CHAPTER XVIII

HENRY III AND THE POLITIQUES. THE PEACE OF MONSIEUR (1576)

The attention of Europe was fixed upon France by these events. What was going to happen in the absence of the heir to the throne? Would a frightful wave of retaliatory vengeance for the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the process of Vincennes sweep over the land? These were the questions that were asked, not only everywhere in France, but in many quarters of Europe. The Tuscan ambassador wrote that the châteaux of the Montmorencys were filled with provisions and munitions of war.[1657]

The Politiques, as a class, being imbued with Hotman’s teachings in the _Franco-Gallia_, inveighed against Catherine for having assumed the regency without consent of the estates. They and the political Huguenots were at one, and demanded searching reform. It was their hope to prevail upon the queen mother to come to a definite agreement before the arrival of Henry III in France, in the expectation that the King upon his arrival would find it expedient to accept it. They demanded the reorganization of justice and the army; they condemned the alienation of the crown lands, increase of the tithe, and the new taxes; they insisted upon an examination of the accounts of those who had managed the public finances and the royal revenue, this investigation to include not only the ministers who had enriched themselves, but also the superintendents of finance from Henry II down to the present time, not excepting the cardinal of Lorraine. They demanded the expulsion of the “foreigners,” naming the chancellor Biragues, the marshal de Retz, and the duke of Nevers who were all Italians. They hated the Guises as a foreign house and quasi-German.[1658]

It was high time for some sort of settlement. The country was crying out against the thieves and brigands, who frequented the roads in great numbers under the guise of war and pretended to be in the service of the King.[1659]

But Catherine refused to deal with any matter of state until the arrival of the King. She showed an almost feverish anxiety for her son’s coming, fearing that the duke of Alençon would be put forward for the crown by the Politiques.[1660] In Germany, at the same time, the Orange party, with the aid of Schomberg, labored to promote the cause of the Politiques and liberal Huguenots, and in September a deputation came from the count palatine to urge the cause of toleration in France.[1661] But it was slow and hard work, for as La Noue had bitterly said the year before: “The iron of the German nation was heavy and hard to work; it was silver that made things move.”[1662] Moreover, the agents of Spain and the Guises were encountered at every turn.

In the meantime Henry III had left Cracow on June 16, running away from his kingdom like a thief in the night,[1663] and came home by way of Italy, via Venice, where he was extravagantly entertained by the senate,[1664] Ferrara (July 29), Mirandola, Mantua, and Turin, which he left on August 28, and arrived at Lyons on September 6.[1665] Catherine, who showed great impatience, met him there (she arrived at Lyons on August 27). So fearful was she lest Alençon and Henry of Navarre would escape that the young princes had traveled in the coach with her.[1666] The procession moved as if through a hostile country by way of Burgundy and Chalons-sur-Saône, some of the guard marching in advance, the rest bringing up the rear. “Marshal de Retz was always on the wing of her. Some of the guard marched two leagues before and some two leagues after.”[1667]

Those who were at all optimistic had clung to the belief, until the development of events shattered their hopes, that Henry III would endeavor to pacify his subjects, arguing that if he were inclined to war, he would not have refused the assistance proffered him in Italy of men and money, and that the French crown could not further hazard the reduction of the kingdom piecemeal.[1668] Damville had met the King at Turin, having come there under a safe-conduct of the duke of Savoy, to persuade Henry III to adopt a conciliatory policy, which he at first inclined to follow.

But the moment he came under the sinister influence of Catherine de Medici, he cast this prudent advice to the winds. It was she who dissuaded him from what was wisely counseled[1669] and in advance of his arrival had made military preparations to resume the war by importing Swiss mercenaries and German reiters again.[1670] Accordingly, instead of extending the olive branch, the King expressed his determination to wage unremitting war upon the Huguenots and Politiques rather than grant the demands they made. The deputies of La Rochelle who came to Lyons, requesting a surcease of arms, were repulsed by the King and told it was but a scheme of the Huguenots to gain time for preparation. The establishment of three camps was ordered, one in Dauphiné, the second in Provence and Languedoc, and the third in Poitou. At the same time Schomberg and Fregoso were sent into Germany for assistance.[1671]

When Henry III definitely resolved to follow out a policy of suppression Damville was summoned to Lyons to answer for his governorship. It was a fatal blunder on the part of the King, for the action of the crown hardened the tentative co-operation of the Protestants and the Politiques into a positive alliance. At Milhau, in August, 1574 the Protestants recognized Damville, while he in turn admitted their leaders into his council. The form of government established at Montauban the year before acquired new strength and greater extent. Provincial and general assemblies were formed without distinction between Protestants and Politiques, upon the basis of mutual toleration; in places where the two creeds obtained each side promised to observe the peace and Damville engaged not to introduce the Catholic religion in any town of which the Huguenots were masters.

The men who took this step justified it by alleging that a foreign faction had acquired control over the sovereign; that it was destroying the kingdom, the nobles, the princes of the blood, and with them the very institutions and civilization of France; and that it was their hope to arrest this process. The programme of the Huguenot-Politique party, in addition to complete religious toleration, insisted upon the abolition of the practice of selling offices, the convocation of the States-General, the reduction of the taxes. In this demand they were supported by the provincial states of Dauphiné, Provence, and Burgundy. The confessional idea was deliberately kept in the background. Men no longer talked of a war of religion, but of a “Guerre du Bien Public” as in the reign of Louis XI.

With the nobles Damville’s was a name to conjure with. A large portion of the Catholic nobility, who for a long time had been severely reproached for not seriously opposing the Huguenots, sympathized with his attitude. If the bench and bar of France was strongly attached to the principles of the Catholic religion, the nobility who were hereditary enemies of the legists, whose teachings had for three centuries tended to abridge their feudal rights, out of sheer self-interest, aside from any other motives, now inclined toward the Calvinists. Only radical Calvinists, like Du Plessis-Mornay, opposed the union and were bitter in denunciation of the overtures made by their more moderate brethren, notably La Noue, to Damville and the Politiques.[1672]

A royal edict let the Huguenots understand what was to be expected. The King’s determination was to clear the valley of the Rhone from Lyons to Avignon with the aid of the Swiss and then to subdue Languedoc on the one side and Dauphiné on the other. Such a plan was more bold than practicable, and Henry was likely to find it too hard to accomplish, especially by winter sieges. The Protestants had fortified themselves in Livron on the left bank of the Rhone and at Pouzin across the river, which was inaccessible except by one approach and then only four men could advance abreast.

But there was another matter, the difficulty of which Henry III underestimated, namely the army. The Protestants were so entrenched in their strongholds as to make the use of horsemen against them impracticable. The Swiss were low-class mercenaries, good as ordinary footmen but useless for a siege. Moreover, all of them, reiters and Swiss, were not disposed to move unless they saw their pay in their hands and were utter strangers to discipline, wasting the country “to make a Christian man’s heart bleed.”[1673] In one case the wretched peasantry followed their despoilers to the confines of Lyons and fell upon them in desperation, recovering what had been taken from them. What did the King do? He actually had to punish these wretched subjects of his in order to retain the services of the reiters at all!

Yet the King for a moment showed some of the old fire he displayed at Moncontour and amazed the Protestants by taking Pouzin after three weeks of siege. The victory was marred, though, by the shameful conduct of the Swiss, the reiters, and the Italians in the royal army, who sacked and burned it. Much the same state of things prevailed wherever these riotous plunderers penetrated—in Picardy, in Champagne, in Poitou. But Henry III having reached Avignon, discovered that he was no better off for his success. Meanwhile Damville, with whom the duke of Savoy had honorably dealt, returned from Turin, and reached the vicinity of Montpellier and Beaucaire before the King was aware of it.[1674]

When the King sent the cardinal of Bourbon to talk with him, Damville sent back word that he thought the example of his brother “too dangerous to come to court where they who sought the ruin of his house had too much credit,”[1675] and advised the King to remove the strangers within his gates, meaning Biragues and De Retz.[1676] Henry III could accomplish nothing at Avignon and yet knew not how to get away. He could not go up-river on account of the current. The Huguenots at Livron barred the road on the left bank; Montbrun was in the hills in Auvergne; La Noue’s men were stopping the King’s post daily and Damville controlled Provence and Languedoc; La Haye, King’s lieutenant in the _séné-chaussée_ of Poitou seceded to the Politiques.[1677] Vivarais declared its neutrality and refused to side with King or Politiques. The people of Tulle refused to pay taxes either to Catholics or Protestants until overpowered by the latter, and thus the country continued to endure a war which it hated. Henry truly was in a plight. He was without money, too, and could not hope to get any so far from Paris. He even feared that the soldiery with him might be bribed to desert.[1678] To crown the royal anxiety Damville’s declaration was so public and so bold that the King feared that foreign aid would soon be forthcoming in the Protestant service. The fear was not without ground. For the marshal actually proposed to make a league with the Sultan and introduce a Turkish fleet into the harbor of Aigues-Mortes.[1679] Coupled with this possibility was a projected enterprise against Spain in Franche-Comté in which the Huguenots of Champagne and Burgundy were interested, but which was primarily the project of the elector palatine and the prince of Orange.[1680]

It is a significant fact that the war has now lost almost all confessional character and become a factional conflict between the rival houses of Guise and Montmorency. Catholicism and political corruption on the one hand were opposed to administrative reform and religious toleration. After the creation of the Politique party, the Huguenots of state had merged with them. Except in the case of radical Calvinists and bigoted Catholics, religion had become a minor issue with the French unless it were artificially exaggerated.[1681] It was a mortal enmity on either side, and one which there was slight hope of settling. The hostility of the Guises and the Montmorencys was the real seed of the civil war.[1682] It depended upon the individual in almost every case whether his participation one way or the other was motived by convictions as to the public good or by private interests. The number of those who directly or indirectly were attached to the warring houses almost divided the realm between them and the wretched people were badly treated by both parties.[1683] So widespread and deep rooted was this mutual enmity throughout France, that the Venetian ambassador, no mean observer, wondered when it would end, because it was to the interest of each to sustain it. The King was a shuttlecock in this game of political battledore. The ruin of the crown, instead of being feared by them, was regarded as a possible way to give their enmity freer rein. Each party counted not only upon paying its debts, which were enormous, by victory, but in establishing the power of its house more permanently than ever for the future. While the war cost the King and the country _écus par milliers_, it cost them nothing, at least of their own. The weakness of the crown was the strength of the rivals. They fattened on war, for peace deprived them of their authority, their power, and their partisans. Until one or the other faction was crushed, the hostility was certain to endure, and thus the war seemed doomed to last indefinitely. If, as the result of fatigue or a truce, a respite was made, the time was brief, and was terminated as soon as one or the other side had accumulated some substance again. The only remedy for such a state of affairs was to be found in a foreign war, either in Flanders or Italy.[1684]

The union of the Huguenots and the Politiques made them very strong, especially in the south. But on the other hand the duke of Guise received much assistance from Flanders. When the successor of Alva, Requesens, learned of the death of Charles IX, he had offered the aid of Spanish troops to Catherine de Medici.[1685] Although the proffer was declined, the practical result was the same, for owing to lack of pay in the Low Countries, thousands of reiters and Walloon and German footmen flocked across the border in the summer and autumn, where they were welcomed by the duke of Guise, who, somewhere and somehow, found the means to pay them.[1686] But below the stratum of professional soldiers in France there was another class in arms which feudal society was not used to see in such a capacity. This was the people; not town militia, for town and provincial leagues had made men familiar with them, but the peasantry. The protracted wars by economically ruining and morally debauching this class had generated a breed of men who sprang from the soil like the dragon’s teeth of Greek fable, men who by observation and practice were used to the matchlock and the sword, brutalized by oppression, long made desperate by burdensome taxes and the wrongs of war.[1687]

[Illustration: PIKEMAN AND COLOR-BEARER

(Tortorel and Perissin)]

The weariness of vigil in the depth of winter and overconfidence seem to have relaxed the alertness of Henry III’s foes. At any rate, having extorted 50,000 francs from the noblemen and gentlemen in his train in order to pay the soldiery around him, the King, raising the siege of Livron on January 24, 1575, managed to slip through the defiles to Rheims for his coronation. The coronation was a triumph of the Guises. For far from being set back by the death of the cardinal of Lorraine on December 29, at Avignon[1688] their star seemed to be higher than before. The cardinal of Guise took the place of his deceased uncle as primate of Rheims; the duke of Guise was grand chamberlain; and the duke of Mayenne and the marquis d’Elbœuf were the chief lay peers. The sole outsider was De Retz who officiated as constable for the occasion. The crowning took place on February 15. Shortly after the event, apparently in a sudden whim of passion, Henry III married Louise de Vaudmont, whose father was uncle of the duke of Lorraine and whose mother had been sister of the unfortunate Egmont. But the marriage was without political significance—indeed the new queen was of so little station that Catherine de Medici, in a letter to Queen Elizabeth, expressed her humiliation at her son’s marriage.[1689]

[Illustration: ARQUEBUSIER

(Tortorel and Perissin)]

The main issues of France, religious toleration and political reform, were now more obscured than ever by the rivalry of the factions around the throne. The queen mother bore the Guises greater hatred than before because of their new ascendency and had little less spleen toward the Montmorencys, but carefully dissimulated and sought on one pretext and another to remove them from around her son. For this purpose Bellegarde, who was an old attaché of the house of Montmorency and owed his popularity with the King to a handsome face and a well-turned leg, was made a special ambassador to Poland in order to get him out of the way. His comrade on the mission was Elbœuf—an ill-matched pair indeed. Their business was to carry 200,000 crowns of the Paris bourgeois to Poland to bribe the Polish diet not to elect a successor to the absent Henry. If the Poles were obdurate, Elbœuf was to advocate the election of the duke of Ferrara, who had Guisard blood in his veins. At the same time Biron and Matignon were made marshals to counterpoise the influence of De Retz who forthwith resigned his office and vowed he would “meddle no more.” There were heart-burnings, also, over the bestowal of the government of Normandy, vacated by the death of the duke of Bouillon. The duke of Nevers claimed that it had been promised him while in Poland; the duchess of Nemours demanded the post for the duke and declared that Nevers was “a foreigner.” Henry III finally sought to compromise by giving the office to his insignificant father-in-law, whereupon the duke of Nevers quit the court in a rage. Squabbles of precedence, too, vexed the King’s mind. Montpensier challenged the claims of the Guises to court precedence before the Parlement, and Madame de Nemours therefore quarreled with her daughter. “They were all bent to preparations of war,” quaintly wrote Dale to Walsingham, “but these domestic discords do tame them. It is a very hell among them, not one content or in quiet with another, nor mother with son, nor brother with brother, nor mother with daughter.”[1690]

The state of the finances was deplorable, and Henry resorted to various devices to provide himself with funds. The mission of Elbœuf and Bellegarde to Poland was delayed, while the King implored the Pope, the duke of Savoy, and Venice for the money needed;[1691] the pay of the King’s household servants was nine months in arrears and the last money wages of his guards had been paid by an assessment levied by the King upon the noblemen and gentlemen of the court. Paris, as usual, was heavily mulcted by a forced loan of 600,000 francs, besides heavy contributions extorted from the foreign merchants there. But the mass of the money had to come from the church lands. A letter-patent in the form of an edict was forced through the Parlement authorizing the alienation of 200,000 livres de rente of the temporalities of the clergy, the King reckoning to raise a million and a half of francs by the process, but few were ready purchasers. In addition to these practices the “parties casuelles” were farmed to a Florentine money-broker named Diaceto for 60,000 francs per month. Henry III resorted to worse expedients than these, though. He sold four seats in his council for 15,000 livres each; forced the collectors of the revenue to anticipate the revenue for a twelve-month and then dispossessed them of their posts after he had deprived them of the profits thereof and sold them to others; and dilapidated the forest domain by selling two trees in each arpent.[1692]

The position and conduct of Damville afforded the greatest hope for the future if Henry III could have been made to see things in the right way. Damville himself dominated all Languedoc and Provence; his lieutenant, Montbrun, controlled Dauphiné; Turenne was in possession of Auvergne; the Rochellois had agents at court seeking for a firm settlement of affairs; even the cardinal Bourbon and the duke of Montpensier leaned to the side of the Politiques. In 1575 the existence of the old party of Huguenots, the Huguenots of religion, was practically at an end. Individual radical Calvinists there were in plenty but the Protestant _organization_ was that of the political Huguenots.

It was manifest by the spring of 1575 that the prince of Condé and Henry of Navarre on the one hand, and Damville and his brother, together with Alençon, were bound to join hands in the common purpose to establish permanent religious and greater civil liberty in France. “Liberty and reform” was the policy of the hour, if not the watchword. The declaration of the assembly of Milhau in August of the previous year had been the handwriting on the wall—a message which the misguided Henry III obdurately refused to read. On April 25, 1575, that message was repeated in even clearer terms in the form of a manifesto issued by Damville which defined the joint policy of the Politiques and the political Huguenots. It was the declaration of a patriot, and not a partisan, least of all a rebel, who, like Cromwell, found himself compelled to lead a movement for political reform against an obstinate crown that either would not or could not understand the issues.[1693]

Reading between the lines of the constitution agreed upon at Nîmes, the republican nature of the government therein provided for is noticeable.[1694] The right to exercise the sovereign rights of legislation, of justice, of taxation, of making war and peace, of regulating commerce no longer were vested in the King where the Act of Union prevailed, but in a representative body. Languedoc, Provence, and Dauphiné were _de facto_ independent of the crown.[1695] Supplementary articles of Condé and Damville, and of the Catholics and Protestants of Languedoc, Provence, and Dauphiné demanded (1) that freedom of exercise of religion without distinction be permitted; (2) that the parlements should be composed half of Catholics, and half of Protestants, the latter to be nominated by the prince of Condé; (3) that justice be done upon the authors of the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the forfeit and attainder of the admiral be reversed; (4) that the places at present held by the Huguenots be retained besides Boulogne and La Charité, and that for additional defense the King should give them in each province two out of three towns to be named to him by the prince of Condé; (5) that the King pay 200,000 crowns for expenses of the war; (6) that neither the marshal de Retz, nor the chancellor Biragues should have any part in the negotiations for peace; (7) that the duke of Montmorency and the marshal Cossé should be set at liberty, and their innocence declared in full Parlement “en robe rouge;” (8) that the heirs of those who have been murdered should have their estates returned to them; (9) that the queen of England, the elector palatine, and the dukes of Savoy and Deuxponts should be parties to the peace; (10) that within three months after peace the States-General be assembled to establish good order in France.[1696]

For a while there seemed to be a prospect of the King yielding to these demands. He was growing jealous of the influence of the Guises, and began to perceive that coercion was impossible.[1697] At the first audience Henry received the deputies graciously, saying he “liked their speech, but their articles were hard.” The articles were debated _seriatim_ by the King, both with the deputies and with the council. The chief hitch was upon the fourth demand. The King was willing to permit exercise of Protestant worship in _one_ town in each bailiwick, _except closed_ towns, whereas the deputies demanded freedom of worship in all places _in the suburbs_ as provided by the Edict of January. As a matter of prudence, it would seem to have been better policy for the crown to permit worship in the suburbs of all towns rather than exact a provision requiring concentration of the Protestants in one place in each bailiwick; however, the King probably thought Calvinism would be less likely to spread under such a restriction than if the Huguenots enjoyed numerous places of worship.[1698] The queen mother sought to persuade Montmorency to use his influence to abate the demands with promise of release from the Bastille as his reward. But the duke replied that “if his imprisonment might do the King pleasure or profit he was content to be there all his life; but to meddle in the peace, or to write of that matter, never understanding their doings, were to make himself guilty in it, and to be thought to make himself to be an instrument to their ruin, and therefore it were ill for him.”[1699] Thereupon Henry III broke off the negotiations hoping still, as earlier, to be able to separate the Huguenots and the united Catholics.

Events thereafter thickened rapidly. Narbonne, Perigueux, and Tournon in Lyonnais were taken by the Huguenot-Politique armies. The last place was got by Damville himself. Tournon was an especially strong town on the Rhone about three leagues from Valence, with Livron to the south of it. The capture so discouraged the duke d’Uzes that he requested leave to resign on account of the desertions among his following.[1700] Instead command was given him, “to spoil Languedoc in order to famish them against winter.” But the duke was too wise to obey and Damville was permitted to gather in the harvest without molestation. For if the King had tried ravaging, the whole country would have risen against him. St. Jean-d’Angély, Angoulême, and Nérac revolted so far as to expel the garrisons in the town. In Burgundy, where Tavannes had founded the League of the Holy Spirit, a Politique league was formed.[1701] The narrow escape Damville had at this time from death by poison drew men more than ever to him. As a climax to the woes of Henry III on July 15, 1575, the Polish diet declared the throne vacant, absolving all from allegiance to him.[1702]

The _spontaneous_ nature of the rising of the country in the summer of 1575 is an interesting historical phenomenon. It was by no means confined to the south of France. In Champagne, the nobles, some of them vassals of Guise, and _peasants_ united to fall upon the reiters. Madame de Guise fled from Joinville in fear of being surprised by a sixteenth-century Jacquerie. In Brittany there was a similar stir when the King attempted to confiscate the extensive lands of the duke of Rohan upon his death. Certain things remind one of happenings in the French Revolution. Many in Champagne left the land and went into the borders of Germany like the “émigrés” after August 4, 1789. In Paris there were house-to-house visits not unlike those of September, 1793. There was universal feeling against the reiters. In Normandy an association of gentlemen was formed for the special purpose of protecting the country from them.[1703]

The anxiety of the government was all the greater because it was not exactly known what relations existed between the Huguenots and Politiques and the English. The treaty which had obtained between Charles IX and Elizabeth was renewed by the latter on April 1, 1575, and confirmed by Henry III on May 4.[1704] But Elizabeth was not the person to be bound by official word. On the Picardy-Flemish border mutual distrust prevailed. In December, 1574, Requesens had advised Philip II of his fear of the renewal of Huguenot activity in the Low Countries, which had been dead since the Genlis disaster,[1705] and the garrisons on the frontiers had been increased accordingly. The marriage of Henry III to Louise de Vaudemont gave the Spanish governor great inquietude, for the unfortunate Egmont was her uncle, and Egmont’s eldest son, in March, visited his royal cousin of France.[1706] Requesens was apprehensive, too, of a marriage between the duke of Alençon and the daughter of William of Orange,[1707] and over the fact that the French envoy in Flanders, the sieur de Mondoucet, prudently avoided using the official post, but employed his own couriers in dispatching missives to Paris.[1708] “All the neighboring states are actuated by malicious intentions,” he wailed to Philip II. “The French and the English are in correspondence, and both are inspired by the same spirit of hostility against the Catholic religion and against your majesty, as the sole protector thereof.”[1709]

The arrest of a secretary of Montmorency at Boulogne in March, as he arrived from England, and who admitted he was going to find Damville,[1710] coupled with the absence of the prince of Condé and Charles de Meru, the youngest Montmorency, in Germany, so disquieted the King that early in June Schomberg was dispatched across the Rhine to discover what Condé was doing; if he found that levies of cavalry were being made for service in France, he was instructed to enroll 8,000 soldiers for the service of the King.

Schomberg proved a good agent, for he shortly afterward wrote that he believed a secret engagement existed between Queen Elizabeth, some of the German princes, and the enemies of the French King at home; and that Condé, having expended 30,000 crowns, had raised 8,000 cavalry which might be expected to arrive at the frontier by the middle of August, although it was given out, and believed by some, that these reiters were intended for service in the Netherlands.[1711] On the strength of these suspicions, especially when the duke of Guise sent word in the first week of September that 2,500 reiters had crossed the Rhine, the English ambassador, Dr. Dale, who hitherto had lodged in the Faubourg St. Germain, was advised to remove into the city, ostensibly for his greater security, but really to prevent him from receiving unknown persons secretly at night, as was possible where he resided.[1712]

At this juncture, when everything was tense and everybody was on edge, the duke of Alençon managed to make his escape from the court (September 15). While not actually confined, like the duke of Montmorency, he and Henry of Navarre had both been kept under continuous surveillance for months and various efforts made by them to get away had failed. Dismay prevailed at court when the escape was known. The King was “as a man out of courage,” and betook himself to extravagant religious demonstration, as before, when at Avignon, “going from church, as though deserted by all his people.”[1713] He knew that his brother’s presence would draw many of the gentry, who were yet hesitating, to the ranks of the Politiques.[1714] He had no means to levy an army, nor the resources to sustain it.

In this crisis Catherine de Medici kept the clearest head of all at the court. While she sought to wheedle the runaway prince with smooth words, going as far as Dreux to meet him, detachments were ordered out from Rouen, Orleans, and Chartres to surround him. But Alençon was not to be trapped and rode swiftly off toward the Loire in the hope of falling in with La Noue or the viscount of Turenne. At the same time the duke of Guise was ordered to make a vigorous resistance against the coming of Condé’s reiters. But even his army was in a bad state on account of the defection of officers and men, who had gone over to Alençon, so that new troops had to be sent him.[1715] Almost all the soldiery in the service of the King was withdrawn from Dauphiné and Languedoc and concentrated in Burgundy and Champagne.[1716] Much depended upon the result of the coming battle with the reiters. If the King’s troops were beaten, Paris would be in a serious strait between the King’s enemies. Already, in consequence of the withdrawal of troops, all Auvergne, Bourbonnais, Nivernais, Gâtinais, and the Beauce were in arms, and the gentlemen of these regions had gone over to the duke of Alençon. Only the vigilance of the garrisons at Orleans and Tours, Moulins and Nevers, enabled the crown to maintain the line of the Loire river.

The reiters attempted to evade Guise and find another way of entrance into France, so that the duke left his artillery in Lorraine and by forced marches went to Sedan, with the intention of giving battle there. But the reiters, about 2,500, under Thoré, avoided an engagement and maneuvered to join a Protestant force of 2,000 Picards, and Guise fell back on Rheims in order to hold the crossing of the Aisne, meantime asking the King for reinforcements which were so slow in coming that the duke was compelled to retire to the Marne. On October 9 he established his headquarters between Château-Thierry and Epernay, near Port-à-Pinson. The encounter took place near Fismes, on the Marne, above Dormans, on October 10. Not more than fifty were killed on either side and the combat did not deter the reiters from continuing their course and crossing the Seine near Nogent-sur-Seine, which they were able to do on account of low water. Their chief loss was of two or three cornets of reiters whom Guise bribed to desert. De Thoré owed his easy escape, however, to the serious wound which the duke of Guise sustained. For a bullet struck him in the side of the face, tearing his ear clear away and so mangling the cheek that he was fearfully scarred for the rest of his life and always wore a velvet mask.[1717]

The insignificance of the victory of the duke, however, did not deter the King from proclaiming a solemn procession and _Te Deum_ in honor of the day. The “victory” also was made the justification of a new tax. On October 12, 1575, by command of the King, the burgesses of Paris assembled in the grand room of the Hôtel-de-Ville where the provost of the merchants, Charron, made known a new demand of the King for aid in the form of a capitation tax upon the burgesses of the city and other places in the _prévôté_ of Paris for the payment of 3,000 Swiss, making half of the 6,000 which the King required for defense of the realm, in addition to the sum of 15,000 francs expected for each of the ensuing months.

Once again were the people of Champagne made the victims of the spoiler. All the horses of the poor laborers whom the reiters encountered on the road were forcibly seized, as was also the case in the hostelries where they lodged. A single parish lost thirty horses. The only payment the poor peasantry got was to be beaten for their protests.

For the space of three or four days one might see along the roads and in the villages soldiers all of the time, making for the crossing of the Seine at La Motte de Tilly. Two troopers rode one horse and their presence was hard upon the merchants and the priests, whom they met in the way. The smaller merchants were despoiled of their property, and those known to be wealthy had their riches extorted from them by force, or else were held prisoner until ransomed. To make matters worse, in the wake of the army came a rabble of looters and plunderers, mostly French.[1718]

It was obvious that as long as the reiters were in the field, the King could send no force against his brother. He blamed the queen mother for everything that had happened, especially for the escape of Alençon, and Catherine, by way of reply, is said to have sent him a copy of Commines to read with the advice to emulate the policy of his crafty predecessor. But as a contemporary scornfully observed, Henry of Valois was not Louis XI. What could be expected from a King who spent his time “going from abbey to abbey and devising with women.”[1719] In sorrow and anxiety, sustained by the dukes of Montmorency and Montpensier and the fine old marshal Cossé, Catherine made earnest efforts to negotiate a truce with the duke of Alençon.

Prefacing his demands by the caution that he could not negotiate finally without Condé or Damville, Alençon demanded surrender of Pont-de-Cé on the Loire, besides La Charité, Bourges, Angoulême, Niort, Saumur, and Angers for the Huguenots; and Mezières in Champagne, Langres in Burgundy, or La Fère in Picardy for the prince of Condé;[1720] a large settlement for himself; a promise that the States-General should be convened for the Politiques; the crown to pay 200,000 crowns to the Protestant reiters; the exercise of Calvinist worship in as ample terms as obtained in 1570 (till more fully provided for in the ultimate articles of peace); the revolted provinces to remain in arms, except in the case of mercenaries, it being understood that no acts of hostility be done and commerce and trade to be free during the interim. The King’s council, when these sweeping terms were laid before it, advised the King to yield, seeing no way out on account of lack of means to carry on the war. But Henry III was furious and threw the articles in the fire. In defiance of the advice of his friends, who told him to employ what few funds he had in corrupting the reiters with Condé, he sent 30,000 crowns more to Germany to purchase assistance.

In this strait, money came suddenly, as from heaven. The papal nuncio proffered 100,000 crowns at once and promised 200,000 more, while the Venetian government, in memory of his visit there in the year previous, made him a gift of his jewels that were in pawn. Finally, to crown the King’s jubilation at this sudden turn of events, word came from Germany that the reiters hired by Schomberg and Bassompierre were coming “and would not be stayed by the truce.” Henry III at once broke off negotiations. The hope was to sever Alençon from the prince of Condé and then, preferably by bribery, by war if necessary, overcome the latter, for Schomberg persuaded the King that this course was practicable. To this end commissioners were sent abroad to levy new taxes.[1721] Great ingenuity was shown in the devising of new forms of taxation. In June, 1575, two edicts had been issued, one requiring the fixing of new seals to bolts of woolen cloth and the establishment of a _greffier des tailles_ in each parish;[1722] the other creating the office of four _arpenteurs_ (land commissioners) in each jurisdiction of the realm. The number of notaries was also augmented.[1723] In December the King made a pretext of the coming of the reiters to demand a new subsidy from the pliant and obedient people of France, under cover of raising men for the war. Of the Parisians he demanded the sum of 200,000 livres, to pay three thousand Swiss. Another pretext was the repair of the bridge at Charenton, which the Huguenots had broken in 1567.[1724] These taxes fell all the more heavily because in addition to the ruin of the country by war, the crops were short throughout the land on account of the dry summer. “The rivers everywhere were so low that in many places one could wade them. Every morning the sun rose and every evening it set red and inflamed.”[1725]

In the meantime, fear prevailed in Paris lest the forces of Damville and the viscount of Turenne would effect a junction with those of the duke of Alençon and the united body march upon Paris, and garrisons were hastily put in Montereau, Corbeil, Charenton, St. Cloud, and St. Denis. The old trenches on both sides of the river were repaired and platforms erected in the fields around the city. Montmartre especially was fortified. The townspeople of the capital as well as villagers from the outside were impressed into the work with picks, shovels, and baskets. Mills were erected within the city, and the city was provisioned. The King issued an edict ordering the peasantry within thirty leagues around the capital to thrash their grain and to store it in fortified towns known to be faithful to the crown, unless they were dwelling within nine leagues of Paris, in which case the grain was to be brought into the city. All the passages of the Loire were guarded. The result of all this was a reign of terror in the Ile-de-France. The soldiery indulged in all sorts of brigandage, so that in sheer desperation the villagers sometimes fired their towns. Provisions were commandeered without recompense. To such outrages were the poor people subjected that the inhabitants of one town, Jogny, begged the commander to have mercy upon them. But instead of so doing, Puygaillard loaded the little deputation with reproaches and had them beaten by the soldiers in the presence of all.[1726]

With the memory of the elder prince of Condé’s presence before the walls of Paris, and the battle of St. Denis, where the constable Montmorency was killed, the Parisians were willing to labor in the trenches for the safety of Paris. But they were not willing to be taxed further. In a remarkable remonstrance, joined in by the clergy, the Parlement, the Chambre des Comptes, the Cour des Aides, the provost of Paris, and the bourgeois and citizens of every quarter of the city, protest was made against the extortion of 200,000 livres, which Henry III proposed to raise in this hour of extremity. After reciting that civil discord had prevailed in France since 1560, and that during the space of fifteen years the crown had obtained 36,000,000 francs from Paris and other towns, and 60,000,000 from the clergy, besides other gifts and subsidies, with little progress to show either in politics or religion, the memorial proceeded to point out some of the causes of this universal corruption in scathing terms:

Simony is openly permitted. Benefices are held by married gentlewomen who employ the revenues far differently to the intention of the founders. The people are left without religious instruction and thus stray from the true religion. There is but little justice to be obtained through the venality of the tribunals, causing their neighbors to hold them in abomination. The number of those holding office is very great and part of them notoriously incapable and the rest poor, being thereby prone to evil actions. Justice is further impeded by the impunity with which murder is committed. Great cruelties and barbarities are committed by the foot soldiers and by the gendarmerie, which does not now consist of gentlemen but of persons of vile condition. Not only by these, but by the soldiers of his guard, is pillage made on the houses of his people, ecclesiastical holdings, and hospitals even in Paris itself, so that the poor cannot obtain common necessaries.[1727]

During these weeks Montmorency had earnestly labored in favor of peace, pleading, arguing, expostulating both with his own younger brothers and Alençon. He was as earnestly supported by Catherine de Medici, now converted to a peace policy by the force of events,[1728] but both were continually thwarted either by the King’s inconstancy or the machinations of the Guises.

The illness of the queen mother—she suffered so much from sciatica that often she was unable to leave her chamber—and the frivolity of the King were a positive advantage to the Guises’ policy.

It will be remembered that the fortress of La Fère had been tentatively demanded of the King for the prince of Condé. Henry III had replied offering Doulens in Picardy instead of either La Fère or Peronne, which was later suggested, on the plea that he could not exact obedience from the inhabitants of the latter places. This demand for a border fortress near Flanders was made by the duke of Alençon, in reality to further his own advantage in the Spanish Netherlands, and he took the method of having Condé take title to it as a means of concealing his purpose.

The possible disposal of any border fortress in Picardy in such a way tremendously alarmed the king of Spain and the Guises who concerted to break the peace.[1729] This plan is the true origin of the formation of the famous Holy League, which, although it assumed organized form only after the peace of Bergerac (September 17, 1576), nevertheless existed in a tentative state this early, in the combined action of the dukes of Guise, Nemours, Mayenne, and Nevers, Biragues the chancellor, and other satellites of the house of Guise to prevent peace being made on such terms, and to break it in event of its being made.[1730] Twice this cabal called upon the King to give battle before all the forces of the opposition were united and twice the queen mother foiled their purpose by securing delay. On February 22 a violent scene took place between her and the council—Henry III was sick—in which Catherine branded those who said her son was a traitor as liars and declared that in spite of opposition “it shall be peace.”

The indifference of Henry III to the gravity of the situation and his supreme egotism are remarkable, yet thoroughly in keeping with his character. For hours together he would prate of poetry and philosophy—“de primis causis, de sensu et sensibili and such like questions”—with his favorites, in the retirement of a cabinet, while the realm was going to rack and ruin. The Venetian ambassador describes one of these symposiums with minute care in a dispatch of February 3, 1576.

For the last few days [he says] his Majesty has taken his pleasure by retiring into a small apartment which has no window, and to his apartment his Majesty summons four or five youths of the city who follow the profession of poets and light literature, and to meet these people his Majesty invites the Duke of Nevers, the Grand Prior, Biragues, Monseigneur, De Soure, the queen of Navarre, his sister, Madame de Nevers, and the marshal de Retz, all of whom profess to delight in poetry. When they are thus assembled his Majesty orders one of these youths to speak in praise of one of the virtues, exalting it above all the others, and as soon as he has concluded his reasoning each person in turn argues against the proposal which has been made. His Majesty consumes many hours in this exercise, to the small satisfaction of the queen mother and everybody else, who would desire to see in times so calamitous his Majesty attending to his urgent affairs, and not to amusements, which, however praiseworthy at other times, are now from the necessity of the case condemned by all, seeing that the King for this cause fails to be present at his council and there to discuss matters which are of the greatest importance and which having regard to his own position and that of his kingdom can easily be imagined to require attention.[1731]

Strange as it may seem, the Guises’ determination to continue the war comported with the wishes of some of their enemies—a circumstance which illustrates how singular was the alliance existing between the Huguenots and the Politiques. The religious Huguenots already, in the middle of December, had remonstrated against the terms of peace proposed on the ground that the offers made did not promise as much of advantage or security as a continuation of the war. It was argued that the truce would result in greater prejudice to them since the King would still be prepared for war and that if they now let the opportunity pass of establishing their fortune by the aid of the reiters, the result would bring calamity to them.[1732] These narrow-minded dissidents looked with ill favor upon the politic course of the duke of Alençon in avoiding the pillage of the towns he took, even of trusting to their loyalty and refraining from putting garrisons in them (some of these towns were Dreux, Romorantin, Thouars, and Loudun), and censured him for his pacific overtures to the Parlement of Paris.[1733] Accordingly they hailed with delight the escape of Henry of Navarre (February 5, 1576), and his immediate abjuration[1734] of the Catholic faith which he had been forced to confess on St. Bartholomew’s Day, and the renewed advance of the reiters into Burgundy and Auvergne and thence across the Loire into Bourbonnais, notwithstanding the fact that these mounted mercenaries “made a terrible spoil with fire and fagots” wherever they went.

The reiters took the road toward Langres, crossed the Seine above Châtillon into Auxerre, making for the passage of the Loire River at La Charité, in order to effect a junction with the duke of Alençon, who was in Berry, not far from Bourges. Champagne and Brie were filled with robbers in the wake of their advance, who, pretending that they were soldiers, plundered the townspeople and robbed wayfarers and travelers. There were regular bands of these freebooters, the members of which were paid regular wages by their captains. But the anarchy in the provinces did not compel the King to stop his dallying with philosophy, or his love for mad-cap pranks. He went off on a Shrovetide frolic in March, “riding about the town to cast eggs and such other disorders,” leaving Mayenne to labor with those nobles who refused to be commanded “by a boy that never saw wars and a soldiery whose pay was a whole quarter in arrears.”[1735] Mayenne made his headquarters at Moulins to prevent the reiters uniting with Alençon and the Huguenots of Poitou and Guyenne. It required all the address of the marshal Biron to restrain the young commander from throwing himself upon them, almost careless of the outcome, for defeat could have been little worse than the daily shrinkage of his army from desertion.[1736]

Henry III at first had pretended to make light of the escape of his cousin. But the presence of Henry of Navarre in the field soon had an important influence. It was the one thing needful to complete the organization of the Huguenots, many of whom looked upon the prince of Condé more as a Politique than as one of them. The harmonious working of the two parties opposed to the crown was now possible in greater degree than before. Henry of Navarre, the prince of Condé, the duke of Alençon, and Damville united, were in a position to bring things to a focus. The actual territory controlled by Henry III at this time was little, if any, greater than the ancient Ile-de-France, Burgundy, and Champagne of his ancestors in the twelfth century. The Huguenots and Politiques so divided the realm among themselves that a map of the kingdom at this time reminds one of that of France in the feudal age. Henry of Navarre had made his headquarters at Saumur and thus was able easily to control Anjou; the allegiance of Guyenne, Béarn, and Poitou was certain; the duke of Alençon was in occupation of the “midlands”—Berry (except Bourges) and most of Bourbonnais and Nivernais. Young Coligny, who had succeeded Montbrun, was in Dauphiné, and his fealty to the religion was unswerving; Damville and his lieutenants controlled all Languedoc, Provence, and Auvergne; young Montgomery was in Lower Normandy where English assistance secretly helped him, while the prince of Condé, backed by the count palatine, endangered Picardy.

The winning cards were all in the hands of the Huguenots and the Politiques. Without territory, without funds, with an unpaid army or hireling mercenaries only, the crown had no other recourse than to accept the situation and make peace unless Henry III and the queen mother stooped to the worse humiliation of receiving the support of Philip II. And so it came to pass that while Paris daily expected to withstand a siege and the faubourgs and gates were so crowded with those living outside the walls and refugees from the environs “that a man could scarce enter the gates for the people, carriages, and cattle,”[1737] Henry III signed the Act of Peace, May 2, 1576.

The peace of 1576, sometimes called the Peace of Monsieur, from the duke of Alençon’s prominent part in its formation, was the most complete and elaborate charter yet given the Huguenots, embodying the wisdom that experience had taught. It is to be noticed that the settlement involved both toleration of the religion and political reform. The provisions of this composite peace may be classified under four heads, each of which was an essential element in the late opposition to the crown, viz:—the Huguenots, Henry of Navarre, the duke of Alençon, the Politiques.

The King granted to the Huguenots public exercise of the Calvinist religion throughout France except within two leagues of the court and four leagues of Paris. The Huguenots were declared eligible to all offices and dignities without discrimination on account of religion. As a security for the King’s justice against possible abuse of these rights, the crown engaged to establish mixed parlements, half Catholic, half Protestant, at Poitiers, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Montpellier, Grenoble, Aix, Dijon, Rheims, and Rouen, and a new chamber in the Parlement of Paris with two presidents and eighteen councilors, nine of them Catholic, nine Protestant. Protestant advocates, _procureurs-généraux_ and _greffiers_ civil and criminal were to be connected with each of these mixed parlements.

For further protection of the Huguenots, eight cautionary towns were to be ceded to them, to wit: Aigues-Mortes and Beaucaire in Languedoc; Périgueux and Le Mas de Verdun in Guyenne; La Rochelle in Poitou; Yssoire in Auvergne; Nions and Serres (château included) in Dauphiné; Cennes “la grande tour et le circuit” in Provence. Additional demands were for general oblivion for all conduct and action by persons of either side; revocation of all decrees, judgments, and proclamations hitherto made; rehabilitation of the memory of Admiral Coligny and restoration of their livings and honors to his children as well as in the cases of Montgomery, Montbrun, Bricquemault, and Cavagnies. No prosecution was to be made with regard to the actions done at St. Germain-en-Laye and Bois de Vincennes.

