.

[1234] Bordenave, Hist. de Béarn et de Navarre, 139-45. I venture to suggest the cardinal of Lorraine as a possible instigator, from Bordenave’s words: “quelques autres ... sollicitez par quelques uns des principaux du conseil de France.” Philip II threw new troops into Spanish Navarre at this time, either in consequence of Jeanne d’Albret’s energetic action or to co-operate with the league, if it were successful. Fourquevaux ascertained the fact, but was in the dark as to the reason for it (Dépêches de Fourquevaux, II, 25, November, 1568).

[1235] A letter of Coligny, July 29, 1568, shows that the Huguenot leader was aware of the formation of these provincial leagues. After complaining of the assassination of one of D’Andelot’s lieutenants, he protests against the general violence: “Ce que faict croire que ce sont des fruictz et offices des confraires du Saint-Esprit et sainctes ligues qu’ils appellent; mais si on voit que infiniz meurtres et massacres qui se sont faictz avec une effrénée licence en tous les endroictz de ce royaume depuys la paciffication il n’en ayt esté faict aucune justice ou chastiment, quelque déclaration que Vostre Majesté ayt faicte de sa volonté et intention, je n’en espère pas davantage de cestuy-cy, estant bien facile à cognoistre que ce sont choses projectées et délibérées avec les gouverneurs des provinces, et que cela ne se faict poinct sans adveu ou pour le moins sans un tacite consentement.”—Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis, III, 163, note.

[1236] Montmorency continually threw his influence in favor of peace and moderation, slapping the Guises, however, in his utterances. “The Duke Montmorency said there was nothing more necessary for the maintenance of the king’s estate than the sincere observance of the edict of pacification, and such as labour to the contrary are neither friends to the king nor his crown; and for his own part if the king did not foresee in time with due execution of justice this growing mischief, he was resolved with his leave to depart the court with his friends and allies, and so to withdraw himself from such as under the pretext of maintenance of their religion, continually nourished this division, and in the end put out the glory and renown of the French empire.”—C. S. P. For., No. 2,177, §1, May 12, 1568.

On June 17 Norris wrote to Cecil: “Montmorency has come to the court. The process between him and the duke of Guise for the county of Dammartin will in the end break into open enmity.”—Ibid., No. 2,273.

[1237] “The four marshals agree all in one against the Cardinal.”—Ibid., No. 2,235, May 31, 1568.

[1238] “All things are ruled now by M. d’Anjou, who though young is a most earnest and cruel enemy against the favourers of religion, and has his privy counsellors, the cardinal of Lorraine being the chiefest, and further has his chancellor, who seals all such things as the good old chancellor of the King refuses to seal; who neither for love nor dread would seal anything against the statutes of the realm.”—Ibid., No. 2,178, May 12, 1568. On the whole affair, see ibid., No. 2,177, §2, May 12, 1568.

[1239] Ibid., No. 2,115, §2, April 8; No. 2,177, §3, May 12, 1568.

[1240] Duc d’Aumale, Histoire des princes de Condé, II, App. I.

[1241] C. S. P. For., No. 2,235, May 31, 1568.

[1242] “The garrisons in the Ile-de-France are thought to attend no other thing but till the corn be off the ground to begin where they left off.”—Ibid., No. 2,178, May 12, 1568.

[1243] C. S. P. For., Nos. 2,235, 2,243, 2,248, May 31, June 2-4, 1568.

[1244] As to localities see Duc d’Aumale, Histoire des princes de Condé, II, 284.

[1245] C. S. P. For., No. 2,296, June 22, 1568. They feared a plot to capture them by trickery, as Egmont and Hoorne had been trapped in Flanders. According to report, Lavallette was to have seized the prince, Chavigny the admiral, and Tavannes D’Andelot. The warning was probably given by some secretary whom Coligny had corrupted, for shortly after this time several secretaries to the Catholic leaders were dismissed (ibid., No. 2,256, June 7, 1568; cf. D’Aumale, Histoire des princes de Condé, II, 12, n. 2, and p. 287). Coligny also bribed the secretary of Don Francesco de Alava, Spanish ambassador in France (see C. S. P. For., No. 1,230, May 24, 1568 and Introd., p. xxvi).

[1246] Ibid., Nos. 2,256, 2,304, 2,323, June 7, 28, July 5, 1568. For an instance of the feeling between the prince and the cardinal see Sir Henry Norris to the queen, ibid., No. 2,248, June 1, 1568 and Duc d’Aumale, Histoire des princes de Condé, II, 12 and n. 1.

[1247] This was the time the word first appeared (D’Aumale, II, 12, note 3).

[1248] C. S. P. For., No. 2,295, Norris to Cecil, June 23, 1568. On the whole negotiation see Robinson, “Queen Elizabeth and the Valois Princes,” Eng. Hist. Rev., II, 40; Hume, Courtships of Queen Elizabeth, 114-49. Hume, however, is in error, p. 115, in believing that the negotiation arose after the peace of St. Germain in 1570. The intercourse must have been kept very much in the dark, judging from the obscure allusions in the following: Sir Henry Norris to the earl of Leicester, C. S. P. For., No. 2,241, August 20, 1568—Marshal Montmorency is very desirous to have answer to the letter which he wrote to Leicester; the queen to the duchess of Montmorency, ibid., No. 2,472, August 27, 1568—Thanks her for her courteous and honorable entertainment in her house, and near her person of the daughter of her chamberlain, Lord Edward Howard. Walsingham warned his government at this time against spies of the cardinal of Lorraine in London. See Appendix XVI.

[1249] “More have been murdered since the publishing of the peace than were all these last troubles. Daily murders are committed without any punishment to the offenders, others violently taken out of their houses in the night and led to the river being without remorse drowned.”—C. S. P. For., Nos. 2,383, 2,339, 2,407, July 31-August 7, 1568.

[1250] The proceedings here on both sides are measured by the success in Flanders (ibid., No. 2,273, June 17, 1568; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, II, 47; Dépêches de Fourquevaux, II, 24).

[1251] In February, 1568 the wholesale condemnation of the people of the Low Countries had been pronounced by the inquisition and confirmed by the Philip II, (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 171).

[1252] C. S. P. For., No. 2,432, August 17, 1568, Mundt to Cecil from Strasburg.

[1253] Languet, Epist. secr., I, 60; Epist. ad Camer., 79 and 84.

[1254] Languet, Epist. secr., I, 64; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 208.

[1255] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 207; Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 7, Marshal Cossé to the King, June 20, 1568.

[1256] See Haag, La France protestante, art., “Cocqueville.” The admiral Coligny disavowed any complicity in the enterprise. For the fate of the other columns see Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 212, 220, 227.

[1257] Ibid., 239, 255. The prince of Orange anticipated the disaster of Jemmingen, for he disapproved of the rash policy of his brother. See a letter on this head written by him to Louis of Nassau in July, 1568 (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 257, and the latter’s reply, July 17, ibid., III, 264, 265). Alva had been so certain of Spanish victory that in advance of it he offered Charles IX the use of Spanish troops (C. S. P. For., No. 2,379, §2, July 29, 1568).

[1258] “They (Huguenots) attend the success of the war in Flanders.”—Ibid.

[1259] In September, 1568, a royal edict was promulgated forbidding the public profession of any but the Catholic religion, and revoking all former edicts. Text in Recueil de Fontanon, IV, 294. Montluc claims that he was the author of the idea and that he sent a rough draft of such an edict to Charles IX (De Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 153, 154). In intimation of this policy, in August an oath of allegiance and obedience had been exacted by Charles IX of all the Huguenot leaders (C. S. P. For., No. 2,419, August 9, 1568; cf. No. 2,407, August 7 and Duc d’Aumale, Hist. des princes de Condé, II, 9).

[1260] Rel. vén., II, 123.

[1261] Claude Haton, II, 532; Coll. des autographes de M. de L—— de Nancy (Paris, 1855), No. 477; Henry, duke of Anjou to Matignon, King’s lieutenant in Normandy, October 8, 1568, recommending him to distribute the gendarmerie in places most suitable to protect the country.

[1262] C. S. P. For., Nos. 2,352, 2,379, July 14 and 29, 1569.

[1263] Ibid., No. 2,379, July 29, 1568; on the calculative policy of the French crown see Languet, Epist. secr., I, 92 and La Noue’s comments in Mémoires militaires, chap. xii.

[1264] C. S. P. For., No. 2,379, July 29, 1568.

[1265] Letter of August 23, 1568 analyzed in De Thou, Book XLIV.

[1266] See the complaints of the prince of Condé to the King, under date of June 29 and July 22, 1568 in Duc d’Aumale, Histoire des princes de Condé, II, App. I.

[1267] See the gist of the prince of Condé’s petition, summarized in C. S. P. For., No. 2,451, August 23, 1568. As an instance of the care of the government to b forehanded, agents of the crown secretly measured even the height of the wall in the case of towns of doubtful allegiance. Coligny complained of the attacks which his gentlemen and those of his brother D’Andelot suffered. At Dijon the prince of Condé prosecuted a person whom he accused of secretly having measured the walls of Noyers (Claude Haton, II, 537, note).

[1268] C. S. P. For., No. 2,464, August 25, 1568; cf. No. 2,484.

[1269] Claude Haton, II, 539; Le Laboureur, II, 593.

[1270] C. S. P. For., No. 2,441, August 20, 1568; Condé was at Noyers, Coligny at Tanlay (Yonne): D’Aubigné, Book III, 5, note; Duc d’Aumale, Hist. des princes de Condé, II, 367.

[1271] Languet, Epist. secr., I, 64, 69.

[1272] Ibid., I, 75; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 284-86. The prince of Orange at this time was near Cleves having an army but no money. See a letter of the prince of Orange to the duke of Württemberg and the margrave of Baden asking for pecuniary assistance. September 17, 1568 (ibid., III, 291). His plans again failed. He tried to enter Picardy for the purpose of uniting with the Huguenots. But the alertness of the marshal Cossé again prevented Genlis as it had foiled Cocqueville, and the prince was compelled to abandon his purpose. At Strasburg his army was dissolved (ibid., III, 295, 303, 313-16; Languet, Epist. ad Camer., 89; Epist. secr., I, 75).

[1273] Even La Noue, 804 and Beza, II, 277, assert this.

[1274] Elizabeth of Valois, queen of Spain, had died October 3, 1568.

[1275] C. S. P. For., Nos. 2,640, 2,666, November 22, December 8, 1568.

[1276] C. S. P. For., No. 2,441, August 20, 1568.

[1277] Tavannes, chap. xxi.

[1278] C. S. P. For., No. 2,477, August 29, 1568. Norris states the fact that Condé and the admiral were warned by the letters they intercepted. The duc d’Aumale (Hist. des princes de Condé, II, 13) has shown the deliberate intention of Tavannes so to do.

[1279] D’Aubigné, III, 24: “Le prince ... fit publier les loix militaires.” Issued from La Rochelle, September 9, 1568. Summary in C. S. P. For., No. 2,514. De Serres gives the text at p. 158. Delaborde gives the admiral Coligny the credit for these regulations (III, 522). Cf. C. S. P. For., No. 2,486, discourse of the cardinal Châtillon, who attributes the evils of France to the cardinal of Lorraine and refutes the charge of ambition brought against the Huguenot leaders. The cardinal fled to England at this time (see La Ferrière, Le XVI^[e] siècle et les Valois, 217; D’Aubigné, III, 12, note 31). He died in 1571. There was a rumor that Coligny, too, had gone to England (Languet, Epist. secr., I, 109).

[1280] Fontanon, IV, 292, 294; Claude Haton, II, 540; (September 25) C. S. P. For., No. 2,561, §1, September 30, 1568; ibid., Ven., No. 433, September 28, 1568. A supplementary edict suppressed all offices of judicature and finance held by the Huguenots (C. S. P. For., No. 2,674, December 16, 1568).

[1281] Ibid., No. 2,363, July 20, 1568.

[1282] Ibid., No. 2,467, August 27, 1568.

[1283] C. S. P. Ven., No. 430, September 11, 1568. Other sources of revenue were a loan upon the security of the wine duties for several years—a heavy burden upon the people (Claude Haton, II, 547)—which yielded about 300,000 crowns per annum. In addition, the King raised a benevolence of 50,000 crowns from Paris, and Venice loaned 100,000 crowns (C. S. P. For., No. 2,640, November 22, 1568) later increased to 200,000. The Pope later authorized the sale of 50,000 crowns’ worth of the temporalities of the church, but the sales were so managed by certain of the clergy that the government got little from them (ibid., No. 233, April, 1569, summary of an ordinance of Charles IX).

[1284] For details see Norris to Cecil, C. S. P. For., No. 2,550, September 25, 1568.

[1285] Taillander, Vie de L’Hôpital, 200.

[1286] Even Biragues, now the chancellor, was in the secret pay of Spain (Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle, VIII, 387).

[1287] C. S. P. For., No. 2,490, September 1; No. 2,529, September 15, 1568. The two Protestant places of worship in Orleans were burned (ibid., No. 2,561, §2, September 30, 1568). Things would have gone worse with the Protestants of Orleans had it not been for the Politique marshal Vieilleville, whose government it was, and who did all in his power to protect the Huguenots (ibid., No. 190, March 24, 1569).

[1288] Jeanne d’Albret, who had been at Nérac, reached La Rochelle on September 28, having crossed the Garonne “under the nose of Montluc” (Olhagaray, 575), who, it is said, had orders to intercept her (Palma Cayet, Part I, 166). Montluc glosses over his negligence in this particular (Commentaires, III, 175).

[1289] C. S. P. For., No. 2,561, September 30, 1568. D’Andelot was in Brittany, (ibid., No. 2,527, September 15, 1568), but on September 16 he crossed the Loire (La Noue, chap. xix) with 1,500 horse and 20 ensigns of foot (D’Aubigné, III, 13, note 7) in spite of the strict injunctions of the King to prevent him (D’Aubigné, III, 14, note).

[1290] C. S. P. For., No. 2,610, §2, October 29, 1568. Duke William of Saxony earnestly begged Charles IX to employ his soldiery (ibid., No. 2,640, §5, November 22, 1568) and the margrave of Baden accepted a command of reiters in the King’s army (Le Laboureur, II, 724). The duke of Deuxponts offered 8,000 reiters and 40 ensigns of lansquenets to Condé (C. S. P. For., No. 2,666, §1, December 8, 1568). They were to have no pay for two months, expecting to pay themselves by seizing the towns and castles belonging to the house of Guise in Lorraine and Champagne. In the end England paid for their services (see the record of the receipts in C. S. P. For., No. 2,011, September 10, 1571; No. 2,123, November 13, 1571). The Catholic reiters were to be paid by a forced loan exacted of the Parisians (ibid., No. 2,666, December 8, 1568).

[1291] North to Cecil, C. S. P. For., December 30, 1568, January 11, 1569.

[1292] For description of it see C. S. P. For., No. 2,640, §15, November 22, 1568. The engagement of Jazeneuil that followed, November 17, was a blow to them (see La Noue, chap. xxi; D’Aubigné, III, 37; C. S. P. For., No. 2,640, §1). The minute account of the duc d’Aumale may be found in Hist. des princes de Condé, II, 26-34. Whitehead, Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, 204-9, has an admirable account.

[1293] Condé’s army before the defeat at Jazeneuil was estimated at 12,000 foot and 4,000 horse, all well mounted and armed, besides a very large number of irregular troops.

[1294] Fourquevaux to Catherine de Medici, January 13, 1569, on the authority of a letter of the Spanish ambassador in France, dated January 7, 1568 (Dépêches de Fourquevaux, II, 47). Alava must have regarded the news as highly important, for the courier was only six days in making the journey to Madrid.

[1295] Fourquevaux, II, 31, 54.

[1296] Coll. Godefroy, XCVI, William of Orange to Charles IX, December 21, 1568.

[1297] Alva sent word to Charles IX at all hazards to hold the prince of Condé back, himself promising to take care of Orange. The King sent the Spanish duke a very large commission, not only to levy upon the country for necessities but even to enter the French walled towns—so far were the two crowns now in accord (C. S. P. For., No. 2,666, December 8, 1568).

[1298] The alarm of the government at this hour over Paris may be measured by two police regulations of the time. One ordered search to be made throughout the town twice a week, in all hostelries and other places, and forbade mechanics to leave their houses on certain days. The other allowed those of the religion who had been forbidden to leave their houses on certain days to appoint one of their servants to go about the town on their affairs. He was to have a certificate signed by the captain and commissaires of the quarter, and to be unarmed. The commissaires were to make a weekly search in the houses of those of the religion, to make procès-verbal of the names of all the domestics, signed by the master of the house, and to remove all arms found therein (ibid., No. 2,671, December 11; No. 2,684, December 23, 1568). Both ordinances were registered by the Parlement. During the Christmas season no Calvinist was permitted to stir out of doors (ibid., No. 2,688, §3, December 26, 1568).

[1299] “The good disposition and order that is kept in the prince’s army is much to be commended, nothing like oppressing the country where they pass, as that of M. d’Anjou, which was waxed hateful by their insolent behavior, both to Protestants and Catholics. M. d’Anjou has bestowed the greatest part of his army in the towns upon the river of Loire.”—C. S. P. For., No. 12, January 4, 1569.

The presence of the royal army in Anjou, under the command of the duke of Anjou, was a heavy burden upon the people of the province, which already had suffered heavily from the depredations of the Huguenots in the preceding year. The municipal council of Angers, on November 4, was called upon to furnish 800 pairs of stockings, 1,500 pairs of shoes, powder, bread, hay, straw, oats, pikes, shovels, mattocks, and other implements. The town was filled with sick and wounded soldiers (Joubert, Les misères de l’Anjou, etc., 36).

[1300] Orange was also in want of pay for his troops (Languet, Epist. secr., I, 82).

[1301] Revue d’histoire diplomatique, XIV (1900), 51-52, 64.

[1302] C. S. P. For., No. 22, January 10, 1569; No. 151, March 5, 1569; La Popelinière, Book XV; De Thou and D’Aubigné add nothing new.

[1303] On the hardness of the winter of 1568-69 see La Noue, chap, xxiv; Hist. du Lang., V, 514; Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 156; Whitehead, Coligny, 202.