Two of these provisions were received with great dissatisfaction by the Huguenot deputies and when published were decried by many of the Protestants. The first of them was the prohibition of Protestant worship within the faubourgs of Paris, the act specifically declaring that St. Denis, St. Maur-des-Fosses, Pont-de-Charenton, Bourg-la-Reine and Port de Neuilly were within the prohibited confines. The other one which met with great objection was that touching the security towns.[1738] The deputies demanded two towns in every government (there were fourteen governments). But the King would yield only eight, these to be chosen from the towns already in possession of the Huguenots, a proviso which eliminated such important points as Niort, Angoulême, and Cognac. In the case of La Charité and Saumur, over which the longest discussion arose, a compromise was reached by giving them to Alençon in appanage. Long and acrimonious debate was made over this article, and at one stage the negotiations were so nearly broken off that Paris was notified to be prepared for a renewal of the war. The crown’s demands in this matter were really not unreasonable, for these eight towns were not included in the number given to Henry of Navarre or the prince of Condé, or in the appanage of the duke of Alençon.[1739]

If the demands of the Huguenots were excessive, those of Henry of Navarre were still more sweeping. He not only aimed to live like a king in the future in his own country of Béarn, but sought to commit the crown to the recovery of the kingdom of Navarre as well. All the past claims and grievances of his ancestry were embodied. He demanded: That the King of Navarre command in his government of Guyenne extending from Pilles to Bayonne, in such manner as his ancestors had done; that all captains and governors obey him as the governor and lieutenant-general of the King; that he have the providing of the necessary garrisons; that all his lands and seignories should recognize no other government than he appointed and that all towns and fortresses belonging to him should be at once surrendered; that his right to his kingdom be preserved, and that his subjects should not be taxed for the services of the king of France, according to their ancient immunities; that all gentlemen being his servants, officers, or subjects should come and go and traffic freely through all France without molestation; that his officers and servants should enjoy such privileges as if they served the royal family of France; that he and his heirs should be discharged from the guarantee given by himself and his mother toward the purchases of ecclesiastical property, and for the payment of the reiters; that in view of the fact that the late king had granted 200,000 livres to his mother, the late queen of Navarre, for the celebration of the nuptials of himself and his queen, the King’s sister, which has never been paid, and furthermore, because there was also yet due 120,000 livres, arrears of the pension of the late king of Navarre, he prayed the King to deal with him as favorably as he could for payment; that if any offices or benefices fell vacant in seignories of the king of Navarre, he should have the nominating and presenting of such persons; that the King would preserve to him in his lands and seignories his privileges and accustomed sources of revenue, such as the _droit de tabellionage_ and _de sceaux_.

Having so far required everything that could conceivably be based upon things present, Henry endeavored to revive the ancient claims of his house in a startling fashion. The old feudal spirit of William of Aquitaine and Raymond of Toulouse seems to have been reincarnated in his person at this time. For Henry demanded further that he be recompensed for the 6,000 livres promised in time past, in virtue of the right that Françoise de Bretagne, wife of Aleyne, sieur d’Albret, father of John of Navarre, had had to the duchy of Brittany.[1740] But even this was not all, for Henry of Navarre finally made the demand that the pension of 46,000 livres which his grandfather had enjoyed in recompense for the loss of Navarre, from which his great grandfather had been expelled in 1512 by Ferdinand of Aragon, be continued to him, and _that the King of France should promise to help him to recover Navarre!_[1741]

In the nature of things, not a tithe of these demands could be granted by the crown, least of all the last. The massacre of St. Bartholomew had proved how perilous it was to try to drive Catholic France into a war with Spain, and France was less ready now than in 1570-72 to join battle with Philip. Perforce Henry of Navarre had to be content with a restoration of things as they were on August 24, 1572.[1742]

The duke of Alençon had created for him a position stronger than that of Henry of Navarre. As a prince of the blood and as a Politique he occupied middle ground between the crown and the Huguenots; in consequence, many of the places which neither of the chief principals was willing to resign were included in the grant to him. While technically all the territories so concerned were regarded as appanages,[1743] it is plain that a distinction may easily be made between the duchies of Alençon, Maine, Anjou, Touraine, and La Roche—which had originally been given him as a prince of the blood—and places like Bourges, Moulins, Loches, Saumur, La Charité, Pont-de-Sel, Amiens, Moulans, and Mantes. These latter possessions were practically a class apart of security cities intrusted by compromise to the duke. This was particularly true of Saumur and La Charité, which insured the Protestants of passage across the lower and upper Loire, and so linked the South with Normandy on the North and the Palatinate and the German Protestant states to the east. Moreover, Moulins in Bourbonnais and Bourges in Berry assured the Protestants of position there, so that the whole left bank of the Loire from Auvergne to Nantes was in their control. Mantes was meant to compensate the Huguenots in the vicinity of Paris for the loss of Charenton.

The King yielded the government of Picardy again to the prince of Condé, but the matter of what town should be his created much heated argument. The prince himself at first stoutly contended for Boulogne, although he did not say that its convenience to England was the chief reason for his desire. But Henry III as stoutly refused. Then Amiens was suggested, and as compromise this city was given to the King’s brother. Condé then demanded Peronne. Although the King would have preferred Doulens or even St. Quentin to this concession, he yielded. The only other detail concerning the prince was the obligation to pay his and his father’s debts in Germany, which the crown assumed.

Damville did not come in for as much honor as his colleagues, but was far from being ignored. As the chief of the Politiques or “les catholiques associez,” as they were defined in the interest of peace, Damville was and remained the leading man in Languedoc. Aside from the retention of Damville in his government, promise was made the Politiques to summon the States-General at Blois within six months for the reformation and reorganization of the administration.[1744]

It follows as a matter of course that the maintenance and protection of the multitude of social and civil rights that made the web and woof of a civilized society was guaranteed, such as the validity of Protestant marriage, land and property titles, freedom of education, commerce and trade, etc.

A very delicate matter to adjust was the future relation of the electoral count palatine and the duke John Casimir, his son. A secret alliance had existed between the count palatine, England, and the prince of Condé since July, 1575. In November, Alençon and the Politiques joined the alliance. One of the terms of that alliance was that Metz, Toul, and Verdun were to pass to Casimir as the price of his support and both Huguenots and Politiques—at least Alençon—stood pledged to assist him in securing these Three Bishoprics. But it was manifestly impossible to expect the French crown to grant such a cession, nor is it probable, now that peace had come, that any in France looked with amiability upon this article of the contract of Heidelberg. It were too great a humiliation to have this brilliant conquest of 1552 thus passively surrendered. Fortunately it was found possible to placate John Casimir with less distinguished sacrifices. His claims were purchased for an enormous sum of money—or at least the promise of it; no less than two million florins (three million francs), part to be paid in the coming June and the balance at the next two fairs at Frankfurt, in addition to which he received the whole seigneury of Château-Thierry[1745]—worth 20,000 francs per annum—a perpetual colonelcy of 4,000 horse, a company of 100 men-at-arms and 12 reitmeisters, all of which was confirmed by Henry III’s declaration that he would “repute and esteem the count palatine and Duke Casimir as good neighbors.”

The terms of the Peace of Monsieur[1746] were exceedingly unpopular in Paris, whose citizens had been the heaviest contributors to the expenses of the war thus closed and who had made strenuous military preparations in defense of the capital, and the unpopularity of Henry III was not enhanced in the eyes of the Parisians by the King’s repudiation of a part of the _rentes_, the incomes of which were the chief means of support with many. But when Charron, the provost of the merchants, and the counselor Abot, at the head of a deputation of the foremost citizens of the capital protested against this high-handed action to the King’s own face, Henry III with a sneer which carried with it a covert threat rejoined: “Hang a man and he tells no tales.”[1747]

The camps of the duke of Alençon and the Protestants were broken up when the peace was published. The soldiery around La Rochelle and in Poitou, Anjou, and Berry, returned home, except some troops which were reserved until it was seen what Casimir and his reiters, who were near Langres, would do. These marauders with many French of Champagne and Brie, crossed the Yonne above Sens and arrived in Champagne between May 10 and 11 and remained there for a week, living on the land. After having sojourned six or seven days between the Seine and the Vauluisant, on the 16th they moved on to a place between Troyes and the village of Mery-sur-Seine, where they remained for fifteen days to the distress of the people and absolutely destroyed the little village of Marigny, which had but two persons left in it. In order to find food they foraged for miles. The peasantry turned their cattle loose or drove them, together with their possessions, into the fortified towns or châteaux. But the gentry were less safe than the peasantry even, for the latter had already been so despoiled that nothing was left to be taken. Out of this frightful state of affairs rose an organized resistance which is very interesting to observe, for the nobility and gentry of the region and the local peasantry, forgetting their class antagonism, made common cause together. Whenever these “vigilance committees” found themselves to be stronger or happened upon stragglers from the main band, they threw themselves upon them; sometimes the victims were bound and cast alive in the river Aube or Seine. Between St. Loup-de-la-Fosse-Gelane and St. Martin-de-Bossenay, a group of ten or twelve reiters were thus set upon and only one escaped. But the vengeance their comrades meted out upon the offenders was terrible, for the troopers, numbering over a hundred horsemen, the next night burned all the villages round about.[1748]

Not until September was this scourge removed from the land. By that time they were bought off and were conducted to the frontier by Bassompierre, the Alsatian gentleman in the King’s service, who was well rewarded, as he deserved to be, for the accomplishment of the perilous task. But the licensing of the regular troops immediately afterward still prolonged the agony of the province for a season.[1749]

The Peace of Monsieur may fittingly be said to have terminated the period of the _religious_ wars of France. The dominant issue of the succeeding years of conflict from 1576 to 1598 was not a religious, but a political one. Why permanent peace did not result it is not the work of this volume to narrate. Suffice to say that Spain and Spain’s instrument, the Holy League, were to blame for the ensuing years of strife.

The germ of the provincial Catholic leagues had been the desire, on the part of the Catholics of France, to resist the progress of Calvinism. But in the hands of the French nobles these local leagues, controlled by the aristocracy and welded into one mighty organization under the leadership of the duke of Guise, backed by Spanish gold, became a new league of the public weal, which, under the cloak of religion revived the feudal ambition of the French nobility to acquire power at the expense of the crown.

CHÂTILLON—COLIGNY

John III, † 1480 │ ├——————————————————┐ │ │ James II Gaspard I, married † 1512 † 1522 │ ┌——————————————————┼————————————————————————┐ │ │ │ Odet, Gaspard II, Admiral Coligny François d’Andelot bishop of murdered at † 1569 Beauvais St. Bartholomew, 1572 † 1571 │ │ Louise m. _a_) Charles de Teligny, † 1572 _b_) William the Silent

MONTMORENCY

William, † 1531 │ ┌————————————————————————————————┤ │ │ Louise of Anne, d. of Montmorency and constable of France, Montmorency killed at battle of St. Denis, 1567 │ ┌—————————————————┬———————————┴—————┬—————————————┬——————————┐ │ │ │ │ │ Francis, Marshal Henry Damville, Gabriel, sieur de Charles, William, Montmorency governor of Montberon, killed sieur sieur † 1579 Languedoc at battle of Dreux de Méru de Thoré † 1614 1562 │ ┌————————┴——————————┐ │ │ Henry II, Charlotte, m. Henry II, † 1632 Prince of Condé │ Louis II, The Great Condé

HOUSE OF LORRAINE AND GUISE

René le Bon, d. of Anjou and titular king of Naples and Sicily. m. Isabella, d. of _Lorraine_ │ ┌—————————————————┬————————————————————————————┤ │ │ │ Margaret, m. John II, d. of Yolande, d. of Lorraine, m. Henry VI, k. of _Lorraine_ and Ferri II, c. of Vaudemont, England Bar _Guise_, etc. │ │ │ │ Nicholas, d. of _Lorraine_ René II, d. of _Lorraine_ and Bar. † 1473, no and Bar, c. of Vaudemont, male issue _Guise_, etc. † 1508 │ ┌—————————————————————————————————————————┴——————┐ │ │ Antoine, d. of _Lorraine_ Claude I, c. of Aumale, and Bar, † 1544 d. of _Guise_, † 1527 │ │ │ ┌———————┬————————┬——————┬———┴———┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ Francis I, d. of │ Charles, Card. │ Louis, Card. │ _Lorraine_ and Bar │ of _Lorraine_, │ of _Guise_, │ │ │ † 1574 │ † 1578 │ │ │ │ │ │ Francis, d. of Claude, d. Mary, m. James V │ _Guise_, assassinated of Aumale of Scotland │ before Orleans, 1563 │ │ │ │ Charles I, m. │ Mary, queen of Claude of France │ Scots, † 1587 │ │ │ │ │ ├—————————————————┬——————————————┐ │ │ │ │ Charles II, d. Henry, d. of _Guise_, Charles, d. Louis, Cardinal of _Lorraine_ assassinated of Mayenne, of _Guise_, and Bar, † 1608 1588 † 1611 † 1588

HOUSE OF BOURBON

Louis IX, † 1270 │ ┌——————————————————┴———————————————┐ │ │ Philip III, † 1285 Robert, c. of │ Clermont, m. ┌———————————┴—————————————┐ Beatrix, heiress │ │ of Bourbon, † 1317 Philip IV, † 1314 Charles, c. of │ │ Valois., † 1325 Louis, d. of ┌———————┼————————————┐ │ Bourbon, † 1341 │ │ │ │ │ Louis X Philip V Charles IV Philip VI, ┌———————┴———————┐ † 1316 † 1322 † 1328 † 1350 │ │ │ │ Peter, d. James, c. de la │ John II, of Bourbon, Marche, † 1361 John I, † 1364 † 1356 │ † 1431 │ │ John, c. de la │ Louis, d. Marche, † 1393, ┌——————————┬—————————┬————┴——┐ of Bourbon, m. Catharine │ │ │ │ † 1410 heiress of Charles V, Duke of Duke of Duke of │ Vendôme † 1380 Anjou Berri Burgundy │ │ │ │ │ ┌————┴————————————————┐ John, d. ┌———————┴—┐ │ │ of Bourbon, │ │ Charles VI, Louis, d. of † 1433 │ Louis, c. † 1422 Orleans, † 1407 │ │ of Vendôme, │ │ │ │ † 1446 │ │ │ │ │ Charles VII, │ │ James, c. de la │ † 1461 │ │ Marche, † 143 │ │ │ │ │ │ ┌———————┴—————┐ ┌———┴————————┐ John, c. of │ │ │ │ │ Vendôme, │ │ │ │ │ † 1478 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Charles, d. John, c. of Charles, Louis, c. of │ Louis XI, of Orleans, Angoulême, d. of Montpensier │ † 1483 † 1467 † 1467 Bourbon, │ │ │ │ │ † 1456 │ Francis, c. │ │ │ │ │ of Vendôme, │ │ │ │ │ † 1495 │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Gilbert, c. o │ │ │ │ │ Montpensier, │ │ │ │ │ † 1496 │ Charles VIII Louis XII Charles, c. ┌——┴—┬————┐ │ │ † 1498 † 1515 of Angoulême, │ │ │ │ │ † 1496 │ Charles │ │ │ │ │ † 1488 │ │ Charles, d. │ │ │ │ of Vendôme, │ John II Peter II │ † 1537 │ † 1488 │ │ │ │ │ ┌————————————————————————————┘ ┌————————————————┘ ┌————┘ │ │ │ Francis I, ┌———————————————┴———————┐ │ † 1547 │ │ │ │ Charles, constable Francis, │ │ of France, † 1527 † 1525 │ │ │ │ ┌—————————————┬———————————┬——————————————┬————————┴————┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Antoine, d. Francis, c. Charles, Louis, prince Marguerite, │ of Vendôme, of Enghien cardinal of Condé, m. Duke of │ m. Jeanne † 1546 of Bourbon killed at Nevers. │ d’Albret, q. Charles (X) Jarnac, 1569 │ of Navarre, │ │ † 1562 │ │ │ │ Henry II, │ Henry I, of Condé, † 1588 † 1559 │ │ │ │ │ │ Henry IV, † 1610. │ │ m. (1) Margaret of Henry II, of Condé, │ Valois m. (2) Mary m. Charlotte of Montmorency, │ de Medici of whom was born the Great Condé. │ ├——————┬——————┬——————┬———————┬————————┬———————┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Francis II │ Henry III │ Elizabeth m. │ Margaret m. † 1560 │ † 1589 │ Philip II │ Henry IV │ │ │ Charles IX Francis, d. of Claude m. † 1574 Alençon † 1584 Charles, d. of Lorraine

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

[P. 49, n. 2]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. XIII, NO. 456

[_The Cardinal of Lorraine and Duke of Guise to the Queen-Dowager of Scotland_]

Madame nous avons receu votre lettre par ce marinier present porteur et sceu par icelle lestat en quoy sont les affaires de dela [_two pages in cipher_].

Quant aux nouvelles de deca nous voullons bien que vous sachez que depuis quinze ou vingt jours aucuns malheureux ont essaye icy demectre a fin une conjuration quilz avoient faicte pour tuer le Roy et ne nous y oublyoient [pas][1750] tout cela fonde sur la religion dont aucuns des principaulx autheurs [ont este pris] et pugniz. Maiz tant plus nous allons avant et plus trouvons nous [que ceste conspiration] a longue queue ayant este bastie de longue main et appuyee par daucuns gr[andz qui se] sont trouvez bien trompez. Car nostre Seigneur a bien sceu defendre sa cause. S’est quasi le mesmes train qui ont prins voz Rebelles mais ilz voulloient commancer par le sang et lespee une autre fois vous en scaurez plus par le menu. Et pour fin de ceste lettre vous dirons madame que la compaignye faict Dieu mercy tresbonne chere et nous recommandons treshumblement a votre bonne grace, Priant Dieu ma dame vous donner en sante tresbonne et treslongue vye. De Marmoustre le ixº jour davril 1559.

[_Signed_] Voz treshumbles et tresobeissans freres C. Car^[al] de Lorraine Francoys s^[r] de Lorraine.

[_Addressed_] A la Royne Douairiere et regente Descosse.

[_Not endorsed_]

[_Pencil note by editor_] This is dated “more Gallicano” which commences the year at Easter. In 1560, Easter day fell on the 14 of April, consequently this letter dated on the 9th would appear to be, as it is dated, in 1559, being in fact 1560.

No. 460

[“_A portion of the previous letter in French_” (Calendar)]

Estant que avecques plus de commodité et de moyen vous navez esté et nestez secourue autant que nous voyons et jugeons trop bien quil seroit necessaire ce que n’a pas este retardi par faulte de debvoir de soing et de diligence. Car nous en avons cherche ...[1751] moyenes possibles et mesmes po^[r] essayer si ceste Royne dangleterre s ... addoucir et contenir par quelques remedes qui n’ont ... en son endroict, car apres avoir faict du cousté du Roy tout ... de penser po^[r] luy oster la jalousie et le soupcon qu’elle monstre au ... nous y avons employe le Roy catholicque tant que par son ambassadeur il luy ... quil ne souffriroit pas que elle donnast faveur aux rebelles ... aulcune chose au preiudice des droictz et authorite du Roy et de ... fille en Escosse. Depuis y a este envoyé l’evesque de Valence conseillier au ... po^[r] luy rendre raison plus pertinente de l’intention du Roy, et quil ne ch ... l’obeissance de ses subiectz, resolu de retirer ses forces apres qu ... restablies au bon chemin, tout cela n’a de rien servi si elle n’a ... vous avez peu veoir par les articles qu’elle a f ... son Ambassadeur si honteux que nous croyons qu’elle sass ... nous n’en ferions rien et par ainsy elle passeroit oultre ... qui est de la guerre, dont nous veryons peu de moyen de ... si ce n’est po^[r] ... refuge l’ ... de Sieur de Glayon ques^[r] les ... y envoye po^[r] luy en parler des grosses contz ayant delibere si ... obstinee de secourir le Roy de tout ce de luy qu’il vouldra et ... a accorde luy bailler gens et vaiss ... po^[r] remettre lobeissance ... dont il a este prins au mot. Et y a este envoye ... scavoir de la duchesse de Parme de quel nombre ou ... lad. dame charge expresse d’en accommoder le Roy de tout.... Cependant Madame nous ne perdons point le temps a faire ad ... qui sera dun si bon nombre de vaisseaulx et si bien formy de gens et de toutes choses convenables que nous esperons que lad. Royne ne ses forces n’auront pas le moyen de les garder de vous secourir tout le p ... veryons est qu’elle ne peult estre preste que vers la fin de Iuillet. Mais si ferons nous tout ce que sera possible au monde po^[r] la mettre plustost a la voyle et ne espargner argent soing ni diligence comme nous nous asseurons que vous croyez bien. Et neantmoins cherchons nous tous aultres moyens de vous faire secourir de deniers soit de Flandres ou d’ailleurs et aussy ne craindrons nous en adventurer par petites pommes cependant et pour y commencer avons nous advise vous renvoyer ... eur dedans vng aultre petit vaisseau que luy avons faict equipper, ne luy ... espargne aussy argent car il a eu po^[r] estre venu icy et le hazard qu’il a douze centz francz que le Roy luy a donnes et trois centz escus po^[r] son retour. Avecq luy nous vous envoyons par ung clerc qui l’accompaigne la somme de mille livres et vingt cacques de pouldre menue grevée par ce que nous avons sceu par les lettres des sieurs de la Brosse et Doysell qui vous en avez besoing par dela ce sera pour attendre toutz jours mieulx estantz bien deliberez de ... perdre une seule occasion de vous secourir ainsy par le menu au danger ... perdre quelque chose.

Cependant, Madame, il fauldra que de vostre coste vous faciez le mieulx ... pourrez et sur tout qu’il soit donné ordre a tenir les places bien.... rnies louant sa ma^[te] bien fort la defensive sur la quelle les capitaines de dela sont d’advis que vous vous mettiez qui est ung moyen pour avoir la raison de la legerete et mal consyderée entreprise de lad. Royne dont nous esperons que le mal tombera a la fin sur elle et qui Dieu ne laissera impunye la faulte qu’elle faict.

... a este grande consolation au Roy et a toute ceste compaignie d’avoir entendu ... les souldatz de dela ayent si bonne volonté, cela nous faict ... Dieu qui tout yra mieulx qu’elle ne vouldroit car si led.... gneur Roy catholicque chemine en cecy de bon pied dont il nous asseure il est impossible que la chose ne tourne a sa confusion.

Quant aux nouvelles de ca nous voulons bien que vous scachez que depuis xv ou vingt jo^[rs] aulcuns malheureux ont essaye icy de mettre a fin une conjuration quilz avoient faicte po^[r] tuer le Roy et ne nous y oublioient pas. Tout cela fondé sur religion dont aulcuns des principaulx autheurs ont esté pris et punis. Mais tant plus nous allons avant et plus trouvons nous que ceste conspiration a longue queue ayant este bastie de longue main et appuyee par daulcuns grandz qui se sont trouvez bien trompez. Car nostre Seign^[r] a bien sceu defendre sa cause. Ceste [quasi le mesmes][1752] train qui ont prins voz rebelles, mais ilz vouloient [commancer par le] sang et l’espee. Un autre foys vous en scaurez [plus par le menu] Et po^[r] fin de ceste lettre.

[_Not signed_]

[_Not addressed_]

[_Endorsed_] 12 April, 1559[1753] (1560) Card. & D of Guise to the queen Dowager whereof another copy was sent to the Q. Ma^[te] the 3 of Aprill and was dated at Mayremoustier the viij^[th] of the same.

STATE PAPERS, SCOTLAND

ELIZABETH, VOL. III, NO. 58. (Translation. The parts in italics have been deciphered.)[1754]

[_The cardinall of Lor: and duke of Guise to the Quene douag_:][1755]

[April 29]

Madame This bearar hath made verie good diligence to bring us yo^[r] lettres wherof we wer verie gladde, for that by the same we understoode yo^[r] newes, and the rath^[r], for that we had receyvid none from yo^[w], sins the comminge of _Protestant the courrone_. Sins which tyme the _Quene of England_ hath ever kept us in allarme to begynne the _warre_ and to shew _by all her dealinges that she_ had sent to be doinge and sturringe the coles. We beleeve she hath forgotten nothinge, wherby she might thinke to draw anye fruict of her evell disposicion: yf she had fownde thinges in cace to go through w^[th] her businesse. Neverthelesse shee hath gyven us the fairest wordes of the world. _Wherunto the Frenche King hath not so muche trustyd_ but that he hathe advertisid the king of Spaine of all that _she hath doon_ who having well considered the mater, hath made answer that there is no cause why to disalow his entent specially to go through w^[th] the maters on that side, and that to chastise the Rebelles he will gyve the King, as manye vessells, men, and vitailes, as he will, and so hath writen to the said queene, who knowing that she can hope for nothing of that, that she maketh a rekening of, begynnithe to use oth^[r] languaige, and causythe her ambassad^[r] to saye that that she hath done hath ben for none oth^[r] cause, but for the jalousye she hath of her Realme, and fearinge to be sodaynly taken unwares. So that it seemithe, that she repentethe to have gon so farre furth in the mater. And we beleeve that before theese lettres come to yo^[r] handes, yo^[w] shall have well perceyved, that her intentes ar waxed verye colde. And yf that which she hathe caused to be said by her Ambassado^[r] be true, yo^[w] shall have understand all the hole storie, by a man whome the S^[r] de Sevre the kinges ambassad^[r] in Englande, hathe sent unto yo^[w]. Neverthelesse we have thought good to sende yo^[w] backe againe this said bearar, by the waye of Flandres to advertise yo^[w], that we thinke that your Rebelles wilbe farre from their rekeninge, yf they make their accompte of the said Ladyes protection. Or elles there is much dissimulation.

And yet the King knowing after what sorte he must trust Englishemen, leavithe not of, to prepare xxiiij great ships to thintent (yf neede requyre, and that it do appeere, that the sayd Ladye doth contynue her evell disposicion) to gyue ordre w^[th] the same and oth^[r] forces w^[ch] he keepith in a readinesse, to souccour yo^[w] in such sorte, as he shall have the reason that he requyrethe, of thone and thoth^[r].

Yn the meane tyme he hathe sent the busshoppe of Valence, counsello^[r] in the K^[es] pryvie counsell, towardes the Queene, to understande plainely her meaninge, and in cace that the same be good, then to come to yo^[w] w^[th] good and large memorialles, to assaye to appease thinges on that side and to fynde the meanes to wynne tyme.

The thing (Madame,) that greevithe us most, is, that the meanes is hindred and stopped, to soucco^[r] yow w^[th] money as ofte and as readily as we wold be glad to do, and as yo^[w] have neede of it. Which we durst not aventure, nor also o^[r] brother Mons^[r] le Marquis for the evident danger that might happen. But yt cannot be longe before we see some waye open, and yow maye be sure (Madame) that we will not lose one quarter of an houre.

Now (Madame) we must w^[th] yo^[w], lament the Evell, that the mater of religion maye bring into a Realme, which hath so gone to worke on this side, that w^[th]in these xij or xv dayes, there is discouvered a conspiracy, made to kill us bothe, and then to take the King, and gyve him masters and gouvernours to instruct and bring him up in this wretched doctryne. For which pourpose there shuld assemble a great nombre of personnes heerabowtes who ar not w^[th]out the comforte and favour of some great ones. And betwixt the sixth and xv^[th] of this monethe, they shuld execute the same. So that w^[th]out the healpe of God and thintelligences w^[ch] we have had from all partes of christendome, and also of some of the conspiratours, that have disclosed it, the matter had taken effect. But God hath provyded heerin for us. The mater being discouvered, and manye beinge prissoners, we hope that the same shall be bowlted out, and so the danger avoyded. Wherof, and how the same shall breake out, yo^[w] shalbe more

## particularly advertised heerafter, specially if the waye be freer,

then hitherto it hath ben. Yn the meane tyme yo^[w] shall receyve (if yt please yo^[w]) our humble commendacions prayeng God &c. Montignac is presently arryved upon the depeche, wherupon ordre shall be taken out of hande.

[_Not signed_]

[_Not addressed_]

[_This and other deciphered letters_ (Queen Dowager of Scotland to MM. d’Oysel and de la Brosse 29 [April] and “a private man’s letter to d’Oysell” [29 April] 1560) _are written on the same sheets of paper, and are endorsed together_: “The interceptyd lettres discyphred,” _and endorsed in Burghley’s hand_: “B. 12. Martii. 20. Martii lettres deciphred from France to the Q. dowag.”[1756]]

APPENDIX II

[P. 98, n. 1]

ARCHIVES NATIONALES,

K. 1,494, PIÈCE NO. 70

[_L’Ambassadeur de France, Mr. de L’Aubespine, évêque de Limoges, au Roi d’Espagne, Philippe II_]

Tolède, 4 avril 1561

[_Suscription_] Au Roy.

[_Au dos, alia manu_] A Su Magestad. Del obispo de Limoges, a IIIIº de Abril 1561.

Sire, par ce que la Royne aura peu escrire à Vostre Majesté et Monsieur le Prince d’Evoly aussi, vous aurez entendu l’estat auquel les choses se retrouvoient parmy les Estatz particuliers en France il y a vingt jours par la malice de quelques ungs mal sentans de la foy, lesquelz avoient faict une menée en certaines provinces afin que l’on feist tomber le gouvernement du royaume en autre main que celuy de la Royne vostre mere, la sentans ferme et constante a n’endurer leurs erreurs et a les punir. Depuis est arrivé l’un de mes gens avec deux pacquetz de Monsieur de Chantone, lesquelz j’ay faict mectre entre les mains de Sajas.[1757] M’advertissant ladicte dame par le mesme courrier que le Roy de Navarre s’est monstré si conforme en tout ce qu’elle a desiré et peu approuvant la temerité de telles entreprinses, qu’il s’est accommodé pour aussi recevoir quelque lieu et contentemant d’estre seul lieutenant general du Roy vostre bon frere en France soubz ladicte dame, afin que la multitude des autres seigneurs et gouverneurs de tout le royaume n’amenast point la confuzion qui y estoit, que l’on eust quelque adresse, et que, par ce moien aussi il feust plus honnoré et respecté d’ung chascun sans aucune diminution de l’authorité de ladicte dame, laquelle, Sire, demeure chef de toutes choses, ayant les quatre secrétaires d’Estat soubz elle, les pacquetz, finances, dons et autres graces avec la personne du Roy, et commande au conseil ainsi que de coustume, tellement que chacun espere, comme aussi faict Sa Majesté et ainsi qu’elle me commande vous dire, Sire, que desormès il y a certaine apparance de toute tranquilité et repos, car ce que dessus est passé, arresté et signé entre eulx et de leurs mains pour articles irrevocables, ayant pour ceste cause mandé aux Estatz qu’ilz eussent à ne penser ne disputter plus sur telz pointz, ains seulement en ce qui concerne le mesnaige du royaume, les reculans et remettans a s’assambler a la fin de l’esté prochain. Et ce pendant, suivant l’instante requeste du peuple, le Roy vostre bon frere, Sire, partira de Fontainebleau incontinent après ce Quasimodo pour se faire sacrer à Reims dedans le XX^[e] de May, et incontinent après sus le mois de Juing faire son entrée à Paris, d’autant que ces deux actes sollemnelz donnent plus d’authorité et contentement à tous nos subjectz, et que, cela faict, la Royne vostre mère pourra aussi, comme elle désire, plus soigneusement user de la main forte et justice en tout ce qui se presentera. Ce que dessus, Sire, amandera, s’il vous plaist, en vostre endroit l’opinion mauvaise que nous avions quant je parlay a Monsieur le prince d’Evoly de l’yssue de noz Estatz, lesquelz, par ce remede, sont frustrez de plus rien toucher ne negotier qui concerne le gouvernement. Me commandant tres expressement la Royne de remercier fort affectionneement Vostre Majesté des bons et roiddes offices desquelz Monsieur de Chantoné a usé près d’elle pendant ces disputz, et asseurant Vostre Majesté que ce luy est obligation telle qu’elle peult faire estat de son amour et affection autant que de sa propre mère, comme de son costé elle se confie tant en sa bonté et amitié que, si l’on eust voulu faire plus de tord a son honneur et preminance, elle eust usé de ce que Dieu a mis. Sire, soubz vostre obeissance, comme de son meilleur amy, desirant que Vostre Majesté face en semblable estat de tout ce que sera en elle. Ceulx, Sire, qui avoient tramé ce que dessus pensoient remuer en nostre conseil et autres endroitz les hommes et honneurs à leur guise; mais, par ce moien, ilz sont hors de leurs desseings. S’estant Monsieur le prince de Condé contenté d’une declaration qu’on luy a donnée pour sa justification, à la charge qu’il peust, quant bon luy sembleroit, estre à la Court près ladicte dame, ainsi qu’il y a esté permis. Monsieur le connestable a, Sire, faict de bons et saiges offices en cet establissement, me chargeant de vous presenter ses tres humbles recomandations, vous requerant, comme font Leurs Majestez, qu’il vous plaise en sa faveur confirmer en Flandres une abbaie de dames à l’une de ses parentes que les religieuses desirent fort depuis le decez de feu madame de Lallain, comme j’éscris à Monsieur le conte d’Horne. Ce que, Sire, j’eusse de bouche esté faire entendre à Vostre Majesté; mais la crainte que j’ay eu de le troubler parmy ces sainctz et devots jours m’excusera s’il luy plaist, et commandera á Monsieur le prince d’Evoly qui cy est, de me faire donner quelque responce sur ceste lettre et sus une precedente que je vous escrivis il y a deux jours, afin que je puisse faire entendre à la Royne vostre bonne mère le contentement que recevrez de ce que dessus et vostre bon conseil. Quant mon courrier partit, Monsieur le conte d’Heu avoit desja esté licencié du Roy et de la Royne mère, et suis attendant, Sire, Monsieur de Montrueil, lieutenant de Monsieur le prince de la Roche-sur-Yon, lequel arrivera icy dedans quatre ou cinq jours, venant devant pour preparer ce qu’il sera de besoing et pour aussi visiter la Royne, qui me faict estimer que ledict seigneur Conte ne sera pas en ceste ville que quatre ou cinq jours après Quasimodo,[1758] dont noz dames ne sont pas contentes, la Royne pour le desir qu’elle a de reveoir Vostre Majesté plustost, et les autres pour leur interest particulier

Sire, je me recommande très humblement à vostre bonne grâce, priant le Créateur vous donner entres bonne santé tres heureuse et longue vye.

De Toledo, ce IIII^[e] d’avril 1561.

Vostre tres humble serviteur S. DE L’AUBESPINE E[vesque] de Lymoges

APPENDIX III

[P. 153, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. XXXVIII, NO. 179

[_Letter of the duke of Guise to the cardinal of Lorraine_]

[_1562, June 25_]

Extraict de la lettre de Guyse escripte de sa main au cardinal.

Ie vous envoye ce porteur en dilligence pour vous advertir que tout fut yer accorde. Et puis vous dire que le commancement est l’honneur de Dieu service du Roy bien et repoz de ce royaume. Cedit porteur est suffisant et nauront noz chers cardinaulx que part ceste lettre comme aussi nostre mareschal de Brissac qui congnoistra quil y en a qui sont bien loing de leurs desseins. Nostre mere et son frere ne jurent que par la foy quilz nous doibvent et quilz ne veullent plus de conseil que de ceulx que scavez qui vont le bon chemyn. Conclusion la Religion reformee en nous conduisant et tenant bon sen va a baz leaue et les amyraulx mal ce qui est de possible. Toutes noz forces nous demeurent entierement les leurs rompues les billeez rendues sans parler dedictz ne de preches et administracion des sacremens a leur mode. Ces bons seigneurs croiront sil leur plaist cedit porteur de ce quil leur dira de la part de trois de leurs meilleurs amys et bayse la main. De Baugency ce xxv^[e] jour de Iuing 1562.

[_No signature_]

[_No address_]

[_Endorsed_] Extraict d’une lettre escripte de la main de m^[r] de Guyse au Cardinal de Lorraine deXXV^[e] Iuing 1562.

APPENDIX IV

[P. 155, n. 2]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. XXXIX, NO. 211, vj

[_Letter of the duke of Aumale to Catherine de Medici_]

[_1562, Iuly 9_]

Madame, je viens presentement de recevoyr la lettre quil vous a pleu mescripre touchant quelques marchandz anglois que lambassadeur de leur Royne vous a faict entendre avoyr este prys par les gens de guerre qui sont icy pres de moy pour le service du Roy et le vostre. Dont encores Madame je navois ouy parler, bien de quelques soldatz anglois qui furent pris y a assez long temps par le s^[r] Dallegre qui voulloient entrer a Rouen et lesquelz tost aprez je feiz renvoyer sinon quelques ungs qui se sont voluntairement mys a vostre service parmy noz bandes vous pourrant asseurer Madame, que tant sen fault que je permecte telles choses Que tout ce que jay en plus grande recommendation, est de les laisser librement et tous les autres estrangers qui sont icy mesmes voz subiectz de quelque religion quilz soient de trafficquer et negotier comme ilz faisoient au paravant ses troubles, sachant trop bien de quelle consequence cella est pour vostre service. Et ne puis penser dou viendroit ceste prise si ce nest par ceulx mesmes de Rouen Dieppe et le Havre qui pillent et prennent indifferemment sur les ungs et les autres sans aucune exception. Toutesfois Madame, je mectray peyne de faire si bien rechercher parmy ses trouppes que sil y en a aucuns qui en ayent quelque chose je la feray delivrer et nen sera perdu ung seul denyer, ainsy que je lay faict entendre a ce present porteur que ledit ambassadeur ma envoye expres.

Madame je prye Dieu vous avoyr en sante et donner tresbonne et longue vye. Au Mesnil devant S^[te] Catherine le ix^[e] jour de Juillet 1562.

Vostre treshumble et tresobeissant serviteur et subiect CLAUDE DE LORAYNE

[_No address_]

[_Endorsed_] 9 Iulii 1562.

The coppye of the duke d’aumalles letter to the Quene mother.

[_Enclosed in a letter from Throckmorton to the Queen, from Paris, 12 July, 1562_ (_No. 211_)]

APPENDIX V

[P. 177, n. 3]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. XLVI, NO. 973

[_Letter of the prince of Condé to the earl of Warwick_]

[_1562, December 14_]

Mons^[r] le Conte. Attendant que la commodite se presente plus propre de vous pouvoir voir et diviser privement avecques vous envoiant maintenant ceste depesche en Angleterre je nay voulu oublier a vous ramentevoir le besoing que nous avons de joir en vostre secours, auquel jespere moiennant la grace de Dieu me joindre de brief pour par apres mectre quelque fin a tant de calamitez. Si Mons^[r] le Conte de Montgoumery est de retour avecques quelques forces, je serois bien dadvis se pour nous devancer, vous vous acheminissiez droict a Honnefleur pour plus faciliter le chemin et a lune et a laultre armee. Me recommandant sur ceste esperance a vostre bonne grace je supplieray le Createur vous donner Mons^[r] le Conte avecques sa tressaincte grace ce que plus desirez. Escript au camp de S^[t] Arnoul ce xiiij^[e] jour de Decembre 1562.

Vostre plus afecsionne et parfayt amy LOYS DE BOURBON

[_Addressed_] A Mons^[r]

Mons^[r] le Conte de Quarruich.

[_Endorsed in Cecil’s hand_] 184 December. Prince of Cond. to the Er. of Warwyk.

APPENDIX VI

[P. 203, n. 2]

STATE PAPERS, DOMESTIC

ELIZABETH, VOL. XXIX, NO. 50

[_Admiral Clinton to Cecil_]

S^[r] I am sure that yo^[w] are advertysed of the Appoyntement for New haven I would gladly understand the quenes ma^[tes] plesure for my farther Servyce. I lefte the Philipp and Mary the Lyon the Sakar and twoo gales w^[th] viij victualers wyth m^[r] Wynter in the roade of New haven to joyne w^[th] the shipps under his charge for the Dyspayche of the men and such thinges as is to be brought thense and lefte m^[r] Holstocke to assyste m^[r] Winter and I w^[th] the Elizabeth Jonas and the Victorie cam hither this evenyng and synse my comyng w^[th] the advyse of m^[r] vycechamberlen I have dyspayched a suffycyent nomber of shippes that I founde presentely here to goo to New haven to fetch all thinges thense that is to be brought. I cam to New haven yester day at one a cloke in the after none & departyd thense at twoo a clok this morning fyndyng my lord of Warwycke a shippborde redy to departe and at my fyrst coming Edward Horsey came to me w^[th] monser de Lynerols from the Frenche King the quene and the constable as he sayd to vysyt me w^[th] offer of any thing that was their for my comoditie and sayd that the king desyryd me to com on land to hym and their w^[th] he tould me the Appoyntement for New haven. I sayd to hym that the plage of dedly infexion had don for them that I thynke all the force of France could never a don for yf the mortalitie had not taken a way and consumynyd our Captens & Soldiors in so grete nombers they could never a prevailyd nor a proched so neare the towne yet ys it apparant vnto yo^[w] the noble coraige of the lorde lyevetenaunt and the valeantnes of his soldiors hath bene shewyd as moch as might be in men having fought agaynst an unsesable plage of pestylence & the whole force of France. And as I doo reioyce that my contreymen hath so worthely behavyd them selfes so am I hartely sorry that yo^[r] chanse is to recover that towne, and so I desyryd hym to geve my humble thankes to the King the quene & the constable for their corteous mesaige and offer sent to me but I having charge by the quenes Ma^[tes] comandement my mistres of thes shipps and nombers of men I can not departe from them and so we departyd and afore the comyng of Edward Horsey & the sayd frenshe man to me I not knowyng at that tyme where my L of Warwyk was sent William Drury w^[th] a Trompet to New haven to speke w^[th] my lord from me. And at his landing the Prynce of Condy & dyverse of the noble men found hym their and usyd hym verey curteosly and offeryd hym a horse to ryde to se the towne and a jentilman to attend on hym and declaryd to hym that my lord of Warwyk was gone to the See and had taken a shipp to departe. And this moche I thought mete to let yo^[w] understand prayng yo^[w] that I may know the quenes Ma^[tes] plesure for my dyspayche hense. Thus I take my leave. From Portesmowth the last of Iuly a^[o] 1563.

[_Signed_] Your assured friend to comand E. CLYNTON

[_Addressed_] to the right hono^[r]able

S^[r] William Cicill Knight pryncipall Secretare to the quenes Ma^[ty].

[_Endorsed_] xxxj. July 1563.

to m^[r] Secretary from the L. admyrall.

APPENDIX VII

[P. 253, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. LXXVII, NO. 846

[_Letter of the prince of Condé to his sister_]

[_1565, March_]

The copy of the Prynce of Condes letter to his sister the Abbesse of Chelis.[1759]

Ma Soeur, lennuy ou je suis de linjure que lon a faict a Monsieur le Cardinal de Lorraine m’a mis au lict, comme vous dira vostre homme, de la fascherie que jay de veoir ainsy traicter les Princes. Qui me faict dire que lunion de noz maisons est plus que necessaire; comme il le peult bien congnoistre a ceste heure, et sil leust plustost faict, il leust tenu en peur et crainte ceulx qui nous doibvent obeissance et non par les armes eussent puissance de commandement. Surquoy jay faict a ce porteur entendre mon oppinion, et de la facon que mondict seigneur le Cardinal se doibt gouverner. Qui me gardera vous en faire plus longue lettre, hors mir que je veux confesser que si jeusse sceu ce qui cy est passe; jeusse veu lhistoire pour empescher une telle honte et oultraige, qui est plus grand que je nay jamais ouy parler que Prince ayt eu. Je luy suis et seray, tel que je luy ay promis. Et si jeusse este aupres de luy, je luy eusse faict prevue de ma volunte, plus par effect que par parolle. Je vous iray veoir quand le me manderez. Qui sera la fin apres avoir prie Dieu etc.

[_No signature_]

[_No address_]

[_Endorsed in Cecil’s hand_] March 1565.

Copy[1760] of a letter from the Marischall Montmorency to the Duke of Montpensyar and a letter from the Prince of Conde to the Abbass of Cheliss.