[1304] Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 57. Remonstrance of Jean de Montluc against the continuance of the war, December 2, 1568. In the council of the King a motion was made that the Protestants should be permitted to enjoy the benefit of the edicts granted before; that Condé should be given the government of Saintonge, and be given leave to aid Orange against Spain. But neither Catherine de Medici nor the King would listen to the proposal, and the cardinal of Lorraine argued that it would be dangerous to further Condé in any way (C. S. P. For., No. 23, January 10, 1569).

[1305] Potter, Pie V, 19; ed. Gouban, Book III, No. 4, p. 135, letter to the cardinal Bourbon, January, 1569; ibid., p. 23; ed. Gouban, Book III, No. 5, p. 138, letter to the cardinal of Lorraine, same date.

[1306] C. S. P. Ven., No. 439, November 9, 1568 and No. 448, January 6, 1569. The distress of commerce and the legal complications arising from the semi-piratical acts were very great (see C. S. P. Dom., 1547-80, pp. 378, 386, May 29, 1570, July 29, 1570).

[1307] Ibid., Ven., No. 448, January 6, 1569. The cardinal Châtillon was the Huguenot agent in England (see ibid., For., No. 71, January 22, 1569; No. 82, January 30, 1569). On his financial negotiations see the detailed note of the baron de Ruble in D’Aubigné, III, 61.

[1308] Count Mansfeldt to the duke of Aumale, January 22, 1569, Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 58; C. S. P. For., No. 172, March 15, 1569. They came, not merely with weapons and bringing horses, but with great vans, flails, and harvest tools, with which to plunder the fields.

[1309] The forces of D’Aumale were 5,500 reiters, 26 companies of French horsemen, and 30 ensigns of foot, besides others. The troops that the King had were 26 companies of gendarmes, 15 companies of the regular French army, 4,500 Swiss, 2,500 reiters, and his household troops. Montmorency retired to Chantilly owing to the combination against him (C. S. P. For., No. 75, January 25, 1569. For the details see Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 315). There had been a fierce strife between the factions of Guise and Montmorency for D’Aumale’s place, the three marshals, Montmorency, Vieilleville, and Cossé resisting his appointment. The hostility of the Parisians to Montmorency, though certainly not the accusation of the cardinal of Lorraine that the constable’s son had secret intelligence with the prince of Orange, militated against him. The English ambassador even believed that Montmorency and the duke of Bouillon might appear in arms for Condé. Sir Henry Norris to the queen: “On the 23d ult. the duke of Montmorency required the captains and échevins of Paris to come to the Louvre to speak with him, and declared that their disorders and unaptness to be ruled was not unknown to the King. Lignerolles, of the court of Parlement, and captain-general of twenty-two ensigns, answered that Paris was like to a ship, whereof the master, neglecting his charge, it is requisite that the pilots do put hand to the helm; where unto Montmorency coldly replied, ‘qu’il parloyt en curtault de butique’” (C. S. P. For., No. 50, January 15, 1569).

[1310] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 516.

[1311] Claude Haton, II, 516 and note; C. S. P. For., Nos. 42, 50, January 11, 15, 1569.

[1312] It appears that the German princes thought of sending a deputation into France to remonstrate with Catherine de Medici. At least the minute of a letter to the queen has been preserved which intimates as much. In it they deplore the sad effects of the persecutions in France (see Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, II, 99-100, June, 1567). On January 24, 1569, a decree of the elector of Saxony commanded all captains and soldiers who were his subjects and who might be serving under the duke of Alva or the King of France, to return home within two months after the date of the publication of the decree; and further ordered his officers to arrest any persons whom they might find setting forth for these services.—Dresden, January 24, 1569 (C. S. P. For., No. 74). In March, Augustus of Saxony, the count palatine, and other German princes sent 50,000 silver crowns to Condé (ibid., Ven., No. 452, March 15, 1569).

[1313] William of Orange with his two brothers went into Germany in order to push the plan in conjunction with the duke of Deuxponts—D’Aubigné, III, 45, 60 (C. S. P. For., No. 131, February 24, 1569). For the detail of this movement see Gachard, La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris, II, 275, 278, 280. The duke of Aumale has published some of his letters at this time (Hist. des princes de Condé, II, 406 ff.).

[1314] D’Aumale at this time lay at Phalsburg and Saverne, with 4,000 reiters, 2,000 French horse, and 10,000 footmen. His penetration within the imperial frontier offended and alarmed Strasburg where a French faction had unsuccessfully plotted to betray the town.

[1315] See News-Letter from La Rochelle, January, 1569, in Appendix XVII.

[1316] C. S. P. For., No. 105, February 10, 1569.

[1317] Ibid., No. 151, March 5, 1569; Claude Haton, II, 517.

[1318] Ibid., For., No. 155, March 5, 1569; on the desertions from D’Aumale’s army see No. 172.

[1319] Ibid., No. 105, February 10, 1569.

[1320] For contemporary accounts of the battle of Jarnac see La Popelinière, Book XV; Jean de Serres, 315 ff; D’Aubigné, Book V, chap. viii; Claude Haton, II, 548 and notes. The best modern accounts are Gigon, La bataille de Jarnac et la campagne de 1569 en Angoumois, Angoulême, impr. Chasseignac (Extrait du Bulletin de la Société archéologique et historique de la Charente), 1896; Patry, in Bull. Soc. protest. franç., LIII, March 1902; Duc d’Aumale, Histoire des princes de Condé, II, Book I, chap. i; Whitehead, Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, 204-9, an extremely lucid account. The evidence upon the assassination of the prince is sifted by Denys d’Aussy, “L’assassin du prince de Condé à Jarnac (1569),” R. Q. H., XLIX, 573, and summarized (with some new additions) in Whitehead, 206, note 2. The text of the famous dispatches, which were found in the gauntlet of the prince of Condé are printed in full in Duc d’Aumale, Histoire des princes de Condé, II, App. iii.

[1321] C. S. P. Ven., No. 454, March 15, 1569; cf. Brantôme, III, 329.

[1322] Claude Haton, II, 549, 550.

[1323] Compare the Pope’s letter of March 6, informing Charles IX that he has sent troops to him under Sforza and has prayed to God for victory (Potter, Pie V, 28; ed. Gouban, Book III, letter 9, p. 148) with the letter of congratulation of March 28, after he had learned of the battle (ibid., p. 31; ed. Gouban, Book III, letter 10, p. 151). The duke of Anjou sent the flags and standards captured at Jarnac to Rome (Potter, Pie V, p. 54; ed. Gouban, Book III, 167, letter 17, April 26, 1569).

[1324] “L’amiral demeurant toujours le principal gouverneur et conseiller en toutes les affaires des huguenots.”—Castelnau, Book VII, chap. vi.

[1325] Jean de Serres, 333.

[1326] D’Aubigné, III, 58.

[1327] Claude Haton, II, 557.

[1328] Ibid.

[1329] D’Aubigné, III, 57; Jean de Serres, 326, gives details.

[1330] Jean de Serres, 331.

[1331] C. S. P. For., No. 294, June 6, 1569.

[1332] Queen Elizabeth was perfectly safe in making the loan, as the jewels were worth three times the sum advanced (Bourgon, Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham, II, 334-36). C. S. P. For., No. 258, May 12, 1569; Duc d’Aumale, I, 70, note 2; John Casimir and the duke of Deuxponts both promised reiters.

[1333] C. S. P. Ven., No. 460, September 15, 1569.

[1334] Ibid., For., No. 252, May 9, 1569; the prince of Navarre and other leaders of the Huguenot army in Saintonge to the duke of Deuxponts and certain noblemen in his camp, and to the prince of Orange, earnestly urging them to advance on the Loire, and declaring that notwithstanding the death of the prince of Condé their other losses have been small and that their forces are not diminished or disheartened thereby. Not published in Lettres missives de Henri IV.

[1335] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 316; Languet, Epist. ad Camer., 105; Epist. secr., I, 81. Copies of five letters written by De Francourt, the agent for the Huguenot party with the duke of Deuxponts’ and the prince of Orange, to the Huguenot leaders, expressing regret for the death of the prince of Condé, and assuring them of the continued adherence of the duke of Deuxponts and his reiters to their cause are cited in C. S. P. For., No. 207, April, 1569. The duke of Lorraine is said to have offered Deuxponts 100,000 crowns if he would withdraw his reiters (ibid., No. 234, April 18, 1569).

[1336] Claude Haton, II, 517.

[1337] D’Aubigné, III, 66.

[1338] Preparations looking forward to this movement had begun as far back as March, when the expulsion of all who would not conform to Catholicism was ordered by the cardinal of Lorraine as bishop of Metz and a prince of the empire (C. S. P. For., No. 194, March 26, 1569; cf. Charles IX’s proclamation to the same effect on April 6; see also Nos. 179, 197, the opposing petitions of the clergy of Metz and of the Protestants, dated March 19 and 30 respectively).

The correspondence of the duke of Alençon pertaining to the second civil war is in two volumes listed Nos. 36, 36 bis, in the St. Petersburg collection. The duke remained in Paris, and attended to the forwarding of powder, provisions, and money. In a letter of November 17, 1569, he writes to Charles IX that it is impossible for him to send the sums demanded unless he sells the plate and jewels of the King. In another he sends information of the duke of Tuscany, who was ready to loan 100,000 écus upon the jewels of the crown. He advises that this be done. According to his estimate they were worth 500,000 livres (La Ferrière, Rapport sur les recherches faites à la Bibliothèque imperiale de St. Pétersbourg, 27).

[1339] Proclamation by Charles IX: Commands all gentlemen and soldiers to repair to the camp of the duke of Anjou by the 20th of June, properly armed and equipped for service. Requires his officers to search out the names of such as disobey this order and send them to him, in order that they may be punished in such manner as he may think fit (C. S. P. For., No. 281, May, 1569). The King is levying a new army and is disfurnishing his garrisons in Picardy and Normandy (ibid., No. 287, June 3, 1569). Alva promised 4,000 Spanish troops (Nég. Tosc., III, 591).

[1340] Castelnau, Book VII, chap. v. Alva advised him to treat Coligny et al. as he had treated Egmont and Hoorne.

[1341] Ibid., loc. cit.; C. S. P. For., No. 236, April 23, 1569.

[1342] Duke of Anjou to Catherine de Medici, May 23, 1569, Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 12; La Popelinière, Book XVI; Castelnau, Book VII, chaps. v, vi; D’Aubigné, III, 67 and note 2; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 317; La Noue, chap. xxiv; C. S. P. For., No. 286, June 3, 1569, Sir Henry Norris to the Queen: “The duke of Deuxponts’ army being before La Charité, he caused 600 French harquebusiers and certain companies of reiters to pass over the river, besieging the town on both sides, and having made a breach which was scant scalable, they made a proud assault, not without loss of some of their soldiers, and entered the town by force, and put to the sword as many as they found within the same. The Cardinal, to save his brother from the stigma of the loss of La Charité, made Count Montmeyo the scapegoat” (C. S. P. For., No. 293, June 7, 1569). For other details see Hippeau, “Passage de l’armée du duc des Deux-Ponts dans la Marche et le Limousin en 1569,” Rev. des Soc. savant des départ., 5^[e] série, V (1873), p. 571; Le Bœuf (Jean), Histoire de la prise d’Auxerre par les Huguenots, et de la délivrance de la mesme ville, les années 1567 et 1568, avec un recit de ce qui a précedé et de ce qui a suivi ces deux fameux événemens et des ravages commis à la Charité, Gien, Cosne, etc. et autres lieux du diocèse d’Auxerre, le tout précedé d’une ample préface sur les antiquités d’Auxerre et enrichi de notes historiques sur les villes, bourgs et villages et sur les personnes principales qui sont nommées dans cette histoire, par un chanoine de la cathédrale d’Auxerre, Auxerre, 1723.

[1343] Castelnau, Book VI, chap. vi; C. S. P. For., No. 286, June 3. The reiters and the Swiss in the royal service were paid, to the disadvantage of the King’s subjects, so that many captains resigned (ibid., No. 351, July 27, 1569). “L’esquelz n’estoient si sanguinaires ni saccageurs d’églises et de prebstres que ceux des huguenots, toutesfois estoient aussi larrons les ungs que les aultres pour serrer sur leurs harnois ce qu’ilz trouvoient à leur commodité; et par ainsi fut la France pleine d’estrangers pour la désoler et quasi rendre déserte” (Claude Haton, II, 547).

The temper of the Catholic army is shown in a dispatch of the duke of Montpensier to Catherine, May 1, 1569, from the camp at Villebois, reciting the death of young Brissac, the marshal’s son before Mussidan. The town was taken by storm. “J’en trouve meilleu est qu’ils n’ont laissé reschapper ung tout seul de tous ceuls qui estoyent dedans que tout n’ayt esté passé par le fil de l’épée, ce qui semble être le vray droict de ceste guerre.”—Collection Fillon, No. 2,656.

[1344] “The admiral minds ... to refresh his reiters, and after the harvest to march towards Paris.”—C. S. P. For., No. 311, June 30, 1569.

[1345] C. S. P. For., No. 272, May 27, 1569.

[1346] Ibid., No. 300, Norris to Cecil, June 14, 1569.

[1347] Ibid., No. 286, June 3, 1569. He required Charles IX, in the name of the empire, to withdraw his troops from Metz (ibid., No. 286, Norris to Cecil, June 3, 1569; ibid., No. 305, Mundt to Cecil, from Frankfourt [?], June 23, 1569).

[1348] C. S. P. For., No. 286, June 3, 1569; Claude Haton, II, 692. Marguerite herself is evidence for this: “La maison de Montmorency aient ceux qui en avaient porté les premières paroles.”—Mém. de Marguerite de Navarre (ed. Guisson, 23), 24.

[1349] “Depuis que je y suis, jé fayst marcher vostre armaye en tele diligense, que cet les reystres eusent vole u marcher jeudi, le jour de la feste Dyeu, je me pouvès dyre le plus heureuse femme du monde, et vostre frère le plus glorieux, car vous eusiés heu la fin de cete guere, aystent réduis le duc de Dus Pons.”—Catherine de Médicis à Charles IX de Limoges, 12 juin 1569, Fillon Collection, No. 127.

[1350] The duke of Deuxponts died on June 11, 1569, of excessive drinking. See Janssen, VIII, 50; D’Aubigné, III, 69, note 1; Jean de Serres, 364; Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 208. Fortunately for the Huguenots his death made little difference in the disposition of his army, for Wolrad of Mansfeldt, his able lieutenant, succeeded to the command. His prudence saved the reiters after the battle of Moncontour (see Niemarn, Geschichte der Grafen v. Mansfeldt, 1834).

[1351] D’Aubigné, III, 73, 74: a graphic account; cf. Bulletin de la Soc. archéol. et hist. du Limousin, IV.

“On l’appela arquebuse à croc quand on l’eut munie d’un axe de rotation reposant sur une fourchette ou croc et facilitant le pointage. L’arquebuse à croc était souvent d’un poids considérable. Elle lançait parfois des balles de plomb de 8, 12 et 13 livres. Jusqu’au commencement du XVI^[e] siècle, on mettait le feu à la charge au moyen d’une mèche allumée que le coulevrinier portait enroulée autour du bras droit. A Pavie, les Espagnols se servirent d’une arquebuse perfectionnée par eux, dans laquelle la mèche était mise en contact avec l’amorce pour faire partir le coup, au moyen d’un serpentin, sorte de pince qu’une détente faisait agir, sans que le pointage en fût dérangé. Disposer la mèche à la longueur voulue, en aviver le feu avant de tirer constituait l’opération de maniement d’arme designée sous ce nom compasser la mèche.”—La grande encyclopédie, III, art. “Arquebuse.”

[1352] La Popelinière, Book XVII; D’Aubigné, III, 80, 81.

[1353] D’Aubigné, Book V, chap, xii; Jean de Serres, 355, 356.

[1354] Schomberg offered to make a levy of 4,000 Poles; 8,000 Swiss were asked of the Catholic cantons (C. S. P. For., No. 351, July 27, 1569). To support them Paris was mulcted for 700,000 francs and confiscation of Protestant lands to the crown eked out the balance (ibid., No. 355, July 29, 1569).

The following summary from Sir Henry Norris’ letter to Queen Elizabeth sets forth the government’s fiscal policy at this time: “On the 1st instant the king went to the Palais, where in the end, the Parlement made a general arrest of all the goods, lands, and offices of those who bore arms against the king, and that all their lands held in fee—or knight-service—should revert to the crown; and that for the other lands, first there should be alienated for the sum of 50,000 crowns by the year, and given to the clergy, in recompense of their demesne, which the king had license to sell, and the remainder bestowed on such as had suffered loss by the religion and done service in these wars. It is accounted that this attainture will amount to 2,000,000 francs a year. The same day they made sale, by sound of trumpet, of the admiral’s goods in Paris. Some moved to have him executed in effigy, which was thought unmeet, as serving only to irritate him to proceed the more extremely. The king borrows 300,000 £ and offers to perpetuate the Councillors of Parlement’s offices to their children, on their giving a certain sum of money; besides this they tax all citizens throughout the realm to make great contributions. The cardinals of Bourbon and Lorraine, to show an example to the clergy, have offered to sell 4,000 £ rent of the monasteries of St. Germain and St. Denis” (C. S. P. For., No. 375, August 5, 1569).

[1355] D’Aubigné, II, 38, 39.

[1356] Louise de Bourbon, abbess de Fontevrault, daughter of François, comte de Vendôme, and of Marie de Luxembourg, died in 1575.

[1357] For a graphic description of Poitiers in the sixteenth century see Ouvré, Histoire de Poitiers, 24, 25.

[1358] Rel. vén., II, 271.

[1359] All the historians narrate the history of the siege of Poitiers (see Claude Haton, II, 375 ff.; La Popelinière, Book XVII; D’Aubigné, Book V, chap, v; Claude Haton, II, 534; De Thou, Book XLV; Liberge, Ample discourse de ce qui s’est fait au siège de Poitiers, 1569, new ed., 1846, by Beauchet-Felleau; Mém., de Jean d’Antras, ed. Cansalade and Tamizey de Larroque, 1880; see also Whitehead, Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, 215, 216; Babinet, Mém. de la Soc. des antiq. de l’ouest, séries II, Vol. XI). The story of the siege is also related in an unpublished letter of Charles IX to the duke of Nevers, September 10, 1569, F. Fr., 3,159, No. 195.

[1360] Catherine de Medici to the duke of Anjou: approving of his false attack upon Châtellerault (see Appendix XVIII), not published in the Correspondance.

[1361] Nég. Tosc., III, 595.

[1362] Both La Noue, chap, xxvi, and D’Aubigné, III, 119, emphasize the condition of the army.

[1363] The custom of kissing the ground at the moment of charging the enemy seems to have been peculiar to the Swiss and the Germans (D’Aubigné, Book V, chap. xvii, 120; Brantôme, VI, 221 and 522).

[1364] Claude Haton, II, 581.

[1365] Claude Haton, II, 585.

[1366] Ibid., 582.

[1367] La Noue, chap. xxvi. Both Henry and Louis of Nassau were in this engagement, the latter having quitted his university studies for war.—Languet, Epist. secr., I, 117; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 323.

[1368] Jean de Serres, 526, 527. See the letter of Norris, December 19, 1569, Appendix XIX.

[1369] Delaborde, III, 162.

[1370] Mém. de Condé, I, 207; D’Aubigné, III, 113, 114; Arch. cur., séries I, VI, 875. Pius V’s letter of felicitation to the queen mother, October 17, 1569, characterizes Coligny as “hominem unum omnium fallacissimum, execrandaeque memoriae, Gasparem de Coligny, qui se pro istius regni admirante gerit.”—Potter, Pie V, 67, ed. Gouban, Book III, letter 43, p. 236. The admiral’s office had been declared vacant on July 15, 1569 (Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 69).

[1371] C.S.P. For., Nos. 456, 459, 464, 486, October 5, 6, 10, 27, 1569. This was far from paying the reiters what the government owed them. They had been serving for thirteen months and received pay but for three; 2,000,000 crowns were still owing (ibid., No. 543, December 19, 1569).

[1372] On the resistance of St. Jean-d’Angély see D’Aubigné, Book V, chap. xix; La Noue, chap. xxvii; La Popelinière, Book XX.

[1373] Ibid., No. 511, November 21, 1569. Both the duke of Alençon and the princess Marguerite, Henry IV’s future wife, were among the number. The disease was smallpox (ibid., No. 502, November 3, No. 543, December 19, 1569).

[1374] Delaborde, III, 72; Nég. Tosc., III, 608.

[1375] C. S. P. For., Nos. 514, 515, 576, November 24, 25, 1569.

[1376] C. S. P., For., November 24, 1569, Jeanne d’Albret to the princes of Navarre and Condé. Not in Rochambeau, Lettres d’Antoine de Bourbon et de Jehanne d’Albret.

[1377] An awkward delay occurred at this time owing to the fact that Teligny’s safe-conduct provided for his coming to the King, but made no statement as to his departure. On December 14 the queen of Navarre and her son demanded “un passeport plus ample” from the King. When it came with a revised form, negotiations were resumed (Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 263, note; C. S. P. For., No. 643, January, 1570. For details of these protracted negotiations see La Popelinière, Book XXII; Delaborde, III, 176 ff.). In Appendix XX will be found a long document consisting of a great number of articles proposed by the queen of Navarre, the princes of Navarre and Condé, and the other chiefs of the Huguenot party, for the pacification of France, and divided under the heads of religion, restitution of goods and estates, council and justice, arms, and finances, together with measures to be taken to insure the performance of the edict (February 4, 1570).

[1378] C. S. P. For., No. 644, January 1570, articles sent by the queen of Navarre to the King.

[1379] Hist. du Lang., V, 508, note. The parlement of Toulouse was a special object of criticism by the Huguenots. In the act of peace they were exempted from its jurisdiction.

[1380] C. S. P. For., No. 672, February 3, 1570; cf. R. Q. H., XLII, 112-15, copied from Record Office; Delaborde, Coligny, III, 180.

[1381] C. S. P. For., No. 682, February 10, 1570. Not in Rochambeau.

[1382] Ibid., No. 674, February 5, 1570. This information had been conveyed to Jeanne d’Albret by a packet which had been intercepted (ibid., No. 689, February 17, 1570).

[1383] Waddington, “La France et les Protestants allemands sous Charles IX et Henri III,” Revue Hist., XLII, 256 ff.

[1384] The queen of Navarre to Charles IX. Has received his letter and communicated his reply to her son and nephew, and the noblemen who are with them. Assures him that it is impossible for them to live without the free exercise of their religion, which in the end he will be constrained to grant, and declares that all those who advise him otherwise are no true subjects to him (C. S. P. Spain, No. 683, February 11, 1570). Not in Rochambeau.

[1385] De Thou definitely says Paris and the court were indifferent as to the fate of the remoter provinces so long as the war did not touch them too (Vol. VI, Book XLVII, p. 37).

[1386] “Compertum nobis est nullam esse Satanae cum filiis lucis communionem; ita inter catholicos quidem et haereticos nullam compositionem, nisi fictam fallaciisque plenissimam, fieri posse pro certo habemus.”—Potter, Pie V, 86 (ed. Gouban), Book 4, letter I, p. 269; Pius V to Charles IX, January 29, 1570. At p. 272 is a letter in a similar vein to the duke of Anjou, written on the same day.

[1387] De Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, VII, 184, note; V, 135; letter of Montluc, October 31, 1568.

[1388] Ibid., IV, 335.

[1389] It is to be regretted that there is no monograph upon the history of these viscounts. It would be quite worth doing. Communay, Les Huguenots dans le Béarn et la Navarre, and Durier, Les Huguenots en Bigorre, 1884, are valuable collections of documents. The sources are largely in the local archives of Upper Languedoc, Guyenne, Quercy, the Agenois, and Rouergue. My information is gathered entirely from the two works named above and Montluc; D’Aubigné; Hist. du Languedoc, V; Courteault, Blaise de Montluc, Paris, 1908; and Marlet, Le comte de Montgomery, Paris, 1890.

[1390] Hist. du Lang., V, 155, 156.

[1391] De Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, IV, 354, 399, note.

[1392] Hist. du Lang., V, 501; Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, II, 399, note; V, 268 note.

[1393] Hist. du Lang., V, 495.

[1394] Hist. du Lang., V, 495, 496; La Popelinière, Book XIII.

[1395] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 208.

In State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth, Vol. CXV, No. 990 is a document showing the provinces held by the Protestants. It is undated but the mention of the viscounts in it shows that it is of this time (printed in Appendix XXI).

[1396] Hist. du Lang., V, 576, note.

[1397] Bordenave, 166; Hist. du Lang., V, 575.

[1398] Bordenave, Hist. de Béarn et de Navarre, 268-77.

[1399] Olhagaray, Histoire de Foix, de Navarre et de Béarn (1609), 578, however, gives the date March 4.

[1400] Bordenave, Histoire de Béarn et de Navarre, 216.

[1401] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 245.

[1402] In F. Fr., 15,558, fol. 293, is a memoir of Jean de Montluc to the King, of July, 1569, enumerating the munitions and provisions of the army before Navarrens.

[1403] Mém. de Gaches, 90.

[1404] I do not know that the actual text of this joint commission is known. Montgomery, in his letter at this time styled himself as follows: Lieutenant-général du roy en Guyenne, despuis la cousté de la Dordoigne jusques aux Pyrénées, en l’absence et sous l’autorité de messeigneurs les princes de Navarre et de Condé, lieutenant et protecteur de Sa Majesté, conservateur de ses édits et aussi lieutenant-général de la reine de Navarre en son comté de Bigorre!—De Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 266, note.

[1405] Montgomery’s itinerary is printed in Appendix XXII.

The two parts of Montgomery’s expedition south of the Dordogne, first the union with the viscounts, and second, the campaign against Terride are to be distinguished, although they have been much confounded.

The sources and authorities for the history of this brief war are: Communay, Les Huguenots dans le Béarn et la Navarre; Durier, Les Huguenots en Bigorre; Bordenave, Hist. de Béarn et de Navarre, Book VII; Montluc, Comment. et Lettres, III, Book VII, pp. 254-89, and his letters for September, 1569 in Vol. V, pp. 164 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book V, chap. xiv; La Popelinière, Book XVIII; Hist. du Lang., V, 578-87; Dupleix, Histoire de France—his father was one of Montluc’s captains and for some time marshal of the camp to Biron in Guyenne; Marlet, Le comte de Montgomery; Courteault, Blaise de Montluc, chap. xi. The baron de Ruble, ed. Montluc, V, 211, note, says: “Les documents inédits sont presque innombrables. Outre les lettres conservées à la Bibliothèque Nationale, principalement dans la collection Harlay, St. Germain, vol. 323 et suivants, nous citerons, aux archives de Pau la série B 952 à 958: les registres consulaires d’Auch, les registres de Larcher aux archives de Tarbes, les registres consulaires de Bagnères-de-Bigorre.” The local archives of Bigorre contain many of Montgomery’s letters. Some of them have been published in Arch. de la Gascogne, VI.

[1406] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 286.

[1407] Hist. du Languedoc, V, 164.

[1408] Damville ignored the railings of Montluc until November, when he wrote to the King in vindication of himself, giving a full account of their campaign against Montgomery (De Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 243-57, notes; Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, Nos. 75 and 84. The first is printed in Archives de la Gironde, II, 148; Hist. du Lang., V, 521, note 2; the latter is given in tome XII, preuves, note 304). Damville seems to have anticipated an inquiry, for he carefully laid aside all of Montluc’s letters from May 26 to October 22, 1569. On February 27, 1570, Damville sent the King a stinging indictment of Montluc’s course. In it he declared Montluc was a rash impostor and accused him of forcing the people of Guyenne to pay unjust ransoms; of violating women; of misusing public moneys; and asserted that he courted investigation of his own conduct (De Ruble, Montluc, III, 394; V, 269, and notes; Hist. du Lang., V, 529, note 3; the letter was first published by Le Laboureur in the Additions to Castelnau, II, 130, from a copy in the Dupuy Coll., Vol. 755. M. Tamizey de Larroque discovered the original in the Coll. Godefroy in the Bib. de l’Institut). Most men of the time, however, deplored the contest between these two Catholic chiefs of the south, without taking sides (see Archives de la Gironde, II, 148). Montluc’s Spanish spy, Bardaxi, naturally reproaches Damville (K. 1,574, No. 154). Probably no judgment may fairly be pronounced until all the sources have been carefully examined. A life of Damville is a work sorely needed; it is a rich subject for some historical student.

The recent work of M. Courteault, Blaise de Montluc, 538-40, 551-53, 557-59, goes at length into this feud between Montluc and Damville. In the main the author sides with the marshal—“Damville acceptait les faits accomplis et ne jugeait pas utile de combattre Mongonmery” (p. 551). He declares that “prudemmement, il [Montluc] a passé dans son livre ce grave incident sous silence” (p. 551). He admits, however, that if the King had ordered an investigation Damville would have had something to answer for (p. 559).

There are numerous letters of Charles IX to Montluc in the St. Petersburg archives. In them Charles harps upon the disagreeable conduct of Montluc toward Jeanne d’Albret, and tries at one and the same time to repress the queen’s indefatigable propaganda lest it anger Spain, and to restrain Montluc because of his outrageous conduct and the illustrious blood of the queen of Navarre (La Ferrière, Rapport, 22.) Letters of the marshal Montmorency and of marshal Damville are also in this volume. Those of the latter cover the history of all the campaigns of Montgomery in Béarn. He condemns Montluc for the death of Terride. The marshal’s laconic language is strikingly in contrast with Montluc’s rhetorical complaint (La Ferrière, Rapport, 44). If we may believe Brantôme, “dans toutes les guerres Montluc gagna la pièce d’argent; auparavant il n’avoit pas grandes finances, et se trouva avoir dans ses coffres cent mille escus.” Charles IX once sharply reminded Montluc in a letter of November, 1562, that he was getting 500 livres per month for his table. (La Ferrière, Blaise de Montluc d’après sa correspondance inédite, Mém. lus à la Sorbonne, 1864.)

[1409] Coligny was quick to seize the opportunity afforded in the south to continue the war there until the crown came to terms with the Huguenots. After the King’s capture of St. Jean-d’Angély, Coligny crossed the Loire to join Montgomery (cf. Delaborde. III, 157, 161, 169, 170; Montluc, III, 347, October; C. S. P. For., No. 577, December, 1569; Letters from La Rochelle to the cardinal of Châtillon). The cardinal has received letters from his brother the admiral, dated from Montauban November 22, informing him that the princes are well, that their army is increasing, that the reiters are content and have received pay, and that there is no difficulty in joining with Montgomery and the viscounts. Their army will consist of 6,500 horse and 12,000 arquebusiers. For the proclamation issued from Montauban see Appendix XXIII. In C. S. P. For., No. 667, January, 1570, is an extract of a letter from La Rochelle, describing the position of the armies of the admiral and the count of Montgomery, who are on either bank of the Garonne, and in good spirits and health.

[1410] De Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 263, 264. Letter of Montluc to Charles IX, January 9, 1570. He writes almost broken hearted.

[1411] So great was the desolation inflicted that the King was obliged to remit the taille in Agenois (Arch. municip. d’Agen reg. consul., fol. 262). The Protestants were so encouraged that even those living in Agen, Montluc’s own town, dared to revolt (Bull. du Com. de la langue et de l’hist. de France, I, 478; Reg. munic. d’Agen, fol. 254). An interesting comparison might be made between the rules for the government of the camp issued by Coligny at this time—they are in K. 1,575, No. 7—and those issued by the prince of Condé at Orleans, in April, 1562. For an example of the severe discipline in the Protestant army see Claude Haton, II, 568; cf. De Thou, Book XXX.

[1412] De Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 74.

[1413] Ibid., 314.

[1414] De Ruble, op. cit., III, 315-29; Montluc’s sang-froid is amazing as he writes.

[1415] Delaborde, III. 157, 161, 169, 170. Early in 1569 Montluc sent a complaint to Charles IX protesting against this export of grain. This trade redounded to the advantage of the commander of the Gascon coast, who was a brother of the bishop of Agen, and Montluc’s complaint gave rise to an acrimonious correspondence preserved in Coll. Harley St. Germain, No. 323, which throws some light on the interesting question of trade in the sixteenth century (see Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 395, note).

[1416] See Montluc’s observations in III, 368, 369. He gives a spirited account on p. 367 of an attack of the reiters on Monbrun, describing the way they fought in the close quarters of a town.

[1417] C. S. P. For., No. 543, December 19, 1569.

[1418] Ruble, Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 262.

[1419] He took it long before historians attributed the honor to him (ibid., 382).

[1420] Ibid., 366.

[1421] “Il devoit considérer l’importance de la place qui estoit sur deux rivières.”—Ibid.

[1422] Ibid., V, 266.

[1423] All this happened on the night of December 15 and 16 (Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 384, 385). De Thou, V, Book XLV, 666-68, and Popelinière, Book XXII, both tell the tale. A learned dissertation in Hist. du Lang., XII, note 5, clears up a number of obscure points in these accounts.

[1424] The last of them got across by January 3, 1570 (Montluc, III, 384-91, and his letter of January 9, in V, 261-64).

[1425] For a description of Blaye see Rel. vén., I, 22, 23.

[1426] For a description of Brouage see Rel. vén., I, 27.

[1427] The sources are unanimous on this point, both Protestant and Catholic (La Noue, Disc. polit. et milit., chap. xxix; La Popelinière, Book XXII; Montluc, Comment., III, 395; Brantôme, ed. Lalanne, IV, 322; Hist. du Lang., V, 527-29, note; Delaborde, III, 189). The outrages of the reiters were so great that a special order of the day was required to govern their conduct (see K. 1,575, No. 17).

[1428] During the nine months which elapsed between the battle of Moncontour and the peace of St. Germain, the Huguenot army marched over 300 leagues.

[1429] La Popelinière, Book XXII; La Noue, chap. xxix; Revue hist., II, 542, 543.

[1430] La Noue’s observation on this point is curious; cf. Delaborde, III, 205.

[1431] Cf. Elizabeth’s declarations of neutrality to Norris, (C. S. P., For., No. 704, February 23, 1570). Across the Channel the cardinal of Châtillon did all he could to secure the support of the English queen for the Huguenots (ibid., No. 742, the cardinal to Cecil, March 9, 1570; cf. Delaborde, Coligny, III, 185); La Ferrière, Le XVI^[e] siècle et les Valois, 254-56; and a letter of the cardinal to the prince of Orange, April 23, 1570, (Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 373-77). But it was not from England direct, but from Germany, under the stimulus of English gold, that France looked for assistance to come to the Huguenots (C. S. P. Ven., No. 476, February 26, 1570).

[1432] See Appendix XXIV.

[1433] State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth, Vol. CXII, No. 693 J, the cardinal of Lorraine to——. May 4, 1570, see Appendix XXV.

[1434] Coll. des autographes de M. Picton, No. 67. Order signed by the cardinals of Lorraine, Bourbon, and Pellevé, June 24, 1570, for the alienation of 50,000 écus de rente of the property of the church.

[1435] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 332.

[1436] The actual document is still preserved in the Archives nationales, K. 1,725, No. 41. It is dated June 16, 1570, and countersigned by L’Aubespine.

[1437] He borrowed 4,000 livres, chiefly in Bordeaux; the munitions came from Toulouse and Bayonne. The provinces were required to furnish the supplies (Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 400). The consular registers of Agen and Auch still preserve the records of his requisitions. According to the report of a Spanish spy, in K. 1,576, No. 5, the forces consisted of 10,000 footmen, 1,500 horse, and 18 pieces of artillery. This is surely exaggerated. His Commentaires imply that his men were few in number and he expressly says that he was short of munitions and artillery.

[1438] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 401.

[1439] Commentaries of Blaise de Montluc, translated by Cotton, 368, 369. This occurred on July 23, 1570. To consummate Montluc’s humiliation, Charles IX filled his place, without giving him opportunity to resign, by appointing the marquis de Villars to be his successor. He did not reach Guyenne until October 22. In the meantime his brother, Jean de Montluc, bishop of Valence, and commissaire des finances in Guyenne, and as much a Politique as the other was a bigot, exercised authority for him. Gascony was governed by the seigneur de Vigues (Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, III, 434).

[1440] C. S. P. Spain, No. 687, February 15, 1570.

[1441] Ibid., For., No. 1,023, June 20, 1570, La Noue to the cardinal of Châtillon; ibid., No. 1,107, July 22, 1570; Hauser, La Noue, 20-22. He received the name “Iron Arm” (Bras-de-fer) from the circumstance that he afterward wore a mechanism made of iron, with which, at least, he was able to guide his horse.