APPENDIX VIII

[P. 259, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CXI, NO. 612

[_Montluc’s Treason_]

[1570, March 27]

[Sidenote: Ont deferes avec luy les sieurs de Larride de Mirepoix et Negrepelice]

[Sidenote: Le sieur de Marchassetel est ung jeune gentilhomme dune maise de xii a xv. mille livres tournois de rente et a fiance nagueres la soeur de Monsieur de Crussol]

Le sieur de Montluc charge davoir intelligence avec le Roy despaigne pour mettre en ses mains le pais de Guienne de quoy il reste accuse envers le Roy de France et la Royne sa mere par le sieur de Peres en Quercy et son filz le sieur de Marchassetel beau frere du sieur de Crussol qui ont envoye tout expres ung gentilhomme en court a ceste fin instruit de lettres et memoires par lesquelles est porte que le seneschal de Quercy a dit ausdits sieurs de Peres et Marchassetel quil avoit este solicitte de faire mutiner la ville de Montaubain a fin de donner occasion audit de Montluc de la piller se plaignant que ses services nestoient recongneuz mais quil sen vengeroit et plusieurs autres propos sembles quilz veullent maintenir avoir este proferez par ledit de Montluc qui est aussi charge de sestre assemble lieu ung lieu nomme Granale distant quatre lieues de Tholose avec le cardinal Darmaignac et ung seigneur despaigne pour conferer de cest affaire d aultre part que les prelats de Guyenne et Languedoc ont fait certaines assemblees et accorde entre eulx quelques levees de deniers et contribucions necessaires a cest entreprise et ont deputte secrettement levesque de Lodene vers le roy despaigne.

Le seneschal de Quercy arrivant nagueres en court adverti de ce que dessus se veult purger a levesque de Vallence frere dudit sieur de Montluc disant ne scavoir que cestoit et quon le mettoit a tort en cest affaire. Toutesfoys ledit sieur de Vallence homme collere de son naturel et passionne et laffaire de son frere aisne estant de telle consequence obtient du roy que lesdits seneschal de Quercy et gentilhomme seroient ouis au conseil prive ou le seneschal a nye publicquement ce que dessus Neantmoings le bruit est quen particulier parlant a la royne luy aie dit beaucoup de grandes choses. Le gentilhomme apersevere monstrant sesdites lettres et memoires et quil estoit prest se rendre prisonnier ou submettre a telle autre peine pour soustenir son dire. Comme aussi feroient ceulx qui lavoient envoye lesquelz viennent maintenant en court pour maintenir tout le contenu desdites memoires et proposer plusieurs aultres griefs contre ledit de Montluc tel est le bruit la royne apres avoir ouy lesdits seneschal et gentilhomme depesche ung nomme Duplessis varlet de chambre du roy vers ledit sieur de Montluc. Pour entendre la veritte lequel de Montluc au lieu de se purger commenca a hault louer ses faicts et services et a se plaindre de la mescognoissance quen avoit le roy et dont pouvoit venir quon soubson de luy et mauvaise oppinion que sestoit tousjours honnestement acquicte des charges quon luy avoit donnees. Bien aict confesse avoir parle a Granale avec le Cardinal Darmagnac mais que cestoit en passant chemin pour aller a Tholose et communicquer avec luy des affaires du roy ou lon dit sestre trouve ou ung nomme Don Pierre de Navarre bastard dalbert evesque de Cominges. Ce quencores est trouve mauvais pour ce que lun et lautre nen ont rien escript au roy ny a la royne. Pourquoy sont mandez en court lesdits de Montluc et Marchassetel pour se representer devant leurs maiestez.

Cest la cause pourquoy le sieur de Montluc a envoye cartel contre tous ses adversaires &c. disant que tous ceulx que vouldront maintenir quil aict intelligence avec le roy despaigne ont menty sauf et excepte les princes du sang et autres ses superieurs ausquelz il doit honneur et reverence quil est prest de les combatre a toutes sortes darmes en quoy il espere ne faire moings de devoir que il navoit que vingt ung ans &c.

[_No signature_]

[_No address_]

[Endorsed] 27º Martii. Informacion contre Mons^[r] de Monluc.

APPENDIX IX

[P. 303, n. 2]

BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE

FONDS FRANÇAIS, MS. NO. 3,197, F^[O] 92, RECTO

[_The Cardinal’s War_]

[2 juillet 1565]

[_Au dos_] Coppie. De Mons^[r] de Salzede à Mons^[r] d’Auzances, du II^[e] Juillet 1565.

Cause de l’empeschement faict à Monseigneur le Cardinal par le S^[r] de Salcede.

Monsieur, comme le diable qui ne cerche jamais que de mectre des choses en avant, il est survenu que, estant arrivé Monseigneur le cardinal de Lorraine a Ramberviller, ses officiers m’ont dict aultre commandement de publier et attacher par touttes les villes et chastellenyes la protection et sauvegarde qu’il a recouvert de l’Empereur, le double de laquelle je vous envoye signé et collationné de son chancellyer. Et avec cela, je suis esté adverty de bon lieu certainement qu’il veult et a despeché capitaines pour mettre ès place lesquelles je conserve il y a environ dix ans aux despens du Roy et avec ses soldatz; et veoir à ceste heure ung remuement devant moy avec ceste saulvegarde et[1761] une particularité que je sçay je ne suis deliberé de le souffrir que premièrement le Roy et la Royne ou vous (comme les representans) vous n’ayez bien pensé le faict et la consequence que cela peult advenir pour l’advenir.[1762] Je vous asseure, Monsieur, que je suis bien mary qu’ayant tant faict de services à Monseigneur le Cardinal et à sa maison, comme tout le monde sçayt bien, il[1763] me contraigne pour mon honneur de thumber en sa malle grace. Et quant luy au aultre vouldront mectre quelques particularitez en avant, vous vous bien asseurer avec tous mes seigneurs et amys que je mouray et me coustera ma vye et mon bien que je ne serviray jamais aultre que à monseigneur et roy, auquel je suis tant tenu. S’il vous plaist de me envoyer la coche de madame d’Auzances[1764] par Florymont,[1765] je vous envoyeray à Metz en charge ma femme et enffans avec le peu de bien que j’ay en France, pour vous asseurer que je ne feray jamais chose qui ne soit pour le service du Roy, synon pour sa grandeur et authorité. Et, en ce pendant que j’aurai de voz nouvelles, j’entretiendray les choses en l’estat que j’ay deliberé, avec la plus grande modeste que je pouray, sy je ne suis contrainct aultrement. Et sur ce, je me recommande de bien bon cuer a vostre bonne grace et prye Dieu

Monsieur, vous donner très heureuse et longue vye.

De Vic, ce II^[e] jour de Juillet. Ainsy signé:

P^[O] DE SALCEDE.

APPENDIX X

[P. 307, n. 7]

STATE PAPERS, DOMESTIC

ELIZABETH, ADDENDA, VOL. XIII, NO. 71

[_George Poulet to Sir Hugh Poulet_]

[1567, April 22]

It may pleas yo^[u] to be advertysed that wheras (aswell at my last being w^[th] yowe, as by your severall letters) yowe have geven me specyall charg for then quyring of such currauntes as might be learned from the frenche partyes, wherin having hetherto desysted, rather for want of convenient matter then of dew remembraunce, I have therefore thought yt my duty w^[th] all convenyent speede to advertise yo^[u] of soche newes, as I have benne presently enfourmed of by certeyne of this isle w^[ch] came upon Satterday last from Normandy, who have declared that there was a greate rumo^[r] of warres, and the newes so certayne as a boy of myne being at Constaunces for the recovery of a grief w^[ch] he hath, was hydden by his host the space of one day, and so pryvely w^[th] dyvers others of this Isle conveyed over with all speede. Moreover I understand that there were taken up at Constaunces and theraboutes iij^[c] soldio^[r]s w^[ch] ar now in garrisson at Graundville and that there ar viij^[xx] soldio^[r]s in Shawsey and two greate shippes well appointed. Also that a servaunte of the frenche Kinges hath passed alongest the sea coastes of Normandy and hath taken the names of the principall masters and marryners in thos partes. The leke brute of warres and preparacion for the same ys in Bryttayne as I have learned by a barke of Lyme w^[ch] came from S^[t] Malos and aryved in this Isle upon Sonday last at night, who declareth that they were prevely admonished w^[th] all speede to departe from thens, and that Mons^[r] Martigues governo^[r] of Bryttayne was appointed to com this present Tusday with a greate company in to the sayd towne of S^[t] Malos where greate preparacion was made for the receyving of him and his retynewe. Thes ar the specialst and most credybel yntellygences w^[ch] I have as yet lerned from thos partes, the presumpcions wherof as they ar very manyfest and dangeros so can they not be to myche credyted and dylligently prevented, wherefore I have w^[th] all speede sent this bearer unto yo^[u] w^[th] thes my advertysementes whom I have charged not to slacke his duty in conveyaunce of the same, to thend that yo^[u] being enfourmed of thes premysses may returne youre pleasure and advise for ower better procedinges in the same, as to yo^[r] discrete wysdom may seme most expedyent, beseching yo^[u] yt may be as briefly as ys possyble. And in this meane tyme I shall not fayle God willing to enforce and make redy the power of this castle and isle for the resisting of all daungers and sudden attemptes w^[ch] may be geven by the ennymy to the uttermost of ower power. Although the estate and furnyture of this castle ys not unknowen unto yo^[u], yet have I thought good to send herew^[th] enclosed a byll of suche necessaryes as ar specyally wanting in the same. There ys no other speciall matter worthy the certifyeng for this present from this yo^[r] charge where all thinges remayne in the accoustomed good and quyet estate thankes be to God, whom I beseche long to preserve yo^[u]. From Iersey the xxij^[th] of Aprill 1567.

Yowr most obedyent sonne GEORGE POULET

[_Addressed_] To his right wurshipfull father S^[r] Hugh Poulet Knight.

[_Endorsed_] 22 April, 1567.

M^[r] George Poulett to his father S^[r] Hugh Poulet from Jersey.

APPENDIX XI

[P. 326, n. 3]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. XCIV, NO. 1,338

[_Sir Henry Norris to Queen Elizabeth_]

Yt may like yo^[r] Maiesty to be advertized.... Wryttin at Paris this last of Septemb^[r] 1567, in haste.

Yt is here reported for truthe that Amyans Abevill and Calleis are takin to the princes beholfe wherof I doubte not by y^[r] Ma^[ty] is advertized or this. Also they have Lanne[1766] Soyzon[1767] Abevill Bollein[1768] Ameins and so alonge the riuer of Sene which be the best appointid townes of Artillery in Fraunce.

By y^[r] highnes most humble and obedient subiect and servant HENRY NORREYS

[_Addressed_] To the Quene’s most excellent Maiesty:

[_Endorsed_] 30 September 1567 S^[r] H. Norreys to the Q. Ma^[ty].

APPENDIX XII

[P. 334, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. XCV, NO. 1,457

[_Printed Pamphlet of 6 pages_]

LETTRES DU ROY, | PAR LESQUELLES | IL

ENIOINT DE FAI | RE DILIGENTE PERQUISITION & RE | CHERCHE DE TOUS LES GENTILS-HOM | MES, TANT D’VN PARTY QUE D’AUL | TRE, QUI SE SONT RETIREZ EN LEURS | MAISONS DEPUIS LA BATAILLE DONN | EE PRES S. DENYS. A. PARIS, PAR ROB. ESTIENE IMPRIMEUR DU ROY M. D. LXVII AUEC PRIUILEGE AUDICT SEIGNEUR DE PAR LE ROY.

Nostre amé & | feal, Pource que | nous desirons sça | voir & entendre à | la vérité quels Ge | ntils hommes de vo | stre s’y sont retirez depuis | la bataille dernièrement donnee | pres S. Denys, tant ceulx qui e | stoyent en nostre armee, ou ail | leurs pour nostre service, que les | aultres qui ont suyvi le party du | Prince de Condé: |

A ceste cause nous vous | mandons, & tres-expresseement en | joignons, Que incontinent la pre | sente receue, vous ayez à faire di | ligente perquisition & recherche par tout vostredict ressort, de tous | lesdicts Gentils-hommes tant d’un | costé que d’aultre, qui se sont, ain | si que dict est, retirez en leurs mai | sons. Et ceulx que vous trouverez | estants de la Religion pretendue | reformee, lesquels se seront pre | sentez ou Greffe de vostre siege, & | faict les submissions portees par nostre Ordonnance & Declaration | sur ce, qui est de vivre paisible | ment en leurs maisons sans jamais | ung se mouvoir à prendre les armes, | sinon avec nostre exprès comman | dement & lesquels au demeurant | observeront en cela nostredicte | Ordonnance & Declaration, ne | faisants aucun monopole, ne cho | se qui tende à sedition: Vous don | nerez ordre & tiendrez la main | quils soyent maintenus en la joys | sance du contenu en icelle Ordonnance & Declaration, pour vivre | & demeurer doucement en leurs | dictes maisons, sans souffrir ne | permettre qu’il leur soit mesfaict | ne mesdict en corps ne en biens. | Et là où il s’en trouveroit qui feis | sent autrement, vous leur interdi | rez ladicte joyssance, les faisant | punir & chastier selon que vous | sçaurez le cas le requerir.

Et au regard de ceulx desdicts | Gentils-hommes qui seront venus | en nostre armee, ou auront esté | employez ailleurs pour nostre ser | vice & en nostre obeissance, s’e | stans semblablement retirez en | leurs maisons apres la bataille, | vous les manderez venir par de | uers vous, ou bien les advertirez | par lettres, & leur remonstrerez de | nostre part le tout qu’ils font à no | stredict service & à leur honneur | & reputation, n’estant maintenant | heure de nous abandonner en ce | ste occasion: Les exhortant de ve | nir incontinent retrouver nostre | camp & armee, & les asseurant qu’il | ne se presentera paradventure ja | mais occasion où nos bons, fidèl | les & affectionnez subiects puis | sent faire meilleure preuve de | leur bonne volonté & affection en | nostre service, que en ceste cy, & dont nous recevions plus de con | tentement, que nous sçaurons bien | recognoistre envers eulx. Et | au contraire vous leur ferez sça | voir que oultre la juste cause d’in | dignation, que nous aurons alen | contre de ceulx qui y defauldront, | nous ferons proceder au saisisse | ment en nostre main de tous & | chascuns leurs fiefs & tenemens | nobles, pour estre regis par Con | missaires. Mais sur tout ne fail | lez de nous envoyer incontinent | les noms & surnoms, qualitez & | demeurances de tous les dessus | dicts Gentils-hommes de costé & | d’aultre retirez en leursdictes mai | sons. Et vous nous ferez service | tresaggreable. Donné à Paris le douziesme jour de Decembre, | mil cinq cens soixante sept.

[_Signé_] CHARLES

[_Et au dessous_] ROBERTET

[_Et sur la superscription est es | cript_]

A nostre ami & fealle le Prevost de | Paris, ou son Lieutenant.

Leves & publiees à son de trompe | & cry public par les carrefours de ce | ste ville de Paris, lieux & places ac | coustumez à faire cris & publications, | par moy Pasquier Rossignol sergent, cri | eur juré pour le Roy ès ville, Prevosté | & Viconté de Paris, accompaigné de | Michel Noiret commis par le Roy pour | trompete esdicts lieux, & d’un aultre | trompete, le dixseptieme iour de Decem | bre, l’an mil cinq cens soixante sept.

ROSSIGNOL

APPENDIX XIII

[P. 352, n. 2]

BIBLIOTECA BARBERINIANA

VATICAN LIBRARY, NO. 5,269, FOLIO 63

[_Discorso sopra gli humori del Regno di Francia, di Mons. Nazaret_]

Quante uolte il Rè Christianissimo ha ricerco Nostro Sig^[re] di danari contanti, ò di permissioni di cauarne somme maggiori, et grossissime dal Clero di Francia, ò di soccorso di gente Italiana, ò di altro aiuto, che si potesse cauare da sua Beatitudine, tante n’è stato in somma compiaciuto, conciosia, che la bontà del Papa, et la prontezza, et uolontà grande, che Sua Santità ha del continuo hauuto d’ impiegare ogni sua forza, et autorità a salute di quella Corona, et ad esterminatione degli Heretici gli ha fatto prestare più fede alle promesse, che loro M^[ta], faceuano a parole del ben futuro che alle uere ragioni di coloro, i quali predicauano il Male, et la corruttione presente, et palpabile tale, secondo essi da mettere per perduto qualunque cosa si donaua ò porgeua per quel aiuto con il medesimo zelo ha proceduto sua Santità nell’ aduertire al Re, alla Reina, et alli altri Ministri suoi fideli, et Catholici degl’ inganni, et male opere di certi, i quali si uedeua chiaramente, come proponendo fallacie, et usando falsità et tradimenti, cercauano con sommo artificio di leuare l’ obedienza al Rè, et corrompere la giustitia, et Religione di quel Regno, come in gran parte è loro riuscito, cosi non ha mancato di mettere qualche uolta in consideratione qualche rimedio per troncare i disegni delli Ugonotti, parendoli, come Papa et Padre commune, che se gli appartenesse di ricordar quello tocca al bene de fideli, et come Vicario di Christo in Terra di doversi intromettere in cosa appartenente all’ uffitio suo per quanto concerne il riformare la Chiesa di Dio, cioè renderle in quel Paese la sua debita forma, et dignità essendouene il bisogno, ò la necessità grandissima, mà in parte alcuna non è mai riuscito di far frutto, anzi quando le loro M^[ta] non hanno hauto per fine di ualersi degli aiuti; et autorità del Papa, manco hanno tenuto conto, nè pur mostro di curarsi di corrispondere con quella dimostratione di parole, che ci conuiene ad ubedienti fig^[li] et deuoti a questa Santa Sede; Perciochè all’ altre cose, che l’hanno dechiarato, lo fece manifesto, et palpabile, quando dopo la battaglia ultima di Mócontor, essendo il tempo appunto proprio de uenire a dare castigo à chi lo meritaua, come ricordauano i Ministri di Nostro Sig^[re] per parte sua, che era tempo di fare, et ne mostrauano il modo, fu risposto loro dalla Reina propria con parole assai espresse, come il Rè si trouaua in età di autorità, et con forze, et prudenza di saper gouernare lo Stato suo, da sè, senza hauere à pigliare consiglio, nè Legge da Principi esterni. Onde meritamente da quel tempo in quà è parso a Sua Santità di uolere andare un poco più consideratamente, non giudicando che se gli conuenisse di doversi ingenire in cosa d’altri più oltre di quelche fosse grato alli Padroni, sperando pure, che come l’ era affirmato, così asseueratamente l’età del Rè con il ualoroso animo suo, et con le prouisioni, che loroM^[ta] presumeuano di fare più che à bastanza per trouarsi al sicuro in ogni accidente, potessero superare la peruersità de Ribaldi, et ogni altra difficultà.

Hora che dalli intollerabili Capitoli da questa ultima impia pace apparisce tutto il contrario, ueggendosi come restano del tutto oppressi i Cat^[ci] et gli Ugonotti tanto solleuati, che non si preuagliano in qualche parte: mà che mettano necessità, et in loro soggettione il Rè medesimo.

Non può ne deue sua Beatitudine mancare di tutti quei Uffity, che si appartengono al grado suo per aprire la mente del Rè con modo, che sia cauato dalle tenebre, oue altri cerca di tenerlo, et sia illuminato delle prouisioni, che Sua M^[ta] può porgere per la salute, et conseruatione dello Stato, et uita di tutti i buoni, che senza pronto, et potente rimedio se ne andranno in perditione, non potendo mai reggersi quel Regno senza buona giustistia, et religione; le quali sono corrottissime con l’Intervento delli Heretici in esse, li quali Heretici non accade dubitare, che hanno sempre hauuta, et hanno tutavia più che mai la principale mira loro fissa alla rouina del Rè et uaglionsi apparentemente di quelle due cose, che sono generalissime per chiunque cerca di distruggere un Dominio, ò una Monarchia, cioè la prima di mettere in diffidenza à chi lo regge quei Prencipi massimamente, che lo possono sostenere, et porgere consigli; et aiuti da conseruarsi il suo debito imperiò, come si sà, che hanno tanto tempo procurato di conseguire più, et sopra ogni altra cosa li Ugonotti del Rè di Spagna con dar ombra, et metter gelosia, che Sua M^[ta] Catt.^[ca] et suoi Ministri ancor d’auantaggio fussero sempre per procurare, non che desiderare la divisione della Francia; perchè la bassezza del Rè Christianissimo, redondaua à grandezza del l’altro interpretando perpetuamente, et le parole, et i fatti, che ueniuano da quella parte al peggior senso, il quale argomento, sebene in superficie hauesse del propabile in qualche parte, nondimeno la natura del Rè Cat.^[co] tanto inclinata al bene, et alla quiete, fà conoscere a pieno il contrario, come dimostra pur troppo chiaramente l’occasione, che ha lassato passare, con il non havere con effetto animo di nuocere alla Francia per pensiero di accrescere se stesso; Ma è assai alli Ugonotti di hauere messo Zizania da ogni parte, tanto che l’uno non si fidi dell’ altro, sicome hanno cerco, che gli riesca di consequire del Papa, sebene non è uenuto loro fatta, perche Sua Beat.^[ne] per sua troppa bontà pospone ogni altra occasione, hauendo risguardo solo al seruitio di Dio, et al bene di quella Corona et del Rè.

L’altra seconda cosa è di mettere diuisione nel Popolo, che di ciò non accade produrne ragioni, ueggendosi pur troppo per gl’ istessi capitoli dell’ accordo. E necessaria adunque inanzi ad ogni altra cosa di provare con buone ragioni, come la setta delli Ugonotti con li suoi capi, sono sforzati a tenere in perpetuo la persona del Rè per inimica implacabile, perchè oltre à quello che è detto di sopra l’hanno troppo grauemente offesa, nello Stato nell’ honore, et quanto ad essi nella uita sicome testifica quella giornata di Meos, nella quale fu forza a Sua M^[ta] trottare sino a Parigi nel modo che è notorio.

Molte altre congiure, et conspirationi fatte da essi contra la persona di Sua M^[ta] et tanti trattati, et ribellioni usate per occuparle le sue Terre, sono palesi, et n’appariscono i processi fatti per le scritture, che furono trovate à Sciantiglione di Coligni, et che offende non perdona, onde considerata la natura loro, non resta dubbio, che come consij di havere macchinato contra alla uita del Suo Sovrano Padrone, et offesolo nell’ honore, et nello Stato tante uolte così abbomineuolmente, come è nonsolo palese; ma prouato a chiunque lo uole sapere, non potranno in eterno essere fideli, nè obedienti Vassalli; anzi non staranno mai quieti se non per fraude, et con intentione d’ingannare Sua M^[ta] quando uegghino le cose in termine, che li habbia da riuscire, et se gli mancarà il modo con l’ Armi scoperte, et con congiurationi palesi, come per lo passato; perchè la loro setta hauesse declinato, forse per il danno riceuuto nelle battaglie, che Dio benedetto hà fatto loro perdere, ò perchè dubitino di poter essere oppressi dal ualore, et uirtu, che uede essere nel Rè è non solo uerisimile, ma chiara, et sicura cosa, che procureranno di aiutarsi per ogni uia etia indirettissima, et seguitaranno il lor costume solito, et però non perdoneranno à ueleno, nè ad altra sorte di scelerata uiolenza, come la morte del Marescial di Bordiglione, quella di Monsig^[r] di Ghisa, et infinite altre simili ci ammaestrano, perchè conosceranno, come niuna uia è più certa di assicurarli ad ogni misfatto, et insieme da conseguire il fine del colorire i loro peruersi dissegni; onde si può fare uera conseguenza, che niuna persona fidele al Rè, et prudente possa, ne debba persuadere Sua M^[ta] a disarmare, ò à fidarsi in alcun modo poco, ne molto delli ribelli di Christo, et suoi.

Hè che intenda d’huer concordato con essi altrimenti, che con l’intentione, che hebbe già il Rè Luigi XI. il quale considerata l’unione de Grandi contra di se uolse rendersi facile di promettere ogni condittione, benchè iniqua, che da ciascuno l’ era chiesta, mà dissipati che hebbe i capi della ribellione, come furono deposte l’ armi, incontinente gli troncò tutti, senza indugio, ne risguardo alcuno. Anzi hà da guardarsi Sua M^[ta] ben diligentemente da tutti coloro i quali con si gran carità gridano pacis bona, et abusando della clemenza, et benignità del Rè, si sforzano d’ingannarlo, commendando questa pace particolare con le lode della pace in genere; perchè con le sue proprie non lo potriano fare: Chi non sà che la pace per se stessa è buona? Mà chi non sa ancora che Sicary, i Venefici, gli Assassini gli Assassinatori, gli Incendiarij, i Sacrilegij, gli Heretici, et gli huomini senza fede, ne honore meritano punitione, et esterminatione. Chi non sà similmente, che hauer preso per trattata la Roccella per forza Angolem, et tante, et tante altre Città, et Terre in tutti i modi, che l’ hauere assediato il suo Rè, che l’abbruciare le Chiese, dar il guasto alle Prouincie, et distruggere, et esterminare, ò ribellare i Popoli è cattiva cosa, et peccato irremediabile. Mà che il liberarsi da si graue indignità, et oppressioni, et che il cauar lo Stato suo, et suoi buoni Vassalli, et se stesso da tale calamità, et miserie, come è la uile, et abbietta seruitù di chiunque si troua sottoposto alle crudeli Tirannide, et rapina de’ capi delli Ugonotti, non è esser seuero, et rigido, mà à fare il douere, il dritto, et quelche ricerca la Giustitia; Come può il Rè uolgere gli occhi pieni di quel generoso spirito che hanno mostro i suoi antecessori in tante et si grande Imprese, da i quali ha riceuuto il titolo di Christianissimo, acquistato d’essi per i loro meriti verso la Roccella, et tutto il Paese, che chiamano di conquista, et tolerare di uederselo tolto con i Popoli ribellati, et in tutto alienati dalla sua obedienza, et Religione con le Chiese antichissime, et si eccellenti, et nobili edifitij tutte demolite, la qual cosa auuiene non solo ne Paesi doue hanno pensato d’annidarsi, ma da tutte le parti del Regno, douunque sono passati con l’armi, che se ne uederanno i uestigii per li secoli auuenire, nonchè per li successori nostri, talmente hanno adoperato il ferro, et il foco contro la fede di Christo, et la giurisdittione, et l’autorità Regia.

Si che quando per qualsiuogla mondana ragione pur uolesse Sua M^[ta] scordarsi l’offese si graui fatte alla Corona, à sè, et all’honore, et dignità sua, non può, ne deue posponere quelle, che sono commesse contra Christo, et alla sua legge, et non può mancare di giustitia alli suoi Popoli fideli, et Cat.^[ci] che chieggono pietà, et gridano uendetta, chiari di non douere, nè poter, ne uoler havere mai pace, nè triegua à modo alcuno, sapendo di non potersi mai fidare d’essi, come l’esperienza gli ha dimostro molte uolte a troppo loro gran costo. Però quando uedessero di essere abbandonati, et derelitti dal Rè, et dal Gouerno, piutosto che restare a descrittione di gente si scelerata per fuggire la rapacita, et enormissime crudeltà loro saranno forzati di ricorrere ad ogni ultimo refugio.

Si può dunque proporre in consideratione al Rè qual sia più pietoso uffitio, quanto a Dio, et più glorioso quanto al mondo, hauer fatto un accordo con l’inique, et intollerabili condittioni, che si ueggano con Vassalli, et ribelli reintegrandoli nè beni, et dignità, gradi preminentie, uffitij, et benefitij, cedendoli parte dello Stato proprio, con il lassar loro delle principali Fortezze del suo Regno in diverse Prouincie, pagandoli danari di nuouo, oltre all’assoluerli di quanto hanno rubbato alla Corona, et al Popolo, et quello che importa più di tutto il resto, permetterli il libero esercitio delle loro Heresie, o l’hauere liberato i suoi fideli soggetti, et se la Casa Sua, et il suo Regno, et la Christianità, da si pestifera et perniciosa Canaglia, Bella usanza certo si potrebbe chiamare l’usurpare con la Tirannia, che s’hanno fatto gli Ugonotti, le Città et gli Stati pertinenti alla Corona, saccheggiare et espilare tutte le Prouincie, doue si sono potuti cacciare con ogni sorte di tradimento, et quando non si hà havuto altro refugio, ricorrere alla pace, et al perdono per non restituire quello che si è rubbato, et occupato à forza, et Tirannicamente. Tollerassi, che uno, ò pochi transfugi, infame, si facciano capi di una setta, et senza cagione, ò ragione pur finta, ò apparente; non chè con autorità, et giusto titolo, sotto colore di uolersi fare riformatori dé Preti diformati, et disobedienti, pigliano l’ armi contra il Rè, lo minacciano, faccino le battaglie seco, lo mettino nelle necessità, doue Sua M^[ta], è stata, et si truoua tuttauia, et li diano le leggi piutosto, che castigare chi lo merita, et reintegrare la giustitia, et la Religione nel suo Dominio, senza le quali due cose mai si uisse, nè si potrà uiuere rettamente in alcun luogo.

Anzi è troppo chiara cosa, come questo male non corretto: mà così trasandato andarà augumentando si ogni giorno maggiormente di sorte, che si habbia da mutare Imperio, come si uede che desiderano, et procurano con ogni diligenza gli Ugonotti che segua. E adunque la pace, cosi fatta pericolosa, et dannosa, come si è dimostro, sicome al punir li malfattori sarà sempre trouato necessario, honesto, et utile. Bisogna hora poi considerare, posto, che si debba fare se il Rè hà il modo da reintegrarsi nel suo prestino Stato, et autorità, et obedienza, et di ciò forse si potrebbe uenire in certa cognitione col misurare qual sia più il numero de Cat^[ci] ò quello degli Ugonotti, qual siano maggiori, et più gagliarde le forze, et armi de ribelli, ò quelle del Rè, quale delle due parti habbia più facile il modo da cauare gente forastiera, et sia meglio appoggiata d’amicitie de Prencipi Potentati, et de danari.

Et in fine secondo tali propositioni farne la conseguentia, per due Ugonotti, che siano nel Regno, si ode calcolare, che si ha da contraporre più di otto Cat.^[ci] gli ribelli hanno perduto nelle battaglie oltre alla reputatione, et la quantità degli huomini molti Capi grandi, che haueuano come il Prencipe di Condè, Dandalotto, et tanti altri, talmente che non accade far paragone dell’ armi sue a quelle del Rè, essi sono senza denari, et non possono così a loro posta più cauare nuoui soccorsi d’Alemagna, et Sua M^[ta] ne ha da sborsare ad essi a millione, et può hauer Reistri, Suizzari, Italiani, et Spagnuoli quanto li piace, et purchè uolesse sarebbe aiutato da tutta la Christianità, et quello che importa non meno di tutto il Resto, ha ad arbitrio, et disposition sua la giustitia, con la quale sola non è dubbio, che sarebbe bastante de regolare il tutto.

Sono accettate queste ragioni perchè non si può negare, Ma si risponde, che la Nobiltà di Francia, che è quella dalla quale depende il Popolo, totalmente è corrotta per la maggior parte, et da questo procede tutto il male, che la grandezza del Rè proprio in ogni tempo è stata principalmente per il seguito, et obedienza de i Nobili, et mancandogli essi Sua M^[ta] resterebbe debolissima, et allegano le battaglie guadagnate per diuina dispositione, che non si sono poi proseguite, nè cauatone quel frutto, che si speraua, et douenasi. Onde si uà imprimendo nell’ animo di Sua M^[ta] che per quel verso mai si potrà uedere il fine, et che però manco mal sia essere ricorso all’ accordo in quei modi, che si è potuto, perchè il tempo farà ben lui. Le quali fallacie sono troppo palpabili, toccandosi con mano, et uedendosi con l’occhio chiaramente doue stà la magagna: percioche il Re uorrà recarsi la mente al petto, e redursi a memoria delle cagioni, perchè non fù seguitata la Vittoria dopo la battaglia di San Dionigi, et perchè si diede tempo tante, et tante settimane alli Ribelli di riunirsi, et stabilirsi nelloro capo, et non si uolse mai obedire d’andare a cauarli da Monteri, o Faulnona, come sa chiunque si trouò, che si poteua fare senza alcun pericolo, et perchè a Craton in Campagna, quando si seguitauano li Ribelli non si uolse combatterli, nè manco andarli appresso da uicino, ò tagliargli i passi, come è palese, che si poteua per non impedirgli la congiuntione con il soccorso, che ueniua loro di Germania, conoscerà manifestamente Sua M^[ta] di essere stata tradita, et sa da chi, et lo proua da far punire i malfattori per giustitia, ma non è stata consigliata da uenirne mai all’ esecutione, perchè Sua M^[ta] non hà uoluto consigliarsi con altri, che con coloro che la tradiscono. Veggasi quel che seguì poi con l’altra pace fatta con mira, et intentione di dare la stretta alii capi di quella maledetta setta, dopo che hauessero deposte l’ armi, et reso le Fortezze; acciochè con tal mezo si conseguisca l’ intento, che si deue hauere senza tanto sangue per non debilitare le forze proprie. Ma i traditori, che dauano il Consiglio, o almeno erano partecipi di esso, seppero guidare le cose in modo, et si lasciò uscire la uolpe dalla tana, et portò il caso, che appunto quelli di cui altri si fidaua più, et che haueua l’ordine di fare l’ essecutione, auuertissero si a tempo i Ribelli, che furono i primi a repigliare l’ armi, et uscirne di Noyrs, et conseruaronsi la Roccella, et hebbero in ordine di poter pigliare Angoslen per forza, prima che le forze del Re fossero unite esse da opponesseli, che anco questo, come il resto uiene procedette tutto dalli traditori tiranti adrieto le prouisioni Regie per dar tempo a complici di lauorare, Piacque pur poi a Dio, che miracolosamente fosse ammazzato, il Prencipe di Condè, et disfatto parte delle genti di Moners, ma non si seguitò, come si poteua doueua, et conueniuasi. Venne ancora il Duco di Dupponti, che si poteua combatterlo, et uincerlo al sicuro, et non si fece per le cagioni, che si seppero, et pure non ci si prouidde.

Fu seguitato, et verso Limoges si hebbero diuerse occasioni di romperlo senza alcun risico, et non fù esseguito per la colpa di chi n’ impediua la essecutione con l’autorità, che haueua nell’ essercito Regio; accioche si lasciasse se unire col Coligni, anzi fù procurato con buona cura di guardare l’ Essercito Regio in forma, et in siti, che la fame, et gli stenti l’ hauessero a fare sbandare, dando andito, commodità, et aiuto à ribelli di godere il Paese, et d’impatronirsi de’ magazzeni, de uittouaglie munitioni, et artigliarie preparate da alcune persone, che si era troppo apparentemente ueduto, che erano colpeuoli, in ciò si uenne al paragone, come questi tali scellerati traditori erano di più autorità, essi appresso le loro Maestà, che qualunque recordaua la salute, et il seruitio di esse, come riusci similmente quando si era fatta deliberatione de Suizzeri, et Italiani, così all’ ingrosso, che il Re auesse facoltà di farsi la ragione con l’ armi à malgrado de Francesi, che la seruiuano male, i quali misero sù Mons^[r] Duca d’Angiù che la impregnò, come cosa che offendesse la dignità, et honor proprio di Sua Altezza, conoscendo chiaramente, che l’ intenteone de chi gouernaua, et consigliaua Sua M^[ta] non era uolta ad altro fine, che fargli inimici, ouero diffidenti tutti gli altri Prencipi, et in somma priuarlo di tutti gli aiuti esterni.

Le difficoltà, che furono interposte, per consumar tempo nell’ andare al soccorso di Poiters, sono anco loro ben note, perchè ùhebbero da interuenire diuersi capi, che andarono con le genti Italiane, finalmente, come Piacque a Dio seguì la battaglia di Moncontor, dopo la quale il Rè medesimo sa, come fù tenuto a bada sotto San Giouanni d’Angelin, nè si uolse mai mandare parte della Cauallaria, non che tutto l’Essercito dietro alli Ribelli rotti, et in fuga, di sorte che non era possibile, che si riunissero, se non se gli fusse lasciato in preda le migliori, et più opulenti Prouincie di Francia per accrescere loro il seguito de Padroni, et lasciarli reinferscare, et rimettere insieme. Dalle quali cose si ode, che il Rè medesimo hà scorto qualche cosa, che gli ha fatto nausea. Ma essendo Sua M^[ta] attorniata di gente, che lo cerca d’ingannare, et tradire per ogni uerso, ella non può discernere i Lacci, che gli sono tesi ne i pericoli doue si troua, però e da cercare di far la molto ben capace delle sopradette cose, mostrandoli, che es non si lieua da torno quei ribaldi, che cercauano così grandi artificij di rouinarla, ella si prouocherà l’ ira di Dio, ne douerà più sperare nella sua diuina misericordia, che così miracolosamente l’ ha sostenuto, et protetto fino al presente, ma restarà in preda di coloro, che non hanno altra mira, che di fare andare in precipitio la Sua Corona.

Di sopra e fatto mentione di alcuni particolari dè più sostantiali, accioche accadendosi si sappiano addurre per essempio al Rè, alla persona del quale pare, che si debba far capo direttamente, et parlare a Sua M^[ta] senza maschera, perchè certo non se gli può far maggior benefitio, che id storarli le orecchie, et aprirgli occhi, et la mente per farli bene intendere liberamente, come non resta, che da lei medesima, se non uorrà porre rimedio a tanti mali, à quali tutti può prouedere facilmente, con punire quelli, che nominatamente si daranno in una lista, et degli altri, che gli paia, che lo meritino, secondo il riscontro, che trouarà su le scritture cauate da Casa Coligni, et ancora, che alli ribelli di Christo, et suoi, che hanno fatto tutte, et si grandi, et inaudite sceleratezze, secondo l’ opinione di alcuni, non accade considerare di guardar Fede ò promessa fatta, nondimeno si può fare di castigare solo quelli, che hanno tradito, mentre seruiuano nel campo, ò nel Consiglio regio, che fia senza alcun dubio a bastanza.

Hassi d’ auuertire ancora il Rè, come fin che Sua M^[ta] se n’ è ita presso alle grida, et è stata con effetti del tutto Ingannata, ella può esser scusata appresso Dio, et al Mondo, ma dopo che saranno scoperte le magagne, et rappresentatole la uerità, et il modo di non star più in preda, et alla descrittione de’ traditori se non ci può: uederà la colpa di tutti i male, si ridurranno sopra le sue spalle, et restarà abbandonata da Sua Diuina M^[ta] appresso della quale più non uarranno i prieghi, et oratione del Papa, et de gli buoni, et fedeli, che forse hanno giouato più di ogni altro aiuto humano a sostenerla. Vedesi, che gli Heredi uanno cercando sottilmente a qualunque occasione di fare che il Rè offenda Dio per prouocargli il suo giusto sdegno, mettendogli inanzi con la sua pelosa carità di conseruarsi l’ amicitia del Turco di usurpare i beni Ecc^[ci]. et fino a mettersi a fare nuove Imprese fuora del Regno col mezo delle loro Armi, la qual ultima cosa non è incredibile in alcun mode se già il Re non uolesse darsi loro in preda del tutto, perciochè quando quell’ armi si uoltassero contra qualunque si sia stato di Prencipe Catholico Nostro Sig^[re] non potrebbe mancare di far quanto si appartiene al debito dell’ offitio suo, senza risguardo d’ altra mondana consideratione, trattandosi della gloria di Dio, et conseruatione della Sua Santa Legge, nel qual caso Sua Beatitudine sarebbe forzata di procurare con la medesima caldezza di souuenire, et aiutare altri contra gli Heretici, che ha fatto con il Rè Cat^[co]. et con Venettiani, la qual Lega si hà da ricercare, che sia uolta contra gli Heretici, et Infedeli, piutosto, che altroue.

Sopra la competenza, et gara de grandi, si possono dir moltj

## particolari in uoie, che sarià troppo lunga cosa mettere in scrittura,

basta, che tutto seruono a negare la debita obedienza al Padrone, et al uoler portar l’ armi con le quali s’ impedisce la giustitia, et fino a tanto che il Re non punisce a qualche uno de buoni, che lo meriti, perchè altri non preuarichi poi in modo, che una parte, et l’ altre si chiarisca per effetto, come Sua M^[ta] uuole conseruarsi la superiorità, che se gli conuiene, mai sarà libera da queste molestie, et sempre si starà in preda di ogni uno.

E. uerisimile, che la Reina ami più di tutti gli altri lo Stato, et la uita del Re et l’ unione, et conseruatione de gli altri suoi Figliuoli, essendo essa prudente quanto si sa, et hauendo tanta cognitione delli humori, quanta le ha fatta imparare la lunga amministratione del Gouerno, che ella ha hauuto, però non si può dubitare, che Sua M^[ta] per ambitione di conseruarsi l’ autorità preuarichi in parte alcuna di quel che deue, ma la proua ci ammonisce troppo, che da lei non si può aspettare quelle esecutioni, che ha mostro al Duca d’Alua in Fiandra, che basta a stabilire le solleuationi, et ribellione, perchè il sesso non gli lo promette, et anco in uerità di essere scusata, essendo stata Forastiera, et senza appoggio di potersi reggere secondo lei in simili casi, bisognando delle cotai deliberationi persona di gran cuore, et che habbia oltre l’ autorità l’ attitudine di fare con le mani proprie, quando l’ occasioni lo ricerchi, però con la M^[ta] della Reina, non pare che accada pensare di poter profittare per tal uerso, si che il trattarne con essa non si deue hauere per opportuno, et anco di questo si potrebbe pigliar Conseglio sul luogo per gouernarsene secondo che giudicassero meglio quelli che si sà, che sono buoni, et ueri Cat^[ci] et che non hanno più mira alle passioni particolari per il desiderio di hauer maggior partecipatione nel Gouerno, che al seruitio, et ben publico.

Intorno alle quali cose è ben necessario, che chi sarà impiegato habbia molta prattica, et gran prudenza da saper usare la descrittione essendoci bisogno di somma consideratone, percioche quando si trouasse tanto in preda a chi gl’ Inganna, che altri si disperasse di poter illuminarlo, et che si restasse ben chiaro di non douer cauar Frutto dalla persona di Sua M^[ta] sarebbe da uoltarsi forse ad altra strada, cioè uerso quei Prencipi, et grandi, che si conseruano Catholici, et che restano essosi et esclusi dal Re, et dal gouerno, et priui di autorità, et reputatione, i quali se haueranno un capo dependente dal Papa del quale sappino di potersi fidare, sono atti a uolersene, et con il mezo della sua autorità far tale unione d’ arme di Cat^[ci] in quel Regno, che il Re sia forzato a riconoscersi del suo errore, perchè la maggior parte delle Prouincie di quel Regno sono sotto il gouerno de Prencipe, o Sig^[re] Cat^[co]. ciascuno de quali saprà, et potrà ridurre le associationi, che furono incominciate con i loro Capi minori, et mediocri, et supremi da ualersi dell’ arme, nel modo stesso, che hanno sempre usato gli Ugonotti, et con esse dare adosso a gli Ugonotti da ogni parte per estinguerne la prima razza, che anco sopra ciò in uoce si può esprimere uarie cose, le quali sarebbono noiose a mettere in scritto, et a tal proposito si può ridarre a memoria quello che loro M^[ta] mandarono ad offerire al Papa per sicurtà della loro rissolutione di non uolere mancare subbito, che potessero liberare quel Regno dalla Heresia, cioè di capitulare espressamente, che a detti Gouernatori delle Prouincie se le usurpassero in caso di tal mancamento.