[1442] On Coligny’s campaign in Rouergue and the Cévennes in the spring of 1570, see Revue hist., II, 537-39, letters of the cardinal of Armagnac of April 1, April 11, and May 10.

[1443] Delaborde, III, 209-15.

[1444] Nég. Tosc., III, 618.

[1445] The parlement of Toulouse strongly protested against the edict (Hist. du Lang., V, 538, note 5). The Peace of St. Germain was registered by the Parlement on August 11, 1570 (C. S. P. For., August 11, 1570; cf. Delaborde, III, 230, 231). The Pope wrote with mingled alarm and regret over the Peace of St. Germain to the cardinals of Bourbon and Lorraine, on September 23, 1570 (Potter, Pie V, 103, 107, ed. Gouban, Book IV, letter 7, pp. 282, 285).

[1446] For an excellent discussion of the feudal interests and policy of the Huguenots in the civil wars, see Weill, Les théories sur le pouvoir royal en France pendant les guerres de religion, 73-80.

[1447] See the letter of the papal nuncio to Philip II, June 26, 1570, in Appendix XXVI. The Pope had protested even earlier than this (brief of Pius V to the cardinal of Lorraine, March 2, 1570, disapproving of the conditions of peace). The King, even if vanquished, ought not to have consented to such detestable terms. The Pope’s sorrow is the greater because of the cardinal’s assent to them (La Ferrière Rapport, 55).

[1448] In 1562 on account of fear lest the Moriscos might enter into relation with the Moors of Africa, the government of Spain forbade the use of arms among them. In 1567 an attempt was made to suppress their language and abolish their national customs. A terrible war ensued. Don John of Austria finally suppressed the revolt after it had lasted for ten years. But in 1570, in anticipation of a Turkish attack from the west the Moors again rebelled and Spain had to compromise (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 361; cf. Lea, The Moriscos of Spain).

[1449] C. S. P. Ven., No. 485, July 20, 1570.

[1450] Nég. Tosc., III, 439.

[1451] “Montmorency bears the vogue in court.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,216, Norris to the Queen, August 31, 1570. To enhance his prestige at this time, Montmorency’s claim of right of precedence at court which the duke of Mayenne contested was decided by the Privy Council in his favor (C. S. P. For., No. 1,083, July 9, 1570).

[1452] Christopher de Thou to the King, December 2, 1570 defending the Parlement against the accusation that it is unjust to the Calvinists: “Mais un tel crime et si execrable ne se scauroit asses punir, et seroit plus tost à craindre que nous fussions reprehensibles de trop grande rémission que de grand severité, qu’ils appelent cruauté.” He and his colleagues wish that the duke of Anjou might enter into possession of his appanage in order that the duchy of Alençon may be in the jurisdiction of the Parlement of Paris and not in that of Normandy (Collection la Jarriette, No. 2,796).

[1453] Sir Henry Norris under date of September 23, testifies that “the state here is very quiet, where all strife and old grudges seem utterly buried, and men live in good hope of the continuance thereof, since the occasioner of all the troubles [the cardinal of Lorraine] in this realm is out of credit” (C. S. P. For., No. 1,285, Norris to Cecil). The reiters in the course of their return home, pillaged the fair of Champagne (Claude Haton, II, 592 and note).

[1454] Thirty articles complaining of infractions of the Edict of Pacification, and desiring that they may be redressed, with the King’s answers in the margin (C. S. P. For., No. 1,323, October, 1570).

[1455] Ibid., No. 1,359. Pierre Ramus was excluded from the College of Presles by this decree.

[1456] Ordonnance du Roy sur les defences de tenir Escolles, Principaultez, Colleges; ny lire en quelque art; ou science que ce soit, en public, privé ou en chambre, s’ilz ne sont congenuz et approuvez esté de la Religion catholique et romaine. Avec l’Arrest de la court du Parlement. Poictiers, B. Noscereau, 1570.

[1457] Claude Haton, II, 610 and 617.

[1458] Ibid., 629.

[1459] Ibid., 740.

[1460] The vidame of Chartres to the Marshal Montmorency, October 3, 1570. See Appendix XXVII. The scheme originated with the vidame de Chartres and the cardinal Châtillon (see La Ferrière, “Les projets de marriage d’une reine d’Angleterre,” Revue des deux mondes, September 15, 1881, p. 310); cf. Hume, Courtships of Queen Elizabeth, 115. In 1563 the prince of Condé had actually proposed the marriage of Charles IX and Elizabeth (Revue des deux mondes). August 15, 1881, p. 861.

[1461] C. S. P. For., No. 1,521, January 27, 1571. Walsingham to Cecil.

[1462] Such an offer, in the nature of things, could not have been accepted. Aside from the fact that France at this juncture was unwilling to further any cause advocated by Spain, there was too much practical advantage to France in maintaining the entente cordiale with the Turks. Turkish influence might be brought to bear upon the Emperor to neutralize his opposition to French enterprise in Poland; moreover, France had but recently concluded an advantageous commercial treaty with the Sultan. For accounts of the relations of France and Turkey at this time see Du Ferrier, Un ambassadeur liberal sous Charles IX et Henri III, 44-102; Flament, “La France et la Ligue contre le Turc (1571-73),” Rev. d’hist. dip., XVI, 1902, p. 619; Janssen, History of the German People, VIII, chap. v, “Turkish wars up to 1572.” The league of the Christian powers, whose efforts culminated in the famous engagement of Lepanto was formed in May, 1571. The king of Spain, the Pope and Venice were the principals thereof. Spain was to provide one-half of the forces, the Venetians one-third, and the Pope the remainder. The capture of Cyprus by the Turks in the spring of 1570 was the immediate cause of its formation (cf. La vraye et très fidelle narration des succès, des assaults, defences et prinse du royaume de Cypre, faicte par F. Ange de Lusignan, Paris 1580; Commentari della guerra di Cipro e della lega dei principi cristiani contro il Turco, di Bartolomeo Sereno, 1845; Herre, Europäische Politik in cyprischen Krieg, 1570-73, Leipzig, 1902—there is a review of this in English Hist. Review, XIX, 357; Miller, “Greece under the Turks 1571-1684,” English Hist. Review, XIX, 646). Europe expected a double attack on the part of Mohammedanism, both in the Mediterranean and by land against Hungary and Transylvania, as in 1530. Venice trembled for Zara in Dalmatia. These fears were not misplaced. The warlike preparations of the Sultan went so far as to offer pardon to all malefactors, except rebels and counterfeiters, who would serve in the galleys. The allied fleet lay at Candia during the winter of 1570-71 awaiting reinforcements. But there was a vast amount of anxiety and discontent among the allies, for nothing but the sense of a common peril could have united Venice and Spain, or Venice and the Pope. In the politics of Europe Venice was a neutral power, and neutrality in the religious politics of the time, in Philip II’s eyes, was almost tantamount to heresy. Moreover, as was inevitable, the tediousness of the preparations and the corruption of officials of the fleet was so great that men even died of hunger inflicted through fraud. Only Venice’s administration seems to have been efficient.

[1463] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 150.

[1464] Négociations dans le Levant, III, 13.

[1465] L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 261, 267.

[1466] Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux, II, 28; III, 41.

[1467] Sir Thomas Smith, the English ambassador in France, described her in January, 1571 as “a pretty little lady, but fair and well-favored.”—C. S. P. For., No. 8.

[1468] Even at the official ceremony (Godefroi, Ceremonial français, II, 20) of betrothal in the cathedral at Speyer the latent hostility of France and Spain was manifested. The Spanish ambassador refused to give precedence to the ambassador of Charles IX, and so absented himself, the Venetian envoy being compelled to do the same, because of the alliance between these two powers (C. S. P. For., No. 1,355, Cobham to Cecil, October 22, 1570). For other details cf. Nos. 1,267, 1,275, 1,377, 1,430. On the negotiations see Mém. de Castelnau (ed. Le Laboureur), II, Book VI, 467.

[1469] Rel. vén., II, 255. Killigrew in a letter to Lord Burghley, December 29, 1571, shrewdly observed, à propos of the change, that “divers of the followers of Guise have not letted to say that the duke of Alva knew the way to Paris’ gates.”—C. S. P. For., No. 2,196. For an example of Biragues’ intriguing, and this of the most shameful sort, in connection with the proposed marriage of Henry of Navarre and Marguerite of Valois see La Ferrière, Rapport, 43. The Huguenots had hoped for L’Hôpital’s recall.—Nég. Tosc., III, 641.

[1470] Janssen, History of the German People, VIII, 117 ff.

[1471] C. S. P. For., No. 1,590, March 5, 1571.

[1472] This is the keen observation of the Venetian ambassador (cf. C. S. P. Ven., 515, August 1, 1571).

[1473] The duke of Montmorency to Lord Burghley, May 20, 1571, see Appendix XXVIII. On the whole negotiation see La Ferrière, “Elisabeth et le duc d’Anjou,” Revue des deux mondes, August 15, 1881, p. 857; September 15, 1881, p. 307.

[1474] The words were used to De Foix (C. S. P. For., No. 1,632, April 1, 1571, Walsingham to Burghley).

[1475] Ibid., No. 1,739, May 25, 1571; No. 1,813, Francis Walsingham to Lord Burghley: He told her that he had delivered a form of the English prayers to Monsieur de Foix, which form the Pope would have by council confirmed as Catholic if the Queen would have acknowledged the same as received from him (Note in margin, “an offer made by the Cardinal of Lorraine as Sir N. Throgmorton showed me”). That the Queen was bound to prefer the tranquillity of her realm before all other respects. There was never before offered to France like occasion of benefit and reputation.

[1476] Report of conference between Walsingham and De Foix, C. S. P. For., No. 1,732, May 25, 1571.

[1477] Anecdote reported by Walsingham to Burghley, C. S. P., For., No. 1,813, June 21, 1571.

[1478] Ibid., Ven., No. 576, August 16, 1571; ibid., For., No. 1,928, August 17, 1571.

[1479] Ibid., No. 1,883, July 27, 1571. De Foix and Montgomery were deeply discouraged, the former protesting to Walsingham that he had “never travailled more earnestly in any matter in his life” (ibid., No. 1,732). “The queen mother never wept so much since the death of her husband” (ibid., No. 1,886, July 30, 1571). “The queen mother was in tears.... M. de Limoges said that ... he never saw the King in greater chafe, and the Queen Mother wept hot tears” (ibid., January 8, 1572).

[1480] Ibid., No. 1,886, July 30, 1571.

[1481] C. S. P. For., No. 20, January 7, 1572.

[1482] C. S. P. For., No. 23, January 9, 1572, Smith to Burghley.

[1483] The Queen to Walsingham: Directs him to express her great regret to the French king and the queen mother that she cannot assent to their proposal brought by M. de Montmorency for her marriage with the duke of Alençon, and to assure them that the only impediments arise from the great disparity in their age, and from the bad opinion that the world might conceive of her thereby (C. S. P. For., No. 496, July 20, 1572; cf. No. 375, May 25, instructions to the earl of Lincoln).

[1484] This objection was one so difficult to make without giving offense that it required all the delicacy of the English envoys to say anything at all. In C. S. P. For., No. 494 under date of July 20, 1572, will be found a draft of instructions to Walsingham in Burghley’s handwriting on this matter, and by him endorsed: “Not sent.” Burghley evidently preferred to leave this delicate subject to his sovereign. See the queen to Walsingham, ibid., No. 502, July 23, 1572, printed in full by Digges, p. 226.

[1485] Smith’s comments to Burghley are candor itself. “These two brethren be almost become ‘Capi de Guelphi et Gibellini.’ The one has his suite all Papists, the other is the refuge and succour of all the Huguenots, a good fellow and lusty prince.”—Ibid., No. 23, January 9, 1572. He glosses over Alençon’s imperfections by the remark that “he is not so tall or fair as his brother, but that is as is fantasied,” and adds: “Then he is not so obstinate, papistical, and restive like a mule as his brother is.”—Ibid., No. 28, January 10, 1572.

[1486] See below for details of this treaty. Coligny’s letter is analyzed in C. S. P. For., No. 500, July 22, 1572 (not in Delaborde).

[1487] La Ferté to——; draft, endd. by Burghley: Windsor, 6th September, 1572.—C. S. P. For., No. 555.

[1488] C. S. P. For., No. 502, July 23, 1572, the Queen to Walsingham.

[1489] Walsingham to Lord Burghley: “ ... and if he sees no hope then to further what he may the league.”—C. S. P. For., January 17, 1572; Hatfield Papers, II, 46.

[1490] Charles IX to M. de la Mothe-Fenelon: Directs him to inform the queen of England that the duke of Alva does all he can to encourage the 500 or 600 English refugees in Flanders in their enterprise against England, in which they will be assisted by Lord Seton with 2,000 Scots, who have determined to seize on the prince of Scotland, and send him into Spain. Directs him and M. de Croc to watch and do all in their power to frustrate this design (C. S. P. For., No. 330, May 2, 1572; cf. Introd., xii, xiii and No. 257).

[1491] On the efforts of Alva to revive the commerce of Flanders see D’Aubigné, Book V, chap. xxxii, p. 265; C. S. P. For., Nos. 94, 95, January 28 and 31, 1572; Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, chap. v; Altmeyer, Histoire des relations commerciales des Pays-Bas avec le Nord pendant le XVI siècle; Bruxelles, 1840; Reiffenberg, De l’etat de la population, des fabriques et des manufactures des Pays-Bas pendant le XV^[e] et le XVI^[e] siècle, Bruxelles, 1822.

[1492] “The answer of the Merchant Adventurers to the French king’s offer to establish a staple in France” in C. S. P. For., No. 515, July, 1572: It would be no commodity for them to have a privilege in France, as those things in which they are principally occupied, viz., white cloths, are chiefly uttered in Upper and Lower Germany. Besides, if they alter their old settled trade, they would also have to seek for dressers and dyers in a place unacquainted with the trade. It is dangerous to have the vent of all the commodity of the realm in one country, especially seeing the French have small trade to England. There is besides such evil observance of treaties and so evil justice in France. The drapers of France so much mislike the bringing of cloth into France that they will not endure it, insomuch as January last, by proclamation, all foreign cloth was banished. The converting of the whole trade of England into France would be hurtful to the navy, for that the ports there are so small that no great ship may enter.

For the Merchant Adventurers in the sixteenth century see Burgon, Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham, I, 185-89.

[1493] C. S. P. For., No. 278, April 20, 1572, Queen Elizabeth to Charles IX.

[1494] Walsingham, ibid., No. 135.

[1495] Ibid., No 143, September 26, 1571.

[1496] Ibid., No. 247.

[1497] Walsingham to Lord Burghley: Has been asked whether that enterprise having good success, and the French king lending all his forces to the conquest of Flanders, the queen of England would be content to enter foot in Zealand, Middleburgh being delivered into her hands. They fear that the French king will not be content with Flanders, whatsoever is promised (C. S. P. For., No. 2,202, December 31, 1571).

[1498] Rel. vén., I, 543; C. S. P. For., No. 687, February 15, 1570. Sir Henry Norris to Cecil. The King keeps his chamber, which they marvel not at who know his diet.

[1499] For a character-sketch of Charles IX see Baschet, La diplomatie vénitienne, 539-41; cf. Rel. vén., II, 43 and 161. Lord Buckhurst, in a letter to Queen Elizabeth of March 4, 1571, gives an account of one of Charles’ hunting parties in the Bois de Vincennes, which illustrates his temperament. “After dinner,” he relates, “the King rode to a warren of hares thereby, and after he had coursed with much pastime, he flew to the partridge with a cast of very good falcons; and that done, entered the park of Bois de Vincennes, replenished with some store of fallow deer. Understanding that Lord Buckhurst had a leash of greyhounds, he sent to him that he might put on his dogs to the deer, which he did, but found that the deer ran better for their lives than the dogs did for his pastime. After this the King and all the gentlemen with him fell to a new manner of hunting, chasing the whole herd with their drawn swords, on horseback, so far forth as they being embosked were easily stricken and slain; they spared no male deer, but killed of all sorts without respect, like hunters who sought not to requite any part of their travail with delight to eat of the slain venison.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,589, March 4, 1571. In the spring of 1573 the French consul in Alexandria sent Charles three trained leopards for deer-hunting (Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 51). In June, 1571, the King was somewhat seriously injured while hunting, by striking his head against the branch of a tree (C. S. P. For., No. 1,777, June 8, 1571). In March, 1572, he again was injured (letter of the King to the duke of Anjou, March 21, 1572, in Coll. Pichon, No. 28). His passion for the chase often led him to neglect the business of state, conduct which Coligny once sharply reproved (C. S. P. For., No. 2,156, November 29, 1571), and he was frequently ill from fatigue or exposure (L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 301). The King himself inspired the French translation of a Latin treatise of the sixteenth century on hunting, by Louis Leroy de Coutances, Libre du roy Charles. His patronage also inspired another work on the same subject: “Du Fouilloux, La Vénerie de lacques du Fouilloux, Gentilhomme, Seigneur dudit lieu, pays de Gastine, en Poitou. Dédise au Roy Très-Chrestien Charles, neufiesme de ce nom. Avec plusieurs Receptes et Remèdes pour guérir les Chiens de diverses maladies. Avec Privilege du Roy. A Poitiers, Par les de Marnefz, et Bouchetz, frères, circa 1565.” Charles IX was also given to low practical jokes. For example this is reported of him from Paris, September 18, 1573: The King, in an old cloak and evil-favoured hat, withdrew himself “to a little house upon the bridge from all the ladies, and there cast out money upon the people to get them together, and made pastime to cast out buckets of water upon them while they were scrambling for the money.”—C. S. P. For., Paris, September 18, 1573.

[1500] Walsingham reported to Burghley in August 12, 1571: “This prince is of far greater judgment than outwardly appears. There is none of any account within his realm whose imperfections and virtues he knows not,” although, he adds, “those who love him lament he is so overmuch given to pleasure.”—Ibid., No. 1,921.

[1501] In May 1571 the Guises were in discredit. The duke went to Joinville, the cardinal of Lorraine to Rheims, the duke of Mayenne started for Turkey. Guise did not come back to Paris till January 1572 (Bouillé, Histoire des ducs de Guises, II, Book IV, chap. iv).

[1502] “He appeared at all hours near his majesty’s chair upon the same terms as the lords who had never left the court” (C. S. P. Ven., No. 576, September 15, 1570). Coligny first became a member of the conseil du roi at this time (Soldan, Vor d. St. Barthloomäusnacht, 39). Blois was practically the capital of France at this time. Paris was avoided both to save creating suspicion among the Huguenots and because of its Guisard sympathies. “He would change from white to black the moment he was in Paris” said Walsingham of the King. Capefigue, Hist. de la réforme, III, 92, points out Blois was “le siège naturel d’un gouvernement qui voulait s’éloigner du catholocisme fervent. Placé à quelques lieues d’Orleans, donnant la main à la Rochelle, et par la Rochelle, se liant au Poitou, à la Saintonge, au Béarn.”

[1503] The King conceives of no other subject better than of the admiral, and there is great hope that he will use him in matters of the greatest trust, for he begins to see the insufficiency of others, some being more addicted to others than to him, others more Spanish than French, or given more to private pleasures than public affairs (C. S. P. For., No. 1,921, August 12, 1571).

[1504] Alva to Philip II, April 5, May 22, 1572, in Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II, II, 239. In December, 1570, the marshal Cossé was sent to La Rochelle. In March, 1571, Cossé and Biron were sent a second time.

[1505] See Walsingham, Letter of August 12, 1571, to Leicester. He gained a great ascendency over Charles IX (Languet, Epist. ad Camer., 132-36, 140. “Count Ludovic is the King’s avowed pensioner.”)—C. S. P. For., No. 2,156, November 29, 1571. Some of his correspondence is in Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III.

[1506] On the secret interview of Charles IX, Louis of Nassau, and La Noue at Blois, see D’Aubigné, Book VI, chap. i, 282; Mémoires de la Huguerye, I, 25. The Dutch cause suffered fearfully in this autumn. On November 1 and 2 a frightful storm made terrible inundations on the coast; hundreds of vessels were wrecked; in West Frisia alone nearly 20,000 persons were drowned (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 385).

[1507] For details, see Capefigue, III, 44. Charles IX gave evasive replies to all the remonstrances of the Spanish ambassador (Languet, Epist. secr., I, 177, August 15, 1571).

[1508] C. S. P. For., No. 1,578, Walsingham to Cecil; Nég. Tosc., III, 694.

[1509] Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, II, 239—Alva to Philip II, April 5, 1572; cf. p. 250; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 441. The Prince of Orange in 1569 began the practice of issuing letters of marque and reprisal in virtue of his position as sovereign prince of Orange. As a result in the next year the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay were crowded with vessels hostile to Spain. The most famous of these marauders soon destined to become known as the “Beggars of the Sea” was Adrian de Bergues. On one occasion within the space of two days, he overhauled and captured two merchant fleets, the one of 40, the other of 60 sail (Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 351). Upon the importance of La Rochelle as a seaport, see La Noue, chap. xxviii. Some of Strozzi’s correspondence when in command of the fleet before La Rochelle in 1572 is in F. Fr., XV, 555; cf. Nég. Tosc., III, 760-63.

[1510] C. S. P. For., No. 1,921, August 12, 1571. Languet makes Charles IX’s reply less emphatic than this. Languet, Epist. secr., I, 177, August 15, 1571. I am inclined to believe that Walsingham colored the anecdote. Languet shows the hesitations and vacillations of Charles IX, pp. 132, 136, 140. The Spanish ambassador’s grounds of fear for Flanders were the more substantial because the garrisons that had occupied St. Jean-d’Angély, Niort, Saintes, and Angoulême during the late war were newly stationed in the border fortresses of Picardy. To Alava’s alarmed inquiry Charles IX blandly replied that “the reason why these troops were sent to the frontiers was to give them employment, because if the King had disbanded them all at once the soldiery might have mutinied for lack of pay” (C. S. P. Ven., No. 499, February 19, 1571; No. 575, August 1, 1571).

[1511] “The only impediment to the marriage between the prince of Navarre and the lady Margaret is religion.”—C. S. P. For., No. 2,038, Walsingham to Cecil, September 16, 1571. The whole matter was referred to eight counselors to settle: those of the Huguenots were Jeanne d’Albret, La Noue, Louis of Nassau, and Francourt (C. S. P. For., March 29, 1572; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 417). The Pope made objection that, aside from the difference of religion, the parents of Henry of Navarre and Marguerite of Valois were relatives within the third degree, and refused to grant the dispensation for the marriage (Nég. Tosc., III, 712-14). To this demur the Huguenots triumphantly argued that it was not necessary for the Pope or any other priest to give dispensation, since it was a royal marriage and it was not fitting for the King’s authority to be demeaned by that of the church (Claude Haton, II, 661). There was violent opposition by radical Huguenots, especially the pastors, to the marriage, and fear lest the Pope’s refusal to grant a dispensation might lead to a rupture between France and Rome like that of England under Henry VIII (Nég. Tosc., III, 733 and 740). Finally it was arranged that the marriage should be celebrated by a priest of the church of Rome, and that Henry would accompany his wife to mass in the church where the ceremony was to be held, but that he was to retire before the service so that he was neither to be present at the mass nor hear it said (ibid., 662 and note, 663, note). The cardinal of Lorraine, with his usual “trimming” wrote to the queen mother: “Madame, je vous baise très humblement les mains de ce qu’il vous plaît me mander la conclusion du marriage de madame vostre fille, puisqu’il est au contentement de vos majestés et selon les désirs des catholiques.”—Collection des autographes, No. 278, April 17, 1572.

For the preliminaries of the marriage of Marguerite of Valois and Henry of Navarre see Revue des deux mondes, October 1, 1884, pp. 560-64.

[1512] C. S. P. Ven., No. 516; August 15, 1571. Spain and France clashed in Switzerland, too, at this time. For Switzerland refused to permit forces to fight the Turk on the ground that the Swiss were unused to maritime warfare, yet the Grisons and the Tyrol raised two regiments for the French King (ibid., For., No. 189, March 25, 1572, from Heidelberg or Strasburg).

[1513] “There have been no other speeches but war with Spain.”—Killegrew to Lord Burghley, December 8, 1571; C. S. P. For., No. 2,163; cf. Nég. Tosc., III, dispatches of April 17 and 20, 1572 and C. S. P. For., Nos. 2,156, 2,162, November 29, December 7, 1571. Alva fully expected war (Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, II, 259, Alva to Philip II, May 24, 1572).

In the spring of 1572 Schomberg was dispatched to Germany to contract alliances with the Lutheran princes (Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 403; C. S. P. For., No. 189, March 25, 1572). The German princes anticipated that if the Low Countries were united to the crown of France that power would become too formidable. They wanted France to content herself with Flanders and Artois. As for Brabant and the other provinces that were once dependent upon the empire, their purpose was to put them upon their old footing and to give the government of them to some prince of Germany, who could not be other than the prince of Orange. Holland and Zealand were to be united to the crown of England (Walsingham, 143, French ed., letter of August 12, 1572 to Leicester). Yet momentous as the French project in the Low Countries was, it was but part of a grander scheme, for France aimed also to acquire a decisive influence in Germany, with the ultimate purpose of acquiring so great ascendency over the German states as to be able to transfer the crown of the empire, for centuries hereditary in the house of Hapsburg, to the head of the French prince (Rel. vén., I, 445). This project was part of the mission of Schomberg in Germany (Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, Introd., 23, 268-73). In Germany the elector of Saxony and the landgrave of Hesse were strong partisans of France (ibid., IV, Introd., 25).

The strongest advocate of France for the imperial crown was the elector palatine, who burned with an ambition to “Calvinize the world,” and embraced with ardor a project which could not fail to redound to the honor of the Huguenots. The elector of Saxony and the landgrave were less complacent. The first was a friend of the emperor Maximilian and expressed his indignation at the imperial pretensions of Charles IX. Even William of Hesse, in spite of his hereditary attachment to the crown of France, returned a guarded reply (ibid., IV, Introd., 28 and 123).

[1514] The revolt took place on Easter Sunday, April 6, 1572. On the whole subject of the revolt of the Netherlands at this time see Janssen, History of the German People, VIII, chap. ii; La Gravière, “Les Gueux de Mer,” Revue des deux mondes, September 15, 1891, p. 347; November, 1891, p. 98; January 15, 1892, p. 389.

[1515] See the letter of President Viglius to Hopper in Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 415, and C. S. P. For., No. 260, April 19, 1572.

[1516] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 418-19. On the alliance concluded at the Frankfurt Fair see ibid., III, 448. For the whole subject consult Waddington, “La France et les protestants allemands sous les règnes de Charles IX et Henri III,” Revue historique, XLII, 266 ff.

[1517] The treaty of Blois provided for a defensive league between Queen Elizabeth and Charles IX and stipulated the amount of succor by sea or land to be rendered by either party in case of need; if either party were assailed for the cause of religion or under any other privileges and advantages for the pretext, the other was bound to render assistance; a schedule of the number and description of the forces to be mutually furnished, together with their rates of pay, was annexed. De Frixa and Montmorency were sent to England to ratify the treaty. A full account of the gorgeous reception of Montmorency will be found in Holinshed and the Account Book of the Master of the Revels. The earl of Lincoln left for France, May 26, 1572. He was instructed to say, if any mention was made of the Alençon marriage, that Elizabeth felt offended by the way she had been treated in the Anjou negotiations and that in any case “the difference in age should make a full stay.”

Text of the treaty of Blois in Dumont, Corps diplomatique, V, Part I, 211. The letter of the King to Elizabeth after the signature is in Bulletin de la société du prot. français, XI, 72.

[1518] Mémoires et correspondance de Du Plessis-Mornay, I, 36-38 (Paris, 1824).

[1519] Ibid., II, 20-39; cf. Whitehead, Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, 248. On the authorship of the memoir consult same volume Appendix II.

[1520] C. S. P. For., No. 419, Captain Thomas Morgan to Lord Burghley from Flushing, June 16, 1572; Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II, II, 268, Alva to Philip II, July 18, 1572.

[1521] La Popelinière, XXVII, 108; Fillon Collection, No. 133, Charles IX to the Duke of Longueville, governor of Picardy from Blois, May 3, 1572. Enjoins him to repair the fortifications of Picardy, and to be on guard against the duke of Alva, who was arming under the pretext of repressing the Gueux.

[1522] Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II, II, 356 and note 3; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 425-26; Mém. de la Huguerye, 105; see La Popelinière’s account (XXVII, 107), of the situation of the city. It was the capital of Hainault.

[1523] C. S. P. For., No. 406, June 10, 1572, to Torcy.

[1524] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 437.

[1525] Coll. Godefroy, CCLVIII, No. 8. French dispute with Spain over navigation of the Sluys.

[1526] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 441-42.

[1527] In ibid., 463-64, 467-68, will be found a list of the principal officers of the prince of Orange and of the towns at his devotion (cf. C. S. P. For., No. 374, July, 1572).

[1528] Ibid., Nos. 478, 511, July, 1572.

[1529] The estates met at Dordrecht on July 15 (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 447).

[1530] He had received his recall and the duke of Medina-Coeli had been sent to succeed him, and at this hour was on the ground urging a policy of moderation (Raumer, I, 202). Yet Alva refused to give up (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 437).

[1531] The march of the Spanish army that intercepted Genlis was so accurate as to give rise to the belief that Alva had prior information. It is uncertain. Mendoza, who was with the Spanish army (Commentaires, Book VI, chap. vii) seems to confirm the suspicion. His account (chaps. vii-xiii) is very vivid. Only thirty of Genlis’ men escaped; the rest were either killed or drowned. On the warnings given to Genlis, see a relation in Archives curieuses, VII. There is an unpublished account of Genlis’ defeat in F. Fr., 18,587, fol. 541. According to La Huguerye, 125, he was strangled in prison.

[1532] It did so on September 19. See a letter of William of Orange to his brother John, September 24, 1572, in Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 511. La Noue prophesied the fall of the city when he saw the heights of Jemappes occupied by the troops of Spain (Hauser, La Noue, 33).

[1533] As late as August 11, 1572, the Prince of Orange was still looking for the coming of the admiral Coligny into the Low Countries (see a letter of his to his brother John, of this date in Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, III, 490).

[1534] Albornoz to secretary of state Cayas, from Brussels, July 19, 1572 (see Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, II, 269). A note of M. Gachard adds: “Cette lettre, datée de St. Leger, le 27 avril 1572, était écrite par Charles IX au comte Louis de Nassau. Il y disait qu’il était déterminé, autant que les occasions et la disposition de ses affaires le permettraient à employer les forces que Dieu avait mises en sa main à tirer les Pays-Bas de l’oppression sous laquelle ils gémissaient. Une traduction espagnole de cette lettre existe aux Archives de Simancas, papeles de Estado, liasse 551.” Charles IX. repudiated its authenticity (see a letter to Mondoucet, French agent in Flanders, dated August 12, 1572, in Bulletin de la Commission d’hist. de Belgique, séries II, IV, 342). The admiral Coligny, without knowing of the incriminating evidence in Alva’s hands after the failure before Mons, urged Charles IX to declare war upon Spain at once as the shortest and safest way out of the difficulty (Brantôme, Vie des grandes capitaines françois—M’l’admiral de Châtillon).

[1535] As late as August 21, France had the hardihood to protest her innocence of any enterprise in Flanders (Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, II, 271, Philip to Alva, August 2, 1572; ibid., II, 273, Alva to Philip, August 21, 1572).

[1536] There is in existence the record of an extremely curious conversation of the admiral Coligny upon this subject with Henry Middelmore, one of the English agents in France, in which the latter frankly said: “Of all other thinges we colde least lyke that France shulde commaunde Flawnders, or bryng it under theyr obedience, for therein we dyd see so apparawntlye the greatnes of our dainger, and therefore in no wyse colde suffer it.”—Ellis, Original Letters, 2d series, III, 6. I find the same thought expressed in a letter of Thomas Parker to one Hogyns, written from Bruges, June 17, 1572. See Appendix XXIX.

[1537] On this last phase see Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis, IV, Introd., xlix ff., and Froude, Hist. of England, X, 312.

[1538] For a particular account see Whitehead, Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, 257-64. Two of Lord Burghley’s correspondents give accounts (C. S. P. For., Nos. 537, 538, August 22, 1572). See also an interesting extract from the registers of the Bureau of the Ville of Paris in Archives curieuses, VII, 211.

[1539] For the order of Marcel, provost of the merchants, immediately before the massacre, see Arch. cur., VII, 212. On the council of August 24, see Cavalli, 85. Charles IX at first denied any responsibility and blamed the Guises. When this proved a dangerous explanation, he asserted the massacre was made to foil a similar plot on the part of the Huguenots.

[1540] At Blois not only the Huguenots were not mistreated but the city became a city of refuge (D’Aubigné, III, 344, note 6). The Mayor of Nantes refused to carry out the orders for massacre (Bulletin de la Soc. du prot. franç., I, 59). Hotman was saved from the massacre at Bourges by his students; on the massacre at Troyes see the relation in Arch. cur., VII, 287; and for that at Lyons an article by Puyroche in Bulletin de la Soc. du prot. franç., XVIII, 305, 353, 401; for Normandy, ibid., VI, 461; Revue retrospective, XII, 142 (Lisieux); on the massacre at Rouen, Floquet, Hist. du parlement de Normandie, III, 126 ff.; on the massacre at Bordeaux see Arch. de la Gironde, VIII, 337. De Thou, Book LIII, says there were 264 victims. On the massacre at Toulouse see Bull. de la Soc. du prot. franç., August 15, 1886; Hist. du Languedoc, V, 639. On the non-execution of the massacre in Burgundy see Bull. de la Soc. du prot. franç., IV, 164, and XIV, 340 (documents). The reason for this leniency was the nearness of Burgundy to the frontier.

[1541] The contemporary literature on the massacre is given by M. Felix Bourquelot, editor of the Mém. de Claude Haton in a long note in II, 673-76. Summarized, these opinions are the following: 1. The massacre was done in order to avert a massacre by the Huguenots, after the wounding of Coligny. This was the belief of Marguerite of Navarre (Mémoires, ed. Guessard, 264).

2. The massacre was premeditated by Charles IX and his mother from the time of the Bayonne conference.

3. The massacre was intended to be a military stroke, the government preferring to attempt their overthrow in this way rather than by battle on the open field.

Salviati, the papal nuncio, who ought to have known, explicitly denies the rumor that a conspiracy was on foot by the Huguenots. In a dispatch of September 2 (I quote the French translation of Chateaubriand who copied them for the Paris archives) he says: “Cela n’en demeurera pas moins faux en tous points, et ce sera une honte pour qui est à même de connaître quelques choses aux affaires de ce monde de le croire.” In reply to the Pope’s urgency to extirpate the Protestants, he wrote on September 22: “Je lui fis part de la très grand consolation qu’avaient procuré au Saint Père les succès obtenus dans ce royaume par une grace singulière de Dieu, accordée à toute la Chrétienté sous son pontificat. Je fis connaître le désir qu’avait sa Sainteté, de voir pour la plus grande gloire de Dieu, et le plus grand bien de France, tous les hérétiques extirpés du royaume, et j’ajoutai que dans cette vue le Saint Père estimait que très à propos que l’on revoqua l’édit de pacification.” On October 11th, he writes: “Le Saint Père, ai je dit en éprouve une joie infinie, et a ressenti une grande consolation d’apprendre que sa Majesté avait commandé d’écrire qu’elle espérait qu’avant peu la France n’aurait plus d’Huguenots.” Cardinal Orsini, who was dispatched as legate from Rome to congratulate Charles IX and to support the exhortations of Salviati, describes his audience with the King on December 19. Orsini assured the King that he had eclipsed the glory of all his house, but urged him to fulfil his promise that not a single Huguenot should be left alive in France: “Se si rigardavva all’objetto della gloria, non potendo niun fatto de suoi antecessori, se rettamente si giudicava, agguagliarsi al glorioso ac veramente incomparabili di sua Maesta, in liberar con tanta prudentia et pietà in un giorno solo il suo regno da cotanta diabolica peste.... Esortai ... che con essendo servitio ni di Dio, ni di sua Maesta, lasciar fargli nuovo piede a questa maladetta setta, volesse applicare tutto il suo pensiero e tutte le forze sue per istirparla affatto, recandosi a memoria quelle che ella haveva fatto scrivere a sua Santità da Monsignor il Nuntio, che infra pochi giorni non sarebbe pi un ugonotto in tutto il suo regno.”—Bibliothèque Nationale, MSS Ital., 1,272. The Pope proclaimed a jubilee in honor of the massacre.