L’ abbandonare questa causa non è secondo la bontà, et pietà di Nostro Sig^[re] nè a ragion di Stato conciosiache non si prouedendo è da dubitare, et da tener per certo, che gli Ugonotti anderanno sependo, et cercando d’ impatronirsi se gli riuscisse à fatto del Regno per procedere poi anco più oltre con imprese esterne, et forse hanno dissegno col mettere su il Re a nuoue Imprese di conseguir l’ una, et l’ altra Impresa in un medesimo tempo col far morire il Re, et li Fratelli, et altri grandi, che potessero per uia di congiure, et di tradimenti preualersi dell’ entrata della Corona, et del Clero a sostenere solo l’ Imprese cominciate in compagnia del Re, la qual consideratione, sebene paresse lontana non è da gettarsi dopo lè spalle; anzi è consentaneo alla ragione di permeditarsi, et fare con la prudenza quei rimedy, che sono giudicati più conuenienti.

Frà quali s’ intenda il mandare al Re, et alli Cat^[ci]. una persona sola, o due, una diretta a Sua M^[ta]. et l’ altra alli Cat^[ci]. che si riferisca, et obedisca al principale.

Forse non sarebbe inconueniente di mandare anco uerso il Re Cat^[co]. persona ben confidente, et sincera et rissoluta, che potesse cauare Sua M^[ta] Cat^[ca]. de Generali, parlandogli con buona intelligenza delli humori prefati di Francia, et mostrandogli quanto sia il pericolo, che portano gli Stati di Fiandra, si perchè con il tempo diuentando Heretica la Francia, quelli Stati infetti di già non si potranno a modo alcuno conseruare da Sua M^[ta]. Cat^[ca] quali remedij ella presume di farci, et sapere, accioche si potesse disponere, et pensare se con i Vinetiani et altri Prencipi si potesse fare simili offitij per tastarli il polso douendo essi presumere, che sempre, che fusse mosso guerra alli Stati del Re di Spagna a loro non rincrescesse di potersi aiutare della Lega fatta, ma necessario, non che opportuno, in ogni caso pare il far prouisione quà de danari, de quali Sua Beat^[ne]. ha a ualersi grossamente, si per aiutare quelle cose, come per diffondere Italia, et il resto della Christianità dalle forze di questa scelerata setta. Et perchè le deliberationi di tanta importanza, nella quale si tratta della salute del Regno, et della conseruatione della Santa Sede, et della Christianità si hanno da fare con matura consideratione, si potrebbe per auentura discernere meglio qual partito fosse da pigliare prima, o poi, et come, et fino a qual termine udendone il parere di quelle persone, che paressero, et fussero giudicate intelligenti, et confidenti. Quanto alle richieste fatte adesso dal Re, la risposta fatta da N^[ro] Sig^[re] sopra la dispensa del Duca di Ghisa, et della Prencipessa di Portiano, non può essere più giusta, ma è facile a temperarla col mandare la dispensa del tutto spedita per chi andasse, accioche si uaglia di darla, o non appalesarla, secondo, che trouerà, che sia più a proposito per li humori; Conciosiache se si conclude affatto il Matrimonio di Portogallo, come è da stimare, che sia il disegno, chi sa che Madama Margherita non diuentasse moglie del Duca di Ghisa, piutosto che del Prencipe di Nauarra. Et circa il permettere che gli Ugonotti possino habitare sicuramente nella Città, et Contado di Auignone, non parche accada stare in dubbio, che Sua Santità, non lo può, ne deue concedere, ma di restituire i loro beni, et lasciarli contrattare, perchè ne sgombrano, si può ben forse hauerci consideratione, se con questa gratia fatta al Re si uedesse di accomodare con Sua M^[ta] qualche una delle cose più sostantiali, et anco ciò pare, che bisogni rimettere alla descrittone, et prudenza di chi si uolesse mandare, il quale deue hauere per massima, che sempre, che il Re uoglia essere così impio, che si risolua di fare quello, che può per leuare al Papa, et alla Santa Sede quello Stato, non ci è rimedio a diffendersi, ne essendo Auignone troppo circondato dalle sue forze, però conuiene auitarsi di conseruarselo, come si è fatto per l’ adietro in tutti i tempi con l’ autorità, et beneuolenza, et fauore del Re, al quale se può rimostrare che N^[ro] Sig^[re]. non uuole, ne intende tenere con l’ armi perturbato il suo Regno, mà solo tanta guardia nella Città, et Terre, che ui sono, che basti a non lasciarle rubbare per tradimento a quattro di quei scalzi Ugonotti, come ne sono state tolte tante a Sua M^[ta].

Douendo questa scrittura seruire solo per informatione delli humori di quel Regno, non pare, che accade farla ordinata, ne limitata, però sarà fatta, come si è potuto all’ imprescia &c.

APPENDIX XIV

[P. 354, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. XCVII, NO. 1,711

[_Printed pamphlet of 6 pages_]

[_Title page_]

ESTABLISSEMENT DE LA FRATERNITE DES CATHOLICQUES DE CHAALON SUR SAONE ERIGÉE À L’HONNEUR DU BENOIST SAINCT ESPRIT EN L’AN 1568

[_Woodcut representing the Holy Trinity_]

AU NOM DE DIEV AMEN

Nous soubscritz bien | acertenez que la sain | cte Eglise Catholique | ne peut faillir, errer, ny | vaciller en l’observan | ce de la pure, sincere | & vraye volonté de Iesu-Christ nostre | souverain Dieu, comme estant co | lumne & fermeté de verité, qui est, & | doit estre de consequent fondée & esta | blie sur la doctrine des Prophetes, des | Evangelistes, & des Apostres. Dont Je | su-christ mesme est la maistresse Pierre | angulaire qui a voulu le sainct Esprit | demeurer à iamais tant que le monde | sera monde eternellement avec sadicte | Eglise Catholique. Dont n’est à croy | re, comme nous ne croyons que | Dieu ayt permis son peuple Chre | stien vivant soubz ladite Eglise, estre | par aveuglement en erreur, & idolatrie | par l’espace de mil cinq cens & plus | d’ans. Soit par les celebrations de la sain | cte Messe, assistance du peuple & cere | monies d’icelle, entretenue par tant de | sainctz & grandz personages en scavoir, | religion, saincte vie, martyrisés pour le | nom de Dieu, Confesseurs vivans austere | ment en toute parfaicte doctrine, Vier | ges, que autres bons fidelles d’icele Egli | se catholique. Par l’approbation de la | quelle (non autrement) nous avons pure | credence des sainctes escritures, du Viel | & Nouueau Testament, donc d’icelle | lon ne se doit devoyer, retirer, ny demen | tir en maniere, que ce soit, sans blasphe | me, erreur, & damnation. Mais doit lon | par l’ayde supplication, & prieres à | Dieu, & illumination de son S. Esprit | estre fermes & stables, reiectant tous flots | des persuasions de nouvelle doctrine, | soubs quelconque pretexte quelle puis | se estre suggerée.

A ceste consideration par in | tention Chrestienne soubs la divine puissance | & espoir par l’inflammation du | benoist S. Esprit d’estre maintenus & | conservez en nos consciences, en l’union, | mansuetude, crainte, & obeissance d’icel | le Eglise catholique, à l’imitation de la | maiesté du Roy nostre sire, & soubs sa | protection & bon plaisir, desirans nous | efforcer de luy rendre & rapporter sub | mission & prompte obeissance, en tou | tes les choses, que nous voyons, & sca | vons estre observées, selon la saincte vo | lonté de Dieu, au salut eternel de nos | ames, par sadicte maiesté royale & ses | tresexcellens predecesseurs, qui ont ve | scu & sont decedez puis l’heure qu’ilz | ont estez oinctz & sacrez de la celeste | unction par le mystere de la saincte Mes | se dont ilz remportent le nom de tres | chrestiens. |

Nous avons soubz ledict bon vou | loir & plaisir du Roy faict entre nous & | pour tous autres Catholiques qui ad | ioindre se vouldront une fraternité qui | s’appellera Confrairie & société des Ca | tholicques. En laquelle sera esleu un | Prieur pour luy obeir es choses & en | droicts concernans les poincts dessusdicts | circonstances & deppendances à mesme | fin sera chascun dimanche a noz fraiz | celebree une Messe du Benoist sainct | Esprit en l’eglise de nostre dame des Car | mes de Chaalon & aultres iours qui sera | avisé par ledict Prieur ou seront tenuz | d’assister ceulx qui seront appellez pour | ladicte assemblee en bonne & louable de | votion & continuer en prieres qu’il plaise | à nostre pere celeste conserver sa dicte | Eglise & la purger de toutes perturba | tions & remettre icelle en une seule foy & | donner prosperité a nostre Roy en tous | ses affaires & luy prolonger la vie a la gloi | re & sanctification du nom de Dieu à l’avan | cement & manutention de la religion Catholique | & courone de France & sil adve | noit (que Dieu ne vueille) que quelques | uns par une effrenee volonté entreprins | sent contre l’intention de sa dicte maie | sté d’user d’emotions, iniures, detractions | contre ladicte religion Catholique, vio | lences sacrileges, invasions, conventicules, | à l’effect dessusdict, batteries, meurtres, | pilleries d’Eglise, rouptures d’aultelz | images, croix, & choses dediees au servi | ce divin. Promettons y resister par tous | deux moyens tant par promptz advertis | semens aux superieurs & iusques à sa di | cte maiesté que aultrement comme il sera | de besoin. Et si les effortz estoyent si pe | tulentz qu’ilz requissent prompt empe | schement: Promettons y tenir par une | unanimité la main & faire tout ce que | par nos superieurs sera ordonné pour la | manutention de ladicte religion, resister | aux entreprinses contraires. Et au cas | qu’il advint que Dieu ne vueille que les | persones de sa maiesté & de messieurs | ses freres qui maintiennent & maintien | dront nostredicte religion & Corone fus | sent oppressees de sorte que ne sceussions | avoir advertissemens de leurs volontez. | Promettons rendre toute obeissance au | general chef qui sera esleu sur la presen | te société. En tesmoin desquelles cho | ses susdictes & pour l’observance & ac | complissement d’icelles, Nous les avons | tous soubsignez & marquez de noz | seings & marques accoustumez audict | Chaalon, le dimanche vingtcinquiesme | iour du mois d’Avril l’an mil cinq cens | soixante huict.

Comme Secretaires esleus en ladicte fraternité & par ordonnance du superieur en icelle.

LAMBERT. [1769] BELYE.

[_Not endorsed_]

APPENDIX XV

[P. 354, n. 4]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. C, NO. 1,862

[_Catholic League in Maine_]

Nous soubsignez confederez et alliez par saincte et divine alliance pour la continuation et maintention de lhonneur souverain deu a notre Dieu le createur et aux commandementz & ordonnances de la saincte eglise catholique apostolique & romaine et pour la maintention de lestat du Roy treschrestien et trescatholique, notre souverain prince esleu & a nous baille par la grace et providence divine pour notre chef & souverain terrien debateur & conservateur de lad. eglise catholique & romaine et des sainctz decretz & concilies dicelle, et de lobeissance que nous et tous ses bons subiectz luy devons et a noz seigneurs ses freres aussi treschrestiens & trescatholiques, repoz de son Royaume & de tout son peuple Et afin de maintenir lad. eglise et religion catholique apostolique & romaine pour obvier par tous moyens licites raisonnables et permis de Dieu aux damnees entreprinses machinations et conspirations que Sathan a mys es cueurs daucuns malheureux qui ont tendu & tendent par tout lesd. artz dyaboliques de non seulement imminer mais du tout subvertir lad. religion catholique apostolique & romaine et lestat & auctorite du Roy notre bon souverain catholique et treschrestien Prince & legitime defenseur dicelle et de nosd. s^[rs] ses freres, et pour tenir moyennant layde de Dieu et le consentement & accord de leurs ma^[tes] tout le peuple en repoz Pour servir a Dieu & a notre mere saincte eglise et rendre lobeissance deue a leurs Ma^[tes], faire obeir la justice tant de ses courtz de parlementz que autres ses juges magistratz, Promettons et jurons vivre et mourir en lad. religion catholique apostolique & Romaine et lobeissance deue ausd. Ma^[tes] et a leur justice Nous promettons aussi & jurons ensemble toute obeissance service et ayde et de noz personnes & biens pour empescher & courir sus avec leurs auctoritez contre tous perturbateurs innovateurs et contrevenantz a lad. religion; en estats desd. ma^[tes] & a leurs sainctz & catholiques edictz & ordonnances divines & polytiques et de nous secourir les ungs les autres aux effectz susd. par tous moyens contre tous rebelles heretiques sectaires de la nouvelle religion en quelque lieu quilz soient & qui en sont suspectz ou nadherentz a notre party et tendans a fins contraires. Le tout jusques a la mort inclusivement. Le xj^[e] Iuillet 1568.

Depuis ces presentes signees par la noblesse mercredy dernier elles furent signees en cahier distinct toutesfois en mesme livre par les presbytres. Et vendredy portees par lesd. presbytres auturs estat Et y ont soubsigne les eschevins & procureurs de la ville plusieurs des officiers du Roy et des bourgeois avec menasses a ceulx qui nont voulu signer destre tenuz suspectz. Et par la conference quils ont eue tous ensemble, la noblesse sest chargee du reiglement pour assembler et dresser les gens de guerre et ceulx qui peuvent porter les armes et dadviser et eslire les chefz pour leur communte. Et les presbytres et le tiers estat sen sont de tout submys a la noblesse. Ils font signer & jurer par les bourgades aux procureurs & plus apparentz des parroisses.

Lesgail sest faict en la ville du Mans pour la solde des harquebuziers a cheval pour mons^[r] le seneschal de Maine. Et ayant a son arrivee trouve les portes assez mal gardies a faict publier la garde avec injunction des peynes.

[_Not signed_]

[_Endorsed_] Copie de lassociation faicte | par les provinces.

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. C, NO. 1,863

Cest le Roole de la saincte union contenant quarante rooles en parchemin cestluy compris.

Nous soubsignez confederez & alliez par saincte et divine aliance es Duché Canton et Conté du Maine, pour la continution et manutention de l’honneur deu a Dieu notre createur, de ses sainctz comandementz, et ordonnances de la saincte Eglise catholicque, apostolicque et Romaine: Et pour la manutention de lestat du Roy treschrestien et trescatholicque notre Souverain Prince, esleu et a nous baille par la grace et providence divine pour notre Chef et Souverain terrien dominateur et conservate^[r] de lad. saincte Eglise Catholicque, Apostolicque et Romaine, et des sainctz decretz et conciles d’icelle, et de lobeyssance que nous et tous ses bons subiectz luy debuons, et a tous nos Seigneurs ses freres aussy treschrestiens et trescatholicques Princes, repos de son Royaume, et de tout son peuple: Et afin de maintenir lad. s^[te] eglise et Religion catholicque, Apostolique et Romaine, po^[r] obvier par tous moyens licites raisonnables et permis de Dieu, aux damnees entreprinses, machinations et conspirations que Sathan a mises es cueurs d’aucuns malheureux qui ont tendu et tendent par tous artz diaboliques de non seulement imminuer mais du tout subvertir lad. Religion catholique; Prince treschrestien et legitime defenseur, et de nosd. Sieurs ses freres. Et pour tenir moyennant layde de Dieu, consentement et accord de leurs maiestez, tout le peuple en repos pour servir a Dieu et rendre lobeyssance deue a leursd^[es] maiestes, faire obeyr la justice, tant de ses Cours de parlement que aultres des juges et magistratz. Promettons et jurons vivre et mourir en lad^[e] Religion Catholique Apostolique et Romaine et obeyssance deue ausd^[es] Maiestes Ausquelles Maiestez et Iustice nous promettons et jurons toute obeyssance, secours, et ayde, et de nos personnes empescher et courir sus, aveq leurs authoritez, a tous perturbateurs, innovateurs, et contrevenants a lad. Religion, et Estatz desd^[es] Maiestez, et a leurs sainctz et catholiques Edictz, et ordonnances divines et politiques: Et nous secourir les uns les autres aux effectz susd^[es] par tous moyens contre tous rebelles, heretiques, sectaires tendantz a fin contraires. Le tout jusques a la mort inclusivement. Faict et arresté au Mans lunz^[me] jour de Iullet 1568.

[_Not signed_]

[_Endorsed in Cecil’s hand_]

Copy of a Conspyracion by | vow, in France by the | Catholicques ag. the contraryes.

APPENDIX XVI

[P. 359, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, DOMESTIC

ELIZABETH, VOL. XLVII, NO. 72

[_Walsingham to Cecil_]

S^[r]

Notw^[th]standynge my frend doothe assure me that he is advertysed by sooche as he doothe imploye in that behalfe, that ther wer of late certeyne lodged in Sowthewerke whoe nowe are departed, whos clos keping of them selves gave great cause of suspytion of no dyrect meanynge. At this p^[r]sent s^[r] I am requested by him to advertyce you that in taulke that passed of late betwene the new come Cardynaule and him, towching the undyrect dealynges of the Cardynaule of Loreyne emongest other thinges he shewed him that thre of late were sent by the sayde Car. of Loreyne to exequte the lewde practyce in the searche wherof yt pleasethe you to imploye us two of the partyes, he thus descrybed them unto him as followethe. The one to be of natyon an englysheman, of complexion sangwine, his beard read, and cot (as commonly they terme yt marchesetto) of vysage leane, of stature hye. The other of natyon an Italyan, of complexion cholerycke and swarte, his bearde of leeke hue, and cot, of vysage full faced, of stature and proportyon lowe, and sooche as commonly we tearme a trubbe. After I had herde the descryptyon of them I declared unto him that alreadye ye were advertysed of the leeke and that you towld me that thos descryptyons were so generayle, as they myght as well towche the innocent as the gyltye. I further towlde him (as of my selfe) that the Cardynall Shatyllglion myght use this as a meane to make his ennemye the more odyowse to this estate. To the fyrst he replyed, that the rather he had cause to be iealowse of thos descryptyons, for that he knewe an Inglysheman of leeke descryptyon, havinge the Italyan tonge verry well, and the Frenche reasonably well, that passed to and fro betwene the pope and the Card. of L. and also the seyde partye resorted myche to the noble man that at that tyme was lodged in my frendes howse; and therfor the rather he seyde he was leeke to be imployed in so lewd a practyce. To the seconde he seyd that he hath had so good exsperyence of the synceryte and dyrect dealynge of the howse of Shatiglion as he knowethe assuredly that they woold not seeke by so undyrect a meane to make any man odyowse: And saythe he further to assure you, that sooche a practyce may be in hande: I knowe by letters that I sawe by a secret meane wrytten from Roome unto the bysshop of Viterbo, abowt syxe years passed, in the tyme of B. Francys (of late memorye) the leeke practyce was in hande the cavse also I knowe whie yt tooke no place, and therof can advertyce m^[r] Secretarye when yt shall please him to deal w^[th] me in that behalfe. Besides to provoke me to wryte he added further, that he understood by sooche as he imployed in searche at Sowthewerk that one of thos whom they holde for suspected shoold have a redd berde, w^[th] the rest of the merks aboverecyted: and therfor for that he is not to be fownde in Sowthewerke, he dowbtethe he may be repeyred to the coorte: wherfor he desyerethe you most earnestly, that ther may be some appoynted by you fytt for the purpose to have regarde in that behalfe. Thus levinge any further to troble your honor I commyt you to God. From London the xv^[th] of September a^[o] 1568.

Y^[r] honors to commaunde FRA: WALSYNGHAM

[_Addressed_] To the right Honorable S^[r] William Cicill principall Secretarye and one of her Ma^[tes] privie counsell At the Court.

[_Endorsed_] 15 fbr, 1568. M^[r] Francis Walsingham to my m^[r]

APPENDIX XVII

[P. 375, n. 2]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CX, NO. 533

[_News from La Rochelle_]

Monsieur l’Amiral escript du commencement du moys de Ianvier, que larmee de Messeigneurs les Princes se trouve fort gaillarde et plus saine quelle n’a esté depuis ung an, et estime quele changement d’air a esté ung des moyens, dont Dieu s’est servy pour faire cesser les maladies qui y ont regné jusques a lors. Lad. armee estoit au port de s^[te]. Marie a trois lieues d’Agen et tenoit tout le bord de la riviere de la Garonne depuis les portes d’Agen jusqs pardela Marmande et du long de la riviere du Loth jusqs a Villeneufve ou y a de petites villes mais riches & abondantes de toutes choses necessaires a une armee, et desquelles on tire quelques finances.

Mon: le Conte de Montgommery est de l’autre bord de la riviere de la Garonne tenant tout le pais de la jusqs en Bearn et jusques a Lengon, et au hault de la riviere jusqs a Haultvillar qui de son coste amasse le plus de finances quil peut. Il ny a point dennemys qui facent teste, ou donnent empeschemt. Ilz se tiennent clos & couverts dedans les villes et laissent la campaigne libre aux dictzs^[rs] Princes. Mons. le Mar^[al] Danville se tient a Tholose, et mons^[r] de Montluc a Agen. Ilz ont des forces mais separees & mal unies de voluntez et de lieux. Le S^[r] de la Vallette avoit este envoyé pour les rassembler et s’essayer de faire plus que lesditz S^[rs] Danville et Montluc mais il s’en est retourné sans rien faire.

Mons^[r] de Pilles et ceux qui estoient dedans S^[t] Iehan sont venuz au camp bien sains et gaillards, ayans soubstenu le siege tant que les pouldres ont duré & faict actes aussy belliqueux & magnanimes qui se sount faictz de notre cage en siege de ville.

Il avoit este faict ung pont a batteaux sur lad. riviere de la Garonne sur lequel hommes, chivaux charettes et artillerie avoient passé huyt jo^[rs] durant, mais tant par la rive des eaux que par la faulte dung qui estoit alle prendre ung moulin des ennemys po^[r] lamener aud. port de S^[te] Marie. lad. moulin luy est eschappe et a choque et rompu led. pont. Si est ce quon y a depuis donne tel ordre quon ne laisse de passer.

Il y a plus^[rs] advertissements quil y a quatre mil Espaignolz a la frontiere d’Lespaigne & que le Prince Daulphin s’en va les trouver avec une troupe de cavalerie po^[r] le^[r] faire escorte.

M^[r] de Lavauguyon est venu entre les deux rivieres de la Dordogne et du Loth avec vingt cornettes de cavalerie pour tenir les passages desdictes rivieres. doubtant que Mess^[rs] les Princes les veillent repasser, mais cela na empesché le S^[r] de Pilles de passer le Loth, et saprocher desdictes cornettes, esperant les reveoir de plus pres en brief.

Les reistres des dictz seigneurs Princes ont receu ung payement, et son, si bien satisfaictz et contens que jamais ne fut veu une plus obeissante nationt. Ilz sont partie dela la riviere auec M. le Conte de Montgommery et partie decha, ne faisans difficulte de se separer et recevoir le commandant de tous ceux quil est ordonné et d’aller en tous lieux ou il le^[r] est commande.

Mons. le Conte de Mansfeld faict infiniz bons offices tous les jo^[rs], esquelz il monstre ung zele a ceste cause avec une magnanimité, de laquelle il ne cede a person quelconques. Et ne fault doubter que Dieu ne layt envoyé pour ung tresgrand bien et necessaire comme aussy le Conte Ludovic de Nassau prince tresvertueux et fort advisé.

Quand a la negotiation de la paix, les admis de la Rochelle portent que ung moys durant le Roy et la Royne ont souvent envoye devers la Royne de Navarre pour l’exhorter a entendre au bien de la paix et haster les deputez, lesquelz ont longuement differé a cause des difficultez qui ont este mises en avant tant po^[r] le peu de seurete quon trouvoit aux passeportz qui estoient envoyez de la partie de le^[rs] majestez, que po^[r] la distance du lieu, ou le pourparte de lad. paix estoit assigné et ordonné, qui est la ville d’Angiers, en laquelle a Co^[rt] se retrouve a present.

Finalement leurs majestes ont renvoyé autres passeportz, et depesché le s^[r] du Croq le^[r] m^[e] d’hostel, pour conduire lesdictz deputez, lesquelz furent nomez au conseil tenu a la Rochelle le x^[me] de Ianvier, ascavoir, les s^[rs] de Beauvoir la Nocle lieutenant de feu Mons. d’Andelot, Cargeoy gentilhomme de Bretaigne, Compain chancelier et la Chassetiere Brodeau secretaire de la Royne de Navarre. Le S^[r] de Theligny est aussy des deputez, mais avec sauf conduit pour et retourner quand bon luy semblera et besoing sera, pour raporter no^[les] de lad. negotiation a lad. Dame Royne et a Messeigneurs les Princes et Mons. l’Amiral selon les occurrences.

Et encore qu il semble que le Roy desire la paix et quon ayt advis quil la veult faire a quelque pris que ce soit, si est ce que pour le peu de foy et seurete quon a esprouve par deux foys en celle qui a este faute, on est resolu de la faire a ce coup avec laide de Dieu bonne, asseuree et inviolable. Et a ceste fin on a baille aux dictz deputez ung pouvoir si restraint quilz ne peuvent rien conclure sans premier avoir ladvis de lad. dame Royne desdicts S^[rs] Princes et dud. S^[r] Amiral, et jusqs a ce quil ayt este par les susdictz dame Princes et S^[rs] arreste. Ce qui ne se fera sans pallablement avoir surce le conseil et deliberation de nos confederez et de ceux qui nous ont favorise, aide et secouru en ceste cause comme il est raisonable, et a fin de pouvoir mieux asseurer lad. paix; esperans que en y procedant de ceste facon et establissant le pur service de Dieu par dessus toutes choses il honora les actions de ceux qui y seront employez.

Au reste la charge desdictz deputez consiste en trois points ascavoir la liberte des consciences et exercice de la Religion sans distinction de lieux ou personnes. La seurete & protection de nos vies et personnes & la restitution de biens honne^[urs] charges, estatz et dignites.

Ceux qui sont hors de ce Roy^[me] quon a resolu dadvertir premier que de conclure aucune chose sur le traicte et pourparte de la paix sont dune pt les princes D’allemaigne et mesmes monsie^[r] le Prince d’Aurenge, et dautre pt Monsie^[r] Le Car^[al] de Chastillon par ce quil y a eu si estroictes promesses et obligations faictes par ceux qui ont en pouvoirs de Messeu^[rs] les Princes, quil a este trouvé raisonable de ne rien faire sans le commun advis de tous ceux qui sont participans en ceste cause et qui lont favorisee.

Le Baron de la garde se vante desja si la paix se conclut de faire ung voyage en Escosse avec ses galeres.

[_Not signed_]

[_Not addressed_]

[_Endorsed in Cecil’s hand_] Ianvar 1569 Extract of letters from Rochelle &c.

APPENDIX XVIII

[P. 387, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CVIII, NO. 359

[_Catherine de Medici to the duke of Anjou_]

[1569, September 10]

Extraict de la lettre de la Royne escritte de sa propre main a Monseigneur le Duc du dix^[me] Sep^[re] Dclxix escritte au Plessis les Tours.

Mon filz, Sanger irent tout a ceste heure darriver de vostre frere par lequel nous a mande la bonne et utile nouvelle de l’heureux desassiegement de Poittiers avec ung tresgrand honeur de mons^[r] de Guise et de tous ceulx qui y estoient pour le grand et notable service quilz ont fait a Dieu au roy et a ce royaume et de vostre frere de les avoir si bien secouruz qen faisant semblant dassieger Chastellerault et de donner ung faulx assault il a fait a quil vouloit et pourquoy le roy lavoit envoye et a ceste heure il regardera de mettre peine dabreger toute ceste guerre que avec layde de Dieu il mettra bien tost le repoz en ce royaume et me semble que jamais ny eust plus doccacion de remercier Dieu et le continuer de prier a fin quil nous mette hors de tant de maulx.

[_No signature_]

[_No address_]

[_Endorsed_] Copie de la lettre de la Royne a Monseigneur le Duc.

APPENDIX XIX

[P. 389, n. 4]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CIX, NO. 444

[_Norris to Cecil_]

Right honorable The Admirall hathe lately written to the Cap^[en] of la Charite that praise be givin to Gode he maye now joyne w^[th] the vicountes at his pleas^[r] & that he hadd forces sufficient to make hedd to his Ennemis, Praying the Governo^[r] to loke carefully to the places on the frontiers & provide all thinges necessarie for the commyng of Mons^[r] de Lizy, withe the Armey of Allemagnes whiche puttithe these in great feare & use all meanes to treat a Peax that possibly the can. Wrytten at Tours thise 19^[th] of December 1569.

Yo^[r] honours ever assuride to commaunde HENRY NORREYS

[_Addressed_] to the Right Honorable S^[r] William Cisill Knight principall Secretarie to the Quene’s most Excellent Maiestie & of hir highnes preavy Cownsell.

[_Endorsed_] 19 xbr 1569 S^[r] Henry Norreys to my m^[r] from Tours.

APPENDIX XX

[P. 392, n. 2]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CXI, NO. 580

Double de la responce faicte par le Roy aux ar^[cles] presentez a sa Ma^[te] par les deputez de la Roine de Navarre.

Le Roy ayant entendu ce qui luy a este exposé de la part des deputez de la Roine de Navarre des Princes de Navarre de Conde S^[rs] Gentils-hommes & autres de toutes qualitez qui sont avec eulx les _treshumbles requestes_ faictes a sa Ma^[te] de leur donner la paix avec les seuretez qui sont en son pouvoir pour les faire jouir du benefice dicelle. Ensemble les submissions qui luy ont este faictes de luy rendre lobeissance & fidelité quilz lui doibvent Sadite Ma^[te] pour la _singuliere affection quelle a tousjours_ portée a la Roine de Navarre Princes de Navarre & de Conde pour la proximité de sang dont ilz luy appartiennent. Le desir quelle a de la conservacion de ses subgectz _speciallement de sa noblesse_ pour monstrer a eulx & a tous les dessusditz son affection & clemence paternelle & royalle envers eulx et la volunté quelle a de voir ses subgectz ensemble revinz soubz son obeissance & son royaulme en repos de troubles qui y sont de present leur a accordé pour parvenir a une bonne syncere & entiere pacification desditz troubles les choses qui sensuyvent.

Car les treshumbles req^[tes] presentees a sa Ma^[te] de la part de la Royne de Navarre et de Messeigneurs les Princes il est manifeste que le but de lad. dame et desd. Seigneurs Princes n’est et ne fut onques d’oster au Roy sa couronne comme ilz ont esté calumniez, mais d’entretenir le vray pur et libre service de Dieu, come le Roy suyvant la req^[te] des estatz la accordé a tous ses subgectz.

Nous sommes persuadez de la bonne affection que sa Ma^[te] a portee a la Roine de Navarre et a Messieurs les Princes au paravant que ceulx qui aujourdhuy soubz le nom du Roy oppriment le Royaulme eussent chassé d’aupres de sa personne tous ses meilleurs et plus loyaux conseillers et mesmes qu’au paravant ces dernieres troubles nonobstant les fausses accusations calumnies et impostures dont on avoit charge lad. Dame Roine et Messieurs les Princes, ce neantmoins n’avoient tant sceu faire ceulx de Guyse que de faire oublier a sa Ma^[te] son bon naturel, tellement que personne na doubté si sa Ma^[te] se fust conduicte selon sa bonne inclination que sa bonne affection ne se fust tousjours monstree en leur endroict et eussent este traictez comme bons et prochains parens loyaulx subgectz et tresobeissans serviteurs. Toutesfois il est cogneu notoirement que par les mauvaises praticques desquelles ont use ceulx qui sont aupres de sa Ma^[te] lad. dame Messieurs les Princes, les S^[rs] Gentils-hommes et autres estans a leur suyte ont este beaucoup plus cruellement traictez que les poures Chrestiens qui tombent entre les mains des Turcqs et Infidelles.

Ceulx de Guise ont assez faict de preuve de la bonne affection quilz ont a la conservation des subgectz de sa Ma^[te], quand par les secrettes Intelligences quilz ont avec la maison Despaigne et speciallement avec le Duc d’Albe depuis huict ans en ça ils ont faict mourir la meilleure partie de la noblesse et autres subgectz de lune et lautre religion et mesmement les plus loyaulx & affectionnez au service de sa Ma^[te]. Et quant a aymer la noblesse il est certain que ce sont ceulx qui la haissent et craignent le plus et apres eux les gens de lettres comme ceulx qui naturellement sont ennemys de la tyrannie, et de lusurpation quilz ont voulu faire de la couronne et en

## particulier des comtez d’Aniou et de Provence, et que ne promections

jamais lalienation de la souveraincté de Bar, que ceulx de Guise ont essaie de praticquer depuis la mort du Roy Henry plus^[rs] fois et on scait encores ce quilz ont faict dernierement. Et quant au repos public il est certain que la paix et le Cardinal de Lorraine ne peuvent loger en ung mesme royaulme.

Premierement que la memoire de toutes choses passées demeurera esteincte & supprimée comme de choses non jamais advenues. Quil ne sera loizible ne permis en quelque temps ne pour quelque occasion que ce soit den faire jamais mention ne procés en quelque court jurisdiction que ce soit ne ailleurs, et a ceste fin sera imposé silence a ses procureurs generaulx en toutes ses courtz de parlemens & leurs substitudz, sera aussy defendu a toutes personnes princes d’en renouveller la memoire ny en faire reproche sur peine destre puniz comme infracteurs de paix & perturbateurs du repos public.

Semblables choses nous ont este promises deux foix mais les courtz de parlemens et autres juges inférieures n’ont laisse de faire mourir ceulx quilz ont peu apprehender, le peuple a massacre par tout ou ils a esté le plus fort, les assassinats ont este tous publics, de justice ils ny en a point eu les injures plus grandes que jamais ce mot de rebelle a este familier en la bouche des Gouverneurs des Provinces et singulierement des soubz Gouverneurs dont la France est infectée, et consequemment des pctis, partant pour effectuer ceste promesse est de besoing que sa Ma^[te] pourveoie a la justice et a son prive conseil comme elle seulle le peult et doibt faire autrement ces promesses sont trappes et pieges.

Que tous arrestz sentences jugemens & procedures faictes en quelque Court et devant quelques juges que ce soit durant les presens troubles & aux precedens pour raison des choses passees durant ou a cause desditz troubles a lencontre des dessusditz ou aucuns deceulx seront mis a neant cassez & revoquez.

Il nest rien si naturel que tous affaires soyent dissoutes par le moyen quel les ont este assemblees et partant est de besoing que les courtz qui ont faict la playe facent la guarison donnans arrestz et sentences contraires a leurs premiers arrestz et sentences, aillent en personne despendre les effigiez et ossemens des executez ou en effigie ou apres leur mort pour le moins en semblable sollemnité quilz les ont executez comme il fut faict a Rouen en la personne des seigneurs de Harcourt et de Granville. Et quant a ceulx qui ont este executez de faict que punition exemplaire soit faicte des Iuges qui ont este autheurs de telles sentences mesmes contre le vouloir et intention du Roy et que les heritiers des defunctz prennent leurs interestz sur les biens desd. criminelz.

Quilz ou aucuns d’eulx ne pourront jamais estre recerchez pour raison des praticques ou intelligences quilz pourront auoir eves avec Princes Potentatz Communautez ou personnes privees estrangeres ny a cause des traictez ou contractz quilz pourraient avoir faictz ou passez avec eulx pour raison des choses concernans lesdictz troubles & dependances diceulx dont le Roy les a entierement deschargez et leur en baillera toutes tres & seuretez qui seront a ceste fin necessaires en la meilleure & plus autentique forme que faire se pourra.

Ce seroit a ceulx de Guise a prendre lettres d’abolition pour avoir eu secrettes praticques avec les antiens ennemys de la couronne, les avoir mis dedans le Royaulme pour parvenir a leur damnable desseing dusurper le Royaulme et au contraire ceulx qui en une extreme necessité ont eu recours a leurs antiens amys et confederez pour secouer ce joug et mainitenir le Roy et la Couronne meritent toutes sortes de louanges et de recognoissance pour leur grande valleur & pour tant de pertes.

Que par le benefice de ceste paix tous les dessusditz seront remis & reintegrez en leurs honneurs & biens pour diceulx jouir eulx leurs enfans heritiers successeurs ou ayans cause paisiblement et sans aucun empeschement.

Cest article ne peult avoir lieu si ce que est dict cy dessus sur lar^[cle] 3 nest execute. Item puis que ceulx qui ont tué de sang froid Monseigneur le Prince de Condé et contre la loy de la guerre. Ceulx qui ont emprisonne Monsieur d’Andelot et ce trahistre qui a tué le s^[r] de Mouy ont este hault esleuez et renumirez Messieurs leurs enfans ne peuvent estre remis en leurs honneurs sinon que punition exemplaire soit faicte de si pernicieux hommes de leurs complices & adherens que si Dieu mesmes a desja faict la vangeance d’aucuns (comme il la faict) si leur memoire nest condamne.

Et pour gratifier particulierement lesditz Princes & ceulx de la noblesse qui auront estatz charges & pensions de sadite Ma^[te] le Roy les remectra en sesditz estatz charges et pensions pour en jouir ainsy comme dessus est dit.

Cest article ne tend qu’a diviser les grands davec les petis pour les opprimer les ungs apres les autres.

Et quant au faict de la religion le Roy, leur permectra de demeurer & vivre paisiblement dedans son Royaulme en entiere liberté de leur conscience sans estre recerchez en leurs maisons ny les abstreindre a faire chose pour le regard de ladite religion contre leur volunté. Et encores pour plus grande seureté sadite Ma^[te] leur accordera deux villes lesquelles le s^[r] de Biron leur nommera, dedans lesquelles ilz pourront faire tout ce que bon leur semblera et quilz vouldront sans estre recerchez. Et neantmoins en chascune desdites villes sadite Ma^[te] aura ung Gentilhomme capable & ydoine pour avoir loeil a ce quil ne soit faict chose qui contrevienne a son auctorité & repos de son Royaulme et qui mainctienne ung chacun en paix et repos. Ne voulant sadite Ma^[te] quil y ayt au reste de tout son Roiaulme aucun ministre ne quil soit faict autre exercice de religion que de la sienne.

Dautant que cest ar^[cle] est le noud de la matière il est aussy captieux en toutes ses parties.

Premièrement il est couché si a propos quon ne scavoit recueillir sil s’entend seulement des Princes et de la noblesse oubien generallement de tous. Et on scait comment on sest servy par cydevant de telles facons de parler.

Secondement il y a de la contradiction manifeste en ce quil est dict expres, quil y aura entiere liberté de conscience et neantmoins quil ny aura point de ministres en France.

Tiercement de limpossibilité, car quelle peut estre la liberté de la conscience ou il n’y a point dexercice de religion? Le Cardinal de Lorraine pense que liberte de conscience et stupidite de conscience soit ung. Or la liberte de conscience est en la liberté de la foy qui est en Christ comment se peut engendrer entretenir et augmenter la foy que par la parolle delaquelle estans privez il ne reste aucune liberté. Le Cardinal se trompe en ce quil pense que la liberté gise a avoir congé de n’aller point a la Messe, de n’aller point aux pardons et choses semblables, mais la liberte de la conscience ne gist point a ne point faire ce qui est mauvais, mais a faire ce qui est bon. La verite dict qui oyt ma parolle et qui la mect en effect est bien heureux. Il sensuyt doncq que qui ne loyt point est malheureux Il ne dit point qui ne va point a la Messe. En somme notre liberte nest point composee de negatives, mais fondee sur propositions affirmatives quil fault faire. Item si le Cardinal ne peut comprendre quelle est ceste liberté des Chrestiens, comme il ne peult ne luy ne quiconques soit en ce monde sil n’est regendre denhault, au moins peult il bien entendre que quand nous n’avons moyen de contracter mariages, baptizer les enfans, et enterrer noz mortz que nous n’avons aucune liberté en noz consciences, mainctenant quil me dise comment (ayans en horre^[r] les actes de la papauté) nous pouvons faire ces choses estans privez du ministere de la parolle de Dieu, et consequemment de pasteurs legitimes, mais il semble que nous sommes comme luy cest adire que la religion ne nous est que jeu et que nous serions contentz que tous le monde vinst en Atheisme comme il est certain que si cest ar^[cle] avoit lieu avant peu de temps la France seroit pleine de Payens et en peu de temps il seroit a craindre comme desja il est de trop, que ce mauvais conseil ne fust dommageable a ceulx qui l’ont donné et mesmes a tout lestat en general.

Quartement, cest ar^[cle] est ung piege pour attrapper tous ceulx qu’on vouldra exposer a la mercy dung juge de village, car jusques on sestendra ceste liberté? Si ung homme prie soir et matin ou a quelque autre heure du jour, on dire quil aura faict acte de ministere comme on trouvera desja assez de gens condamnez voire a la mort et executez pour avoir prie Dieu, si on chante ung pseaume en sa maison ou en sa bouticque on en sera recerché car on dira comme il a esté desja souvent juge que cest autre exercice que de la religion du Roy cest adire de ceulx qui sont prez de sa personne qui toutesfois nen ont point du tout. Si on lit en la bible ou en quelque bon livure si ung maistre apprend a ung enfant a lire dedans ung nouveau testament, si on luy apprend son oraison en francoys on sera en peine. Brief, accorder aux hommes une telle liberté de conscience est autant comme qui osteroit les fers a ung homme et neantmoins on luy osteroit aussy tous les moyens de recouvrer pain et vin et le laisserait en mourir de faim.

Finallement quant aux villes qui nommera le S^[r] de Biron, on verra quils nommera ou des bicocques ou sil nomme de bonnes villes que ce sera pour praticquer de les aliener de la cause commune soubz lumbre de quelque promesse; mais quoy quil y ayt, comment se peult accorder que dedans ces villes on fera ce quon vouldra, et quil y ayt ung Gentilhomme qui y commande, il est aise a juger que mectre ung homme de Commandement dedans une place, cest lavoir a se devotion toutesfois et quantes et quand cela ne sera point, quest ce que deux villes en France quelques grandes et fortes quelles puissent estre les forces estans une fois rompues et divisees, et mesmes en ung si grand Royaulme quelle commodite pourraient apporter deux villes a ceulx qui en seraient infiniment eslougnez, mais le but de tout cela est faictes comme en lan 1568, et on vous traictera aussy de mesmes.

Et quant aux offices de justice finances & autres inferieurs actendu que depuis la privation faicte diceulx par decretz & ordonnances de justice suyvant les edictz du Roy autres ont esté pourveuz en leurs places et sont aujourdhuy en exercice diceulx. Que largent qui en est provenu a este despendu & emploie pour soustenir les fraiz de la guerre le Roy ne les peut aucunement restituer ne retracter lexecution de ses edictz pour ce regard Actendu mesmes les grandes plainctes & demandes que font ceulx du clerge de sondict Royaulme & autres ses subgectz catholiques pour avoir reparation du dommage par eulx souffert tant en leurs biens qu’en la desmolition des eglises et maisons du patrimoine dicelles par tous les endroictz de sondit royaulme a lencontre de ceulx qui ont faict lesdites demolitions & dommages. Ausquelz ne pourrait justement desnier de faire droict & justice a lencontre de ceulx contre lesquelz ilz vouldroient pretendre sil falloit entrer en cognoissance de cause et reparation des dommages souffertz dune part & dautre.

Il ne s’est jamais veu et ne se peult faire sinon par une tirannie extreme (ce que nous n’estimons pas que sa Ma^[te] face jamais) qu’en France les officiers n’ayant forfaict soient deposez de leur charge, si que quand les Roys lont voulu procurer les particuliers ont tousjours en droict gaigne leur cause contre les Roys mesmes. Et quant a largent despensé il y a assez de moyens recouvrer argent par la vendition des biens temporelz des ecclesiastiques Car puisque nous ne sommes point autheurs des troubles, ains deffendeurs en necessité extreme, que ceulx qui se pouvoient bien passer de la guerre et vivre en paix, en leurs maisons, puis quilz ont tant desiré la guerre quilz ne cornoyent entre chose doibvent aussy en porter la folle enchere comme encores silz ne nous font autre raison nous esperons que Dieu la nous fera et en briefe. Que si il estoit question d’entrer en compensation il se trouvera que nous avons souffert infinies pertes plus que les autheurs des troubles, en quoy quil y ayt tant de gens et bien meurdriz par des juges et officiers massacrez par le peuple depuis la derniere pacification tant de femmes violees par les gens de guerre et mesmes des plus remarquez qui cela surpasse toute perte & que toutes fois nous esperons que Dieu ne laissera pour impuny quoy que les vivans en rien ne regardans point aux jugemens quil en a desja faictz sur les plus mauvais d’entreulx qui se jouoient ainsy de son Nom de Ma^[te] glorieuse.

Voulant sadite Ma^[te] pour lobservation des choses susdites avec toute bonne foy & syncerité leur bailler toutes leurs seuretez qui sont en son pouvoir et quilz luy vouldront honnestement & raisonnablement requerir lesquelles seuretez le Roy fera esmolloguer & passer par ses courtz de parlemens & autres juges quil appartiendra.

Les bons subgectz (telz que nous sommes) n’ont point acoustumé de demander les formes de seuretez cest a sa Ma^[te] de nous les donner bonnes et asseurees, et puis quil na este en sa puissance de nous garder sa foy il nous donnera sil luy plaist les moyens de nous garentir contre ceulx qui la vouldroient enfraindre en notre endroict, et quant a ses courtz de parlemens nous ne pensons pas que pendant quelles serons composees de telles gens quelles sont quil nous garde foy et administre justice veu quilz sont noz parties formelles.

Veut et entend sadite Ma^[te] que les dessusditz reciproquement pour luy rendre la fidele obeissance quilz luy doibvent ayent a se departir de toute alliance, confederation, et association quilz, ont avec les Princes Potentatz ou Communautez estrangeres hors du Roiaulme pareillement de toutes intelligences praticques & associations quilz ont dedans & dehors icelluy.

Quilz ne feront aucunes assemblées contribution ne cullettes de deniers sans expresse permission du Roy declarée par ses lettres patentes.

Quant a ces deux ar^[cles] sa Ma^[te] scait que nous n’avons rien promis que nous n’ayons tenu ce que nous ferons encores la paix estant bien asseurer.

Quentieront & feront sortir hors sondit Roiaulme dedans ung moys apres la conclusion de ladite Pacification par le chemin qui leur sera prescript par sadite Ma^[te] sans foulle ne oppression de ses subgectz tous estrangers estans a leur service, et conviendront avec eux de leur paiement a leurs propres coustz & despens. Et a ceste fin leur donnera le Roy telle permission quil sera besoing pour entr’eulx leuer les sommes qui leur seront necessaires.

Cest ar^[cle] est impossible en toutes ses parties, car les estrangers ne peuvent en ung mois se retirer, ilz ne peuvent ny ne doibvent sortir par le chemin qui leur sera prescript sinon quilz veulent se precipiter eulx mesmes a leur mort, ce que nous ne leur conseilleront jamais, plustost choisirons nous de mourir avec eulx. Et davantage ilz sont assez fortz pour se faire voye par ou bon leur semblera. Si nous promectons que les subgectz de sa Ma^[te] ne soient point foullez cest une trappe, car nestant aucunement en notre puissance de laccomplir ceulx de Guise diront que nous avons rompu la paix. Il ne nous est non plus possible de les paier de noz deniers particuliers car la cruauté de noz ennemys nous a osté tous les moyens que nous avions au paravant et mesmes dedans ung mois une telle cuillette ne sa pourrait faire et quand elle le seroit il nous souvient comment nous fusmes traictez a Auxerre et qui est le pis les particuliers ne vouldront contribuer, se souvenans bien comme ilz ont esté traictez pour avoir contribué aux troubles precedens suyvant les tres patentes de sa Ma^[te].

Laisseront aussy les armes et separeront toutes leurs autres forces tant de pied que de cheval par mer & par terre se retireront chacun en leurs maisons qon bon leur semblera incontinent apres la conclusion de ladite paix pour la ou ilz seront vivre paisiblement.

Les seuretez de la paix estans bonnes se departiront voluntairement des armees, mais ilz se ressentent de plus de dix mil hommes des leurs qui ont esté cruellement meurdriz aux dernières troubles obeissans a ung semblable article que cestuy. Partant il est necessaire que sa Ma^[te] y pourveoie.

Remectront entre les mains du Roy ou de ceulx quil commectra les villes chasteaux & places quilzdetiennent pour le present et en feront sortir les forces quilz y ont y déllaissant semblablement lartillerie & autres munitions qui sont en icelles, au pouvoir de ceulx qu’ordonnera sadite Ma^[te].

Et generallement restitueront de bonne foy a sadite Ma^[te] ou a ceulx quil commectra toutes les choses a elle appartenantes qui se trouveront encores en nature soit es villes & places quilz tiennent ou autres lieux quilz soient ou par mer ou par terre. Faict a Angiers le iiij^[e] jour de Feburier 1570. Ainsy signe CHARLES et au dessoubz DE LAUBESPINE.

Quant a ces deux ar^[cles] la paix estant asseuree feront ce quilz promectront. Toutesfois lexperience a monstre a Orleans, Auxerre, Autun, Vallence, Montpellier et autres villes comment sil ne plaist a sa Ma^[te] de pourveoir a lestat de gouverneurs de gens dautre humeur que ceulx qui ont este commis au gouvernement des places depuis les secondes troubles il seroit beaucoup plus expedient aux poures habitans des villes de mourir vaillamment a la breche que de voir devant leurs yeulx les horribles meschancetez quilz ont veues, et qui sont telles que nous avons honte seullement de les nommer.

[_Not signed_]

[_Endorsed in Burghley’s hand_] 8 Martii 1569 (1570). Respons to the articles of the fr. K^[es] answer to the Q. of Navarrs Deputees.

APPENDIX XXI

[P. 396, n. 2]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CXV, NO. 990

Distribution des gouvernementz d’aulcunes Provences en France dernièrement faict par les Protestantz et Premierement

Le Segneur de Montbrun general pour le pais de daulphine et Provence, Monser de S^[t] Romain general pour le duche de Nismes, Montpellier. Mande, Vivaretz, Uses, et le puis avec 600 livres en pention per chascun moys 200 harquebusiers et trois cornettes de Cavallerie.

Le vicounte de Paulin pour les duches d’alby, Castres, S^[t] Pol, Carcassonne, Narbonne, Bessiers, Aix et Lodesve.

Le S^[r] de Serignac Montauban et tout le pais bas, Quercy, Agenois, diocese de Thoulouse, Rioux, La Nur Mereboix et Albert.

Le Cap: de Guynieres pour les dioceses de Palmes Costrance Comiges, et toute la counte de Foix.

Le Baron darroy les pais de Ricaon, Besomiris, Cascogne et Armignac.

Le Viconte de Pimal toute la seneschalce d’avergne.

Le Visconte de Gordon Loyer et le hault guibry Limosin et leurs adjacentes.

Laissant lentier sang aux S^[rs] de la Noe et de Montgomery des affaires qui concerneront la Rochelle lesquieux pourvoieront de choses aux gouvernementz des paix de Guienne, Poictou, Torenne, Le Meine, Bourgoigne, Bretaigne, Normandie et autres adjacentes.

A este en oultre ordonne par l’assemblee generalle desdits protestantz que chascun desdict chefs comandiria en son departement quilz prendrent tous les deniers du Roy. Item tous les revenus des ecclesiastiques cotiseront de gre ceulx de la Religion selon l’exigence des affaires, et les Catholiques de gre ou de force, et contrainderont le solvable pour insolvable.

[_Not signed_]

[_Endorsed_] Distribution de provences par les protestans.

APPENDIX XXII

[P. 399, n. 1]

ITINERAIRE DE MONTGOMERY EN GASCOGNE

PENDANT L’ANNEE 1569[1770]

8 juin. Quitte Nontron, nanti des pleins pouvoirs de la reine de Navarre (France protestante).

21 juin. Arrive à Castres et y organise l’expédition du Béarn.

27 juillet. Part de Castres à midi pour se rendre en Béarn (Mémoires de Jacques Gaches. Lettre de Montgomery à Jeanne d’Albret).

28 juillet. Occupe Mazères, en Foix, et traverse l’Ariège (Mémoires de J. Gaches.)

_Il franchit l’Ariège probablement au pont d’Auterive, puis le Salat. Il était le i^[er] août à Montbrun; le 2, ayant passé sans encombre la Garonne au pont de Miramont_ (Courteault, _Blaise de Montluc_, p. 544).

2 août. Pille Saint-Gaudens (Durier, Huguenots en Bigorre).

5 et 6 août. Traverse la plaine de Tarbes et loge à Pontac, le 6 au soir (_ibid._; Bordenave, _Histoire de Béarn_, p. 259).

7 août. Passe le Gave à Coarraze (Bordenave, _loc. cit._).

9 août. Entre à Navarrenx (Lettre du 11 août).

11 août. Quitte Navarrenx et arrive sous les murs d’Orthez vers midi (Bordenave, p. 266; Lettre du 11 août).

12-14 août. Assiège Orthez.

15 août. Signe la capitulation.

16 août. Occupe la ville, où il a une entrevue avec le comte de Gramont (Bordenave, p. 276).

18-19 août. Prend Artix et fait massacrer les frères mineurs du couvent (_ibid._, p. 280).

22 août. Fait rendre des actions de grace à Pau (_ibid._, p. 280).

23 août. Séjourne à Pau (Lettre à Jeanne d’Albret).

24-29 août. Oleron, Mauleon de Soule.

30 août. Entre en Bigorre, par le Vic-Bilh.

31 août. Traverse Maubourguet.

1^[er] septembre. S’empare de Tarbes et met tout à feu et à sang (Durier, Huguenots en Bigorre).

2-4 septembre. A Tarbes.

5 septembre. Quitte cette ville (Lettre à Jeanne d’Albret), pour aller en Chalosse (Bordenave, p. 286).

6 septembre. Occupe et rançonne Marciac (Lettre).[1771]

7 septembre. Entre à Aire-sur-Adour (Lettre).

11 septembre. A Grenade-sur-Adour (Lettre).[1772]

_12-18 septembre._ _Capitulation de Sainte Sever_ (Bordenave, p. 287) _et Mont de Marsan vers Montault et Mugron delà l’Adour_ (Courteault p. 553 n. 2).

19 septembre. Traverse Amou (_ibid._).[1773]

20-28 septembre. _A Orthéz_ (Courteault, p. 555). Va à Navarrens, ou il ordonne l’exécution de Bassillon, gouverneur de cette ville.

28 septembre. Arrive à Salies de Béarn (Lettre).[1774]

1-6 octobre. Séjourne à Salies, où il réorganise la justice.

10 octobre. Ouvre le synode de Lescar et part pour la Bigorre.

13 octobre. Occupe Betplan (Huguenots en Bigorre).

14-17 octobre. Etablit son camp à Lahitole (_ibid._).

18 octobre. Quitte Lahitole et se dirige vers Marciac (_ibid._).

21 octobre. Arrive à Nogaro (Lettre), qu’il pille et brûle (Huguenots en Bigorre).

22 octobre. Traverse Eauze (Comment.).

3 novembre. Occupe Condom (Huguenots en Bigorre), d’où il écrit aux consuls d’Auch.

3-17 novembre. Fait des courses dans l’Armagnac; menace Auch et Lombez; ravage Samatan (_ibid._).

17 novembre. Rentre à Condom (Dupleix), d’où il écrit aux consuls de Bagnères (Huguenots en Bigorre).

Décembre. Faict sa jonction avec l’armée des princes.

APPENDIX XXIII

[P. 402, n. 1]

ARCHIVES NATIONALES

K 1,515, PIÈCE NO. 23 A

[Montauben, janvier 1570.]

[_Au dos_] Proclamation des Rebelles de France.

De par Messeigneurs les Princes de Navarre et de Condé.

Il est tres expressement commandé et enjoinct a tous gentilzhommes, capitaines, soldatz faisans profession de la religion reformée non enrollés soubz les enseignes et compaignies retenues pour la garde et deffence des villes tenues soubz l’obeyssance du Roy et desdictz Sieurs Princes, de in continent et sans delay se rendre en leur armée pour y estre employez au service de Dieu et du Roy sellon leur degré et quallité, et ce, sur peyne d’estre tenuz pour ennemys de la cause de Dieu et de la religion. Enjoinct aux gouverneurs des villes ou ilz seront sans expresse licence desdictz S^[rs] Princes, d’iceulx faire vuyder et desloger promptement, deffendre leur estre baillé logis ne vivres et les soldatz desvalizés et desgradés de leurs armes et chevaulx. Sy ont lesdictz Sieurs Princes estroictement deffendu et inhibé a toutz capitaines, soldatz et aultres estans de la presente armée de brusler, desmolir ny ruyner aulcuns chasteaulx, maisons ne ediffices apartenans aux gentilzhommes de quelque religion qu’ilz soyent, ne aussy des paisans et peuble estans ez bourez et villages du plat pais. Et d’aultant que les Courtz de Parlement et aultres officiers de la justice et conseil des villes, principalement ceulx de la ville de Tholouze se sont renduz, par une hayne trop cruelle et incapable, refracteurs, voyre directement oppozés à la publication et entretenement de la paciffication dernierement establye en ce royaulme, jusques à faire mourir inhumainement et ignominieusement le Sieur Rappin, maistre d’hostel du Sieur feu prince de Condé, nostre tres chere et tres amé oncle et tres honnoré seigneur et pere, contre toute foy et seureté publique a luy octroyée tant par le edict de paciffication que par expres sauf conduict et passeport a luy baillés especiallement par Sa Majesté aux fins d’apporter et faire publyer ledict edict de la paciffication; oultre le cruel meurtre contre les loix et debvoirs de la guerre commis en la personne du baron de Castelnau et aultres gentilzhommes, capitaines et soldatz prins en guerre durant les troubles. Lesdictz Sieurs Princes, pour reprimer et faire cesser de leur pouvoir telles inhumanitez non ouyes entre les plus barbares nations de la terre, et, par le chastiment des perturbateurs de la paix et foy publicque, parvenir à quelque tranquillité stable entre ceulx qui désirent la seureté et conservation de cest Estat et coronne de France, ont habandonné en proye, pillage et feu toutes maisons, ediffices, bestail, meubles, danrées et biens quelzquonques qui se trouveront appartenir aux presidents conseilliers de ladicte Court de Parlement de Tholouze et aultres lieux, justiciers et administrateurs et generallement officiers de ladicte ville, pappistes ou atteistes; et pour cest effect permis aux capitaines, soldatz et aultres quelzconques estans en ceste armée uzer de tous lesdictz actes d’hostillité à l’endroict des dessusdictz. Deffendant tres expressement mesfaire en aulcune façon, ains conserver de tout leur pouvoir les maisons et biens appartenans à ceulx qui font profession de la religion reformée, de quelque qualité ou condition qu’ilz soyent. Et, affin que nul ne puisse ignorer lesdictes deffences et provision, ensemble les causes et occasions d’icelle, ont volu ces presentes estre cryées a cry publicque tant en la ville de Montauban que en la presente armée.

Faict à Montauban, au mois de janvier mil cinq cens soixante dix.

APPENDIX XXIV

[P. 412, n. 2]

ARCHIVES NATIONALES

K 1,515, PIÈCE NO. 68

[11 mars 1570.]

[_Au dos, propria manu_] Lo que se dixo de parte de los Principes de Bearne y Conde a Biron.

Dicho y pronunciado a los XI de março, a tres horas despues de mediodia, delante de Mos^[res] los Principes y Almirante, gentileshombres y cabeças de lexercito de los dichos Señores Principes.

Mos de la Caçe ha dicho a Mos de Biron que tenia mandamiento de todos los Señores y gentileshombres del exercito para dezirle:

Que, como ellos loan infinitamente a Dios por la gracia que ha hecho al Rey de le tocar el coraçon e inclinarle a la paz tan necessaria, assi davan muy humildes gracias a Su Magestad de la buena voluntad que tenia de les estender sus braçocs y abraçallos como buenos y fieles subditos, mas, porque estiman y creen que la privacion de los exercicios de la religion es para ellos mas dura muerte que ninguna que se les pudiesse dar, supplican muy humilmente a Su Magestad les otorgue un medio con que acquieten sus consciencias para con Dios, al qual si se mostrassen desleales, Su Magestad no podria esperar que ellos le fuessen muy fieles, porque quien no es fiel á Dios no lo puede ser á los hombres, que no es libertad de consciencia estar sin palabra de Dios, sino una insoportable servidumbre, que si huvieran consentido de vivir en esta licencia llamandola libertad de consciencia, Su Magestad con razon devria tomar resolucion de no se fiar jamas dellos y de no los tener jamas en estima de hombres de bien.

Que Dios dize que sobre nosotros ha embiado la muerte, es a saber que cien muertes nos vienen mas a cuenta que alexarnos voluntariamente del derecho camino de la vida eterna.

En lo demas dize que ellos havian (con muy grande desplazer suyo) sido forçados por muchas causas de emplear sus vidas por defender a los que avian sido sus defensores, cosa que no les devia ser imputada a mal, ni delante de Dios, ni delante de los hombres, sino solo a aquellos que contra justicia y contra las leyes han siempre oprimido sus consciencias y sus honrras y sus vidas. Al presente, dessearian por quanto su dever les obliga, podellos emplear en el servicio de Su Magestad y cumplimiento de su Estado, en prejuyzio de aquellos que se reyan de sus miserias comunes y esperavan dello provecho.

Por el particular de Mos^[r] de Biron, el dize que todos sentian una grande obligacion para con el, por la buena intencion que mostrava al acrescentamiento del reposo publico, que si fuesse en su mano de le poder mostrar quanto lo estimavan, el veria en lo que tenian y estimavan aquellos que, como el, no dependian de alguna particularidad, mas de la sola voluntad del Rey y de la consideracion de la utilidad publica; que el Rey no podia hazer election de señor de su Corte mas agradable a toda la compañia ni mas proprio para la execucion divina entan sancta impressa, en la qual rogava a Dios le llegasse a effecto, de manera que ellos viessen presto un buen fin que fuesse a gloria de Dios y contentamiento de Su Magestad y reposo de sus consciencias y alegria de todos sus subditos.

Finalmente le dixo que ellos quedavan persuadidos que, como el avia valerosamente aventurado su vida en campaña por les hazer mucho mal sin razon, agora con razon el emplearia sus officios y buenos medios para les procurar el bien que desseavan, sin el qual podian menos passar que sin el pan que comian ordinariamente.

A loqual Mos de Biron respondio lo mas sabia y graciosamente que fue possible, dandoles siempre segundad del desseo que Su Magestad tenia de hazer paz, y representandoles el alegria que ternia de representar a Su Magestad las buenas razones que el les avia oydo, y hazerle testimonio del buen proposito en que todos en general y en particular estavan de querer dar a Su Magestad la obediencia que le era devida, y que este era solo el medio por el qual podia Su Magestad ser vencido. En fin, el uso de muy honestos agradescimientos, y assi mismo dio seguridad de emplear sus buenos officios en un negocio que el creya havia de causar tanta utilidad al Rey y a sus subditos.[1775]

APPENDIX XXV

[P. 413, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CXII, NO. 693, j

[_Extraict des Lettres du S^[r] card^[al] de Lorraine_]

Quant a la paix discessum est re infesta, qui nous faict esperer bien. Et se reassemblent a cest heure tant de grandes personnaiges mesmes messieurs de Conseil de Paris. Chacun y fera & dira son opinion et oyra parler le Roy ainy chacun en pourra dire a cueur ouverts. Les offres que leur auroent este faictez cestoient les villes de la Rochelle Sancerre & Montauban usque ad biennium ut civitates refugii sans tenir offices ny benefices. Et que les haultz justiciers & plains fiefs de haubert en Normandie ne seroient empesches ny recherches faisant dedans leurs maisons & ceulx presant tantum tout ce que bon leur sembleraient en leur religion alibi nusquam itaque ilz ont demande temps de deliberer & feront respons dedans six sepmaines. Ce Chateaubriant ce iiij^[e] May 1570.

[_Enclosed in a letter by Sir Henry Norris to Sir William Cecil from Paris, May 24, 1570_]

APPENDIX XXVI

[P. 417, n. 3]

ARCHIVES NATIONALES

K. 1,515, PIÈCE NO. 118

[_Au dos, alia manu_] Copia de carta del Nuncio a Su Magestad. De Madrid al Escurial, a 26 de Junio 1570.

Para escrivir a Francia, como se hizo. Lo de Mos. de Fox.

Copia di una lettera, che il Nuntio scrisse a S. M^[ta] Cat^[ca].]

Mi è doluto assai intendere che V. M^[ta] Cat^[ca] senta qualche indispositione di stomaco, il che deve ser residuo de la incomodità del camino. Il Signor Dio la mantenga sana lungamente, con ogni contento et felicita.

Per le ultime lettere d’Italia ch’io trovai in Madrid, quali sono di 17 de maggio, S. S^[tà] mi avvisa d’havere inteso che la Regina di Francia sta in animo di far cancelliere di quel regno di Francia Mons^[r] di Foys, hora Imbasciatore in Venetia. Et perche questo homo, oltre l’essere indiciato grandemente nel Santo Offitio de la Inquisitione di Roma e parente e dependente da quella buona donna chiamata la Regina di Navarra, et è persona superba, inquieta di spirito, amica di novita et discordia, et di piu si tiene offeso da Sua Santità per non havere consentito ch’egli vadi a Roma, et credo il medesimo sia con V. M^[tà] por una causa simile di non haverlo accettato in Spagna; queste cause, dico, et altre che Sua Santita considera, gli da gran sospetto che, se questo homo fosse posto in tale administratione, la quale può infinitamente in quel regno, come nel Cancellier passato s’è veduto per esperientia, non cercarebbe altro che di unire le voluntà de queste due donne, et non solo, favorendo la parte ugonota, travagliare le cose di Francia (pur troppo travagliate), ma anchora quelle de li circunvicini, maxime nelli Stati ecclesiastici et di V. M^[tà] Cat.^[ca], non solo per vendetta de la offesa, et per l’odio che a l’uno et l’altro verisimilmente porta, ma anchora per la propria inclinatione sua. Onde Sua Beatitudine, facendo sopra cio quello che puo per la sua parte, desidera e ne prega V. M^[tà] a volere similmente cercare ogni via di impedire tale elettione, et quando non si possi altro, si degni scrivere a l’Imbasciatore, et vedendo passar inanti tal cosa, si unisca con il Nuntio, et insieme si lassino intendere apertamente dalla Regina che Sua Beatitudine et S. M^[tà] Cat^[ca] haveranno per male ch’ella dia uno orficio di tanta importantia in mano di persona tale il che non deve fare, si ella desidera di essere tenuta fautrice de la fede cattolica desiderosa de la grandezza et quiete del Re suo figliuo lo et della unione e^[t] bene de la Christianità. Spera Sua Santità che, con questo rimedio si possi obviare a quello inconveniente, peroche la Regina prefata mostra pure di havere qualche consideratione in simili attioni di non far cosa che possi con ragione dispiacere a Sua Santità et a V. M^[tà]. Et perche da una parte questo negotio ricerca presta provisione, et da l’altra non è honesto che in questo tempo io dia perturbatione a V. M^[tà] con la mia presentia, ho voluto communicarla con il Cardinale, et scrivere a V. M^[tà] Cat^[ca] la presente, supplicandola humilmente si degni farmi dare quella grata risposta che comandara ch’io scriva a Sua Beatitudine sopra questa materia. Et, basando reverentemente le regali mani a V. M^[ta], prego N. S^[r]. Dio la concervi longamente felice.

Di Madrid, li 26 di Giugno 1570.

APPENDIX XXVII

[P. 422, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CXV, NO. 937.

[_The Vidame de Charters to Marshal Montmorency_]

Monseigneur, j’ay receu une lettre quil vous a pleu m’escripre pour responce a ce que vous avois escript par monsieur de Saragosse. Iay congneu que pensiez que je fusses encores au lieu dont vous avois escript. Si jeuse pense que ma presente y eust este requise j’euse differé tant quil vous eust pleu le me faire entendre. Mais il vous estoit fort aise a penser que si lon prenoit goust par deça a ceste negociation elle seroit adressee a monsieur le cardinal de Chastillon, ou a l’ambassadeur du roy. On seroit envoye quelqu’ng des francoys favoris. Quand a moy ie n’ay pretendu en cest affaire que le service du roy et de la couronne de France, et si les affaires succedoient comme je y voy une telle espoirance et asseurance sil estoit poursuivy diligemment. Le contentement que je desire ne me pouroit fuir. Il est vray que je serais fort marry si jamais j’oyois dire que par faulte de diligence cest affaire fust demoure imparfaict, aussy seroit ce ung domage public oultre le particullier du prince au quel les premiers fruicts en appartiennent. Monsieur une lettre que jay receue de mons^[r] de Saragosse me faict entrer en soupçon et craincte que en atendant entre deux personnes qui ne se sont jamais veues qui ostera prenner le bonnet il ne se mette quelqung entre deux qui face perdre l’occasion de contracter une grande amitie & fort utille a la France, la quelle estant perdue sensuyviroit le dommage et le regret (mais en vain). Je suis bien asseure que larcheduc d’Austriche ne sendormira pas et ne laisera perdre l’occassion qui se presente a une assemblee des estatz qui se vont tenyr voire les previendra sil peult ne perdra pas une heure, que pendant quil voyt que la royne est en deffiance et doubte pour les affaires de la royne D’escosse et des differens quelle a avec le roy D’espaigne et quilz voyoient que l’empereur avent en pouppe, et quil faict des mariages telz quil scavroit souhaiter. Il ne se serve de l’occassion & faveur du temps et pendant que les amis simulez paistront la jeunesse animeuse et la rempliront de grande espoirance, luy prometant par adventure des plus grandes choses (combien quelles ne soient pas aysees a trouver), et pour moy je ne les scay pas ilz prendront cest advantage sur la partye et renforceront leur grandeur de la puissance et faveur d’un royaulme qui nest point petit. Et vous ose bien dire quil y a de la part de ceux en qui gist la resolucion de cest affaire une grande inclinacion et une grande consideracion de long service de cest ancyen serviteur et de la subjection et humiliacion quil a monstree de la quelle vous scavez que le sexe se delecte. Ausy est ce leur façon de regner la quelle toutes veulent exercer, tant plus les roynes. Il ne fault penser que les dificultes pour la religion puissent engendrer quelques difficultez aux capitulacions qui facent plus de retardement. Car je scay par la bouche de la dame et ausy par ceux qui ont sceu toute ceste negotiacion passee, et par ung qui y a este employe qui ne parle pour metre le beau devers elle nestant de ses subjects mais estranger, que la charte blanche luy a este donnee. Et sest contente l’Archeduc pour le faict de la religion de si peu que cella se doibt estimer pour rien. Davantage la consideracion de lage qui est plus vivill et meur donne ung beau lustre aux persuasions et jugement de ceux qui tendent de ce costé la. Avec ses advantages du long service et age convenable, je crains que ceux qui tiennent le party contraire ne persuadent avec aparence a cause du trop long silence ou froide poursuite quil y aye du contemnement ou de la froideur en ceux de la France estant chose propre au sexe de faire plus de choses par despit que par amour est a craindre quel la froideur de ceste part ne soit cause de l’eschauffer et faire haster plus quelle ne fairoit si nestoit pour se faire regretter apres a loisir par ceulx qui se seroient portez trop froidement en son endroit. Larticle de la lettre du gentilhomme qui vous porta ma lettre (qui me faict craindre que en voulant traicter de la part de la France avec fort grand respect et par adventure prendre l’honneur devers nous l’affaire nen sera pire) est quil dict que si lon estoit asseure par deça de la bonne volonte de ceux de dela la mer on y pouroit entendre ce qui me semble estrange de vouloir qu’une ville se rende avant quelle soit sommee. Il me semble que cest beaucoup quelle parlamente, sans avoir ouyr parler le canon. Et nest par peu de chose qu’estant sa principalle defence de la difference de laage et de linconstance de la jeunesse et la crainte destre dicy a quelques anees, peu aymes et mesprisee et en danger de veoir de ses yeulx aymer dautres, lon luy a faict abandonner ceste contre escarppe et le corrider tellement que lon peult veoir au pied de la muraille que je vous asseure nest point veue de flans. Des

## particularitez et moyens que lon a tenue en ses approches jusques la

jen ay dice quelque chose a ce gentilhomme qui est fort affectionne a cest affaire en faveur du bien de la France. Et dabondant en hayne de la grandeur qui se voit preparer a la maison d’Autriche si elle s’impatronize de ce royaume, tellement quil nest a craindre si non que la tradiuite ne donne loisir a ceux qui de long temps ont faict deseing de se saisir de ce pais de venyr au bout de leur intencions lesquelles sont fort favorablement receues, et croy quils jouyront en bref si leurs conseilz ne sont troublez par une diuersion & par obiect nouveau plus desirable que celuy qui ce presente Ce qui me semble estre indubitablement en la jeunesse d’un prince qui a la reputacion davoir le sens meur devant les ans et ausi courageux et dausy grande espoirance que prince ne soit ne de lage des hommes. Monsieur vous scavez trop bien combien la maisson d’Autriche seroit agrandie sur la maison de France si elle estoit renforcee de ce royaume. Et ny a point de doubte quelle ne donnast pour tousjours par cy apres la loy a la France et est chose seure quelle contraindroit le roy a rompre la paix quil a donnee a ses subiectz. Davantage si par ce mariage nest donne satisfaction au grand coeur de mons^[r] frere du roy pour loccuper et luy donner matiere de faire plus grandz deseingz Il ne fault point doubter que tous ceux qui prennent la couleur et pretexte de la religion pour advancer les moiens de la divission et ruyne de la France afin d’agrandir la maison d’Autriche ne proposent a monsieur duc danjou quelques mariages qui sera au despens de la couronne de France si la bonne nature et amitie dentre les freres ne resiste a leur malicieux deseingz. Mais il ne sen scauroit proposer du quel se doive espoirer plus de grandeur, non seulement a luy mais a toute la maison de France en gaignant le dessus sur la maison d Autriche, la quelle veult soubz couverture & douceur du mariage du roy faire avaller ceste curee & gaigner ung royaume sans ce quil luy soit donne empeschement et ne fault point doubter que si le mariage de larcheduc se faict quil ne soit en peu de temps mieulx obey que na este le roy Philippe et ce moiennant le danger de la religion et leur sera aise de nous donner la loy ou pour le mains de nous faire redoubler la ruyne de la France par division et guerre civille. Au contraire si ce bien est resceue pour noz princes il y aura bien de quoy rendre la pareille a ceux qui ont dresse tous leurs conseilz a procurer que la France se ruynast par une guerre civille Voyans que par guerres ouvertes jamais ilz n’auroient peu paruenir a leur intencion. Pour amour du mal quilz ont faict mons^[r] pouroit iustement avec forces du roy faveur dangleterre et moiens du prince dorenge avoir la confiscacion de la Flandre par droict de feodalite pour felonnie commise. Et ausy la maison d Autriche qui se bastit lempire hereditaire et la monarchie se trouveroit en ung instant deux freres roys ausy puissans lun que lautre pour contrepois de son ambition liggnez avec les princes protestans de lallemaigne et auroient les deux freres plus de part en lempire que ceux qui se veulent atribuer par la ruyne des anciennes maisons de la Germanye come de la maison de Saxe et des princes palatins qui sont amateurs de la couronne de France. Le partage de monsieur d allençon seroit aise a trouver en la duche de Millan auec la faueur de lallemaigne, des Suises ausy et des princes Italliens devotieux de la France Et si besoing estoit po^[r] le recouvrement du royaume de Naples, la fave^[r] du Turc se trouveroit par apres ung a propos. Mons^[r] il ma semble que cela est si aparent, et si facille a persuader que puis que vous en aurez une fois ouvert la bouche il ny faudra plus autre soliciteur que le roy mesmes qui peult veoir par ce moyen son royaume luy demourer uny ses freres partagez. Sa force telle et si grande quil ne poura estre offence ny commande par menasses qui contraignent faire la guerre a ses subiects pour complaire a ceux qui sont envieux de sa grandeur et n’ont peu trouver moyen de la diminuer que par elle mesmes. Lors ce pouroit faire une legue parfaicte entre noz princes & les protestans de la Germanie & les suisses. De ceste facon ung grand plaisir viendroit a la royne de veoir tous ses enfans roys. Lors leglisse galicane pouroit sexempter des erreurs de leglisse Romayne comme elle a faict plusieurs fois le temps passe, lors se pouroit faire ung concille general au quel les erreurs introduictes par lambition et advarice de leglisse romayne ne seroient favorisses et confirmees par praticques et corruptions, et en la France l’allemaigne et langleterre s’introduiroient une ordre et pollice de religion et unite de doctrine que toutes les autres provinces de la cristiente seroient contraintes dembrasser et finiroient les differens des subiectz avec leurs princes desquelles Sathan se sert pour la destruction de la Christeente et pour donner loisir au turc d’usurper pendant que les princes Chrestiens s’amussent a defendre les supersticions du Pape et maintenyr sa grande^[r].

Monseigneur je me recommande treshumblement a votre bonne grace et vous suplie de rechef me departir de votre faveur et conseil touchant comment je me doibs gouverner a escripre a leurs ma^[tes] ou non: Mons^[r] je prie Dieu vous donner tresheureuse et treslongue vye. De la Ferte ce—— [1776] jour doctobre 1570.

[_Not signed_]

[_Not addressed_]

[_Endorsed in Cecil’s hand_] Octob. 1570. The vidam of Chartres to the Marshall Montmorency.

[_Enclosed by Sir Henry Norreys to Cecil, 4 November, 1570._][1777]

APPENDIX XXVIII

[P. 426, n. 3]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CXVIII, NO. 1,174

[_Marshal Montmorency to Cecil_]

Mons^[r] jay este tresaise davoir entendu tant par la lettre que mauez escripte du xxij^[e] du passe, que par le s^[r] du Pui present porteur le desir qui vous avez de veoir bien tost affectuer ce qui a este miz en avant pour estraindre une bonne & ferme alliance, entre ces deux royaumes, ayant par votre prudence & longue experience de lestat & cours des affaires, passez & presens tresbien cogneu combien cella seroyt en ce temps, non seullement convenable Mais aussi necessaire, pour le bien seurette & grandeur de lun & de lautre, a quoy de ma part je ne fauldray de tenir la main de tout mon pouvoir et de my employer syncerement, de cueur & daffection Vous priant a ceste cause Mons^[r], que desormays avec une bonne Intelligence & correspondance, que pour cest effect nous aurons ensemble Nous mections peine de vaincre les difficultez & rompre les obstacles. Que aucuns y mectent tous les jours, artificieusement, de sorte que au plustost, avecques votre bon ayde, nous y puissyons veoir lheureux suites, que nous desirons. Qui tourne avec occasion, de raisonable tantement dune part & dautre, au repoz unyon & grandeur de ces deux couronnes, et a la confuzion de ceux qui sefforcent d empescher ung si bon euvre ce que masseurant, que vous vouldrez faire et cheminer en ce faict avec votre Integritte acoustumee, je ne mestandray plus avant en ce propoz. Si ce nest pour vous prier de creoire ced. porteur, de ce quil vous dira de ma part, come moy mesmes Qui surce me recomanderan tresaffectueus^[t] a votre bonne s^[r] Priant Dieu vous donner Mons^[r] en parfaicte sante bonne & longue vye. De Gaillon le xxv^[e] jour de May 1571.

[_Signed_] Votre obeissant et parfaict amy MONTMORENCY

[_Addressed_] A Mons^[r] Mons^[r] de Burghley.

[_Endorsed_] 20 May 1571 Montmorency to my L.

APPENDIX XXIX

[P. 448, n. 2]

STATE PAPERS, DOMESTIC

ADDENDA, ELIZABETH, VOL. XXI, NO. 58

[_French-English Alliance, 1572_]

Good m^[r] Hoggyns.... We allso here of a gret lege made w^[th] France w^[ch] ys thowghte that thereby the Frenche pretendith some further feche to serve there tourne: God of his goodnesse kepe the noble yle of Inglande to lyve w^[th]out givynge ower much credith to forren fryndshipe. Here ys gret preparation as ever I sawe for w^[th] in this xx dayes there wyll be x thousant horsmen & fyfty thousant fotmen: lykewyse by se 80. saylle of men of warre. Don Jhon de Austria ys come w^[th] his galles to Genova & the Venecians goith outwarde agaynst the tourke who hath augmentyd there forces. The deuke of Savoye armyth for the Kynge 8000 fottemen and as it ys sayd commyth hym sellf in parson. Flushynge saluted the deuk de Medina cely very vyle at his commynge & burnte iij shipes of marchantes onlye by treson of a Floshynge verlet that came out of Spayne w^[th] them & toke apon hym to led them in to the port of Sleuce & set then on grond hym sellf wente his waye yet the daye after the wynd beynge very good the rest of the deuks armey housted vp saylle, and in dyspite of the toune of Flushynge passed to the Raynykyns w^[th] out hurt more then one gonner slayne. The portyngall flyte of this contry lyke fallse trayters strok ancker before Flushynge w^[ch] ys lyk that many thereby ar undone. The gensys tok off the iij shyppes that wer bornet xxvj. spaynyardes & in the toune honge them. Lykewyse the Spayniardes aboute xv. dayes past toke xxx frenche horsmen commynge to Monsse amonge w^[ch] as yt ys sayd the sone of monsir Mongomvrey was one who offerryd for his ransome 5000 crounes he & the rest his compaynyons wer hanged at Flyford vj. dayes past so that here ys no favor but hangynge on both sydes. Our cuntrymen & wemen as my lade of Northumberland lieth at Maklynge & so doth m^[r] Daykeres where not dayes past [two] of my l. Setones sones wer lyk to have byn slayne in the tumolte w^[ch] standeth yet but in a mamerynge yet nowe they begyne to come coler & to obbey the maigestrates. The pore erle of Westmarland lieth at Lovayne & so doth my lade Hungerford my old knyght & otheres. Thoughe I begone, wryte I pray you to me & send yo^[r] letters to my l. to Brugys & in so doynge I wyll wryt to you wekelye from the campe of our occurrance, in hast wryten this present tewsdaye the xvij of Iune at Brugys 1572.

Yo^[r] lovynge frende THOMAS PARKER

[_Addressed_] To his lovyng fryend m^[r] Robert Hoggyns at m^[r] Edmunde Hoggyns his house in Mylke Streete give thes. At London.

[_Endorsed_]17 Iunii 1572. m^[r] Tho. Parker to m^[r] Hogans from Brugis.

APPENDIX XXX

[P. 457, n. 3]

BIBLIOTHEQUE DE L’INSTITUT, COLLECTION GODEFROY

VOL. 256, FO. 71, RECTO (NO. 39 DU CATALOGUE)

[_Le duc d’Anjou à Charles IX._]

[La Guerche, 19 janvier 1573.]

[_Suscription, au dos_] Au Roy, Monseigneur et frere.

[_Au dos, alia manu_] Monseigneur, de XIX^[e] janvier 1573.

Monseigneur, par la depesche que je vous fiz hyer, je vous ay adverty que le S^[r] de Biron m’avoit escript que, quand toutes les compaignyes de gens de pied françoyses dont nous avons faict estat seroient la, après avoir demeuré dix ou douze jours aux tranchées, il n’en scauroit rester plus hault de six mil hommes, et qu’il estoit nécessaire d’en avoir plus grand nombre. Sur quoy j’avois advisé d’envoyer devers Mons^[r] l’amyral pour avoir quarante enseignes de celles qui sont auprès de luy. Et estant presentement, venu devers moy le S^[r] de Beaulieu Ruzé, que le S^[r] de Biron m’a depesché expres, tant pour aucunes

## particularitez que j’ay donné charge au S^[r] de Lanconne (que j’envoye

devers vous) vous dire, que pour m’advertir, encores que les forces y soient si petites qu’elles sont, qu’ilz estoient neanmoins d’adviz que je ne laissasse pas de m’acheminer au camp. Ce que j’ay resolu de faire et de partir demain de ce lieu, pour m’en aller a Châtellerault et de la à Poictiers. Et cependant je renvoye ledict Ruzé devers ledict S^[r] de Biron pour me revenir trouver en chemin, et me rapporter au vray ce que sera survenu depuis. Et ay depesché incontinant ung courrier devers ledict S^[r] Amyral, pour faire partir tout aussy tost lesdictes quarante enseignes, ou ce qu’il me pourra envoyer, et qu’il les face embarquer à Moyssac, d’ou elles peulvent venir par eaue, jusques à La Rochelle, luy ayant mandé les lieux par ou elles auront a passer et par mesmes moien audict S^[r] admiral et de Montferrant de pourveoir qu’il y ait des batteaulx et estappes des vivres. Et ne veoy aucune chose qui puisse apporter retardement a vostre service, que de n’avoir les deniers, pour pouvoir faire faire monstre a mon arrivée au camp, principallement aux gens de pied, d’autant qu’il est a craindre que, n’estans poinct payez et s’asseurans que je ferois porter argent avec moy (comme je l’avois promis a celles de vostre garde et du capitaine Gadz), ilz se desbendent et que le nombre que je m’attendz y estre n’y soit poinct. Je vous supplie tres humblement, Monseigneur, de commander que l’on regarde de cercher tous les moyens dont l’on se pourra adviser pour m’envoyer les troys cens mil livres que je debvois avoir avant mon partement de la Court.