Subjoined is a list of the leading authors and articles upon this subject. The most recent consideration which sifts all preceding investigation is that by Whitehead, Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, London, 1904, chaps. xv, xvi; Phillipson, “Die römische Curie und die Bartholomaüsnact,” West Europa, II, 255 ff.; Baguenault de Puchesse, “La St. Barthélemy: ses origines, son vrai caractère, ses suites,” R. Q. H., July-October, 1866; “La premeditation de St. Barthélemy,” R. Q. H., XXVII, 272 ff.; Boutaric, “La St. Barthélemy d’après les Archives du Vatican,” Bib. de l’école des Chartes, sér. III, 3; Theiner, Continuation of Baronius, I (Salviati’s letters); Gandy, “Le massacre de St. Barthélemy,” Revue hist., July, 1879; cf. review in Bull. de la Soc. prot. français; Rajna, in Archivio storico ital., sér. V, No. XXIII, January 15, 1899; Michiel et Cavalli, “La Saint-Barthélemy devant le sénat de Venise. Relation des ambassadeurs ... traduite et ann. par W. Martin,” Paris, 1872; Soldan, Hist. Taschenbuch, 1854; G. P. Fisher, “The Massacre of St. Bartholomew,” New Englander, January, 1880; Loiseleur, “Les nouvelles controverses sur la St. Barthélemy,” Rev. hist., XV, 1883, p. 83; “Nouveaux documents sur la St. Barthélemy,” Rev. hist., IV, 1877, p. 345; Tamizey de Larroque, “Deux lettres de Charles IX,” R. Q. H., III, 1867, p. 567; “La St. Barthélemy, lettres de MM. Baguenault de Puchesse et G. Gandy,” R. Q. H., XXVIII, 1880, p. 268; Dareste, “Un incident de l’histoire diplomatique de Charles IX,” Acad. des sc. moral. etc., LXXI-II, 1863, p. 183; Laugel, “Coligny,” Revue des deux mondes, September, 1883, pp. 162-85.

[1542] The duke of Guise is not so bloody, neither did he kill any man himself but saved divers; he spake openly that for the admiral’s death he was glad, for he knew him to be his enemy. But for the rest, the King had put to death such as might have done him very good service (C. S. P. For., No. 584, September, 1572).

[1543] Montluc clearly appreciated that this was the case and developed the idea in his Commentaires, VI, 231-33. Quite as remarkable are the observations of the Venetian ambassador: Rel. vén., II, 171. Spain anticipated the possibility of a French attempt to recover the Milanais: “The King of Spain being suspicious of the said league has given commission that Italy and Milan be in readiness.”—C. S. P. For., No. 120, February 7, 1572, from Venice.

[1544] Hist. du Languedoc, V, 528, note, 544, note 2. On the siege of Montauban, see La Bret, Histoire de Montauban, 2 vols., 1841. There is a letter of the marshal Brissac on the resistance in F. Fr., No. 15, 555, fol. 104.

[1545] See abstract of Biron’s commission in C. S. P. For., November 6, 1572; cf. Correspondance inédite d’Armand de Gontaut Biron, maréchal de France, par E. de Barthélemy, Paris, 1874, from the originals at St. Petersburg.

[1546] Coll. des autographes, 1844, No. 104, Charles IX to the duke of Longueville, November 4, 1572.

[1547] C. S. P. For., No. 640, November 13, 1572; cf. No. 637; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 38-39, letter of Brunynck, secretary to the prince of Orange, to John of Nassau, December, 1572.

[1548] C. S. P. For., Nos. 667, 673, §§17-20 (1572).

[1549] C. S. P. For., Nos. 683 and 755, Worcester to the Queen, February 5, 1573.

[1550] This petition is a remarkable compound of current politics and biblical history. In it the inhabitants of La Rochelle, her “tres obeissains fidelles subjects,” beg that she will consider and follow the example of Constantine, who broke off all alliance with his friend Licinius to whom he had given his sister in marriage, on account of his tyranny practiced on the Christians of the East. They remind her also of the evil done by Herod in keeping his rash oath. She ought not therefore to keep the league with those who wish to exterminate her people in Guyenne, which belongs to her, and whose arms she bears. If she will succour them they will willingly expose their lives and goods in order to acknowledge her as their sovereign and natural princess (ibid., No. 682, 1572).

[1551] Ibid., No. 800, February 28, 1573; No. 948, May 3, 1573; Chroniques Fontenaisiennes, 166, 167.

[1552] See Claude Haton, II, 710, 711, 717, 718, 722-25, 726, 729, 731. The government sent out inspectors to make an inventory of the grain still available. Much of it was confiscated for the use of the army at an established price, and a maximum price fixed for the sale of the remainder.

[1553] Ibid., 715, 716 (see a discourse upon the extreme dearth in France and upon the means to remedy it, in Arch. cur., VI, 423). The dearness of all things, according to the writer, probably Bodin, is the result of the excessive luxury which prevails among the higher classes and the combination made by the merchants to raise prices. He proposes the establishment of public granaries and that the government price be made obligatory for all dealers.

[1554] C. S. P. For., No. 800, February 28, 1573.

[1555] Ibid., No. 1,000, May 31, No. 1,027, June 9, 1573.

[1556] The Politiques hoped to persuade Charles IX to stop the war at home and exact redress from Spain for the massacre in Florida by attacking the Spanish West Indies. Even the duke of Anjou favored this. See Appendix XXX.

[1557] La Popelinière, XXI, 214 and 232 bis; C. S. P. For., No. 1,042, Dr. Dale to Lord Burghley, June 16, 1573: “The hearts of all men were being discouraged with the long siege” and the King’s heart bled “to see the misery of his people that die for famine by the ways where he rode.”

[1558] La Rochelle at first refused to let La Noue enter. On the whole matter see Hauser, La Noue, chap. ii.

[1559] C. S. P. For., No. 1,547, March 21, 1573; Raumer, II, 265; the marshals Biron and Strozzi, with Pinart, were commissioned for the purpose (Arch. hist. du Poitou, XII, 233). The negotiations may be seen in detail in Loutzchiski, Doc. inédits, 62 ff.

[1560] Vie de La Noue, 95; Letter of Charles IX to the duke of Anjou, February 7, 1573, Coll. Lajariette, Paris, 1860, No. 669; Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 57. At the same time Charles IX wrote in person to Montgomery, trying to lure him from the enterprise he was engaged in. See Appendix XXXI.

[1561] C. S. P. Ven., Nos. 540, 541, April 6 and 20, 1573.

[1562] Ibid., For., No. 1,050, June 22, 1573; Chroniques fontenaisiennes, 169.

[1563] See the series of documents on this head in Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, Nos. 25, 29, 30, 38, 41-43. 46, 73, 77.

[1564] When the army disbanded, it was a frequent sight in the villages to see the wounded or sick being transported in baggage wagons (Claude Haton, II, 737). The villages near La Rochelle where the camp had been established were burned upon the evacuation of the troops “to prevent the plague which began to be hot.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,107, Wilkes to Walsingham, July 31, 1573; cf. No. 1,052, June 25, to the same effect.

[1565] C. S. P. For., No. 1,072, Dr. Dale to the Queen, late in June, 1573.

[1566] The articles were sent to the Catholic camp on July, 6.

[1567] Hist. du Languedoc, V, 543, note; C. S. P. For., No. 1,090, July 11, 1573.

[1568] Lery, Histoire mémorable de la ville de Sancerre, contenant les entreprises, buteries, assaux et autres efforts des assiégeans: les résistances, faits magnanimes, la famine extrème et délivrance des assiegez, 1574; Discours de l’extrème famine etc. dont les assiegez de la ville de Sancerre ont été affligez et ont usé environ trois mois, Arch. cur., VIII, 21.

[1569] C. S. P. For., No. 1,101, July 23, No. 1,107, July 31, 1573. In Languedoc and Dauphiné the Huguenots were strong, and possessed of many towns (see a letter of Louis of Nassau in Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 75 and the “Names of all the towns in the south of France of which the Huguenot party could be sure of, together with a list of the noblemen attached to the party” in Appendix XXXII).

[1570] Vie de La Noue, 99; C. S. P. For., No. 965, May 16, No. 1,095, July 23, 1573. A deputation of Huguenots of Languedoc came to Fontainebleau in September, 1573 (cf. Letter of Schomberg to Louis of Nassau, September 29, 1573, Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 211 and Appendix 117).

[1571] Long, 115, 116. The instrument of government contained 89 articles.

[1572] C. S. P. For., Nos. 972, 986, March 20 and 30, 1573. The collection of these forced loans was expedited by the presence of Strozzi’s men-at-arms and the Scotch Guard in the Louvre; and two bands of Swiss at St. Cloud. In this way, Charles IX was able to collect the money “without danger of commotion,” and avoided that worst of expedients to the crown, the States-General (see particulars in Dr. Dale’s letter to Burghley of January 11, 1573, ibid., No. 1,291). In June the assembly of the clergy agreed to furnish the queen mother 200,000 livres and within three years to redeem 1,800,000 livres’ worth of the King’s debts. The clergy made a great stroke by obtaining the creation of four receivers-general for the collection of these subsidies, the appointments to which they sold for between 600,000 and 700,000 livres, thus saving themselves that amount in the final (ibid., No. 1,027, June 9, 1573). But this relief came too late for the government to continue the prosecution of the war before La Rochelle. The capitulation with the Rochellois was too far advanced to be withdrawn. Moreover, the crown itself was anxious to close the war.

[1573] Catherine de Medici to Schomberg, September 13, 1572, Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, Appendix, No. 13; Weill, 86; Revue retrospective, V, 363.

[1574] Nég. Tosc., III, 876. On July 7 the Tuscan ambassador wrote: “E, se questo regno si liberassi delle guerre civili, saria facil cosa la rompessi con Spagna; chè questo, credo, sia il fine di tutti li trattamenti che fa Orange in questo regno.”—Ibid., 883.

[1575] Ibid., IV, 108, 109.

[1576] In the same month William of Orange dispatched to France the Seigneur de Lumbres, whose popularity with the King was so great that he even offered to take him into his service (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, Introd., p. 21, and p. 165), and another agent with instructions to treat with the King and the queen mother (ibid., IV, 119-24, May, 1573). William stipulated for the preservation of the rights and privileges of whatever provinces and towns might be conquered by France, and that in case of open war by France upon Spain, in lieu of an annual subsidy of 400,000 florins, France should give assistance with men and ships of war, besides the sum mentioned, to be paid within two years after the conclusion of peace (ibid., IV, 116-19; cf. the prince of Orange to Louis of Nassau upon the proposed French alliance, June 17, 1573).

[1577] Ibid., IV, 33. On May 15, 1573, the prince of Orange concluded a treaty with England, permitting the English to enter the Scheldt in return for which the prince was to be permitted to purchase arms and ammunition and powder in England (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 94). For William of Orange’s connection with La Rochelle see ibid., 43 and 56. Compare letter of Charles IX to the duke of Anjou, March 18, 1573, complaining of the depredations of the “Wartegeux” on the Norman coast (Coll. Godefroy, CCLVIII, No. 49).

[1578] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 273, 274; Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis, IV, 270, 271, note.

[1579] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 270 and Appendix 43. Schomberg and Louis of Nassau drew up the articles of the proposed treaty. In Appendix 44 will be found the articles as originally drawn up, and on p. 116 the modified form of them as they were changed by the prince of Orange. The most important change is that whereby the prince altered the word “subjection” as applied to the Netherlands to “protectorate.” The further idea is expressed that these negotiations would be fruitless unless the Edict of Pacification were established with full force in France (ibid., IV, 270, 271). On the whole subject of French negotiations in Germany after St. Bartholomew see Waddington, Rev. hist., XLII, 269 ff.

[1580] De Thou, VII, 37 (cf. Louis of Nassau’s letter to his brother on the subject in Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 278 ff.). Charles IX was ill at the time and the queen mother went alone to Blamont (ibid., IV, 276, 277; Mém. du duc de Bouillon). The Spanish ambassador in France was not unobservant of the favorable policy of Charles toward the Netherlands and so informed the duke of Alva (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 132). The peace of La Rochelle was a hard blow to Spain (Languet, Epist. secr., I, 201; St. Goard to Charles IX, July 17, 1573 in Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 164-69). These negotiations of the prince of Orange and his brother with England and France, however, came too late to save Haarlem. On July 12 the unhappy city succumbed. On the 14th the Spaniards entered and began a regular massacre, in which nearly 1,800 persons were either slain with the sword, hanged, or drowned (ibid., IV, 173; cf. a letter of the prince of Orange to Louis of Nassau, giving details of the surrender on July 22, 1573, ibid., 175).

[1581] C. S. P. For., No. 686 (1572).

[1582] Ibid., No. 673, December 20, 1572.

[1583] These were Montluc, bishop of Valence, and M. de Rambouillet. The former’s speeches (April 10 and 22), are printed in Mém. de l’estat de France, II, 147, 224, in a French translation. The original discourses were in Latin. In Arch. cur., IX, 137, is a letter of one of Rambouillet’s suite.

[1584] See the account of the election in C. S. P. For., No. 1,082, June 5, 1573; cf. Languet, Epist. secr., I, 189; Castelnau, ed. Le Laboureur, III, 298. The news of the duke of Anjou’s success was naturally received with greater pleasure in Paris than anywhere else in Europe. Bonfires were lighted and the Te Deum sung in honor of his election (C. S. P. For., No. 1,027, June 9, 1573). The clergy, in the assembly of the clergy which took place soon after the news arrived, voted the duke a subsidy of 300,000 crowns (ibid., No. 992).

[1585] Claude Haton, II, 734; Nég. Tosc., III, 886, 887.

[1586] Nég. Tosc., III, 886, 887.

[1587] Claude Haton, II, p. 735.

[1588] C. S. P. For., No. 1,100, July 23, 1573.

[1589] The existence of a plot to kidnap the duke of Anjou in Germany in order to force France to return the Three Bishoprics was suspected by Schomberg (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, Appendix, Nos. 112, 113). The duke was also afraid to go to Poland by way of Germany, fearing to get into difficulties on account of the massacre of St. Bartholomew, which still vividly angered the Protestant princes (ibid., IV, Introd., p. xxvi, and pp. 15, 19, 26, 32). His first thought was to go by way of Venice and Ragusa, through Servia, Bulgaria, and Moldavia (Languet, Epist. secr., I, 197; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 168, note). The advantage of the ancient alliance between France and Venice at this time would have been great. There was also some thought of his going entirely by sea, and the good offices of England were invoked to protect his journey (Castelnau, ed. Le Laboureur, III, 345). The young prince of Condé had been invited to go along, but excused himself on the ground that he was afraid of being arrested for his father’s debts, “being a marvellously great sum.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,245, December 12, 1573.

[1590] Ibid., No. 1,097, July 18, 1573, from Frankfurt.

[1591] Ibid., No. 1,177, September 20, 1573; Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 295.

[1592] C. S. P. For., No. 1,168, September 18, 1573.

[1593] For Catherine’s intense interest in the Polish question, see Vol. IV of her Correspondance, passim, and Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 267.

[1594] Commentaires et lettres de Montluc, V, 299-306, 309-18, 322-24—a series of remarkable political judgments.

[1595] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 31; Appendix, No. 69 and p. 96.

[1596] Ibid., IV, Appendix, Letters 1-8 refer to Schomberg’s mission to Germany in the spring and summer of 1572.

[1597] The history of Henry of Anjou’s career in Poland has been written at length by the marquis de Noailles, Henri de Valois et la Pologne, Paris, 1867 (see also L’Epinois, “La Pologne en 1572,” R. Q. H., IV, 1868, p. 266; Bain, “The Polish Interregnum,” English Hist. Review, IV, 645). In Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, Nos. 54, 62, 64, 66, 70, 72, is a series of letters dealing with French interest in Poland at this time.

[1598] Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, Appendix, Nos. 69 and 71.

[1599] Ibid., IV, Appendix, No. 17, Schomberg to Catherine de Medici, October 9, 1572. The landgrave bluntly said that twice before such overtures had been made to German princes—in 1567 and 1571—and that civil war and the massacre had followed (ibid., No. 72).

[1600] St. Goard to Charles IX, July 9, 1573, ibid., IV, Appendix, No. 66; Schomberg to the duke of Anjou, February 10, 1573, ibid., Appendix, No. 34. The intense Catholic prejudices of the duke of Anjou, now king of Poland, were a serious bar to the progress of Schomberg’s negotiations in Germany. He warned the duke not to give the impression of Spanish leanings (Schomberg to the duke of Anjou, October 9, 1572, ibid., IV, Appendix, No. 18), and seems almost to have persuaded him to abandon his intense Catholic-Spanish predilection (ibid., pp. 15, 268). The duke of Anjou is even said to have given Schomberg 100,000 francs. The letter is said to have been burned at the time of the Coconnas conspiracy in order to shield the duke of Alva’s son (ibid., IV, 384).

[1601] Charles IX to St. Goard, May 10, 1573, regarding a dispatch of the Spanish ambassador to Philip II telling of the negotiations of the King with Louis of Nassau (ibid., IV, Appendix, No. 55).

[1602] Ibid., IV, Appendix, No. 51.

[1603] C. S. P. For., Nos. 1,202, 1,286, November 11, 1573, January 2, 1574.

[1604] Nég. Tosc., III, 894, December 23, 1573.

[1605] Ibid., 891-93, November 5, 1573.

[1606] C. S. P. For., Nos. 1,132, 1,138, August 18-22, 1573.

[1607] The attack was aggravated by a heavy cold taken while hunting so that Charles IX was compelled for a season to quarter himself in a small inn at Vitry. He was not scarred by the pox but he lost flesh alarmingly by reason of the illness and never recovered his health, and passed into quick consumption (cf. C. S. P. For., No. 1,229, November 18, 1573, Dr. Dale to Burghley).

[1608] Nég. Tosc., III, 891; R. Q. H., XXXIV, 485.

[1609] C. S. P. For., No. 1,235, November, 1573.

[1610] The écu which formerly had circulated as 57 sous tournois went up to 58; Spanish pistols, which were at 55 rose to 56; testons de France valued at 12 sous by the edict rose to 12 sous 6 d. tournois. Bad coin was driven out of the realm. Claude Haton, II, 749, 750.

[1611] Ibid., 752, 753.

[1612] Claude Haton, II, 760 (1574).