Au demeurant, Monseigneur, j’ay receu la lettre qu’il vous a pleu m’escripre du XIII^[e] de ce moys, et veu par le contenu d’icelle comme vous avez resolu deux poinctz. Le premier, de la suppression de tous offices qui vacqueront, pour congnoistre la grand charge que cela apporte à vous et à voz subgectz, pour les gaiges qu’il leur fault payer. Et l’autre, que vous avez commandé qu’il ne soit depesché cy apres aucun office ou benefice dont il vous sera baillé memoire ou placet, que troys moys apres que vous verrez les roolles qui en seront faictz, pour les departir à ceulx qui font service, principallement en ce camp auprès de moy. Ce que je ne fauldray leur faire entendre, suivant ce qu’il vous plaist me mander. J’ay aussy veu le memoire que vous a esté baillé de ce que l’on vous propose pour la conqueste que vous pouvez faire à l’Yndie avec peu de despence, laquelle je ne puis trouver que très bonne, lorsque vous serez en paix et que voz affaires le pourront permectre, y estans les richesses et commoditez portées par ledict memoire. Vous sçavez combien telles entreprises et conquestes ont apporté de proffict au feu Empereur et Roy Catholique, pour le grand nombre d’or qu’il a tiré et tire ordinairement du Peyrou, tellement que, sans cela, il n’eust eu moyen d’entretenir et soldoyer les armées et forces qu’il a entretenues jusques à present, qui me faict vous conseiller (soubz vostre meilleur adviz) de ne laisser poinct perdre ceste occasion, quand vous congnoistrez qu’elle pourra estre mise a execution. Presentement, j’ay eu nouvelles que le S^[r] Paul Emille a tant faict que ceulx de La Rochelle qui le detiennent prisonnier l’ont mis à rançon pour mil escruz, dont aulcuns de ses amys ont respondu pour luy. Laquelle somme il n’a aucun moyen de fournir, si ce n’est de vostre liberalité, grace et specialle faveur, laquelle je vous supplie vouloir estendre en luy pour cest effect, et luy faire paroistre la souvenance que vous avez tousjours eu de ceulx qui vous font service. Aussy, Monseigneur, j’ay esté adverty que l’estat de viceneschal de la Haulte et Basse Marche, qui est ès terres de mon apennaige est a present vacant par mort, la disposition et provision duquel neanmoins vous appartient. A ceste cause, je vous supplie encores le vouloir accorder aux Sieurs de Villequier, pour lesquelz je vous en faictz requeste, et commander que la depesche et provision soit faicte en leur faveur au nom de tel personnaige suffisant et cappable qu’ilz nommeront et non autrement. Sur ce je supplieray le Createur vous donner,

Monseigneur, en tres bonne santé, très longue et très heureuse vie.

Escript à la Guierche, le XIX^[me] jour de janvier 1573.

[_Propria manu_] Vostre tres humble et tres obeissant frere et subget.

HENRY

[Original]

APPENDIX XXXI

[P. 458, n. 3]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CXXVI, NO. 419

[_Charles IX to Montgomery_]

Mons^[r] le Conte j’ay este bien ayse d’entendre par le s^[r] de S^[t] Iehan votre frere la bonne volunte en laquelle il vous trouva de vous contenir doulcement par dela et sans entreprendre ou favoriser aucune chose qui soit contre le bien de mon service, qui est ce que je desire de vous, et me semble que ne scauriez mieulx faire pour votre honne^[r] & advantaige, ayant pour ceste cause advise vous envoyer le s^[r] de Chasteauneuf present porteur expres pour vous dire & asseurer que vous comportant d[1778] je vous feray conserver en tout ce qui vous touchera il vous maintiendray ainsy que mes autres bons & loyaulx subjects comme vous entenderez plus particullierem^[t] dud. S^[r] de Chasteauneuf Sur lequel me remectant du surplus dont je vous prie le croire, je priray Dieu Mons^[r] le Conte vous avoir en sa s^[te] & digne garde. Escript a Paris le ix^[me] jo^[r] de feurier 1573.

[_Signed_] CHARLES PINART

Mons^[r] le Conte, j’ay faict desgaiger votre vaisselle de trois cens escuz, et ay commande au tresor^[r] de mon eschiequer la garde po^[r] la vous faire rendre comme je luy ay ordonne.[1779]

[_Addressed_] Mons^[r] le Conte de Montgommery.

[_Endorsed in Burghley’s hand_] 9 Februar, 1572. (_Sic._) fr. Kyng to the Count Montgomery by Chasteaunevff.

APPENDIX XXXII

[P. 461, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CXXI, NO. 1,428

Liste des villes des quelles ceuex de la relligion sasseurent en France.

_Mons^[r] le Prince de Conde et Mons^[r] de Rohan y commaundent_

En Xainctongne, La Rochelle

S^[t] Jehan, S^[t] Angely ou commaunde Mons^[r] de S^[t] Mosmes.

Roian, Port de Mer

Pons

Bouteville, et quelques Chasteaux

_Mons^[r] de S^[t] Geniez, Mons^[r] de Longe_

Sur la Riviere de Dordonne

Bergirac imprenable

S^[t] Foy

Chastillon

Pinnoymant &c. Et sur disces il ny a presques pas un Papiste, ny mesme en tout le Pays.

_Mons^[r] de Madailham, Le Baron de Beauville_

Sur le Riviere du Lot

Villeneufve d’Agenois

Clerac.

S^[t] Linerade.

_Mons^[r] de Turène_

En Perigort, Perigueux Ville Capitale et Plusieurs Chasteaux

Montflanquin

_Mons^[r] de Chappes, Lieutenan: le Baron d’Uzac, &c.,_

Figiac

Bellie

Puynirol } Tournon } ces trois sont imprenables; et sont au R. de N. Lanzarte }

Turene ave toutes les terres de Monsieur de Turene en Lymosin.

Briene la gagliarde.

Usurstie. qui sont des meilleures: Toutes les surd. places sont bien accommodees et sont toutes deçe la Riviere de Garonne.

_Mons^[r] le Baron de Luzignian, Mons^[r] de Fauaz_

Sur la Garonne au bord de deca sont

Agen ville Capitale d’Agenois grande et riche

La Reolle, Lonne ville, dont le Chasteau est imprenable; et sur le Rivage dela sont

Lengon

Millau

Le mas de Verdoun &c.

_Le Roy de Navar parce que c’est son patrimonie y a partout Portien de les plus affectionez_

Entre le Garonne et le pays de Bearn nous tenons

Leystoure ville Episcopale richen et imprenable patrimonie de R. de N.

Mauvesin

Fleurance

Cauze, bonne et forte ville

Nerac

Castel Jalouz

Balas ville riche, episcopale

Le mont de Marsan; forte

Tout le conte de Bigorces et les pays de Marsan, Tarsan Gavardan

Tarbe} Aire } villes episcopales

La principaute de Bearn

La basse Navarre

Le Pays des basques, a quoy on a donne tiel ordre que nouristant la paix il ne si changera rien.

Au contrarie de puis la paix Grenade Beaumont et Verdun villes ont reconut le Roy de Navarre p^[r] governeur et se sont mises soubz sa protection et tous les jours si la paix tient quelque peu si en mettra de nouvelles. M. L. Amirall a assiege Beaumont a cause de cela ou il a este tresbien battu.

_M. le Vicount de Terides_

Pays de Quercy nous tenons

Montauban imprenable et une des belles villes de guerre du monde.

_M. la Vicount de Gourdon_

Figeac capitale de Haut Quercy

Caussade

Realville

S^[t] Antonin

Villemur &c. en ces villes tout le peuple est de la religion.

_Vicont de Paulini_

Au pays de Rourgue.

Millaut ville episcopale

Vabres ville episcopale

Creissel et autres en grand nombre fortes d’assietes dont nous ne scavons le nom. Le peuple aussi est de fort longtemps de la religion et sont en tous ces pays des relliques des vieux.

_Le Baron de Audon_

En Languedoc, toute la Conte de Foix qui tient depuis les montz Pirenees jusques aux portes de Thoulouse Patrimonie du R. de N. en icelle sont Pasmicas ville forte peuplee, presque de la religion episcopale.

Foix ville et chasteu imprenable.

Sa Verdan

Mazores

Le Carla

Le mas d’Azil, toutes riches et imprenables. Et ceste derniere se faict une quantite purniable de Saltpetre pour muner tout le pays de poudre.

_Le baron de Monbardies_

En Lauraignais partie du bas Languedoc sont

Puylaurens

Revel

Soureze

S^[t] Paul

Cramain &c.

Castres ville episcopale imprenable

L’Isle d et plusieurs autres en la montagne.

_M. de Chastilon, M. de Thore, M. de S^[t] Romain, &c._

Au hout Languedoc, y en a infinies, les plus notables sont

Monpelier

Nismes

Aiguesmortes

Lunel

Aimargnes

Marsilargnes

Sommieres

Uzez

Auz

Aleth

Lodeve la pluspart episcopale

Tout le Pays de Vivarez; et le Pays de Sevènes.

_M. de_ [_L_] _Ediguieres_

En Daulphine nous tenons tout le haut Pays, et du bas pays presque toutes les villes[1780] quatre ou cinq. Gap et Dis villes principales sont a nous et cinq cens gentilihomines tous de la religion entre les quels y a tresbon ordre.

_Le Baron d’Alemagne_

En Provence nous avons quelques bonnes villes, entre autres Seine, le grand Tour, et tout le meilleur du Conte de Venisse, appartenant au Pope à cause d’Avignon.

Le Roy de Navarre ces places fournies de garnissons necessaires tant de pied que de cheval, peut sans sortir de Guienne mettre huict mil hommes de pied en campagne et mille gentilihomines et fournir l’equippage de six canons et deux couleurines &c. et quand il sera joinct avec les forces de Languedoc (car le Daulphine a le Rhosne entredeux) il poura faire estat de 10000 hommes de pied 2000 chevaux des meilleurs qui se virent jamais en France, et 10 canons, quatre couleurines et la pouldre et munitions et equipage d’iceux.

Pour les affaires de la guerre en son conseil il est assisté de M^[r] de Meru. Monsieur de Turene qui a esgarde sur la Perigort et Lymosin en sa absence.

M^[r] de la Nouë chef et superintendant de sa maison.

M^[r] de viconte de Terride, Baron de Serignac, vieux Capitaine.

M^[r] de S^[t] Geniez, vieux Capitaine et homme de bon entendement.

M^[r] le Baron de Lusignan. Gouverneur de Agenois.

M^[r] de Fontralles, M^[r] le Baron d’ Audon.

M^[r] de Guitry qui sont tous des meilleurs Cap: de France.

Pour le mainement des negotiations, outre les susd. il est assiste de M^[r] de Grateinx son Chauncelier, M^[r] des Aginz President et M^[r] des Requestes et plus^[rs] autres de mesme reing.

Outre ceux y y a plusieurs Princes, Seignurs, Vicontes, et Barons affectes de tout temps au party de la religion. Toutesfois je les ay lieu voulu mettre icy croire ilz me sont vennues en memorie.

Le R. de N. M’ le P. de Conde M. de Rohan M. de Nemours M. de Laval M. de Rochebernard son frere M. de Meru M. de Thore M. de Turene M. de Chastillon M. de Clermont M. de la Noué M. de S. Genie et ses freres M. le Viconte de Tirrede M. de St. Romain Le Baron de Fontrailles Le Baron de Ardon Le Baron de Senegaz Le Baron de Mirambeau M. de Languillier Le Baron de Verac Le Vic: de Savailhan Le Baron de S. Gehniz Le Baron de Mombardices Le Vicount de Lalant Le Baron de Montanhils Le Baron de Monlieu Le Baron de la Rochalais Le Prince de Chalais M. de Mouy M. de la Forse gendre de M. de Biron Le Vicont de Chasteauneuf Le Baron de Piersebuffiere Le Baron de Salignac Le Baron de Beinac Le Baron de Bresolles Le Vicont de Paulini Le Vicont de Panart Le Vicont de Gourdon Le Vicont de Arpajon Le Baron de Cabrere M. de Ediguires M. de Guitry Le Baron de Longa M. de Campagnac M. de Boesse M. de Montguiron Le Baron de Montandie Le Baron de Luzignan M. de Bonevall M. de Ussac Le Vicont de Rochouart Le Baron de Almagne Le Baron de Beauville Le Baron de Reine Le Baron de Vercillac Le Baron de S. Nauphan Le Baron de S. Arlaye Le Vicont de Meherin Le Vicont de Belsane et autres.

Tous les desus nommes sont en Guienne et de Guienne ou Languedoc ou p^[r] le moins ont porte les armes a ceste dernier guerre. Quant aux autres Seigneurs et Capitaines des autres Provinces de France qui ont pareille ulcouse[?] et la monsteront au besoing, ascavoir es provinces assises deca la Riviere de Loure, ilz sont sans comparison en plus grand nombre pour respost des lieux ou ilz sont; nous ne les avons point nommés pas ce quilz ont attendu une armée de Reistres present s’y jettes, attendant la quelle ilz se sont le mieux quilz ont peu compertes en leurs maisons.

[_Not signed_]

[_Endorsed_] Les villes des quelles ceux de la Religion s’asseurent en France.

APPENDIX XXXIII

[P. 474, n. 2]

BIBLIOTHEQUE D L’INSTITUT, COLLECTION GODEFROY

VOL. 256, FO. 83 RECTO, NO. 45 DU CATALOGUE

[_Le duc d’Anjou à Charles IX_][1781]

[Camp devant La Rochelle, 17 février 1573].[1782]

Monseigneur. Par le jeune Seguier que j’ay depesché depuis deux jours devers Vostre Majesté, elle aura entendu comme j’estois sur le poinct envoyer devers icelle le S^[r] de Bourrique, l’un de mes maistres d’hostelz, pour la sattisfaire de tout ce que je pouvois avoir à luy faire entendre de l’estat de ceste armée. Suivant ce, je l’ay presantement faict partir si bien instruict de touttes choses que je ne doubte qu’il ne luy en sçache rendre très bon compte. Me restera à supplier, comme je fais très humblement, Vostre Majesté le voulloir en ce qu’il vous dira de ma part oyr avec la mesme foy et creance dont elle a tousjours voullu m’honnorer. J’ay veu ce qu’il luy a pleu me mander par sa depesche du XI^[me] de ce mois sur la proposition que aucuns avoient faicte de donner la charge de vostre armée de mer à mon frere Mons^[r] le Duc et au Roy de Navarre chose que je rejectay aussi tost pour les mesmes considérations, que Vostredicte Majesté a bien sceu prendre, et n’estois pour le permectre en aucune sorte, de maniere que Vostredicte Majesté demourera, s’il luy plaist, en repos de ce cousté la.

Monseigneur, je supplie le Createur donner à Vostredicte Majesté en très bonne santé et prosperité tres longue et tres heureuse vye.

Escript au camp devant La Rochelle, le XVII^[me] jour de febvrier 1573.

* * * * *

Monseigneur, j’ay veu par les dernieres depesches qui vous sont venues d’Angleterre de S^[r] de La Mothe Fenellon, la demonstration que ceulx de vos subiectz qui sont refugiez par dela font de procurer de leur part l’entier repos de vostre royaume avec ceulx de leur religion. Chose qui me semble estre très avantageuse au bien de vostre service, et que, pour l’effect de leur bonne intention, il vous plaise leur bailler touttes les seuretez necessaires pour venir par deça. Estant ceste voye, si elle peult proffiter, beaucoup plus aisée et seure que celle de la force, outre le moien que ce vous seroit de conserver beaucoup de voz bons subiectz et serviteurs et soulaiger d’autant vostre bourse.[1783]

[_Propria manu_] Vostre treshumble et tres obeissant frere et subget

HENRY.

[_Au dos, Suscription_] Au Roy, Monseigneur et frere.

[_Au dos, alia manu_] Monseigneur, du XVII^[me] febrier. M^[r] de Bourricques.

[Original]

APPENDIX XXXIV

[P. 503, n. 1]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CXXXIV, NO. 186, iij

[_Dr. Valentine Dale to Lord Burghley_]

Es co tempore quo proximè ad te scripsi nullum fuit mihi prorsus tempus animi laxandi, ita fui partim itineribus partim multis gravibus & impeditis rebus administrandis distractus, nec satis etiam nunc scio an mihi liceat aliqua intermissione frui ut de liberioribus ac amœnioribus studiis possim aliquantisper cogitare. Neque verò tuam nunc volo sive tarditatem sive negligentiam in scribendo accusare nulla est enim mihi remissæ erga me tuæ amicitiæ vel minima suspitio. Ut scias igitur quid rerum hic agatur Nunquam tanta animorum consentione ad pacem conspiratum est nec unquam tamen magis diversis studiis de pacis conditionibus ineundis actum est Coguntur enim planè jam omnes longo & ancipiti bello fessi & ad inopiam atque egestatem usque redacti necessario nunc tandem ac serio de pace cogitare. Neque enim aut æris alieni quo infinito premuntur dissolvendi ratio est, nec sumptus qui sunt apud istos profusissimi diutius sustinere possunt. Vectigalia autem ac ceteri reditus regii aut oppignorata aut distracta sunt ut annui regis proventus ne ad erogationes quidem domesticas satis sufficiant. Vident igitur omnes si bellum gerendum sit, infinita contributione opus esse, cum nullæ sint principis ad bellum gerendum facultates, & omnis qua opus sit regi pecunia ab aliis sumenda aut potius extorquenda sit. Homines autem nobiles per quos bellum precipuè geritur quorum amplissimæ sunt facultates (nam hi pæne soli prædia possident & vicena aut tricena aut etiam centena plerique millia aureorum nummum habent annua). Hi quantam alicunde pecuniam corradere possunt eam prodige & profuse ilico profundunt, nulla est enim eis cura rei familiaris, sed tanqam in diem viventes quibus opus habent rebus quantivis comparant eam quam habent pecuniam negligentes & quam non habent quibusvis rationibus vel quamvis cum jactura conquirentes. Solent autem illis ut plurimum belli presertim tempore sumptus a rege subministrari. Nunc autem quum videant nihil esse regi, quod det, corpora sua periculis libenter non subjiciunt, inviti autem hoc presertim tempore ad bellum non adiguntur, itaque fit ut qui ferè uni pro principe soliti sint decertare hi bellum in primis detrectent. Plebs autem rustica inops semper est atque egena, non enim ut nostri improvidos reperiunt prediorum dominos, a quibus prerogata quadam modica pecunia exili reditu conductis agris, ad magnas opes perveniant, sed aut Coloni partiarii agrum magno labore parvo autem cum compendio colunt, aut justum fructuum precium pendunt. Hoc verò tempore vastationibus populationibus & direptionibus ita sunt expilati, ut nec bos ad arandum nec frumentum ad sementes faciendas supersit: tantum abest ut illorum pecunia bellum geri possit. Reliqua sunt oppida que sanè sunt multa & cives certe ditissimi Nam que magna ut scis nostris est trium millium coronatorum pecunia, apud istos ducentorum aut trecentorum millium exiguè sunt facultates, & qui urbes incolunt soli aut sub pignoribus & hypothecis nobilium proventus possident, aut eorum facultates fœnere exhauriunt. Inter istos autem cives opifices non nomino, quorum infinitus est numerus qui admodum difficulter victum magnis laboribus in urbibus querunt non enim in agris locus illis est ubi se ac suos tenuiter colendis agris aut pecore pascendo, ut nostri faciunt, alant. Itaque in urbis quisque proximas se confert, ubi officinas instituunt & vitam labore producunt. Multo minus inter cives numerandi sunt hi, qui passim in viis scatent omnibus oratoriis preceptis ac artibus instructi quo hominum mentes ad elemosinam & commiserationem permoveant. Neque etiam bonos illos viros hic nomino, quorum magnus est numerus qui se fratres dici volunt, quamvis inter se odiis plusquam fraternis dissideant quos ego planè eos esse existimo quos Chaucerus noster ex loco illo parum honesto sese proripere scribit, qui nugas ac nenias venditando in eam authoritatem pervenerunt. Ut æquum existiment rogari potius sese quam rogare: tanquam viri omnibus virtutibus excellentes ad quorum pedes bona nostra projicere debeamus, quanquam illorum pæne jam explosa est disciplina ab illis quorum novum est ancupium qui se Jesuistas appellant, & perfecti volunt esse, juxta illud. Estote perfecti sicut ego sum, inter quos Darbesherus noster non est minimus apostolorum si noster dicendus est qui & nos & seipsum deservit & aliam vitam alios mores sequitur, illi autem quos dixi Cives qui tantum opibus valent, clientelis miseorum opificum in quos imperium habent & suis divitiis freti, pecuniam sibi imperari non patiuntur, sciunt enim neminem esse qui eos cogere possit, cum rex parum fisus nobilibus, tutelam urbium arma, machinas, bellicas, mœnia, & quicquid est roboris illis commiserit, rogati autem immensas & crebras priores pensitationes & tributa causantur itaque pauxillulam tandem aliquam pecuniam prout nec causa postulat tanquam ab invitis quasi vi sibi exprimi patiuntur. Jam Episcopi Abbates & alii quibus opima sunt sacerdotia cum videant omnium oculos in se ac bona sua esse conjectos nec aliquam aliam esse rationem conficiende pecuniæ nisi quæ ex eorum bonis & prediis distrahendis redigatur. Quis erit (inquiunt) tandem nostri expilandi finis si bellum adhuc duret. An non sex decimas annuas fructuum nostrorum pensitamus. Vix annus adhuc est quod octingenta millia francorum que sunt centena millia librarum nostrarum in profectionem Polonicam dedimus jamque nos urgent Questores regii ad solutionem unius millionis & dimidiæ francorum, que summa est quingentorum millium coronatorum gallicorum, quos rex approbante pontifice nobis extorquet: cujus pecuniæ solvendæ rationem nullam adhuc habemus. Non tametsi pontifex ad rem tam piam nempe ad bellum intestinum alendum, predia ecclesiastica ad eum summam venire permiserit, emptores tamen non reperiuntur, coguntque nos officiales & ministri regii pecuniam quam non habemus, nostro periculo representare: recepturos aliquando ex distractione bonorum, si qui tandem reperiantur, qui tam dubio jure litem futuram presenti pecunia velint comparare non enim ignotæ sunt artes pontificiæ: Veniet namque facile tempus cum Pontifex iste aut successor aliquis ejus restitutionem in integrum pro ecclesia non sine dirarum etiam imprecatione a se impetrari facillime patiatur, nulla habita eorum ratione qui in bona ecclesiastica pecuniam impenderunt. Itaque eo ventum est ut hi quorum causa bellum hoc geritur & qui evangelicos plurimum oderunt hi nunc pacem maximè expetant, & quemvis Dei cultum potius permittant, quam se indies argento emungi patiantur imò quidvis inquiunt potius in malam rem doceant Hugonoti, neque enim magis ab illis quam ab istis possumus expilari. Nec est illorum non inepta sanè oratio. Jam homines miseri qui sedibus pulsi patria carent, inopes vagantur, quibus insidiæ undique tenduntur, supplicia & mortes intentantur, qui deserti ab omnibus, perpetuas excubias ad sese tuendos agunt hi pacem si unqam antehac nunc certè fessi ac defatigati miserè cupiunt, ut aliquis tandem sit laborum finis & patria terra quiescere liceat. Nemo est igitur qui non uno ore pacem affectet, ad pacem oculos, animum & omnes cogitationes convertat. Quin & Pontifex ipse sibi timens & veritus quem res nec sit habitura exitum, & precipuè de comitatu Avinionensi sollicitus, alios non lacessitos esse malit, quam de suis rebus in periculum venire: sperans futurum ut rex intermisso bello integris viribus eos facile opprimat, quos nunc lacerato regno satis vexare non possit. Ex qua re factum est, ut sermonibus hominum certa pax facta, & negocium prorsus transactum esse diceretur, & ea fama per uniuersum orbem sparsa sit, pacem jam manibus teneri. Sed cum de pacis conditionibus agi ceptum est, longe fuerunt alie hominum voluntates, longè alius rei exitus. Nam quibus antea sua facilitate impositum est, ne in idem discrimen inciderent Evangelicæ libertati & saluti sue presidiis, urbibus ac rebus aliis que ad vitam tuendam pertinent sibi consulere voluerunt, nec se aliorum fidei committendos esse censuerunt quin rebus omnibus integris arma sumere possent, ut si non melior at saltem non deterior istis pactionibus illorum conditio fieret. Alii contra qui spe miseros illos homines devorarant & sibi occasionem egregiam oblatam existimabant, incautos homines vafricia & insidiis prorsus opprimendi, cum viderent non esse locum dolis quin potius futurum ut Evangelium propagaretur, nec esse in illorum potestate, ut istis conditionibus homines Evangelici exterminarentur, quidvis potius faciendum esse suadebant, quam locum illis dari quos extinctos esse cupiunt, hi & se & sua omnia regi offerunt, & quoduis discrimen subeundum esse censent. Itaque nunc Pontifex bellum alioqui formidans pecuniam mutuam satis amplam u(l)troneus offert: (sibi tamen satis callide pignoribus cavens) ut regis animum a pacis cogitatione avertat. Sunt etiam alii viri providi & rebus suis prospicientes, qui sciunt vetus illud esse, mobilia esse gallorum ingenia ad suscipiendum bellum (neque enim in tanta penuria & tantes difficultatibus de aliis perturbandis desinunt cogitare, nec istis unquam aut voluntas aut pecunia ad alios vexandos deest) qui ista penitius perspiciunt & sibi prudenter cavent, hi frigidam suffundunt, pristinam gloriam nominis gallici commemorantes, & ignominiam ob oculos ponentes, si tale dedecus subeatur ut quasi victi manus tendere, & leges jam non dare sed accipere cogantur, futurum ut tempore vires regia crescant, alii contra vel simultatibus solvantur, vel insidiis opprimantur, vel premiis & pollicitationibus separentur, qua ex re fiet aliquando ut rex victor stirpem illam hominum prorsus exterminet, & ecclesiæ Romane vindex eternam sibi famam ad posteros transmittat. Hic ego si tibi que fuerint postulata, que responsa, que argumenta in utramque partem adducta, qua constantia permansum sit in petitis, quibus artibus Evangelicorum legati tentati sint, quibus intercessoribus res tractata sit, historiam tibi non epistolam scriberem nolo tamen tibi ignotum esse egregiam fuisse in hac re Helvetiorum protestantium operam, ego autem quod potui porro ut est apud comicum nostrum. His igitur rebus effectum est ut post multas & longas de pace disceptationes incertiores simus multo quam dudum, pacem enim facere noluit bellum autem gerere non possunt.

Cum ista superiora aliquot dies scripta apud me haberem, nec describendi esset ocium accepi tandem tuas vicesimo quarto Maii scriptas, ex quibus intelligo esse etiam apud vos fidefragos, ut tuo verbo utar, nam fœdifragos usquam gentium reperiri non est fas dicere, itaque nactus ocium te istis quibuscunque carere nolui, nec si tibi sit cordi ullum laborem recusabo, quin priores etiam meas queas tu le amisisse tantopere quereris descriptas ad te mittam. Vale & nostros omnes meo nomine diligenter saluta nam eos de mea salute sollicitos esse scio. Lutetie Parisiorum ultimo Junii 1575.

Tui amantissimus V. D.

[_Not addressed_]

[_Endorsed_] Ult^[o]. Junii[1784] 1575 M^[r] D. Dale to m l. from Paris.

[_In Burghley’s hand_] a lettre wrytten in latin concerning the state of France.

APPENDIX XXXV

[P. 503, n. 2]

STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN

ELIZABETH, VOL. CXXXI, NO. 895

[_Henry III to Queen Elizabeth_]

Treshaulte tresexellente, et trespuissante princesse Nostre treschere et tresamee bonne seur et cousine ayant entendu le trespas ces jours passez advenu du feu Roy nostre trecher s^[r] et frere nous en avons receu ung tresgrand regret enuy & desplaisir pour la singulliere affection et fraternelle amitie quil nous a tousjours portee et demonstrée par tous bons offices. Et aussy pour la perte grande qui en demeure generallement a toute la Chrestiente, et a nous

## particulierement, qui luy avions tant dobligation comme nous avons

encores en sa memoire, pour tant d’honneurs et de faveurs quil luy a pleu tousjours nous departir de son vivant. Ce que saichant que les princes ses voisins auront pareillement porte avec douleur, et mesmement vous, avec qui il avoit et a tousjours eu si bonne & parfaicte amitye, voisinaige et intelligence. Nous avons pense estre bien convenable a l’amitye mutuelle qui est aussy entre nous noz Royaumes et pais de nous en condoulloir avec vous, comme nous faisons par la presente en attendant qu’estant arrivé en nostre Royaume de France (ainsy que nous l’esperons bien tost avec layde de Dieu) nous puissions nous acquicter plus dignement de cest office. Voullans bien vous dire & asseurer cependant que si vous avez congneu le feu Roy notred. S^[r] et frere desireulx de conserver la bonne et sincere amitye voisinance et intelligence que vous aviez ensemble, vous n’en debuez pas moings attendre & esperer de nous son successeur a la corone de France Ne voullant seullement continuer en lad. amitye, mais la fortifier asseurer et augmenter par tous honnorables & dignes offices que doibuent les princes amis les ungz aux autres ainsy qu’avons donne charge au s^[r] de la Mothe Fennelon vous faire entendre que vous prions recevoir et avoir agreable aupres de vous pour y estre notre conseiller et ambassadeur resident, tout ainsy quil estoit du feu roy nostre feu S^[r] et frere Et ne pouvons aussy trouver que tresbon l’exercice quil a faict de ladicte legation de puis ledict decedz advenu, tant suivant les tres de feu notred. S^[r] & frere que celles de la Royne nostre treshonnoree dame et mere qui en avoit tout pouvoir et a laquelle nous envoyons presentement le nostre le plus ample quil nous est possible. Saichant combien elle merite de cested. corone, et combien elle sest aussy tousjours rendue affectionnée au bien de nous tous ses enfens, et des affaires et prosperite de notred. Royaulme, vous priant croire ledict s^[r] de la Mothe de ce quil vous dire sur tout ce que dessus et y adjouster foy comme feriez a nous mesmes Qui prions Dieu treshaulte tresexellente et trespuissante princesse Nostre treschere et tresamee bonne seur et cousine vous avoir en sa tressainte et tresdigne garde. Escript a Cracovye le xv^[ne] jour de Juing 1574.

[_Signed_] Vostre bon frere et cousin HENRY WARSEVICZ

[_Addressed_] A treshaulte tresexcellente et trespuissante princesse Nostre treschere et tresamee bonne seur & cousine la Royne D’Angleterre.

[_Endorsed_] June xv^[th] 1574. From the K. of Polonia to her Ma^[tie]. Dated at Cracovia. He condolethe the deathe of the K. his brother offreth and requireth lyke contynewance of amitie as was betwene her and his brother Desiereth her Ma^[tie] to accept Mon^[sr] de la Mothe for his Ambassadeur.

APPENDIX XXXVI

[P. 504, n. 2]

ARCHIVES NATIONALES

K. 1,537, PIECE NO. 22

[_Report of a Spanish Spy about Calais_ (Deciphered)]

[_Au dos_] Descifrado.

Avisos de Cales à XVIIIº de Março 1575

[_En tete_] Avisos de Cales à XVIIIº de Março 1575

Quiero dezir el runrun que anda entre estos Franceses, no porque me passe por el pensamiento que deva ser assi, pero en secreto se dize que el Rey de Francia anda tramando para yr sobre los Estados, ó tomarlos, y que su her, mano se casa con hija del Principe, y otros muchos casamientos que se hazen-y que se haze armada en toda Francia para ello, y oy ha llegado aqui aquel Embaxador con treynta cavallos, que va á la Reyna de Inglaterra, y viene de Paris, y assi mismo se aguarda (segun se dize) el que esta en Brusselas, para yr tambien a la dicha Inglaterra. De suerte que no se sabe otro sino esto, que, como digo, se dize en secreto, y en partes que nos lo han dicho. Plegue a Dios que nos guarde dello, que bien creo si suspection dello huviesse, lo sabria el Embaxador que esta en Paris y lo advertiria a essa Bolsa, pues importa. Aunque, como digo, no creo nada dello, y no he querido dexar de escrivirlo en esta, para que se tenga aviso dello, sin que se entienda, pues no se suffre dezir.

APPENDIX XXXVII

[P. 505, n. 3]

STATE PAPERS, DOMESTIC

ELIZABETH, VOL. CV. NO. 51

[_Walsingham to Lord Burghley_]

My verry good L. I send your L. sooche letters as I receyved from owre Imb. dyrectid unto you by the w^[ch] yt may appeare unto you that Q. mother had some intentyon under the cullore of a Parle w^[t] her sonne to have intrapped him. I thinke the gentleman hathe to good exsperyence of her to truste her (thowghe nature myght somewhat move him therin) I longe to heare that he were past the Ryvere of Loyre: for before that tyme I shall be greatly jealouse of his savetye. Her ma^[t] was perswaded under the cullor of scooryng the seas to have set owt two of her shipps to have receyved him yf being not well assysted he shoold be forced to flye but she can not be drawen to yelde therto. This daye ther came letters from the justyces of Devonshire that the seconde of this monethe ther arryved on ther cost 48 sayle of Spanyshe men of warre whoe desyered herborrowynge but were denyed for that they had no passeporte of her ma^[t]. Notw^[t]standyng they suffered the Admyrall and vyceadmirall to come in to the porte of Darmouthe: wher as the gentlemen advertyce yt is thowght they wyll lande some treasvre to be conveyed by lande unto London The rest of the ships are gon towardes Dunkyrke. The Generall of them is Don Petro de Baldis whoe maryed Petro Malendas daughter. The arryvall of this armye makethe me greatly to dowbt the P. of Oranges well doinge: whoe alreadye seamethe to be in verry harde case. I praye God owre merchauntes fynde them good neyghebowres. Owt of the northe we have hearde nothing laetly And so having nothing ells to advertyce I commyt your L. to Goods good kepyng most humbly takyng my leave. At Rycot the vj^[th] of Octobre 1575.

Y^[r] L. to commavnde FRA: WALSYNGHAM

[_Addressed_] To the right honorable my vearie good Lord the L. treasurer.

[_Endorsed_] 6. Octob. 1575. M^[r] Secret: Walsingham the Spanish flete in the west.

[Illustration: Map of FRANCE showing PROVINCES.]

INDEX

INDEX

Abbeville, riot at, 133.

Acuna, Don Juan de, mission of, to Savoy, 308.

Adresse, baron des, Huguenot chieftain in Dauphiné, 147; prince of Condé thinks of joining, 153; lieutenant of, in Provence, 395.

Agde, court at, 252.

Agen, riot at, 133, 134; Catholic league of, 215, 225, 254; Montluc thinks of retiring to, 403; Montluc fortifies, 406.

Aides, 82.

Aigues Mortes, Damville introduces Turkish fleet into, 492.

Aix, association of Provence formed at, 214, 225; court at, 251.

Alava, Spanish ambassador in France: theft of cipher of, 266, 317, n. 6; exceeds instructions in threatening war, 266, n.; charges Catherine de Medici with duplicity, 315; protests against overtures for peace, 417; incident with Tavannes, 418, 419; haughty reply of Charles IX to, 441.

Albanian troops with Alva, 307, 310.

Albi, 395, 405, 406. _See also_ Viscounts.

Albret, Jeanne d’, queen of Navarre, wife of Antoine of Bourbon and mother of Henry IV: mentioned, 120; Antoine of Bourbon quarrels with, 132; demand for banishment of, by Spanish ambassador, 133; consideration shown, 239; plot of Montluc and Spain to kidnap, 260; excommunicated, 261; maintains court preacher to anger of Catholics, 288; mobilizes troops in Béarn, 307; territories of, 350; crushes Catholic League at St. Palais, 355; crosses Garonne River “under the nose of Montluc”, 368, n.; pawns her jewels, 378; directs foreign negotiations with Huguenots, 379; negotiations of government with, 391-93.

Alençon, François, duke of, youngest brother of Charles IX: governor of Paris, 358; marriage negotiations with Queen Elizabeth, 430 ff.; character and appearance of, 432; Huguenot-Politique plot to recognize, as heir apparent, 477, 478; complaint of, to Charles IX, 479; arrested, 480; escape of, 505; revolt of provinces to, 506; terms demanded of Henry III, 508; privileges of, in Peace of Monsieur, 519, 520.

Alessandria de la Paille, Alva at, 311.

Alexander VI, bull of, 300.

Allny, secretary sent to confer about peace, 344.

Alsace, Baron Bolwiller of, 301.

Alva, duke of, proxy for Philip II at marriage of Elizabeth of Valois, 3; suspected of urging inquisition in France, 12; favors repressive policy of Henry II, 117; upon commerce of Low Countries, 163; purposes to have Havre put in hands of Philip II for mediation between France and England, 198; advises fortification of Gravelines, 267, 268; instructions at Bayonne, 273; advises execution of Huguenot leaders, 274; relations with Catherine de Medici at Bayonne, 277; influence over duke of Montpensier, 304; Philip II determines to send, to Netherlands, 305; march of, through Savoy, Franche Comté, and Lorraine, 305-11; sails from Cartagena and arrives at Genoa, 309; arrives at Brussels, 312; and the Gueux, 314; arrests Egmont and Hoorne, 318; opinion of, of cardinal of Lorraine, 336, n.; appealed to by cardinal of Lorraine, 336, 337; offers aid to Catherine of Medici, 338; suggests coming in person to relief of French crown, 338; instructions to, 351; protests against Huguenot activity in Flanders, 360; defeats Louis of Nassau at Jemmingen, 361; executes Egmont and Hoorne, 361; offer of aid accepted by France, 380; Jeanne d’Albret protests against, 393; tyranny of, in the Netherlands, 441; revolt of Flushing and Middelburg against, 444; determines to retire his forces into Ghent and Antwerp, 444; desperate straits of, 446; intercepts Genlis’ relief column, 447.

Amboise, 140; drownings at, 154; royal chest at, 346. _See also_ Amboise, Edict of.

Amboise, conspiracy of: origin, 28-31;

## participation of D’Andelot in, 30;

secret of, discovered, 32; crushed, 33-39; Condé accused of complicity in, 40; Catherine de Medici accused of being secret party to, by Tavannes, 42, n.; return of French exiles after, 194; memory of, haunts Catherine de Medici, 288.

Amboise, Edict of, 191; hostility of Spain to, 194; cannot be enforced, 207; overtures to break, 209; rupture of, 250; amendments to, 295, 318.

Amiens, three-fourths of population said to be Huguenot, 230.

Amsterdam, endangered, 444; all Holland lost to Spain, save Rotterdam and, 446.

Andelot, François de Châtillon, sieur d’, 6, 8; in conspiracy of Amboise, 30; counsels Catherine de Medici, 128; Spanish ambassador objects to presence of, at court, 133; joins Condé at Meaux, 137; appears before Paris, 137; overtures made by, 139; lieutenant to Condé, 140; destroys bridge at Jargeau, 151; sent to Germany for assistance, 154, n., 158; plans to cut Paris off, 159; gives Aumale the slip, 162; German horse of, 172; serious position of, in Orleans, 186; asks aid of Queen Elizabeth, 187; quarrels with Catherine de Medici, 238; sent to Switzerland, 307; sent to protect Champagne against Alva, 315; sent to seize Poissy, 332; proposition to marry son of, to sister of duke of Guise, 345; mentioned, 358; death of, 378.

Anduze, Catholic league at, 355.

Angennes, 255.

Angers, Huguenot outburst at, 95, 127; mentioned, 140; cruelties at, 148, 288; duke of Alençon demands, 508.

Angoulême, bishop of, French ambassador in Rome, 57, 283; duke of Anjou raises siege of, 378, 405, 406; Charles IX offers to yield to Huguenots, 416; revolts, 502; duke of Alençon demands, 508.

Angoumois, revolt in, 150; duke of Anjou in, 381.

Anjou, 141, 154, 286; Catholic league in, 216.

Annates, 80.

Antinori, agent of Pius IV, 250.

Antoine of Bourbon, king of Navarre, wife of Jeanne d’Albret and father of Henry IV: mentioned, 8; character and policy of, 23, 24; attends Elizabeth of Valois into Spain, 24; suspected of complicity in conspiracy of Amboise, 42; Huguenot overtures to, 63; appreciated by Catherine de Medici, 72; promised Sardinia, 73; inclines to Spain, 96; nominal authority of, 99; hopes for restoration of Navarre, 100; relations of, with Spanish ambassador, 100-2; uncertain conduct of, 116, 117; plot against, 119; hopes to compound with Philip II, 131; negotiates with Vatican, 131; promised “kingdom” of Tunis, 132; instructed in Catholic faith, 132; quarrels with Jeanne d’Albret, 132; offended at Coligny, 133; surrenders to Triumvirate, 137; protests against Charles IX’s removal to Blois, 137; supports duke of Guise, 138; overtures to Catherine de Medici, 139; weakens, 141; publishes proclamation against Huguenots in Paris, 149; at Vernon, 152; at Blois, 154; mortally wounded at siege of Rouen, 169; dies, 170; confesses religion of Augsburg, 171, n.

Antwerp, population of, 314; Alva determines to retire his forces into, 444.

Aosta, duke of Alva at, 311.

Aquitaine, 26, 45.

Aragon, Ferdinand of, 395.

Argentan, Montgomery takes, 472.

Argenteuil, 327.

Armagnac, cardinal of: helps form Catholic league at Toulouse, 214; revives Catholic league at Toulouse, 354, 397.

Arnay-le-Duc, battle of, 416.

Arpajon, viscount of, 294, 395.

Artois, frontier difficulty with France, 263; revolt in, 265; mentioned, 267.

Association: of Huguenots in Languedoc, 207; Catholic associations, 213; of Bordeaux, 213, 214; of Provence, 214, 225; of Catholic towns in Rouennais, 216; Huguenot, in Dauphiné, 223; Association catholique at Beauvais, 354. _See also_ Brotherhood of Catholics; Confraternity; Guild; League.

Aubespine, Sebastian de, bishop of Limoges: French ambassador in Spain, 51, 97; letter of, about Philip II, 93, n.; secret letter of, to Philip II, 97, 98; argues with Philip II, 117; sent to Switzerland, 241, 242; sent to Spain, 316; confers about peace, 344.

Aubigné, Huguenot historian, eye-witness of executions of Amboise, 39.

Auch, 405.

Augsburg, Confession of, 122; Antoine of Bourbon dies in, 271, n.; Peace of, 409.

Aumale, Claude of Guise, duke of, 35, 73; joins duke of Guise before Orleans, 152; captures Honfleur, 154; approaches Rouen, 155; atrocious practice of, 155; Swiss and Germans sent to aid of, 162; lets D’Andelot slip by, 162; levies troops in Champagne, 168; blunder of, 168; letter of, intercepted, 255; reiters of, 338; army of, in Champagne, 369; cost of army of, 375; fails to intercept duke of Deuxponts, 380; reproached by Catherine de Medici for negligence and cowardice, 382.

Auvergne, 286; Grands Jours d’, 291; Coligny in, 416.

Auxerre, 127, 388; rising in, 150; plot to seize, 350; duke of Deuxponts in, 380.

Avenelles, betrays conspiracy of Amboise, 33.

Avignon, 50; court at, 256; Joyeuse returns to, 348; Huguenots at, 411; papal nuncio protests against Huguenots in, 417.

Baden, margrave of, 336, 373; mission of Castelnau to, 380.

Bajazet, revolt of, 248.

Bar, duchy of, in vassalage to duke of Lorraine, 425.

Bardaxi, agent of Philip II in negotiations with Montluc, 260; instructions to, 351.

Bar-le-Duc, Huguenot alarm over Charles IX’s sojourn at, 233, 249.

Basel, alarm at, over Alva’s approach, 308.

Bassompierre, 180 and n.; wounded at Moncontour, 389.

Bayeux, Huguenots of, 148; capitulation of, 188.

Bayonne, 50; conference at, 225, 272-81; Spain impatient for fulfilment of promise made at, 283; uncertainty as to what was done at, 294; cardinal Santa Croce at, 295; no proof of alliance between France and Spain at, 318; Philip II’s interest in Catholic provincial leagues at, 351.

Béarn, plot to seize, by Spain, 260; Jeanne d’Albret mobilizes troops in, 307, 350; Montluc’s plan to conquer, 397, 413; proposal to neutralize, 399, 406, 407.

Beaugency, surprise of, 151, 152; Condé marches to, 153; Coligny at, 182.

Beauvais, Huguenot outburst at, 95; Association catholique at, 354.

Beggars of the Sea, capture of Brille by, 444.

Bellegarde, sensechal of Toulouse: routs viscounts, 397; sent to Poland, 497.

Bellièvre, sent to Switzerland, 240, 241.

Bergerac, 406; Edict of, 345; Peace of, 540.

Berghes, De, Flemish noble, 264, 265.

Bern, 154, 240; forms league with Valais, 308; treaty of, with Savoy, 309; neutrality of, 371.

Bernina Pass, 241.

Berry, Tavannes organizes Catholic league in, 354; duke of Deuxponts in, 380.

Besançon, Granvella returns to, 265; Alva’s route through, 308.

Beza, at Colloquy of Poissy, 111, 113, 114; at Synod of La Rochelle, 230; at Synod of La Ferté-sous-Jouarre, 240.

Beziers, court at, 252, 406.

Biragues, a Milanese, archbishop of Sens: made chancellor, 367; made keeper of the seal, 425; treachery of, 425, n.; urges Charles IX to imprison marshal Montmorency, 479; protests against, 492.

Biron, sent to La Rochelle, 454; made a marshal, 407.

Blamont, interview of Catherine de Medici and Louis of Nassau at, 463.

Blanche of Castile, 252.

Blaye, 408.

Blésois, Protestantism in, 238.

Blois, 27, 36, 161, 288; Charles IX removed to, 137, 140; camp at, 151; drownings at, 154; court returns to, 185; working capital of France, 190; viscounts cross Loire at, 396; treaty of, 430; Charles IX signs treaty of, 445; repudiated by Queen Elizabeth, 448; no massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450.

Bochetel, bishop of Rennes, French ambassador in Vienna, 57, 371.

Bohemia, 464.

Bois de Vincennes, 137; court at, 139.

Bolwiller, plans recovery of Metz, 301, 302. _See also_ Cardinal’s War.

Bonneval, 161.

Bordeaux, 27, 408; saved by Montluc, 151; association of, 213, 214; court at, 255, 271; Huguenot plot in, 368; massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450; Alençon demands, 508. _See also_ Château Trompette.

Bouillon, duke of, 126; neutrality of, 162;

## activity of, in Low Countries, 315;

disaffection of, 375; Spain’s anxiety over presence of, at Sedan, 472; fear of co-operation of, with Louis of Nassau and prince of Condé, 476; death of, 498.

Boulogne, demanded by Huguenots, 332, 345.

Bourbon. _See_ Antoine of Bourbon.

Bourbon, Charles, cardinal of, accompanies Elizabeth of Valois to Spain, 7, 73; reproaches Catherine de Medici, 288; assumes pay of reiters, 346; with army in Saintonge, 382.

Bourbonnais, famine slight in, 288.

Bourdillon, marshal, succeeds Marshal Termes, 182.

Bourges, 64, 127, 142; siege of, 159-61; Catholic league established at, 354; massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450.

Brabant, 265, 268.

Brie, troops levied in, 160; wheat dear in, 286; Catholic army in, 334.

Brille, capture of, by Beggars of the Sea, 444.

Brissac, marshal, 7; transferred from Picardy to Normandy, 60; Philip II writes to, 97; hostility of Huguenots toward, 98; relations with Triumvirate, 98; resigns, 126; charged with corrupt practice, 140; in Rouen, 182; quits Paris for Normandy, 199; mentioned, 350; defeats viscounts in Périgord, 396.

Brittany, 31, 45, 76, 146, 286.

Brochart, Huguenot commander at Sancerre, 372.

Brotherhood of Catholics in France, proposed at Council of Trent by cardinal of Lorraine, 211. _See also_ League; Association; Confraternity.

Brouage, salt staple at, 409, 415.

Brucamonte, Don Gonzalo de, Spanish captain, 310.

Bruges, capture by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, 446.

Bruniquel, Bernard Roger, viscount of, 394, 395.

Brussels, infected with heresy, 266; Alva’s arrival at, 312.

Burghley, Lord, letter of Dale, English ambassador in France to, 232.

Burgundy, 124, 132, 148, 329; troops levied in, 160; petition of Estates for abolition of Protestant worship in, 234; price of wheat in, 286; endangered by Alva’s march, 308; Catholic resentment in, 349; Confrérie du St. Esprit in, 352, 353; vigilance of Tavannes in, 362; concentration of troops in, 363. _See also_ Tavannes; Dijon; Châlons-sur-Saône.

Burie, governor of Guyenne, 36, 127, 156.

Busanval, 327.

Cadillac, Catholic league formed at, 216, 226.

Caen, 142, 162; Huguenots of, 148; arrival of English money at, 188; massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450.

Cahors, 405; riot at, 133.

Calais, capture of, 21; mentioned, 125, 126; and Havre-de-Grace, 162; English hope to recover, 163, 164; pale of, 166; Spanish fear lest England acquire, 181; Havre might have been another, 185; England proposes to trade Havre and Dieppe for, 198; English right to, 199; France claims forfeiture of English rights to, 203; restitution of, demanded by English ambassador, 204; Spain’s anxiety over, 267; French alarm over, 316; Condé demands, 332.

Candalle, activity of, in Guyenne, 226; helps to form league of Agen, 254; plans to attack Montgomery at Condom, 407.

Capuchins, 251.

Cardinal’s War, 303. _See also_ Metz; Lorraine, cardinal of.

Carlos, Don, son of Philip II: proposed marriage of, with Mary Stuart, 94, 245, 246; madness of, 246; proposed as husband of Marguerite of Valois, 424; death of, 424.

Carnavalet, Madame, 428.

Cartagena, Alva sails from, 309.

Casimir, count palatine, 158; reiters of, 333, 360; hopes of Huguenots pinned on, 335; reported to be coming, 382; ambition “to Calvinize the world”, 444. _See also_ Count Palatine.

Castlenau, mission of, to margrave of Baden, 380.

Castres, resists Joyeuse, 348; Montgomery at, 405, 406.

Cateau-Cambrésis, Treaty of, 5, 199, 203, 441; commercial importance of, 204.

Catherine de Medici, Queen of France, 1; policy after conspiracy of Amboise, 42, 64; Venetian ambassador’s description of, 65; policy of, after death of Francis II, 72, 73; has custody of seal, 74; control of government by, 75; adroitness of, 77; shrewdness of, 91; fears Spanish intervention, 94; vacillation of, 96; invites bishop of Valence to preach at court, 98; alarmed by formation of Triumvirate, 99; labors for Huguenot cause, 102; warned against policy of toleration, 110; not intimidated, 119, 122; in fear of Guises, 124; endeavors to maintain balance of parties, 126; perseveres in policy of toleration, 128; upbraided by Chantonnay, 133; demands his recall, 133; sends St. André back to his government, 133; offended at Cardinal Tournon, 133; fear lest Guises seize King, 137; overruled by constable and king of Navarre, 139; surrenders to Triumvirate and asks aid of Spain, 143; seizes church plate, 146; supports Triumvirate, 150; wants to end first civil war by composition, 172;

## activity after battle of Dreux, 182;

justifies Edict of Amboise, 195; pays Coligny’s reiters, 198; determines to push war against England, 199; appeals to Paris for loan, 200; enterprise in siege of Havre, 201; character of, 202; in supreme control, 206; demands dissolution of Catholic leagues, 225, 226; seeks to pacify the kingdom, 232; quarrels with D’Andelot, 238; co-operates with the Guises, 243; ambition of, 247; offends Philip II by favorable policy toward Turks, 248; Catholic pressure upon, 249, 250; visits Nostradamus, the astrologer, 251; alarmed at growth of Catholic leagues, 255, 256; interview with Alva at Bayonne, 277; ambition of, in Poland, 283; reproached by Cardinal Bourbon, 288; haunted by conspiracy of Amboise, 288; weakness of, 293, 294; demands withdrawal of Roggendorf, 295; espouses policy of political Huguenots, 295; alarmed at Alva’s march, 307; accused of stealing Spanish ambassador’s cipher, 317, n.; looks to Alva for aid, 328; sends Lignerolles “to practice the stay of the reiters”, 330; urged to make overtures after battle of St. Denis, 333; anxiety over Emperor’s claim to Three Bishoprics, 336; asks aid of Spanish troops against the reiters, 338; popular rage against, 343; consults Nonio, the astrologer, 344; accuses Montluc of secret dealings with Philip II, 351; reproaches Aumale for negligence and cowardice, 382; joins army in Saintonge, 382; approves feigned attack on Châtellerault by duke of Anjou, 387; disappointed at Bayonne, 423; dreams of marrying Charles IX to elder daughter of the Emperor, 424; attitude of, toward proposed marriage of duke of Anjou and Queen Elizabeth, 427; double policy of, 435; jealous of Coligny, 440; responsibility of, for massacre of St. Bartholomew, 449, 452, 453; interview of, with Louis of

Nassau at Blamont, 463; folly of Polish ambition of, 467; tries to bribe La Noue, 477; refuses to put Henry of Navarre to death, 481; assumes regency on death of Charles IX, 484; anxiety for return of Henry III, 488; sinister influence over Henry III, 488, 489; Spanish troops offered to, by Requesens, 494; tries to wheedle Alençon, 505; illness of, 511.

Catholic lines in August, 1562, 161.

Catholics, violence of, 240.

Caudebec, revolts, 148; mentioned, 164, 177, 181.

Caumont, viscount of, 394.

Celles, Coligny at, 182.

Cévennes, viscounts in, 395.

Chalais, 379, 406.

Châlons-sur-Marne, 147, 232.

Châlons-sur-Saône, saved by Tavannes, 149; mentioned, 154, 157; organization of La fraternité des catholiques at, 353, 354.

Chambéry, Alva’s route through, 308.

Chambre ardente, 11.

Chambres mi-parties, 393.

Champagne, 45, 52, 76, 92, 202, 329, 344; troops levied in, 168; reiters meeting in, 200; Protestantism in, 228; price of wheat in, 286; endangered by Alva’s march, 308; ravages of Huguenot army in, 333; Catholic army in, 334; Catholic league formed in, 354; Aumale’s army in, 369; ravages of reiters in, 507.

Champagne, Fair of, devastated by reiters, 420 and note.

Chantilly, Marshal Montmorency goes to, 357.

Chantonnay, Perrinot, sieur de, brother of Cardinal Granvella, Spanish ambassador in France, 25, 32, n.; endeavors to persuade Antoine of Bourbon, 90, 100-2; threatens Catherine de Medici, 97; directs Triumvirate, 131; son of, is christened, 133; upbraids Catherine de Medici, 133; recall of, demanded, 133; protests against Chancellor L’Hôpital, 137; tries to intimidate Catherine de Medici, 176, 195; traverses south of France in disguise, 245, n.; withdrawal of, from France, 266; aids plot to recover Metz, 302; transferred to Vienna, 424.

Charenton, 159; capture of Pont de, by Condé, 326; Condé withdraws from, 332; Huguenot demand for freedom of worshiping at, 416.

Charles III of Lorraine, marries sister of Charles IX, 249.

Charles V, Emperor, 3, 55, 85, 124; fails to capture Tunis, 132.

Charles V, Free Companies in reign of, 396.

Charles VII, Pragmatic Sanction of, 116; grants silk monopoly to Lyons, 234; mentioned, 252.

Charles VIII, fiscal policy of, 83.

Charles IX, King of France (1560-74): accession of, 71, 74, 123; begins reign with policy of toleration, 94; coronation of, 101; urged to stand fast in the faith by Cardinal Tournon, 111; demands repression of sedition in Agenois, 134; fear lest he be seized by Guises, 136; removed to Blois, 137; asks aid of Philip II, 143; unable to control Paris, 154; bitter against cardinal of Lorraine, 196; majority of, declared, 208; reply of, about Calais, 204; industrial crisis in reign of, 217; remonstrance of, to Pope, 230; purpose of tour of provinces, 232; Guises want him to marry Mary Stuart, 244; wants to marry a Hapsburg princess, 247; proposed marriage of, with Queen Elizabeth, 249; threatens to dispossess the Rohans, 288; advocates administrative reform, 290; proposes amendments to Edict of Amboise, 295; asked to permit Spanish troops to cross France to Flanders, 299, 305; Spain fears appeal of, to Huguenots, 302; strengthens garrisons in Languedoc and Provence, 306; sends troops into Lyonnais, 307; Huguenots attempt to kidnap, 319-21 (_see_ Meaux); dares not accept offers of Philip II, 330; insists in disarmament of Huguenots, 333; argues with count palatine, 335; reply to Condé, 341; poverty of, 344; reply of, to demands of Huguenots, 345; accuses cardinal of Lorraine, 350; promises to maintain peace of Longjumeau, 350; displaces Marshal Montmorency as governor of Paris, 358; to marry daughter of Emperor, 364; views renewal of war with alarm, 375; at siege of St. Jean-d’Angély, 390; petitioned to make peace by his council, 391; Teligny sent to, 392; protests against peace made to, 394; goes to Mont St. Michel, 413; secret dealings of, with Montluc, 413; influence of battle of Arnay-le-Duc upon, 416; offers to yield La Rochelle, Angoulême, and Montauban, 416; offers to trade Perpignan or Lansac for La Charité, 416; infractions of Peace of St. Germain by, 420; promises reform of taxes, 421; imposes new taxes, 421; marries Elizabeth of Austria, 424; releases duke of Lorraine from vassalage to France for duchy of Bar, 425; vague replies of, to demands of Spain, 426; character of, 438; haughty reply of, to Alava, 441; signs Treaty of Blois, 445; letter of, found on person of Genlis promising aid in liberation of Low Countries, 447; consternation of, at failure of Genlis’ expedition, 448; overtures of, to La Rochelle, 454; unsuccessful in recruiting footmen in Germany, 454; sends duke of Longueville to La Noue, 467; signs peace with La Rochelle, 459, 460; jealous of Guises, 462; inclines to aid Netherlands again, 462; warned by Morvilliers, 468; plans to convene Huguenot deputies of Languedoc and Dauphiné, 469; ill of smallpox, 469; forbids circulation of bad money in France, 470; makes sale of new offices, 470; orders census to be taken in each bailiwick, 471; sends Torcy and Turenne to Montgomery, 472; tract against, comparing to sultan, 475; plot to seize at St. Germain, 477, 478; urged to execute Cossé and Montmorency, 481; last illness of, 483, 484.

Charron, provost to Paris, Henry III’s threat to, 522.

Chartres, 36, 161, 181; Catholic camp at, 153; Condé retires toward, 177; Condé imprisoned at, 182; court leaves, 185; gunpowder factory at, blows up, 186.

Chartres, vidame of, suspected of conspiracy, 51; arrested, 59; imprisoned in Bastille, 62; prosecution of, 69; sister of, 126; agrees to deliver Havre-de-Grace to English, 164.

Châteaudun, 36, 161, 181; gunpowder factory at, blows up, 186.

Château-Thierry, Swiss at, 320; military base of Catholics, 373; granted to Casimir, count palatine, 521 and n.

Châtelet, 3.

Châtellerault, duchy of, given to young duke of Guise, 206; taken by Huguenots, 384; attacked by duke of Anjou, 387.

Châtillon, cardinal-bishop of Beauvais, 8, 93, 350; proposal to expel from country, 132; banishment of, demanded, 153; feud of, with Guises, 206, 207; resignation of, demanded, 289; sent to confer about peace, 344; learns of plot of Guises, 350. _See also_ Coligny; Andelot.

Châtillons, young duke of Guise refuses to be reconciled with, 293.

Chaudien, Protestant pastor in Paris, 64.

Chavigny, 255; taken by Condé, 350.

Chinon, taken by duke of Guise, 154.

Ciappini Vitelle, marquis of, Italian commander, 311.

Claudine, sister of Charles IX, wife of Charles III of Lorraine, 249.

Clergy, supports Guises, 9; demands at States-General of Orleans, 77, 78; contribute 100,000 écus, 200; loan made by, 329; heavy taxation imposed upon, 344; offer to maintain war at their own expense, 417. _See also_ States-General.

Clérie, 152; combat at, 182.

Cluny, Hôtel de, belonging to the Guises, attacked by a mob, 47.

Coconnas, arrest and execution of, 480, 481.

Cocqueville, failure of his invasion of Artois, 360.

Cognac, 283, 379, 405, 406.

Coligny, Gaspard de, admiral of France, 6; captured at battle of St. Quentin, 8; policy of, after conspiracy of Amboise, 42; sent to Normandy, 43; offers Huguenot petition, 52, 54, 73; influence of, 79; at Council of Fontainebleau, 94; efforts of, for toleration, 103; plot against, 119; made governor of Normandy, 126; counsels Catherine de Medici, 128; Spanish ambassador objects to presence of, at court, 133; Antoine of Bourbon offended with, 133; joins Condé at Meaux after massacre of Vassy, 137; appears before Paris, 137; at Montreuil, 138; aims to seize line of Loire River, 138; overtures to, 139; destroys bridge at Jargeau, 151; at Orleans, 154; solicits English aid, 162; in battle of Dreux, 179; at Villefranche, 181; crosses Loire, 182; tries to join earl of Warwick in Havre, 185; confers with Throckmorton, 185; in fear of his own reiters, 184, 187; asks aid of Queen Elizabeth, 187; desperate position of, 187; Madame de Guise refuses to recognize acquittal of, for murder of duke of Guise, 206; violence of Paris toward, 206, n.; not responsible for surrender of Havre-de-Grace to England, 224, n.; Alva advises his execution, 274; at Moulins, 289; hypocritical reconciliation of, with cardinal of Lorraine, 289; Spain demands banishment of, 300; unadmirable conduct of, 316; retires from court, 317; tries to prevent Strozzi’s coming, 329; saying of, 361; attempt to capture, 365; plans activity in south of France, 375; becomes actual leader of Huguenots after death of prince of Condé, 378; hopes to join duke of Deuxponts, 379; illness of, 383; fights battle of La Roche l’Abeille, 383; aims to take Saumur, 385; besieges Poitiers, 385-87; wounded at battle of Moncontour, 389; falls back on Niort after battle of Moncontour, 389; price put upon head of, 390; confers with Teligny, 392; joins Montgomery, 402; assumes offensive, 405; captures Port Ste. Marie, 406; and plans to winter there, 408; great blunder of, 410; besieges Toulouse, 410; illness of, 411; at Montbrison, 416; fights battle of Arnay-le-Duc, 416; urges marriage of Henry of Navarre with Marguerite of Valois and that of duke of Anjou to Queen Elizabeth, 422, 430 ff.; honorably received in Paris by Charles IX, and made member of Conseil du Roi, 439 and n.; persuades Charles IX to sign Treaty of Blois, 445; upbraids Charles IX for abandonment of Flemish enterprise, 448; attempt to kill, on August 22, 449; murdered in massacre of St. Bartholomew, 450. _See also_ Dreux; Jarnac; Moncontour; Arnay-le-Duc; St. Bartholomew, etc.

Colloquy of Poissy. _See_ Poissy.

Cologne, elector of, 467.

Cominges, Bernard Roger, viscount of Bruniquel, 394.

Commendone, cardinal, at Polish Diet, 464.

Commerce: of Low Countries, 163, 267; through Havre-de-Grace, 203; Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis, 204; of Lyons, 233, 234; influence of civil war upon, 235; exportation of grain from Lombardy, 241; commercial promises of Spain, 242; cloth-trade of England, 268, 269; wine trade of France, 267-69; free trade in grain, 286; high price of wine, 287; Huguenots enter Flanders as merchants, 299; in salt, 309; Fair of Champagne devastated by reiters, 420 and n.; English in Flanders, 436, 437; Poland covets Hanseatic, 466; strife between Paris and Rouen, 470. _See also_ Embden; Cateau-Cambrésis.

Compiègne, endangered by William of Orange, 370; Charles IX ill of smallpox at, 469.

Conciergerie, 3; La Mole and Coconnas imprisoned in, 480.

Concordat of 1516, 84, 196.

Condé, Louis de Bourbon, prince of: sent to Flanders, 7; accused of conspiracy of Amboise, 40; confers with Damville, 46; suspected of new conspiracy, 51; arrested, 62; prosecution of, 69-71; approached by Catherine de Medici, 72; acquittal of, 91, 92; seeks government of Champagne, 92; relations of, with Antoine of Bourbon, 100; plot against, 119; sends Hotman to Germany, 122; sent into Picardy, 126; counsels Catherine de Medici, 128; proposal to banish, 132; in Paris when duke of Guise arrives after massacre of Vassy, 136; leaves Paris for Meaux, 137; appears before Paris, 137; occupies St. Cloud, 138; complains of Guises, 139; assumes command of Huguenot forces, 140; controls middle Loire, 141; weakened by Grammont’s failure to reach Orleans, 146; Paris fears coming of, 147, 149; demands withdrawal of Triumvirate, 150; refuses conditions of peace, 153; retires into Orleans, 153; thinks of retiring into Gascony, 154; solicits English aid, 162; overtures made to, 168; hope that he may succeed Antoine of Bourbon as lieutenant-general, 170, 171; advances upon Paris, 172; wheedled by Catherine de Medici and the Guises, 174; fails to attack Paris, 176; retires to Normandy, 177; falls back on Chartres, 177; captured at battle of Dreux, 179; imprisoned at Chartres, 182; promised post of lieutenant-general, 190, 199; anger of, at Catherine de Medici, 206; project of, to marry Mary Stuart, 243; liaison of, with Isabel de Limeuil, 245, n., 249; Alva advises execution of, 274; maintains court preacher to anger of Catholics, 288; marries Mlle. de Longueville, 289; suspected of intercourse with William of Orange, 297; unadmirable conduct of, 316; retires from court, 317; captures Pont de Charenton, 326; extraordinary demands of, 328, 329; aims to overthrow Guises, 329; precarious position of, before Paris, 331; demands Calais, Boulogne, and Metz, 332; withdraws to Troyes after battle of St. Denis, 333; attempts to effect junction with reiters, 333; camped between Sens and Troyes, 339; joins reiters, 339; demands of, in favor of Huguenots, 340; power of, 342; appoints Cardinal Châtillon, bishop of Valence, and Teligny, to confer about peace, 344; complains of outrages on Huguenots, 362; manifesto of, 365; takes Champigny and falls back on Loudun, 369; defeated at Jazeneuil, 369, n.; attempts to join William of Orange, 370; marches to relief of Sancerre, 372; killed at battle of Jarnac, 376; jewels of, are pawned, 378; makes viscount of Rapin governor of Montauban, 395. _See also_ Dreux; Jarnac.

Condé, prince of (the younger): with Henry of Navarre theoretical leader of Huguenot party, 378; refuses to compromise with the crown, 412; abjuration of, on St. Bartholomew’s Day, 450; made governor of Picardy, 469; gets 8,000 cavalry out of Germany, 504; privileges in Peace of Monsieur, 520.

Condom, Montgomery at, 407.

Confraternities (Confréries), nucleus of local Catholic leagues, 216. _See also_ Association; Brotherhood of Catholics; Guilds; League.

Confrérie de Ste. Barbe, 313, n.

Confrérie du St. Esprit, 216, 353-55. _See also_ Association; Brotherhood of Catholics; Guild; League.

Constance, 308.

Correro, Venetian ambassador, describes the Swiss at Meaux, 321.

Cossé, marshal, in Picardy, 369; protests against siege of St. Jean-d’Angély, 390; sent to La Rochelle, 391; urges peace, 394; sent to recover La Charité, 412; Charles IX urged to execute, 481; arrested, 482.

Council, General, of the church, 139.

Council, National, question of, 57, 79, 87.

Council of Blood, 312.

Count palatine, 373, 467; sends deputation to France, 481; claims Three Bishoprics, 521; receives Château-Thierry, 521 and n. _See also_ Casimir.

Counter-Reformation, 124, 196.

Coutances, Montgomery lands near, 472.

Cracow, duke of Anjou arrives at, 467.

Croisade, La, name of new Catholic league at Toulouse, 355. _See also_ League; Armagnac, cardinal of.

Dale, Dr. Valentine, English ambassador in France: quoted, 232; suspected by French government, 505.

Damville, Henry de Montmorency, sieur de: confers with Condé, 46; guards Condé in prison after battle of Dreux, 182; strained relations of, with Montluc, 214; just government of, in Languedoc, 347; moderation of, 356; in Paris, 357; made king’s lieutenant in Languedoc, 383; Politique leanings of, 382; Montluc’s hatred of, 347, 398, 400, 401, 404, 413; Montluc’s overtures to, 403; party of, 474; failure of attempt to seize, 483; leader of joint Huguenot and Politique party, 489; interviews duke of Savoy at Turin, 491; introduces Turkish fleet into Aigues Mortes, 492; attempt to poison, 502; complicity with England suspected, 504; privileges granted to, in Peace of Monsieur, 521.

Dantzig, disaffected by French election in Poland, 466.

Darnley, marries Mary Stuart, 424.

Dauphiné, 38, 45, 52, 142, 147; Huguenots in, 95; militia of, 208; Huguenot association in, 223; viscount of Rapin in, 395, 406; strength of Huguenots in, 461; Huguenot deputies of, 469.

Dax, Turkish ambassador received at, by Catherine de Medici, 248.

Debts, of crown, 13, 67, 208, 366, 371; to Swiss, 242, 371; of Charles IX, 421. _See also_ Finances; Loans; Clergy.

De Losses, captain of Scotch Guard, sent to La Rochelle, 391.

Denmark, 21; sues for French favor, 123.

De Retz, protest against, 492; resigns office as constable, 497.

Dessay, Condé’s camp at, 339.

Deuxponts (Zweibrücken), duke of, 159; reiters of, 370; junction of, with William of Orange, 373, 374; Coligny hopes to join, 379; enters France, 379; captures Nevers and La Charité, 380; death of, 383.

Diaceto, a Florentine banker, 498.

Diane de Poitiers, mistress of Henry II, 6, 11, n.

Dieppe, 39, 142, 162; Calvinists in, 95; revolts, 148; plan for recovery, 154; precarious condition of Montgomery in, 187; England offers to trade Dieppe and Havre for Calais, 198.

Dijon, Tavannes foils attack upon, 149; objects to Edict of Amboise, 192; Catholics of, 288; ravages of reiters around, 357; mentioned, 157, 232; duke of Deuxponts advances upon, 379; no massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450.

Dillenberg, proclamation of William of Orange from, 444.

Dîme, 81, 84.

Dives, Coligny at, 185.

Dole, Alva at, 311.

Don Caratif. _See_ Dîme.

Dordrecht, revolt of against Alva, 444.

Dourdon, 357.

Dreux, battle of, 157, 158, 178-81; Philip II’s joy over, 183, 327.

D’Scars, chamberlain of Antoine of Bourbon, secret agent of Guises, 24.

Du Bourg, protests against inquisitorial practices of Henry II, 12; executed, 13, 15; policy of crown after death of, 42; interceded for by Marguerite of Savoy, 43.

Du Faur, protests against inquisitorial practices of Henry II, 12; suspended from office, 13.

Du Faur (advocate of Toulouse), helps in formation of Catholic league at Toulouse, 241.

Du Plessis, Huguenot pastor at Tours, 64.

Du Plessis-Mornay, memoir of, upon, French intervention in Netherlands, 445; sent to England, 474; radicalism of, 490.

Duras, Huguenot leader, activity of in Guyenne, 156.

Dutch, union of Huguenot and Dutch interests, 364. _See also_ Flanders; Louis of Nassau; Low Countries; Netherlands; William of Orange.

Edict of Nantes, 409.

Edict: of Paris (1549), 10; of Fontainebleau (1550), 10; of Chateaubriand (1551), 10; of Compiègne (1557), 11; of November, 1559, 14; of Romorantin (1560), 43, 104; of January, 94, 128-31, 151, 167, 168; of Rouissillon, 250, 251; of Amboise, evasion of, 377, 378. _See also_ Amboise; Bergerac; January; Longjumeau; Monsieur; Nantes; Romorantin; Rouissillon.

Edward I, war with Philip IV, 83.

Egmont, Lamoral, count, Flemish noble, 12; leader of Flemish revolt, 215; Spain attempts to draw him away from the Gueux, 268; association of, with William of Orange and Hoorne, 298, 312; arrested, 318; sent to scaffold, 361; son of, visits Henry III, 503.

Elbœuf, René of Guise, marquis of, 73; enters Paris, 135; surrenders Caen castle, 188.

Elbœuf, duke of, sent to Poland, 497.

Elizabeth, Queen of England: connection of, with conspiracy of Amboise, 41; precarious position of, 163; offers to aid Huguenots, 164; procrastination of, 174, 198; parsimony of, 184; advises Huguenots to accept “reasonable” terms of peace, 185; implored to send relief, 187; offers to exchange Havre and Dieppe for Calais, 198; her conduct compels Huguenots to make peace, 199; courtships of, 244; proposed marriage of, with Charles IX, 249; revives claim to Calais, 316; project of marriage of, to duke of Anjou, 358, 359; makes loan to Huguenots, 378; duplicity of, 412; marriage negotiations of, with duke of Anjou, 422, 428-30; marriage negotiations of, with duke of Alençon, 430, 431; political problems of reign of, 432-34; repudiates Treaty of Blois, 448; indirectly responsible for massacre of St. Bartholomew, 449, n. 1; enigmatical policy of, 455.

Elizabeth of Austria, marriage of, to Charles IX, 424.

Elizabeth of Valois, daughter of Henry II and queen of Spain: married to Philip II, 1; goes to Spain, 24; dowry of, 207; gives birth to still-born twins, 251; at Bayonne, 278; death of, 364, n. 424.

Embden, staple at, 269.

Emperor, revives claim to Three Bishoprics, 336; Charles IX to marry daughter of, 364, 374; hostility of, to France, 382; refuses to consider marriage of his daughter to Charles IX, 393; asked to stop progress of Protestant reiters, 393; makes truce with Turks, 464; interest in Poland, 464. _See also_ Ferdinand; Maximilian; Three Bishoprics.

England (English), contrasted with Spain, 123; aid expected from, 162; commercial interests in Low Countries, 163; occupy Havre-de-Grace, 165; “adversary of”, 198; and Philip II, 245; adventurers flock to La Rochelle, 372; alliance with France proposed, 440, 441; dares not break with Spain, 455; treaty with William of Orange, 463, n.; Du Plessis-Mornay sent to, 474. _See also_ Elizabeth, Queen; Commerce; Dale; Norris; Smith; Throckmorton; Treaty of Blois.

Este, Hippolyte d’, cardinal of Ferrara. _See_ Ferrara.

Estouteville, 115, n. 2.

Etampes, duke of, 146.

Etampes, Protestant camp near, 174; recovered by duke of Guise, 181; granary of Paris, 327.

Evreux, 177.

Famine, 286. _See also_ “Hard Times;” Plague; Commerce.

Ferdinand, petitioned by Margaret of Parma, 299, 374. _See also_ Emperor; Three Bishoprics.

Ferdinand of Aragon, ancestors of viscounts in war against, 395.

Ferrara, Hippolyte d’ Este, cardinal of: opposed by Chancellor L’Hôpital, 116; likely to succeed his brother as duke of, 423; marriage of, with Marguerite of Valois proposed, 423.

Finances, early history of French, 81 ff., 200; reform of, 292; of Henry III, 498. _See also_ Clergy; Debts; Dîme; Estates-General; Henry II; Loans; Swiss.

Fismes, duke of Guise wounded at battle of, 506.

Flanders, gunpowder brought from, 186, 188; revolt in, 265; change in nature of revolt in, 312, 313; 2000 troops from, arrive in Paris, 335; trade with England, 436, 437. _See also_ Alva; Artois; Brabant; Egmont; Gueux; Hoorne; Low Countries; Valenciennes; William of Orange.

Florida, massacre of French colony in, 299, 300. _See also_ Menendez.

Flushing, revolt of, 444; fleet of, captures Spanish merchantmen, 446.

Foix, Paul de, pope refuses to receive, 469.

Fontainebleau, council at (1560), 54, 52, 65, 89, 94, 117, 333; court goes to, 137; Condé aims to cut off, from Paris, 138; court removes from, to Melun, 139; mentioned, 209.

Fontarabia, Philip II strengthens, 146.

Fontenay (near Toul), Alva at, 311.

Forez, Coligny in, 411.

Fourquevaux, French ambassador in Spain, 306, 307; succeeds St. Sulpice, 283; embarrassed by massacre of French in Florida, 300; urges Charles IX to be cautious, 309; reply to papal nuncio, 315; urges marriage of Charles IX to Princess Anne of Hapsburg and that of Marguerite of Valois to Don Carlos, 424. _See also_ Alva; Florida.

France, social structure of, in sixteenth century, 18, 19; relations with Denmark, 123; possibility of war in, 132; and Philip II, 245; William of Orange enters, 369; state of, described by Sir Thomas Hoby, 294; alliance with England proposed, 440-41; prospect of war with Spain, 443.

Franche Comté, 124, 246, 301; Spain fears French attack on, 418; Huguenot plot in, 492, 493.

Francis I (1515-47), 69, 291; financial policy of, 81-85; fortifications of, around Paris, 173; influence of, upon silk industry, 234.

Francis II, King of France (1559-60), 4, 6, 8, 11; character of, 17, 22; appeals to Philip II, 59; death of, 70, 76, 93, 94, 123.

_Franco-Gallia_, a pamphlet by Hotman, 475.

Frankfort, duke of Anjou passes through, 467.

Frankfort Fair, William of Orange at, 446.

Fraternité des catholiques de Châlons-sur-Saône, 353, 354. _See also_ Association; Brotherhood of Catholics in France; Confraternity; Confrérie; League.

Freiburg, treaty of, 242; league with Bern and Valais, 308.

Frene, messenger of Parlement of Paris, assassinated, 15.

Froelich, Swiss colonel, 162.

Gabelle, 82; Guyenne exempt from, 8.

Gaillac, destruction of, by viscounts, 396.

Gallican church, liberties of, 196.

Garde, De la, 294.

Garonne River, Huguenots masters of, at Port Ste. Marie, 406.

Garris, siege of, 355.

Gascony, 41, 286; Condé thinks of retiring to, 154; germ of Catholic League in, 226; Protestantism in, 228; influence of provincial traditions upon, 409.

Geneva, exiles from, 44, 94; “Geneva party” among Huguenots, 191; influence upon Lyons, 227, 233; preachers from, in Netherlands, 265; fears joint attack of Spain and Savoy upon, 308.

Genlis, captures Mons, 446; relief column of, intercepted, 447; letter of Charles IX found upon person of, 447.

Genoa, syndicate of, 296; Spain borrows ships from, 306; Alva at, 309.

Genoullac, administrative corruption of, 82.

Germany, activity of Guises in, 48, 52, 85; return of French exiles from, 94; Smalkald war in, 121; chief Protestant princes of, 121, n.; Hotman sent to, 122; Huguenots await aid from, 158; troops sent to duke of Aumale from, 162; refugees from lower, 200; Protestants of, 243; Louis of Nassau’s dealings with Protestant princes of, 299; attitude of Protestant princes of, to French civil wars, 374; reiters levied in, 368; looked to for assistance, 380; Protestants, assistance from, 418; Charles IX unable to recruit in, 454; Schomberg’s missions to, 463, 467, 504; French ambition in, 467, 468; feeling in, because of St. Bartholomew, 468.

Ghent, Alva determines to retire his forces into, 444.

Gien, 161.

Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, captures Sluys and Bruges, 446.

Gondi, bishop of Paris, part of, in massacre of St. Bartholomew, 450.

Gordes, governor of Dauphiné, 396.

Gourdon, viscount of, 394.

Grammont, 126; prevented from reaching Orleans, 146; Alva advises execution of, 274; proposal to neutralize Béarn under, 399.

Grands Jours d’Auvergne, 291.

Granvella, cardinal, 12; gives warning of conspiracy of Amboise, 32; favors international Catholic league, 211; asserts impracticability of helping Triumvirate, 212; discovers Huguenot intrigues in Flanders, 264; implores Philip II to come to Netherlands, 264; retires to Besançon, 265; advises Spanish pressure upon France 266; ridicules rumor of Montgomery’s coming to Flanders, 298; secretly petitioned by cardinal of Lorraine, 304; comment on Flemish revolution, 312.

Gravelines, fortified, 267, 268, 316.

Gray, Alva at, 311.

Gregory XIII. _See_ St. Bartholomew.

Grenoble, 147, 154.

Grisons, Bellièvre sent to, 241, 308.

Guernsey, governor of, 167. _See also_ Leighton.

Gueux, William of Orange and Louis of Nassau allied with, 297; formation of, 312-14; masters of the sea, 444. _See also_ Egmont; William of Orange.

Guilds, revolution in, 217-23. _See also_ Confraternity; Confrérie; Industry; Leagues.

Guise, duchess of, widow of Francis: refuses to recognize acquittal of Coligny, 206; marries duke of Nemours, 293.

Guise, Francis, duke of, 5; in charge of war office, 6; opposition to, 9; character of, 20; captures Metz and Calais, 21; lieutenant-general, 36; leaves court, 73; loses influence, 75; letter of, to Philip II, 97; Huguenot hatred of, 98; peculations of, 98, 141; at Colloquy of Poissy, 112; leaves court, 114; conference of, with duke of Württemberg at Saverne, 123; responsibility for massacre of Vassy, 134, 135, 142; enters Paris, 135, 136; assembles forces in Paris, 142; Condé demands withdrawal of, 150; takes Loudun and Chinon, 154; wounded at siege of Rouen, 169; fortifies Paris, 173; holds Seine River, 177; follows Condé’s retreat, 177; repulsed at Clérie, 182; besieges Orleans, 186; assassinated, 188, 189, 216, 264.

Guise, Henry, duke of, made grand master, 206; given duchy of Châtellerault, 206; returns to court, 290; refuses to be reconciled with Châtillons, 293; in Champagne, 329; follows Condé, 333; organizes opposition, 349; establishes Catholic league in Champagne, 354; defends Poitiers, 385-87; wounded at Moncontour, 389; makes love to Marguerite of Valois, 419; marries princess of Porcien, 419; part of, in massacre of St. Bartholomew, 450-53; Charles IX’s jealousy of, 462; accuses Montmorency of plot to assassinate, 473; urges arrest of Montmorency, 479; feud with Montmorency, 491-94; Spanish soldiery flock to, 494; feud with duke of Montpensier, 498; ordered to resist coming of the reiters, 506; wounded, 506.

Guises, ancestry and wealth of, 20; ambition of, 21; usurpation of, 27; fear assassination, 27, n.; alarmed at conspiracy of Amboise, 32; accuse Condé, 40; pursue Visières and Maligny, 41; feud of, with Montmorencys, 45, 50, 73, 333, n., 356, 357; and war in Scotland, 48;

## activity in Germany, 48, 221;

popular feeling against, 50; make changes in provincial administration, 62, 63; grievances against, 65, 66; designs of, to crush Huguenots, 69; fury of, at release of Condé, 71, 72; aim of, to control regency, 72, n.; overtures of, to Antoine of Bourbon, 73; leave the court, 73; adverse condition of, after death of Francis II, 91; make use of aspirations of Antoine of Bourbon, 96; leave court, 119; Catherine de Medici in fear of, 124; absence of, from court creates suspicion, 131; fear lest they seize King, 137; angry at court’s removal to Blois, 137; tyranny of, 141; besiege Caudebec, 148; maladministration of, 296; interest of, in the “Cardinal’s War”, 303; secret negotiations with Spain, 304; contemplate deposition of house of Valois, 337; plans of, thwarted by reiters, 339; hatred of, 343; proposition to marry daughter of, to prince of Condé, 345; secret conference of, at Louvre, 350; plan to subjugate Gascony and Guyenne, 350; abuse Chancellor L’Hôpital 357; plan to capture Coligny, 365; responsible for continuance of war, 175; feud with Châtillons, 206, 207; tilt with Chancellor L’Hôpital, 210; co-operate with Catherine de Medici, 243; approach Montluc, 254, 255; discomfiture of, after peace of St. Germain, 419; endeavor to break match between duke of Anjou and Elizabeth, 422, 423. _See also_ Aumale, duke of; Elbœuf, duke of; Guise, duke of; Lorraine, cardinal of.

Guitery, joins Montgomery in Normandy, 472; his blunder ruins the plot to seize Charles IX, 478.

Guyenne, Marshal Termes made governor of, 63; exempt from gabelle, 85; badly infected with heresy, 95, 127; rebellion in, 190; Catholic league in, 216;

## activity of Candalle in, 226;

Protestantism in, 230, 283; early republicanism of Huguenots in, 326; civil war in, 347; plan of Montluc to deliver to Spain, 394; saved to Catholics by Montluc, 406; influence of provincial traditions upon, 409; Huguenot movement in, 472.

Gymbrois, 334.

Haarlem, siege of, 463.

Haguenau, grand bailiwick of, 301.

Hainault, 267.

Hanseatic cities. _See_ Dantzig; Revel; Riga.

Hapsburg, union of house of, 364; international plan to break dominion of, 374.

“Hard Times”, 86, 284-87, 391, 421, 455, 456, 470, 509. _See also_ Commerce; Plague; Wheat.

Harfleur, 162.

Haton, Claude, quoted, 284, 285.

Havre-de-Grace, seized by Maligny, 148, 267; fear lest it be given to English, 154, 155; and Calais, 162; occupied by England, 165, 166; question of evacuation of, 185; precarious position of Warwick in, 187; war with England over, inevitable, 198; Alva proposes, be put in Philip II’s hands pending mediation, 198; England proposes to trade, for Calais, 198; English possession of, jeopardizes commerce of Paris, 200; French assault begins upon, 201; difficulties of siege of, 201; Warwick agrees to surrender, 203; yielded to France, 204; Coligny not responsible for surrender of, to England, 224, n.; English occupation of, 267. _See also_ Warwick.

Heidelberg, duke of Anjou passes through, 467.

Hennebault, admiral, fall of, 8.

Henry II, King of France (1547-59): mortally wounded in tournament with Montgomery, 1; dies, 4; character of reign of, 5; suspected of favoring inquisition, 12; French exiles return after death of, 30; government of, 22, 82, 85, 86; wars of, 241.

Henry, duke of Orleans-Anjou, later Henry III (1574-89): industrial crisis of reign of, 217; marriage of, to Juana of Spain proposed, 247; interest of, in Poland, 283; bigotry of, 349, 350; Alva proposes marriage of, to queen of Portugal, 364; project of marriage of, to Queen Elizabeth, 358, 359; lieutenant-general, 367; endeavors to prevent junction between Condé and William of Orange, 370; raises siege of Angoulême, 378; endeavors to repair his losses, 380; keeps the field in Saintonge, Angoumois, and Limousin, 381; wretched state of army of, 381; arms peasantry in Limousin, 384; withdraws across Vienne River, 387; feigns attack on Châtellerault, 387; fights battle of Moncontour, 388, 389; at siege of St. Jean-d’Angély, 390; approves Montluc’s plan to conquer Béarn, 397; marriage negotiations of, with Queen Elizabeth, 422, 427-30; proposed marriage of, to Mary Stuart, 423; offered command of fleet against Turks, 423; part of, in massacre of St. Bartholomew, 450; prospects of, in Poland, 464; elected king of Poland, 465; leaves for Poland, 467; Huguenot-Politique plot to thwart succession of, 467; leaves Poland, 487; arrives at Lyons, 488; hardens his policy toward Huguenots, 489; determines to clear valley of Rhone, 490; raises siege of Livron, 495; coronation of, 495; marries Louise de Vaudemont, 496; debates terms of peace, 501; deposed by Polish Diet, 502; attempts to confiscate lands of the Rohans, 502; excesses of, 508; imposes new taxes, 509; frivolity of, 512, 513; makes light of Henry of Navarre’s escape, 515; grants Peace of Monsieur, 515-21.