[1613] See details in C. S. P. Ven., No. 567, December 30, 1573. The queen mother was accused of planning to take La Rochelle by surprise (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 309-11; Nég. Tosc., III, 896).

[1614] C. S. P. Ven., Nos. 568, 569, January 22, February 1, 1574.

[1615] For details of this war see Chronique des guerres en Poitou, Aunis, Xaintonge et Angoumois de 1574 à 1576, ed. by Fontenelle de Vaudoré, Paris, 1841.

[1616] C. S. P. For., No. 570, February 6, No. 572, February 28; ibid., Eng., No. 1,336, March 8, No. 1,338, March 8, No. 1,357, March 23, No. 1,342, March 15 (1574).

[1617] On March 9, 1573, Sir Thomas Smith wrote to Walsingham: “Pirates of all nations infest our seas and under the flag of the prince of Orange or the count of Montgomery, pillage the English and foreigners impartially.” (Cf. Walsingham, 392. C. S. P. Ven., No. 575, March 24, 1574.)

[1618] Montgomery to Burghley, from Carentan, March 23, 1574 (C. S. P. For., 1351; cf. C. S. P. Ven., No. 576, March 26; Delisle, Les deux sièges de Valognes en 1562 et 1574, St. Lô, 1890).

[1619] C. S. P. For., No. 1,352. Commission from the King to the sieur de Torcy, etc., dated Bois de Vincennes, March 11, 1574. Montgomery’s reply is subjoined, dated March 22; ibid., Ven., No. 577, April 2, 1574. Montgomery must have been in error as to the date of his arrival at Coutances, which he puts on March 11. It must have been earlier. Torcy’s commission bears this date. On May 29 the chief of the Huguenots, or rather, Montgomery, wrote to Lord Burghley from Carentan, justifying the taking up arms, and stating what need there is of the favor and protection of the Queen (ibid., For., No. 1,429, May 24, 1574).

[1620] Weill, 128, 129.

[1621] Mém. du duc de Bouillon, 89. The scheme was to deprive the duke of Anjou of the command before La Rochelle and put the duke of Alençon and Henry of Navarre in command both by land and by sea. It failed, though Charles IX seems to have been willing, because Anjou flatly refused to resign (see letter in Appendix XXXIII).

[1622] Forneron, Histoire des ducs de Guise, II, 276. On the whole question see De Crue, Le parti des Politiques au lendemain de la St. Barthélemy, Paris, 1892; Weill, 133 ff.

[1623] Weill, 88, 89. The actual author was Beza.

[1624] Weill, 132; citing La Huguerye, II, 84.

[1625] Weill, 95-97.

[1626] Ibid., 133.

[1627] See Corvière, L’organisation politique du parti protestant tenu à Millau (1886).

[1628] C. S. P. For., Nos. 1,349, 1,356, March 17 and 30, 1574. There were ten ensigns in every regiment, each of 300 men.

[1629] Ibid., No. 1,388, April, 1574. The prince was reputed to have about 6,000 or 7,000 reiters, “French, German, or Swiss.”—Ibid., No. 1,433, Wilkes to Walsingham, May 31, 1574.

[1630] See details in ibid., No. 1,322, February 16, 1574.

[1631] Hume supposes (Courtships of Queen Elizabeth, 177) that Elizabeth, knowing that this plot was in progress, again withdrew her permission for an interview with the duke of Alençon. She feared the result if the interview were unsuccessful; she would not allow a public visit under any circumstances, and did not wish a private. The recent expedition against La Rochelle had also angered her subjects, so that now the negotiations were once more apparently at a standstill. But we must not forget her private scheme. Nothing could be more in line with Elizabeth’s policy than to promote a family quarrel in the French royal house. That she was well informed of the plot can scarcely be doubted, for March 16, 1574, we find a safe-conduct for Alençon in the foreign papers; and the permission given for him to come to the Queen as soon as he has notified her of his arrival in England. April 1, moreover, Dale wrote to Walsingham, “The Duke has hope in the Queen and feareth much”—there is nothing more to explain the reference. Hume does not explicitly state Elizabeth’s connivance and the editor of Hall, Vol. II, does not mention the plot at all (p. xxi); neither does Burlingham in his résumé. It can scarcely be doubted, however, that Elizabeth was actively interested or, at least, informed of its progress.

[1632] Mém. de madame Mornay, 74, 75.

[1633] De Thou, Book LVII; Arch. cur., VII, 105.

[1634] C. S. P. Ven., No. 572, February 28, and ibid., For., Nos. 1,331, 1,336, 1,350, March 2, 8, 22, 1573.

[1635] The duke of Alençon and the king of Navarre issued a declaration denying all knowledge of Guitery’s enterprise against the King at St. Germain. Tractprinted at Paris by Frederic Morel, 1574, p. 8; cf. Lettres de Henri IV, I, 60; Mém. de la Huguerye, I, 182, note 2.

[1636] C. S. P. Ven., No. 573, March 10, 1574.

[1637] Ibid., No. 574, March 17, 1574.

[1638] Ibid.

[1639] C. S. P. For., Nos. 1,377, 1,378, April 10-12, 1574; ibid., Ven., Nos. 580, 581, April 9-10.

[1640] But it is not to be doubted that back of the affair was a secret movement of the liberal Huguenots and the Politiques to put Alençon upon the throne in event of the death of Charles IX and so foil the succession of the bigoted Henry of Anjou. Vie de Mornay, 23: Jalluard à Taffin, ministre du St. Evangile, May 8, 1574: “L’emprisonnement du duc d’Alençon, roy de Navarre, mareschal de Montmorenci, et autres, ont apporté non seulement un grand estonnement, mais aussi rompu des grands desseins.”—Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, V, 2; cf. IV, 375. Moderate men perceived the value of Alençon as a counterpoise to Henry of Poland (cf. C. S. P. For., No. 1,431, May 25, 1574). On the entire matter see De Crue, “La Molle et Coconat et les négociations du parti des Politiques,” Rev. d’hist. dip., VI, 1892, p. 375.

[1641] Arch. cur., VIII, 127 ff. Among other charges, La Mole was accused of practicing sorcery—“that there should be an image of wax and a strange medal in the chamber of La Mole for some enchantment.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,398, Dr. Dale to Burghley, April 27, 1574.

[1642] Ibid., April 22, 1574; No. 1,398, April 27, 1574.

[1643] Ibid., Ven., No. 586, May 2, 1574.

[1644] Ibid., and ibid., For., No. 1,401, Dale to Burghley, April 30, 1574. The whole process was a mockery of justice. According to another report the King promised “that he would write to the Parlement to delay the proceedings. But the bearer of the letters, on arriving at Paris found the Porte St. Antoine closed. The execution was so much hurried that in a moment they were both executed. It is said this was done by reason of a perfumer relating to the first President what had passed in Court, and that the Queen Mother had obtained their pardon. For which cause they were made to come more quickly from the Conciergerie, the carriage made to journey hastily, and directly they arrived at the place of execution they were executed without the usual proclamations.”—C. S. P. For., No 1,403, May 2, 1574.

[1645] Claude Haton, II, 765.

[1646] C. S. P. Ven., No. 584, April 19, 1574. Both Henry of Navarre and his fellow-prisoner seemed to have believed in these days that if Charles IX should die their own expectation of living would be slender, and their only hope be in corrupting the guard. But they were without money. This is the purport of a cipher dispatch, dated May 22, from Paris and sent to Burghley to be deciphered by him personally. This he actually did, for the draft is in his handwriting (ibid., For., No. 1,422, 1574; cf. No. 1,431). His reply—to Walsingham—was sent three days later (by a slip of the pen he has, however, written “March” instead of May).

[1647] C. S. P. For., No. 1,408, Dr. Dale to Burghley, May 5, 1574. See a letter of Emanuel Philibert of Savoy, to Charles IX protesting against the arrest of Montmorency, May 19, 1574, in Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 92. Elizabeth seems to have interested herself very much in their fate and sent Thomas Leighton to France in their behalf. The face of affairs thus was changed, for to give some credibility to her stories of a happy family, Catherine had to allow the princes more liberty. Besides, Leighton was captain of Guernsey, and could be of great assistance to Montgomery so that he had to be well treated and his desires gratified. The Guises, however, were gaining great influence in court again and in event of the King’s death, Alençon expected the Bastille. To escape this he desired money from Elizabeth to bribe his guards and Burghley actually recommended that this course be followed. De Thoré, the youngest of the constable’s sons, fled to Cassel for safety (Claude Haton, II, 763 and note). The fury of the Guises pursued him even in Germany (see a letter of one Davis to count John of Nassau, June 7, 1574, in Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, 19, giving some particulars on this head, and one of Schomberg to the same, August 28, at p. 49).

[1648] See C. S. P. For., No. 1,417, May 17, 1574; Hist. du Lang., V, 520, note 1.

[1649] Yesterday he was more ill-at-ease than ordinarily, and no one entered his room, but at sunrise several gentlemen and priests came in. The priests performed the service, at which the queen mother was present. He has been of better countenance since hearing of the execution of De la Mole and Coconnas, and said he hoped to live to see the end of all his conspirators (C. S. P. For., No. 1,403, May 2, 1574). Early in April, two couriers were dispatched to Poland to warn Henry of Anjou to be ready for any emergency (ibid., Ven., No. 590, May 2, 1574). Dr. Dale, the English ambassador, reports, under date of May 22: “On the 22d the King fell suddenly sick. The audience appointed with the ambassador of the duke of Florence was countermanded, the best physicians sent for, and the opinion is that the King is in great danger. The falling down of blood into his lungs is come to him again, and the physicians gave their opinion that if it should happen again they could not assure him of any hope. Paris, 22 May, 1574.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,422.

[1650] Frémy, Un ambassadeur liberal sous Charles IX et Henri III, 226. The King actually said “Tirez moy ma custode,” from the Latin word custodire, to protect. Claude Haton, II, 767, gives an impressive account of the deathbed scene.

[1651] C. S. P. Ven., No. 591, May 30, 1574. For other accounts see Arch. cur., VIII, 253, 271. There is a remarkable tract in the State Paper office “giving particulars of the ancestors and birth of Charles IX, the civil wars of his reign, his victories, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, his famous sayings, his wife and daughter, his decrees, his motto, his favorite servant, his master and nurse, his liberality, his sports, his study of music and singing, the fiery spectre seen by him, his breaking the law, his speech in the senate, his amours, his affliction of the ecclesiastics, his study of liberal sciences, his food, drink, and sleep, a prodigy preceding his death, his sickness, his discourse before his death, his death and testament, description of his body and stature.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,628 (1574). The queen of France returned to Vienna and died in a convent in 1592.

[1652] Isambert, XIV, 262.

[1653] C. S. P. For., No. 1,448, June 10, 1574.

[1654] Henry III, to Elizabeth (see Appendix XXXV).

[1655] C. S. P. For., Nos. 1,449 and 1,464, anno 1574.

[1656] Catherine risked a Protestant uprising in order to sate her vengeance upon the man who had slain Henry II. The Venetian ambassador, however, conjectured that there was more of policy than of revenge in the act. “It was certainly more to please the Parisians from whom she hoped to have efficient aid than for any other reason that she had Montgomery put to death.”—C. S. P. Ven., No. 588, May 20, No. 597, June, 1574. Matignon was made a marshal of France as his reward (ibid., For., No. 176, June 13, 1575). For particulars of Montgomery’s execution see Arch. cur., VIII, 223 ff.; and the Discours de la mort et execution de Gabriel comte de Montgommery, par arrest de la court, pour les conspirations par luy commises contre le roy, Lyon: Benoist Rigaud, 1574.

[1657] Nég. Tosc., III, 926-27, April 5 and May 11, 1574.

[1658] “Tenuti per forastieri e Alemanni.”—Rel. vén., II, 228.

[1659] Claude Haton, II, 778. These bandits were sometimes called “Foruscits” or “Fuorisciti,” from the Italian uscir fuora (see a letter of the cardinal of Armagnac in Rev. hist., II, 529).

“En 1576 les paysans du Dauphiné s’étant soulevés, entreprirent vainement ce qu’ils ont exécuté plus de deux siècles après cette époque. Ils se rassemblèrent en un corps considérable pour piller et brûler les châteaux, et exterminer les gentilshommes. Mandalot, à la tête d’une troupe déterminée, dissipa avec promptitude ce rassemblement qu’on appela la ‘Ligue des Vilains.’”—Histoire ou mémoire de ce qui se passa à Lyons pendant la ligue, appelée la Sainte-Union, jusqu’à la reddition de la ville sous l’obeissance du roi Henri IV, Bibliothèque de Lyon, No. 1,361.

[1660] “On taschast de réconcilier par tous moyens les malcontens et principalement ceux qui, par le passé, ont eu crédit et autorité en France, qui pourront augmenter les troubles et soustenir la mauvaise et pernicieuse volonté de ceux qui voudroient invertir l’ancienne et naturelle succession de la couronne de France.”—Du Ferrier to Catherine de Medici, June, 1574, in Frémy, Un ambassadeur liberal sous Charles IX et Henri III, 235.

[1661] Articles proposed by the count palatine’s ambassador for a pacification (C. S. P. For., No. 1,556, anno 1574). The post was subsidized by the French King by way of Reinhausen, Neustadt, Kaiserslautern, Limbach (near Hamburg), Saarbrück, St. Avold, and Metz (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, V, 49).

[1662] Vie de La Noue, 87.

[1663] The Poles made a hard attempt to prevent Henry from leaving the kingdom. They were dissatisfied that he assumed the title of King of France without consulting them, and wanted him to govern his new kingdom through ministers chosen from among them, and to employ himself in military exploits against the Tartars and Turks (Languet, Epist. secr., I, 121).

[1664] Frémy, Un ambassadeur liberal sous Charles IX et Henri III, 232.

[1665] C. S. P. For., No. 1,543, September 10, 1574.

[1666] The duke and his fellow-captives made several efforts to escape, in one of which Alençon narrowly missed doing so (see the account in C. S. P. Ven., No. 600, July 26, 1574). In consequence, when Catherine started to meet her son at Lyons, leaving the government of Paris in care of the Parlement (ibid., No. 1,509, July 10, 1574), the young princes traveled in the coach with her. “Her chickens go in coach under her wing, and so she minds to bring them to the King.”—Ibid., For., No. 1,511, Dale to Walsingham, August 9, 1574.

[1667] Ibid., No. 1,537, Dale to Sir Thomas Smith and Francis Walsingham, September 2, 1574, from Lyons.

[1668] See the striking comments of the Venetian ambassador, Rel. vén., II, 245, 246.

[1669] Rel. vén., II, 245, 246.

[1670] C. S. P. For., No. 1,543, September 10, 1574, No. 1,555, September 11, 1574; Thomas Wilkes to Walsingham and Dr. Dale to Sir Thomas Smith and Walsingham. There were 6,500 Swiss at Châlons (ibid., No. 1, 537, September 2, 1574). Henry III had sent orders in advance of his coming, commanding that on the 30th of August all the companies of ordinance should retire in garrison and await the orders of the provincial governors. Troops were levied in Picardy, Champagne, Brie, Burgundy, and Lorraine, to prevent the Protestant reiters from gaining entrance into the country and were put under the command of the duke of Guise, Vaudemont, and the marshal Strozzi (Claude Haton, II, 779).

[1671] C. S. P. For., No. 1,590, November 4, 1574. The headquarters of the Catholic forces were between Dijon and Langres, but troops patrolled the whole course of the Marne and extended westward to Sens. Artillery was sent up the Seine from Paris. The camp of the horse was fixed near Troyes (Claude Haton, III, 779).

[1672] De Thou, Book L, chap. xii; Vie de Mornay, 23; Coll. Godefroy, CCLIX, No. 2, “Les habitants du diocèse de Montpellier au roi, 4 juin, 1574.”

[1673] For other interesting details see C. S. P. For., No. 1,568, September 29, 1574.

[1674] Le Laboureur, II, 135.

[1675] C. S. P. For., No. 1,584, October 23, 1574.

[1676] Schomberg’s comment is amusing: “Monsieur le mareschal Damphille se contint sagement, dont les ennemis de ceste maison s’arrachent la barbe.”—August 28, 1574, in Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, 49.

[1677] Chroniques fontenaisiennes, 228-32; L’Estoile, I, 37; Weill, 137, note 3.

[1678] “A little piece of money might win the reiters to join with them of the religion.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,623, December 23, 1574.

[1679] Aigues-Mortes was a strong port and the staple of salt for Languedoc, Dauphiné, the Lyonnais, and Burgundy (ibid., No. 17, January 25, 1575). Dr. Dale thought that the project was to connive at a Turkish attack in Germany for the purpose of embarrassing the Catholic princes there (ibid., No. 1,620, December 23, 1574).

[1680] The plot was an old one and long in preparation. See a letter of St. Goard to the King, May 20, 1573 (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, IV, Appendix, No. 59). The Spanish had been advised by word from Besançon, on April 3, that those of Geneva and Bern had confederated with the Lutheran cantons and secured the favor of the duke John Casimir, whose purpose was to overcome Besançon and the free county of Burgundy (cf. letter of De Grantyre, the French agent in the Grisons, to Bellièvre, April 8, 1573, Coll. Godefroy, CCLVIII, No. 52, and the letter of Charles IX to Bellièvre, May 9, 1573, ibid., No. 55). The author of the plan was a Dr. Butterich, councilor of the elector (Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, V, 89, 99, 101, 107, 120-3). The Swiss cantons were also appealed to, but Beza hesitated (ibid., 111). Spain had secret information of the plot (ibid., 89). It finally failed (see a letter of Butterich to John of Nassau, June 6, 1575, ibid., 214; cf. Languet, Epist. secr., I, Part II, 106, July 11, 1575).

[1681] An example of eccentric partisanship is afforded by the duke d’Uzes, who was a Huguenot, but who for enmity toward Damville joined the King. Henry III made him a marshal and left him in chief command when he went to Rheims (C. S. P. For., No. 1,617, December 23, 1574; No. 13, January 16, 1575). Bellegarde was also made marshal in this year (ibid., No. 1,570, September 29, 1574).

[1682] “Seminario della guerra.”—Rel. vén., II, 230.

[1683] Claude Haton, I, 782, 783.

[1684] See the luminous Relazione del Giovanni Michel, the Venetian ambassador in France in 1575, ed. Tommaseo, II, 229-33.

[1685] Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas, III, 105, note, June 15, 1574.

[1686] Ibid., 165-66, Requesens to Philip II, September 24, 1574: “Il y a en France beaucoup d’Espagnols qui ont déserté des Pays-Bas; il sont recueillis par M. de Guise et d’autres qui leur font un bon traitement et leur donnent de grosses payes.” M. Gachard has paraphrased the letter.

[1687] “La longa continuazione della guerra, che tutti li paesani che prima erano disarmati e vilissimi, tutti dati all’arte del campo e all’agricoltura, ovvero ad alcuna delle arti mecaniche, adesso sono tutti armati, e talmente essercitati e agguerriti che non si distinguono dalli più veterani soldati; tutti fatti archibugieri eccellentissimi.”—“Relazione del Giovanni Michel,” Rel. vén., II, 232; cf. Long, 167: “Des violences et des outrages exercés par quelques petits gentilhommes sur des paysans excitèrent la vengeance des villageois voisins, qui, furieux, accoururent en grand nombre. Les provocateurs imprudents se sauvèrent, mais leur maisons furent pillées et saccagées. On voit déjà la haine du peuple, poussé au desespoir par les impôts et par les exacteurs, contre les privilegiés. Le peuple, si mal disposé, ne devait pas être provoqué dans son ressentiment. Les defenseurs de la cause commune vont se lever.”

[1688] The English ambassador gives particulars of the cardinal’s death. “The King would needs go in procession with the Battus, who are men that whip themselves as they go as a sort of penance. The cardinal went in this solemn procession well-nigh all the night, and the next day he said mass for a solemnity, wherewith he took a great cold and a continual fever which brought him into a frenzy, wherein he continued divers days. A Jew took upon him to work wonders and gave him a medicine whereby he came to his remembrance for a time. Upon the medicine there did break out certain pustules or spots in his body like the pourpres, whereby some would say he was poisoned. Shortly after he fell into his old frenzy and so died, the 18th day after he first fell sick.”—C. S. P. For., No. 1,624, December, 1574.

[1689] Ibid., No. 58, March 23, 1575. This letter is not printed in the Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis. The Venetian ambassador has a long and interesting character-sketch of the queen in Rel. vén., II, 243. There are several monographs upon this “pure, douce et mélancolique figure” [Galitizin, Louise de Lorraine reine de France (1553-1601); Meaume, Etude historique sur Louise de Lorraine reine de France (1553-1601), Paris, 1882; Baillon, Histoire de Louise de Lorraine, reine de France, 1553-1601, Paris, 1884].

[1690] C. S. P. For., No. 33, March 3, 1575.

[1691] The Pope finally advanced a sum upon the security of the crown jewels (C. S. P. For., No. 168, June 6, 1575).

[1692] C. S. P. For., Nos. 55, 57, 67, March, 1575. The clergy in Dauphiné protested against the burden laid upon the church there by the King’s measure, complaining that its support was not costing the crown a sou there; one of them even had the face to declare that they had more to hope from Damville than from the King (ibid., No. 67, March, 1575).

[1693] Declaration et protestation de Henry de Montmorency, seigneur Damville, mareschal de France, gouverneur et lieutenant général pour le Roy en Languedoc. Issued from Nîmes, April 25, 1575. There is an abstract of it in C. S. P. For., No. 106, 1575.

[1694] “L’organisation politique de cette Union (Union protestante)”fut élaborée dans les assemblées tenues à Milhau, en décembre, 1573, et en juillet, 1574. La base fut l’autonomie des villes, que usurpèrent peu à peu l’administration. La Rochelle et Montauban confièrent l’autorité à des chefs électifs, pris dans la bourgeoisie. En suite ces républiques urbaines se fedérèrent. Il fut décidé que chaque généralité aurait son assemblée et que délégués des généralités formeraient les états généraux de l’Union. Ainsi se constitua au sein du royaume une république fédérative, où l’élément aristocratique ne tarda pas à dominer (Lavisse et Rambaud, “Histoire générale, V, 147;” cf. Cougny, “Le parti républicain sous Henri III,” Mémoires de la Sorbonne, 1867; Hippeau, “Les idées républicaines sous le règne de Henri III,” Revue des Soc. savant. des départ., IV^[e] sér., III).

[1695] L’Estoile, I, 3, 38.

[1696] I have availed myself of the synopsis in C. S. P. For., No. 112, May, 1575.

[1697] Dr. Junius to the prince of Condé, Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau, V, 237.

[1698] See Dr. Dale’s observations in letter to Burghley, May 21, 1575; C. S. P. For., No. 138.

[1699] Ibid., No. 121, May 4, 1575. Through the duke of Savoy Henry III seems to have offered to set Montmorency free, provided Damville would deliver up Aigues-Mortes (ibid., No. 168, June 6, 1575).

[1700] C. S. P. For., Nos. 114 and 287, anno 1575.

[1701] Letter of the duke of Guise to M. de Luxembourg from Châlons, September 3, 1575, Coll. des autographes, 1846, No. 213. The duke of Guise was anxious for the safety of Langres.

[1702] C. S. P. For., No. 235, July 15, 1575, from Cracow.

[1703] C. S. P. For., No. 345, September 13, 1575. In Appendix XXXIV will be found a long account in Latin from the pen of Dr. Dale upon the condition of France at this time.

[1704] C. S. P. For., No. 120, anno 1575. Even before leaving Poland Henry III had anxiously written to Elizabeth urging the good offices of his ambassador in England, De la Mothe-Fenelon (see the letter in Appendix XXXV). The articles of peace agreed to during the life of King Charles provided that in the event of the death of one of the contracting parties, that party’s successor should be allowed the space of one year to accept or refuse the conditions of peace, the other party being bound by the articles to continue in friendship in the event of the former accepting these articles; the Queen now insisted that, when these articles were first agreed to, the French King was at peace with all his vassals and had by the Edict of January conceded to the Huguenots the free exercise of their religion, and therefore at the present time he was bound to observe all that had been promised (C. S. P. Ven., No. 624, April 24, 1575).

[1705] Correspondance de Philippe II, III, 209 and note.

[1706] Ibid., 271.

[1707] Ibid., 333.

[1708] Ibid., 348.

[1709] Correspondance de Philippe II, III, 319, 320.

[1710] C. S. P. Ven., No. 622, March 22, 1575. In Arch. nat., K. 1537, No. 22, is the report of a Spanish spy, written from Calais on March 18, 1575, which confirms the suspicion of English tampering in France. Printed in Appendix XXXVI.

[1711] Schomberg’s observations were absolutely just, for on July 23, 1575, at Heidelberg, an instrument was signed by Charles Frederick, the elector palatine, Henry, prince of Condé, and Charles de Montmorency, in which the count palatine acknowledged the receipt from the English Queen of 50,000 “crowns of the sun, each crown being of the value of six English shillings sterling,” which amount was transferred to “Henri de Bourbon, prince de Condé, chief of those of the religion in France, as well as of those Catholics with them associated” (i. e., the Politiques). Elizabeth’s name was to be shielded throughout, the elector assuming entire liability for repayment which was to be made “before the army now levied in Germany for service in France shall depart to France” (see C. S. P. For., No. 254, “The obligation and quittance of the prince of Condé,” July 23, 1575, Heidelberg; cf. ibid., Ven., 627; July 12, 1575, the guess of the Venetian ambassador in France). Cf. ibid., No. 633, September 7, 1575. The Venetian ambassador seems to have thought that trouble in Ireland would prevent England from advancing any more to the Huguenots (ibid., No. 631, August 9, 1575). The harvest of 1575 was generally good. But no invading army would enter France before the grain was cut and stacked (cf. ibid.).

[1712] C. S. P. Ven., No. 634, September 11, 1575.

[1713] Ibid., For., No. 388, October 3, 1575; L’Estoile, anno 1575; see the interesting details of Henry III’s curious fits of contrition in Frémy, “Henri III, pénitent; étude sur les rapports de ce prince avec diverses confréries et communautés parisiennes,” Bull. du Com. d’hist. et d’archéol. du diocèse de Paris, 1885.

[1714] Claude Haton, II, 780; Walsingham to Burghley, State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth, CV, No. 51, printed in Appendix XXXVII. From Dreux the duke issued a manifesto, September 17, 1575, in which he explained his conduct and complained of the undue taxation and the imposition which the people were suffering in the King’s name, declaring that he would take under his protection all the French of the two religions, and demanding the call of the Estates-General for redress of grievances (Claude Haton, II, 781 and note). Alençon styled himself “Gouverneur-général pour le roy et protecteur de la liberté et bien publique de France” (C. S. P. For., No. 365, September, 1575).

[1715] Claude Haton, II, 784, 785.

[1716] Paris furnished the King 4,000 soldiers at its own expense. The new troops were lodged in the faubourgs of St. Germain, St. Marceau, and Notre-Dame des Champs (ibid., 787).

[1717] Claude Haton, II, 788-89; D’Aubigné, Book VII, chap. xix. From this circumstance the duke was often called Le Balafré. (C. S. P. For., No. 450, November 10, 1575.)

[1718] Claude Haton, II, 797.

[1719] C. S. P. For., No. 422, October 29, 1575. The King called these pilgrimages “nouaines” (cf. ibid., No. 506, Dr. Dale to Lord Burghley, December 20, 1575).

[1720] Protestant worship was provisionally authorized in the towns held by the confederates. Angoulême and Bourges refused to open their gates to Alençon and so he was offered Cognac and St. Jean-d’Angély instead. The prince of Condé was refused admittance to Mezières (Claude Haton, II, 805, note).

[1721] For details as to this levy, see Claude Haton, II, 804. This tax was laid upon the clergy, as well as others, and called forth a protest from the former, who pleaded an edict issued by Henry III at Avignon shortly after his return from Poland, forbidding the governors to enforce the payment of tailles, munitions, etc., upon the clergy.

[1722] Fontanon, IV, 840.

[1723] Claude Haton, II, 820.

[1724] Paris remonstrated against this (ibid., 828 and note 1).

[1725] Ibid., 817; L’Estoile, I, 46.

[1726] Claude Haton, II, 806-8.

[1727] C. S. P. For., No. 535.

[1728] Dr. Dale writes on February 28: “The Guises are nothing privy to the queen mother’s doings and she likes as evil of them.”—C. S. P. For., No. 634, February 28, 1576.

[1729] C. S. P. For., No. 592, January 1576: “The King of Spain makes the King very great offers to break the peace.”

[1730] Dr. Dale to Sir Thomas Smith and Walsingham. All the fair promises of the delivery of Bourges and La Charité are like to come to nothing, as may appear by the enclosed letter of Monsieur to the Court of Parliament. There is a secret League between Guise, Nemours, Nevers, Maine, and others of that house, together with the Chancellor, against all that would have any peace, and if it should be made, to begin a sharp war afresh (C. S. P. For., No. 583, anno 1576). From the first Languet was skeptical. He anticipated reaction (Epist. secr., I, Part II, 181, 205).

[1731] M. Frémy has published a work in which he makes the bizarre claim that the origin of the Académie française is to be at least remotely ascribed to Henry III (Les origines de l’Académie française. L’Académie des derniers Valois, 1570-1585, d’après des documents nouveaux et inédits, 1888. There is a review of it in the English Hist. Review, III, 576). Some one has said that “all the Valois kings were either bad or mad.” The aphorism would seem to apply to the character of Henry III, in both capacities. He was a mountebank, a roisterer, a dabbler in philosophy, a religious maniac, and a moral pervert. L’Estoile and Lippomano especially abound in allusions or accounts of him (e. g., Rel. vén., II, 237-39). Compare this account with the earlier observations of Suriano, ibid., I, 409, and Davila, VII, 442. On the “mignons,” Henry III’s favorites, see L’Estoile, I, 142, 143. Henry III’s very handwriting manifests his character: “Son écriture semble tout d’abord régulière, mais elle n’est pas formée, les lettres s’alignent sans s’unir, sans se rejoindre, certainement c’est une des écritures les plus difficiles à déchiffrer.... C’est l’homme qui s’y révèle l’indolent, l’efféminé monarque qui de son lit écrivait ces lignes à Villeroy: ‘J’ay eu le plaisir d’avoir veu vostre mémoire très bien faict comme tout ce qui sort de vostre boutique, mais il fault bien penser, car nous avons besoin de regarder de près à nos affaires. Je seray sitost là que ce seroit peine perdue d’y répondre. Aussi bien suis-je au lit non malade, non pour poltronner, mais pour me retrouver frais comme la rose.’”—La Ferrière, Rapport de St. Pétersbourg, 27.

[1732] See the remonstrance in C. S. P. For., No. 505, December 19, 1575.

[1733] Ibid., No. 584, January 9, 1576.

[1734] For particulars see Dale’s letter to Smith and Walsingham, ibid., No. 605, February 6, 1576; Claude Haton, II, 829.

[1735] C. S. P. For., Nos. 614, 625, 662, February 14-22, March 8, 1576. Mayenne, whose marquisate was erected into a duchy on January 1, 1576, had succeeded his brother, the duke of Guise, as chief commander of the royal forces, and advanced toward Lorraine in order to prevent the reiters from joining the enemy. Henry III had sent Biron (he had been made a marshal in the June preceding—ibid., No. 178, June 13, 1575) to them to persuade them not to enter France, representing that a truce had been concluded between the King and the duke of Alençon. But the prince of Condé replied that if the duke had made his peace with the King, he, the prince, had not. Biron failed and La Noue was sent, who likewise was unsuccessful (Claude Haton, II, 824, 825).

[1736] C. S. P. For., No. 662, Dale to Smith and Walsingham, March 8, 1576; Claude Haton, II, 832.

[1737] C. S. P. For., No. 740, April 17, 1576.

[1738] Dr. Dale wrote truly to Lord Burghley saying that the Protestants had “gotten more without any stroke stricken than ever could be had before this time by all the wars, as appears by the note of the provinces that are to be under the government of them and their friends.”—C. S. P. For., No. 777, May 11, 1576.

[1739] La Popelinière, III, 361.

[1740] This claim ran back to the reign of Charles VII; the original amount was 25,000 livres. Louis XI altered it to 6,000 livres, plus the county of Gaure and the town of Fleurance, and this revised form was approved by Charles VIII in 1496 (cf. C. S. P. For., No. 672, §5; May 16, 1576).

[1741] Henry of Navarre’s memoir is given in extenso in ibid., No. 671, May 15, 1576.

[1742] La Popelinière, III, 365.

[1743] Maffert, Les apanages en France du XVI^[e] au XIX^[e] siècle (1900).

[1744] Articles du maréchal de Dampville, gouverneur de Languedoc et des Etats du pays, présentés au Roi pour la décharge de la province, May 2, 1576.—Coll. Godefroy, XCIV, No. 21.

[1745] Nusse, “La donation du duché de Château-Thierry par le duc d’Alençon à Jean Casimir, comte palatin du Rhin,” Annales de la Société hist. et archéol. de Château-Thierry, Vol. XI (1875), p. 61.

[1746] The text of the Paix de Monsieur is in Isambert, XIV, 280. The sources for the history are many. The correspondence of Dale, the English ambassador in France, and the other English agents, Wilkes and Randolph, in C. S. P. For., 1876, for March, April, and May, is full and detailed (cf. D’Aubigné, Book VIII, chap. xxvii; De Thou, Book LXXII). La Popelinière, III, 360 ff., gives the text of the treaty and the letters-patent of the King. The act was registered in Parlement on May 14, 1576, though signed by the King on May 2.

[1747] Two days before this scene took place, the newly elected king of Poland Stephen Bathori, prince of Transylvania, had written informing the deposed Valois that he had assumed the Polish crown and desiring to know what Henry would have done with the household stuff he had left behind in Poland (C. S. P. For., No. 789, May 29, 1576). The Emperor had had numerous partisans, but refused to accept the condition that he fix his residence in Poland (Epist. secr., I, Part II, 143).

[1748] See the vivid details in Claude Haton, II, 834-40, 847, 851, 858.

[1749] Ibid., 855-60.

[1750] The words in brackets are faded and are supplied from No. 460.

[1751] Ellipses indicate places where the MS is faded or creased so as to be illegible.

[1752] The words in brackets are faded and are supplied from No. 455.

[1753] The date is in Burghley’s hand.

[1754] The MS is torn here.

[1755] The reference to the original cipher is “State Papers, Scotland, Elizabeth, Vol. III, No. 82.” (This is not signed addressed or endorsed. Pencil note by editor: “See April 29.”)

[1756] The Editor’s pencil note to the cipher (Scotland ii. 82) is “March 12,” but the letter is calendared under [March 20].

[1757] Cayas, secretary to Philip II.

[1758] On the margin, in the writing of Philip II: “Es menester tener prevenido lo que se les ha de dar para este tiempo.”

[1759] This heading is in another hand.

[1760] This copy is on the other side of the same sheet of paper.

[1761] For est.

[1762] The original probably has amener.

[1763] Il is missing.

[1764] M. d’Auzances (or Ausances) was lieutenant of the king in the district of Messin.

[1765] Places in Lorraine.

[1766] Laon.

[1767] Soissons.

[1768] Boulogne.

[1769] This letter is printed V. and is altered in ink to B.

[1770] From Communay, Les huguenots dans le Béarn et la Navarre, p. 175. The italicized portions are further details which I have added.—J. W. T.

[1771] Cf. Courteault, p. 553 n. 2.

[1772] Cf. Les huguenots en Béarn, p. 64.

[1773] Ibid., pp. 65, 68.

[1774] Ibid., p. 68.

[1775] The above document was sent by Biron to M. de Fourquevaux, French ambassador in Spain. There is an extract from the letter of Biron to Forquevaux translated into Spanish, same carton (K. 1,515), pièce No. 69. Biron’s letter is dated March 17, 1570, from Narbonne.

[1776] A space is left blank to the MS.

[1777] This letter of Sir Henry Norris is a draft originally intended to be sent to the Queen, with the terms of address altered throughout—your highness altered to your honour, etc.

[1778] The MS is torn here.

[1779] The postscript is in the same hand as the king’s signature.

[1780] A space is left blank in the MS.

[1781] See the subscription and the notice of receipt at the end of the despatch.

[1782] Although the Catalogue has the date February 18 it is a mistake; the document has very clearly 17th.

[1783] The postscript is found thus, between the date and the signature.

[1784] Altered in Burghley’s hand from Iº Julii.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us