Henry of Navarre, not permitted to go to mass, 133; demanded as hostage, 139, 293; at siege of Garris, 355; edict of Nantes and, 409; refuses to make terms with the crown, 412; marriage of, with sister of duke of Württemberg proposed, 422; marriage of, with Marguerite of Valois proposed, 383, 385, 422; marriage of, 442; abjuration of, on St. Bartholomew’s Day, 450; opinion of, on massacre of St. Bartholomew, 452; arrested, 480; escape of, 514; demands of, and terms granted in Peace of Monsieur, 518, 519.

Hoby, Sir Thomas, his description of France, 294.

Holland, revolt in, 265; all lost to Spain except Amsterdam and Rotterdam, 446. _See also_ Louis of Nassau; William of Orange.

Honfleur, captured by Aumale, 154, 162, 177.

Hoogstraeten, failure of his expedition, 360.

Hoorne, Flemish noble, leader of the revolt, 265; association with William of Orange and Egmont, 298; arrested, 318; sent to scaffold, 361.

Hospitals, 93, n.

Hotman, originator of conspiracy of Amboise, 30; author of _Le Tigre_, a pamphlet, 39, n.; on States-General of Orleans, 90; sent to Germany for aid, 122; author of _Franco-Gallia_, 475.

Huguenots, under Henry II, 10; origin of the word, 10, n.; “of religion”, 16, 17; “political”, 16, 17, 328; early republicanism of, exaggerated, 19, 324, 325; demand convocation of States-General, 27; in Normandy, 38, 39; Edict of Romorantin (1560) and the, 44, 104; strength of, in the provinces, 45, 95; riot of, in Rouen, 47, 70; and council of Fontainebleau, 53, 54; overtures of, to Antoine of Bourbon, 63; grievances of, 65, 66; hope to organize States-General, 75; Philip II seeks to harden policy of France toward, 93; violence of, 95; hostility of, to Guises, 98; urge cause of toleration, 103; refuse to pay tithes, 118; effrontery of, 120; organized nature of agitation of, 121; diplomatic negotiations of, 122, 123; riots of, 127; proposal to banish from court, 132; undismayed by massacre of Vassy, 137; house of worship of, in Paris destroyed, 139; association of, 140, 141; destroy tax-registers 147; demolish Bourbon tombs at Moulins, 148; communication of, with English, 148; hostility of Paris to, 149; demand withdrawal of Triumvirate, 150; look for English financial aid, 152; await aid from Germany, 158; pillage churches, 159; lines of, in August, 1562, 161; hope for English aid, 162; radicals among, 170; Elizabeth advises, not to refuse reasonable terms, 185; English complication of, 196; procrastination of Elizabeth compels, to make terms, 199; house-to-house search for, in Paris, 207; association of Languedoc, 207; disquietude, 209; party of, made up of working classes, 220; organization of, 225, 319, 321-24; church polity of, 229; proportion of, to Catholics, 229, 230; alarmed at Charles IX’s sojourn at Bar-le-Duc, 233; confiscations imposed upon, 235; iconoclasm of, 236, 240; alarm of, in south France, 252, n.; complain of Candalle and league of Agen, 255; Pius V advocates wholesale slaughter of, 275; fears of, 288; influx into Moulins, 288; rapprochement between, and Montmorencys, 289; principles of, 290; backed by Catherine de Medici, 295; influence of Netherlands upon, 296-98; preachers of, in Low Countries, 297; in Netherlands, 315; alarm of, 316; dismayed at arrest of Egmont and Hoorne, 318; exodus of, from Paris, 326; efforts of, to cut off Paris, 326; plunder churches around Paris, 327, 328; try to break Swiss alliance, 330; overtures of, to revolted Flemings, 331; capture citadel of Metz, 336; terms demanded by, 340, 345; interest of, in Dutch revolt, 364; proscription of, 366; spirit of, 368; not dismayed by death of prince of Condé, 378; strength of, in Saintonge and Rochellois, 378; anxiety of, over effect of death of prince of Condé on foreign negotiations, 379; elated by capture of La Charité, 381; capture Châtellerault and Lusignan, 384; besiege Poitiers, 385-87; intercept King’s treasurer in Limousin, 389; division of party between nobles and bourgeoisie, 391, 412; demands of, 392, 393; Joyeuse tries to prevent co-operation of, east and west of Rhone, 396; council at Milhaud, 396; strength of, in Provence and Languedoc, 405; strength of, in southwestern France, 408-10; new demands of, for peace, 416; papal nuncio protests against, in Avignon, 417; demand restoration of William of Orange and Louis of Nassau, 417; feudal interests of, 417 and n.; excluded from universities, 420; organization of, formed at Montauban in 1573, 461; deputies of, from Languedoc and Dauphiné plan to meet Charles IX, 469; make common cause with Politiques, 471; declaration of, of La Rochelle, 472; division in party of, 474; political theory of, 475, 476; demand of, 486; provincial system of, 480, 490; union with Politiques, 499, 500; relations with England, 503; terms of, in Peace of Monsieur, 516, 517.

Hyères, court at, 251.

Ile-de-France, 148; wheat dear in, 286; Huguenot leaders in, 358; Torcy made lieutenant-general in, 473.

Industry, revolution in, 218, 219.

Inquisition, urged in France under Henry II, 12; Philip II orders maintenance of, in Flanders, 267.

Interest, rates of, in fifteenth century, 83; in sixteenth century, 85, 86, n.

Ireland, 434.

Italians, in battle of La Roche l’Abeille, 383; at siege of Poitiers, 387. _See also_ Strozzi.

Italy, lottery introduced from, 82; wars in, 220, 228; Philip II and, 245; French interests in, 453; French ambition in, 467.

Jacquerie, 502. _See also_ Peasantry.

Jagiello house, last king of, in Poland dies, 464.

Jargeau, attempt to take, 151.

Jarnac, battle of, 376, 377, 397.

Jazeneuil, Condé defeated at, 369, n.

Jemmingen, Louis of Nassau defeated at, 361.

Jesuits, 132 and n., 254.

Joinville, 131, 168; duke of Deuxponts passes by, 379; Madame de Guise flees from, 502.

Joinville, prince de, and Triumvirate, 98.

Joyeuse, viscount of, 125; Pius V sends troops to aid of, 157; campaign in valley of Rhone, fails to take Pont St. Esprit, 348; takes Loudun, Orsennes, and Tresques, 348; defeats Montbrun, 348; garrisons towns of Lower Languedoc and returns to Avignon, 348; tries to prevent co-operation of Huguenots on both banks of the Rhone River, 396; joins duke of Anjou, 397; blocks viscount of Rapin, 448; fails in attempt to seize Damville, 483.

Juana, sister of Philip II, marriage with Henry duke of Anjou suggested, 247, 277.

Junius, Francis, driven from Antwerp 297, n.

La Charité, rising in, 156; captured by duke of Deuxponts, 380, 405; unsuccessfully assaulted by Lansac, 383; Marshal Cossé sent to recover, 405, 416; Charles IX, offers to trade Perpignan or Lansac for, 416; massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450; duke of Alençon demands, 508.

La Fére, 71; duke of Alençon demands, 508; dispute over cession of, 511, 512.

La Ferté-sous-Jouarre, Synod of, 246.

Lagebaston, president of parlement of Bordeaux, complains of conduct of Montluc, 226.

Lagny, 327.

La Haye, plots to seize La Rochelle, 471; secedes to Politiques, 492.

La Marche, duke of Deuxponts dies in, 382.

La Mare, valet-de-chambre to Henry II, 8.

La Mole, arrest and execution of, 480, 481.

La Mothe Gondrin, 53; killed, 147.

Langres, duke of Deuxponts passes by, 379; duke of Alençon demands, 508.

Languedoc, loans in, 83; Huguenots of, 95, 127; militia of, 207, 208; Charles IX strengthens garrisons of, 306; civil war in, 347; Damville’s government of, 347; Catholic league in Lower, 355; towns controlled by Huguenots in, 362; peasantry rise against Huguenots, 368; viscounts in, 395; control of Huguenots in Lower, 405, 406; divided into two governments by Huguenots, 461; Huguenot deputies of, 469.

La Noue, captures Orleans, 331; seizes Luçon, 384; comes to relief of Niort, 384; in Saintonge, 408; wounded at Ste. Gemme, 415; at La Rochelle, 415; at Rochefort, 418; goes to Netherlands, 446; opinion of, of St. Bartholomew, 452; moderate policy of, 457; overtures to, by Charles IX, 457; negotiations of, in La Rochelle, 457, 458; in Lusignan, 472; persuades La Rochelle to join Politique party, 474; efforts to prevent joining Montgomery, 476; exchanged for Strozzi, 476; attempts to bribe, 477; takes Lusignan, 478; saying of, 487.

Lansac, Charles IX offers to trade for La Charité, 416.

Lansac, sent to Trent, 196; to Rome, 211; to Madrid, 261, 294, 350; repulsed in assault on La Charité, 384.

La Place, vilification of La Noue by, 458.

Lara, Spanish ambassador at Trent, 261.

Larboust, baron, proposes to neutralize Béarn, 399.

La Rive, pastor of church at St. Palais, 355.

La Roche l’Abeille, battle of, 383.

La Rochelle, president of, 77; outbreak at, in 1542, 82; port of, 228; demanded by Huguenots, 345; plot to seize, 350; synod of, 230; arms secretly stored at, 363; secret plan to attack, 365; king sends peace envoys to, 391; townsmen of, 391, 392; sea power of Huguenots at, 408, 409; La Noue at, 415; Charles IX offers to yield, 416; aids Dutch, 426; naval preparations at, in favor of Dutch, 440; terms of peace granted by Charles IX, 459, 460; reply of, to Charles IX, 454; turns to England for aid, 454; siege of, 455-59; radical party in, 458; plot to betray, 471.

Lausanne, treaty of, 309.

La Valette, plans to attack Montgomery at Condom, 407.

League, Gray, 242. _See also_ Switzerland.

League, Holy, 212, 254, 259; interest of Spain information of, 523, 524.

League, idea of Catholic, favored by Granvella, 211; provincial, 212; of Agen, 215, 254; in Anjou and Maine, 216; at Toulouse, 214, 215, 225; influence of guilds upon, 223; pernicious activity of Catholic, 251; in Languedoc, 253; Montluc’s advice concerning, 256-58; forbidden by ordonnance of Moulins, 259; overtures to Philip II for formation of, 304; Holy League, establishment of, 304; between Bern, Freiburg, and Valois, 308; Philip II’s interest in provincial leagues, 351; development of Holy League, 351, 352; Ligue chrétienne et royale in Berry, 354; in Anjou and Maine, 354; revival of, at Toulouse, 354, 355; at St. Palais, 355; Politique league formed in Burgundy, 502. _See also_ Association; Brotherhood of Catholics; Confrérie; Guilds.

League of the Public Weal (1465), 49.

League of Toulouse, 397.

Lectoure, siege of, 215, 408.

Legate, papal, advises recourse to arms, 103. _See also_ Ferrara; Santa Croce.

Leighton, English captain, at siege of Rouen, 167.

Lepanto, battle of, 422.

L’Hôpital, Michel de, chancellor: made chancellor, 43; author of Edict of Romorantin, 44; at council of Fontainebleau, 53; pleads for harmony at States-General of Orleans, 76, 77; influence of, 79; labors for toleration, 103; counsels Catherine de Medici, 128; proposal to expel from country, 132; Chantonnay protests against, 137; protests against findings of Council of Trent, 210; tilt with Guises, 210; policy toward the guilds, 221; Alva’s objection to, 278; supports petition in favor of Huguenots, 288; advocates reform, 290, 291, 296; favors changes in Edict of Amboise, 318; sent to confer with Condé, 328; abused by Guises, 357; clashes with cardinal of Lorraine, 366, 367; dismissal of, 367.

Libourne, Montluc thinks of retiring to, 403, 408.

Lignerolles, sent “to practice the stay of the reiters”, 330; sent to count palatine, 335.

Limeuil, Isabella de, liaison of Condé with, 245, n., 249.

Limoges, Sebastian de l’Aubespine, bishop of. _See_ Aubespine.

Limousin, duke of Anjou in, 372, 382; treasurer of, intercepted by Huguenots, 389; no massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450; Huguenot movement in, 472.

Lithuania, secedes from Poland, 466.

Livron, 490; Henry III raises siege of, 495.

Loans, history of French public, 8.

Loches, 70.

Loire River, Coligny aims to master line of, 138; Condé controls middle, 141; towns of, 154, 155; fighting line, 181, 369; Condé unable to cross, 371; government maintains line of, 384; viscounts cross at Blois, 396; duke of Montpensier instructed to hold passage of, 476.

Lombardy, 124; exportation of grain from, 241.

Londono, Don Sancho, Spanish commander, 310.

Longjumeau, Condé seizes highroad at, 138; Peace of, 345-50, 360; influence of viscounts on Peace of, 396.

Longueville, duke of, 114; assumes pay of reiters, 346; at siege of Poitiers, 387; sent to interview La Noue, 457; death of, 469.

Longueville, Madamoiselle de, marries Condé, 289.

Lorraine, 85; wheat in, 286.

Lorraine, Charles of Guise, cardinal of, († 1574), 5; charge of financial administration of, 20; altercation of, with Coligny, 53; character of administration of, 65; leaves court, 73, 74; Philip II writes to, 97; hostility to Huguenots, 98; at Colloquy of Poissy, 113; leaves court again, 114; corrupt practice of, 141; collects money at Trent for the war, 181; at Council of Trent, 196; bitter against policy of Charles IX, 196; sent to Vienna, 196; persuades Emperor Ferdinand, 200; proposes to form “The Brotherhood of Catholics in France”, 211; feud with Marshal Montmorency, 252, 253; opposes Chancellor L’Hôpital, 288; hypocritical reconciliation with Coligny, 289; accepts situation “telle quelle”, 290; treasonable negotiations of, with Emperor, 303; Alva’s opinion of, 336, n.; negotiations with Spain, 336, 337, 362; political “trimming” of, 356; policy of, hardens, 361; proposes marriage of Philip II and Marguerite of Valois, 364; clashes with L’Hôpital, 363, 367; with army in Saintonge, 382; Jeanne d’Albret protests against, 392; hastens coming of reiters, 392; death of, 396.

Lorraine, duke of, 21; prevented from joining Aumale, 339; vassal for duchy of Bar, 425.

Loudun, taken by duke of Guise, 154; Condé falls back on, 369; skirmish near, 372.

Loudun (in valley of Rhone), taken by Joyeuse, 348.

Louis IX, loans of, 83, 367, 490.

Louis XI, ordonnance of, 217.

Louis XII, 70; financial policy of, 81, 329, 471.

Louis of Nassau, relations of, with the Gueux, 297; dealings of, with Protestant Germany, 298, 299; defeated at Jemmingen, 360, 361; joins Coligny, 411; restoration of, demanded by Huguenots, 417; urges alliance of France and England, 440, 441; persuades Charles IX to sign Treaty of Blois, 445; leaves France for Valenciennes, 445, 446; interviews Catherine de Medici at Blamont, 463; Spain fears co-operation of, with prince of Condé and duke of Bouillon, 476.

Louise de Vaudemont, marries Henry III, 496.

Louvre, 6, 321; secret conference of Guises at, 350.

Low Countries, revolt in, 59, 263; Huguenots in, 315; Huguenot activity in, 503. _See also_ Alva; Flanders; Granvella; Louis of Nassau; Valenciennes; William of Orange.

Lucerne, 154.

Luçon, La Noue seizes, 384, 415.

Lusignan, taken by Huguenots, 384; taken by La Noue, 478.

Lutherans, 122.

Luxembourg, heretics from, 200; difficulty of, with France, 263; France fortifies frontier of, 307; Alva at, 311, 315; Mansfeldt sent to, 336; mentioned, 301, 303. _See also_ Alva; Mansfeldt.

Lyons, loan imposed upon, 61; riot in 1542, 82; commerce of, 86, 233, 234, 237; revolt of, 91; influence of Geneva upon, 148, 227, 233; Reformed church in, 152; recovery of, 154; refuses to tolerate the mass, 192; silk industry at, 227; plague at, 236-38; Catholic pressure upon Catherine de Medici at, 250; Charles IX sends troops to, 307, 368; massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450.

Maarck, Count Van der. _See_ Beggars of the Sea.

Macon, 147, 151.

Madrid, L’Aubespine returns from, 241.

Maine, 141, 154; Catholic league of, 216, 354.

Maligny, lieutenant of prince of Condé: pursued by Guises, 41; seizes Havre-de-Grace, 148, 264.

Malta, siege of, 248, 297, 302; Spain borrows ships from, 306.

Manrique, Don Juan de, ambassador of Philip II, 93, 97.

Mans, Huguenot outburst at, 95; bishop of, 255.

Mansfeldt, Count, sent to Luxembourg by Alva, 336; prevented from joining Aumale, 339; troops of, 373; at battle of Moncontour, 380.

Marcel, provost of Paris: participation of, in massacre of St. Bartholomew, 450, n.

Margaret of Parma, half-sister of Philip II and regent of Netherlands: refuses aid to France, 146; urged to send assistance to Triumvirate, 211; asserts impracticability, 212; sends aid, 212; fearful of revolt of Valenciennes, 264; implores Philip II for aid, 264; asks concessions for Netherlands, 267; petitions Emperor for aid, 299.

Marguerite of Valois, sister of Charles IX, marriage of, proposed to Don Carlos, 277; to Philip II, 283; marriage of, with Henry of Navarre proposed, 383; duke of Guise makes love to, 419; duke of Ferrara proposed as husband of, 423; Don Carlos proposed as husband of, 424; marries Henry of Navarre, 442.

Marguerite, sister of Henry II, married to Emanuel Philibert of Savoy, 1.

Marillac, archbishop of Vienne, 53.

Marillac, François, counsel of Condé, 69.

Marmoutier, abbey of, plundered by Huguenots, 140.

Marseilles, riot at, 133; court at, 251, 306.

Martamot, Bernard Astarac, baron of, recovers Tarbes, 406.

Martigues, 255, 350.

Martyr, Peter, 114.

Matignon, captures Montgomery, 485; made marshal of France, 497.

Maximilian, Emperor: France at odds with, 300; urged to recover Metz, 301; affirms suzerainty over, 303; daughter of, 424.

Meaux, 177; Condé goes to, after massacre of Vassy, 137; court at, 310, 338; massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450.

Melun, court removes to, 139.

Menendez, massacres French colony in Florida, 300.

Merchant adventurers, 437, n.

Metz, 21, 125; fear lest Emperor try to seize, 193, 194; imperial designs upon, 200, 300, 301; Emperor affirms suzerainty over, 303; Vieilleville sent to, 307; importance of Calvinists in, 307; Condé demands, 332; citadel captured by Huguenots, 336; center of government’s activity against duke of Deuxponts and William of Orange, 379; expulsion of Calvinists from, 379, n.; duke of Anjou avoids, on way to Poland, 467. _See also_ Cardinal’s War; Three Bishoprics; Vieilleville.

Mezières, duke of Alençon demands, 508.

Middelburg, revolt of, 444.

Milan, Spanish governor of, 241, 303; French claim to, 453.

Milhaud, Huguenot association at, 324; Huguenot camp at, 396; alliance of Huguenots and Politiques at, 499.

Minard, vice-president of Parlement of Paris, murdered, 15, 41, n.

Moncontour, battle of, 388, 389.

Mons, capture of, Genlis, 446; surrenders, 447.

Monsieur, Peace of, 516-21.

Montaigu, viscount of, 394.

Montargis, rising in, 150, 161.

Montaubon, demolition of walls of, 207; viscounts at, 306; mentioned, 405, 406; Charles IX offers to yield to Huguenots, 416; resists Joyeuse, 348; three thousand Huguenots and Politiques of Toulouse find refuge in, 454; Huguenot convention at, 461.

Montbrison (in Auvergne), Coligny at, 416.

Montbrun, captain of Scotch Guard killed at battle of Moncontour, 389.

Montbrun, defeated by Joyeuse, 348.

Montbrun, son of the constable, killed at Dreux, 179.

Mont Cenis, Alva’s route over, 308.

Montclaire, Antoine de Rabastenis, viscount of, 394.

Mont de Marsan, court at, 255; massacre at., by Montluc, 403, 404.

Montdidier, entered by Catholic army, 154.

Montereau, Condé establishes headquarters at, 333.

Montfort, 177.

Montfran, battle near, 348.

Montgomery, Gabriel de Lorges, sieur de, captain of the Scotch Guard: mortally wounds Henry II in tournament, 1; at Havre-de-Grace, 165; asks for terms during siege of Rouen, 167; escapes, 168; in Dieppe, 181; precarious condition of, 187; rumor of coming of, to Flanders, 266; attends court at Moulins, 288; swaggers around Paris, 294; fear lest he come to Netherlands, 298; in Lower Normandy, 326; sent to Pontoise, 332; some of the Scotch Guard desert to, 342; in Languedoc, 397; at Castres, 398; near Toulouse, 398; raises siege of Navarrens, 399; campaign in Béarn, 398-402; joins Coligny, 402; Montluc plans to attack at Condom, 407; ravages environs of Toulouse with Coligny, 410; escapes from massacre of St. Bartholomew, 450; appears with fleet before La Rochelle, 458; in England, 471; lands near Coutances and joins Guitery in Normandy, 472; reply of, to Charles IX, 472; takes Carentan and Argentan, 473; captured and put to death, 484, 485.

Montigny, one of the leaders of the Flemish revolt, 265; faithlessness of, 298.

Montjean, marshal, exactions of, 82.

Montluc, Blaise de, suppresses riot at Agen, 134; reputation of, 147; “true creator of the French infantry”, 155; at Sienna, 156; hostility of, to Huguenots, 156; saves Toulouse and Bordeaux, 157; helps form Catholic league at Toulouse, 214; ordered to report to Marshal Termes at Orleans, 215; helps form Catholic league at Agen, 215; protest against, 226; estimate of, of number of Huguenots in Guyenne, 230; approached by Guises, 254, 255; advice of, concerning formation of provincial Catholic leagues, 256-58; proposes formation of international Catholic league, 260; joint plan of, with Philip II, 261; offered asylum in Spain, 261; warns Philip II of connection between Huguenots and revolted Flemings, 298; on political theory of the Huguenots, 325, n.; hatred of, of Damville, 347, 348, 398, 400, 404, 413; sent to Gascony, 350; dealings of, with Philip II, 350, 351; vigilance of, 362; outrages of, 362; Jeanne d’Albret crosses Garonne “under the nose of”, 368, n.; discovers plot in Bordeaux, 368; resigns commission, but retracts resignation, 391; plans with Terride to deliver Guyenne to Spain, 394; plan of, to conquer Béarn, 397; praises Montgomery, 398-402; makes overtures to Damville, 403; thinks of retiring to Libourne or Agen, 403; massacres Mont de Marsan, 403, 404; admiration of, for the reiters, 405; saves Guyenne to Catholic cause, 406; fortifies Agen, 406; plans to attack Montgomery at Condom, 407; secret dealings of, with Charles IX, 413; still hopes to conquer Béarn, 413; terribly wounded in siege of Rabastens, 414, 415.

Montluc, Jean de, bishop of Valence, 52, 53, 65, 80; preaches at court, 98; at Colloquy of Poissy, 114; proposal to expel from country, 312; sent to confer about peace, 344; commissioner of finances in Guyenne, 416, n.; sent on mission to Poland, 464.

Montmorency, Anne de, constable of France: favorite of Henry II, 8; feud of, with Guises, 18, 45, 50, 73; not a party to conspiracy of Amboise 29, n.; holds balance of power after death of Francis II, 72; Philip II writes to, 97; forms Triumvirate, 98; welcomes duke of Guise after massacre of Vassy, 126; advises king to repudiate responsibility for Vassy, 137; organizes Paris, 137; over-rules Catherine de Medici, 139; charged with corrupt practice, 141; begins to weaken, 141; proposes to petition the Pope for aid, 143; Condé demands retirement of, 150; fears English intervention, 162; captured at battle of Dreux, 179; imprisonment of, 182; endeavors to make a settlement, 183; destruction of house of, plotted by Guises, 255; quarrel with cardinal of Lorraine, 289; protest in favor of Cardinal Châtillon, 289; anger of, at Guises, 290; quits court, 290; avarice of, 296; rash reply of, 319; lieutenant-general, 331; killed at battle of St. Denis, 332.

Montmorency, marshal and duke of, eldest son of the constable: governor of Paris, 127, 294; feud with cardinal of Lorraine, 252, 253, 356, 357; approaches Huguenots, 289; succeeds to constableship, 319; Paris furious at, 326; confers about peace, 344; assumes pay of reiters, 346; informed of plot of Guises, 350; moderation of, 356; leaves Paris, 357; advocates marriage of Henry of Anjou and Queen Elizabeth, 358, 359; deposed as governor of Paris, 358; disaffection of, 375; the man of the hour, 419; urges marriage of duke of Anjou and Elizabeth and Henry of Navarre with Marguerite of Valois, 422-26; relations of, with Charles IX, 439; Charles IX urged to execute, 481; arrested, 482; feud with Guises, the “seed of the war”, 493, 494.

Montpellier, Huguenot league at, 121; court at, 252; resists Joyeuse, 348, 405, 406, 411.

Montpensier, duke of, 36, 63, 73; Philip II writes to, 97; and the Triumvirate, 98; mobbed by Huguenots, 120, 121; Alva’s convert at Bayonne, 304; castle belonging to, taken, 369; defeats viscounts in Périgord, 396; sent into Anjou, 476; feud of, with the Guises, 498.

Montreuil, Coligny at, 138.

Montrichard, Coligny at, 182.

Mont St. Michel, Charles IX at, 413.

Morillon, provost, upon Flemish revolt, 314.

Moriscos, revolt of, 417, 418, 422.

Morlaas (in Béarn), captured by Terride, 398.

Morvilliers, bishop of Orleans, 165; confers with Condé, 328; as keeper of the seal protests against feudal release of duchy of Bar and resigns, 425; warns Charles IX, 468.

Moulins, Huguenots destroy Bourbon tombs at, 148, 249; court passes winter at, 288; influx of Huguenots into, 288; interdiction of Protestant worship at, 289; ordonnance of, 291-96.

Mouy, tries to prevent Strozzi’s coming, 329.

Muscovite, Polish hostility to, 465.

Musket, introduction of field, 310.

Nancy, duke of Anjou passes through, on way to Poland, 467.

Nantes, conspiracy of Amboise plotted at, 30, 283; Edict of, 345, 409; no massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450.

Naples, 21; troops from, 310; French claim to, 453.

Narbonne, taken by Huguenot-Politique party, 502.

Nassau. _See_ Louis of Nassau.

“Natural frontiers”, 205.

Navarre, Philip II fears attack upon, 146.

Navarrens, siege of, by Terride, 398, 399; raised by Montgomery, 399, 400.

Nemours, duke of: made governor of Champagne, 92; implicated in plot to kidnap Henry, duke of Orleans-Anjou, 119; forsakes his wife and marries duchess of Guise, 293; breaks Condé’s blockade of Paris, 332; ordered to intercept duke of Deuxponts, 380.

Nemours, Madame de (duchess of Guise): complicity of, in massacre of St. Bartholomew, 450; demands governorship of Normandy for husband, 498.

Nérac, Huguenot church at, 156; Montgomery at, 407; revolts, 502.

Netherlands, progress of heresy in, 197; critical situation in, 211; Philip II and, 245; revolt of, 263, 264, 360; connection of revolt of, with Huguenots, 266, 296; Huguenot preachers in, 297; fear lest Montgomery come, 298; influence of France upon, 359, 360; proposed alliance for liberation of, 425. _See also_ Alva; Egmont; Flanders; Granvella; Holland; Hoorne; Louis of Nassau; Margaret of Parma; Philip II; Valenciennes; William of Orange.

Nevers, 218; captured by duke of Deuxponts, 380.

Nevers, duke of, claims government of Normandy, 498.

Newhaven. _See_ Havre-de-Grace.

Nîmes, Protestantism at, 228; court at, 252.

Niort, 283; La Noue relieves, 384; Coligny falls back on, after battle of Moncontour, 389; duke of Alençon demands, 508.

Nivernais, Protestantism in, 228.

Nobility, policy of, in 1559, 9; impoverishment of, 344.

Noizay, château de, rendezvous of conspirators of Amboise, 34.

Nonio, an astrologer, 344.

Normandy, 26, 41, 45, 60, 76; loans made in, 83; Huguenots in, 95, 142, 148, 232; Coligny made governor of, 126; fear of English intervention in, 150; formidable nature of revolt in, 162; militia of, 208; Protestantism in, 228, 230; coast defense of, 307; war of partisans in Lower, 326, 430; apprehension in ports of, 471; dispute over governorship of, 498. _See also_ Bayeux; Caen; Caudebec; Dieppe; Havre; Rouen.

Norris, Sir Henry, English ambassador, protests innocence of English government’s conduct, 373; urges marriage of Queen Elizabeth with duke of Anjou, 422.

Nostradamus, astrologer, 251.

Nuncio, papal, demands that Cardinal Châtillon resign, 289; at Madrid, 315; protests against Huguenots in Avignon and Verre, 417. _See also_ Ferrara; Santa Croce.

Nürnberg, 219.

Olivier, chancellor, 34; death, 43.

Oran, Philip II’s expedition to, 248.

Orange, cruelties practiced at, 155.

Orange, William of, at deathbed of Henry II, 12; leader of revolt of Netherlands, 264; tactics of, 265; insists upon convocation of States-General, 268; allied with Gueux, 297; relations with Condé, 297; with Egmont and Hoorne, 298; leaves Flanders, 312; seeks to use reiters of Casimir, 360; enters France, 369; anxiety over movements of, 369; effects junction with Deuxponts, 373, 374. _See also_ Egmont; Gueux; Hoorne; Louis of Nassau; Netherlands.

Orléannais, 207; Protestantism in, 228, 230.

Orleans, 36, 61, 63, 64, 70, 74, 127, 314; Huguenot worship at, 80; States-General at, 91, 221, 290; Condé assumes command of Huguenot forces at, 139, 140; troops pour into, 142; Grammont fails to reach, 146; fear lest supplies be cut off from, 151; condition of country around, 152; Condé retires to, 153; Catholic garrisons around, 172; Huguenot center at, 181; D’Andelot’s serious position in, 186; siege of, 186-88; demolition of walls of, 207; captured by La Noue, 331; plot to seize, by Catholics, 350; Catholic headquarters at, 367; relief of, 396; massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450.

Orleans, Henry, duke of Orleans-Anjou. _See_ Henry III.

Orsenne, taken by Joyeuse, 348.

Orthez, captured by Terride, 398.

Ostabanés, 355.

Ozances, French ambassador in Spain, 117.

Pacheco, cardinal, 279, 281.

Palatine, count, 122, 158, 303. _See also_ Casimir.

Pampeluna, Philip II strengthens, 146.

Pamphlets, Huguenot, 475, 476. _See also_ _Franco-Gallia_; Hotman; Huguenots; _Le Tigre_.

Parat, viscount of, 394.

Paris, 1, 26, 45, 47, 48; loan demanded of, 61; Chaudien, Protestant pastor in, 64; Catholic preachers of, admonished, 80; rentes of, 83-85 (_see_ Finances; Debt); abounds with Huguenot preachers, 94; riot in, 94-96, 120; prince de la Roche-sur-Yon made governor of, 126; Marshal Montmorency made governor of, 127; violence of, 127; receives duke of Guise joyfully after massacre of Vassy, 135, 136; weakness of Huguenots in, 137; prince of Condé leaves, 137; alarm of, 137-39; troops collected in, 143; fears attack by Condé, 147, 149; hostility to Huguenots, 149; people of, armed, 154; Condé advances upon, 172, 173; gunpowder factory at, blown up, 186; refuses to tolerate terms of peace, 191; appealed to for loan, 200; hatred of, of Coligny, 206, n.; witticism of, 207; preponderance of, in formation of Holy League exaggerated, 213; plague at, 284; wheat dear in, 286; Montgomery in, 294; court moves to, 294; bigotry of, 217; exodus of Huguenots from, 326; blockade of, 326; makes loan to king, 329; precarious condition of Condé before, 331; Flemish troops arrive at, 335; loyalty of, 339, 340; prepares for siege, 343; Catholic resentment of, 349; garrison of, 350; Alençon made governor of, 368; anxiety of Guises over, 370; elation at news of Jarnac, 376; frightened by capture of La Charité, 381; offers to maintain war, 417; forced loan in, 461; commercial dispute with Rouen, 470; military preparations in, 476; attacks upon, 507; preparations to defend, 510; remonstrances of, to Henry III, 510, 511; resents Peace of Monsieur, 522.

Parlement of Paris, hostility of, to Huguenots, 96; acquits prince of Condé, 102; hopes of L’Hôpital and Coligny about, 103; forbids speculation in grain, 286; good sense of, 296.

Pau, captured by Terride, 398.

Paulin, Bertrand de Rabastenis, viscount of, 394, 395; captured, 397; Huguenot governor in Languedoc, 461.

Peasantry, armed by duke of Anjou, 384; in Languedoc and Quercy, allied with viscounts, 395; wretchedness of, 491; arms in hands of, 494, 495; revolt of, 502.

Périgord, Condé in, 372.

Perigueux, taken by Huguenots-Politiques, 502.

Perpignan, Charles offers to trade for La Charité, 416.

Peter’s Pence, 80.

Pfiffer, Swiss colonel at Meaux, 320.

Philip II, King of Spain (1557-98): marries Elizabeth of Valois, 1; notified of death of Henry II, 7; suspected of urging inquisition in France, 12; offers aid to Guises, 52; alarmed at project of a national council in France, 59; appealed to by Francis II, 59, 65; said to be inclined to restore Navarre, 73; seeks to harden policy of France toward Huguenots, 93; writes to Catholic leaders, 97; appealed to by Triumvirate, 99; alarmed at policy of France, 116-18; redoubles efforts with Antoine of Bourbon, 123; continental designs of, 124, 125; procrastination of, 131; offers Sardinia to Antoine of Bourbon, 132; asked for aid, 143; fears attack on Navarre and strengthens Fontarabia and Pampeluna, 146; and England, 163; joy over battle of Dreux, 182; hostility to Edict of Amboise, 195; alarmed at England’s possible recovery of Calais, 197; resolved to act after massacre of Vassy, 211; opposed to marriage of Charles IX or Condé to Mary Stuart, 244; and France, 245; and Italy, 245, 247; and England, 245; and Scotland, 245; character of, 247, 248; interest of, in crushing Calvinism, 260; joint plan of, with Pius IV and Montluc, 261; orders maintenance of inquisition in Flanders, 262; implored to come to Netherlands, 264; consents to interview with Catherine de Medici, 270; letter of, to Cardinal Pacheco, 270, 281; consents to have Charles IX marry Elizabeth of Austria, 283; anxiety of, 289; doubt as to his course, 294; overshadows France, 297; worried at connection between Huguenots and revolted Flemings, 298; refused permission to have Spanish troops cross France, 299; knowledge of, of massacre of French in Florida, 300; favors plan to recover Metz, 301, 302; dares not make overt move against France, 302; determines to send Alva to Flanders, 305; angry at alliance of France and Switzerland, 315; self-control of, 337; fears Catherine de Medici will make termswith Huguenots, 341; secret relations of, with Montluc, 350, 351; interest of, in provincial Catholic leagues, 351; proposed as husband of Marguerite of Valois, 364; marries Anne of Austria, 364, 424; war of, with the Moriscos, 417, 418, 422; plans with reference to Mary Stuart, 424; advised by Requesens of Huguenot activity of, in Low Countries, 503.

Philip IV, financial policy of, 83.

Picardy, 60, 70, 126, 204, 232, 268; rebellion in, 190; Huguenots in, 197; militia of, 208; wheat dear in, 286; frontier strengthened, 315; government of, promised to Condé, 316; Marshal Cossé in, 369; prince of Condé made governor of, 469; danger on border of, 503; Spain alarmed at situation in, 511, 512.

Piedmont, Marshal Termes in, 182; viscount of Paulin in, 395.

Pilles, defends St. Jean-d’Angély, 390.

Piracy, 373.

Pius IV, alarmed at plan of National Council in France, 57; offended at action of States-General, 81, 89; sends cardinal of Ferrara to France, 115; petitioned for aid, 143, 144; sends troops to Joyeuse, 151; anticipated death of, 200; remonstrance of Charles IX to, 230; idea of, of a European concert, 247; brings pressure upon Catherine de Medici, 250; joint plan with Philip II and Montluc, 261; favors France at Trent, 261.

Pius V, advocates wholesale slaughter of Huguenots, 275; troops of, 329; takes victory of Jarnac as answer to prayer, 377; elation of, 394.

Plague, at Lyons, 236-38, 283, 284.

Poissy, Colloquy of, 103, 106, 109, 110-14, 117, 230; interest of German princes in, 121, 123; Andelot sent to seize, 332.

Poitiers, 14, 41, 64, 142, 350; exempt from gabelle, 85; Huguenots in, 95; rising in, 150; captured by St. André, 153; rebellion in, 190; Protestantism in, 228; siege of, 385-87.

Poitou, Huguenot movement in, 472. _See also_ Poitiers.

Poland, 283; duke of Anjou elected king of, 465; French ambition in, 464, 465.

Politiques, difficult to distinguish between, and Huguenots, 231; germ of, 358; labor for peace, 372; make common cause with Huguenots, 471; political theory of, 475, 476; imbued with Hotman’s teachings, 486; alliance with Huguenots at Milhaud, 489, 499, 500; Politique league in Burgundy, 502.

Poltrot, assassin of duke of Guise, 188.

Pontacq (in Béarn), captured by Terride, 398.

Pont-à-Mousson, duke of Deuxponts at, 379.

Pont Audemer, 162.

Pont de Cé, 372; duke of Alençon demands, 508.

Pontoise, adjourned session of States-General at, 89, 106-9, 117; Huguenot outburst at, 95; demands of States-General of, 290; Montgomery sent to seize, 332.

Pont St. Esprit, Joyeuse fails to take, 348.

Pope, nullifies marriage of duke of Nemours and offends the Rohans, 293; consents to alienation of church property, 366; takes victory of Jarnac as answer to prayer, 377; opposed to Spain’s Polish aspirations, 464, 465; refuses to receive Paul de Foix, 469. _See also_ Pius IV; Pius V; Gregory XIII.

Porcien, prince of, activity of, in Low Countries, 315.

Porcien, princess of, marries duke of Guise, 419.

Portereau, a faubourg of Orleans, 186.

Port Ste. Marie, captured by Coligny, 406; destruction of bridge at, 406, 407.

Port St. Martin, faubourg of Paris, windmills in, burned by Huguenots, 327.

Portsmouth, 188.

Portugal, proposal that queen of, marry duke of Anjou, 364; Portuguese marriage planned for Marguerite of Valois, 419.

Portuguese, 300.

Pouzin, Huguenot stronghold, 490; captured by Henry III, 491.

Poyet, chancellor of Francis I, reforms of, 82.

Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII, 116.

Provence, 45, 49, 52, 64, 142; Huguenots in, 95, 286; association of, 214; Protestantism in, 230; Charles IX strengthens garrisons of, 306; civil war in, 347; towns controlled by Huguenots in, 361; viscount of Rapin in, 305; Huguenot control of, 405, 406.

Provins, 161, n., 284.

Prussia, Lithuania makes alliance with Russia, Sweden, and, 466.

Puygaillard, outmatched by La Noue, 415.

Quercy, viscounts in, 395.

Rabastens Montluc terribly wounded at siege of, 415, 416.

Ranke, quoted on massacre of Vassy, 135.

Rapin, viscount of, 394; in rising of Toulouse in 1562, 395; governor of Montauban, 395; crosses Rhone into Dauphiné and Provence, 395; ravages in Vivarais, 396.

Reformation in England and Germany, 229.

Regency, of Blanche of Castille, 42; of Anne of Beaujeu, 42; and Salic Law, 72, n. _See also_ Antoine of Bourbon; Catherine de Medici; Charles IX; Francis II.

Reiters, 145, n., 157, 158, 333, 335, 338, 373; cross Seine, 160; introduce German words into French language, 160, n.; in Normandy, 166; at battle of Dreux, 179; Coligny in fear of his own, 184; spoliation of Normandy by, 187, 188; return of, to Germany, 192; depredations of, 193-95; paid by Catherine de Medici, 198; of Rhinegrave, 200; Lignerolles sent “to practice the stay of”, 330; enter Lorraine, 339; effect junction with Condé, 339; pay of, 345, 346; ravages of, 357; effort to prevent, joining William of Orange, 363; levied in Germany, 368; of duke of Deuxponts, 370; urged to advance to Loire River, 370; Paris fears coming of, after capture of La Charité, 381; in battle of Moncontour, 388, 389; threaten to mutiny, 391; hastened forward by cardinal of Lorraine, 393; tentative offer of restoration of Three Bishoprics if Emperor will stay progress of, 393; effective warfare of, 405; mutiny of, 412; devastate Fair of Champagne, 420, n.; plundering of, 491; cross Rhine, 505; ravages in Champagne, 506, 507; return of, to Germany, 522, 523.

Renaudie, Godfrey de Barry, sieur de; leader of conspiracy of Amboise, 30; death of, 38.

Rennes, Bochetel, bishop of, sent to count palatine, 335.

Rentes, 83. _See also_ Finances; Debts; Loans; Paris.

Requesens, succeeds Alva as governor of Spanish Netherlands, 404; offers Spanish troops to Catherine de Medici, 494; warns Philip II of Huguenot activity in Low Countries, 503; fears daughter of William of Orange will marry duke of Alençon, 503.

Revel, discontent with Polish election, 466.

Rheims, 218; endangered by William of Orange, 370; Henry III crowned at, 495.

Rhine, 124; D’Andelot crosses, 158.

Rhinegrave, 177; reiters of, mutiny in Champagne, 200.

Rhinelands, 246.

Rhone river, Joyeuse’s campaign in valley of, 348; Henry III attempts to clear valley of, 490.

Ridolfi plot, 433, 462.

Riga, discontent with French election in Poland, 466.

Robert, Claudius, counsel of prince of Condé, 69.

Rochefort, La Noue at, 415.

Rochefoucauld, count of, 6; driven into Saintonge, 153; Alva advises execution of, 274, 350.

Rochelle. _See_ La Rochelle.

Roche-sur-Yon, prince de, accompanies Elizabeth of France to Spain, 7; governor of Orleans, 63; governor of Paris, 126; supplanted by Marshal Montmorency, 127.

Roggendorf, recruiting sergeant of Guises in Germany, 145, n.; arrives in Paris, 162; Catherine de Medici demands withdrawal of, from Paris, 295. _See also_ Reiters.

Rohan, duke de, forbids Catholic worship in his domains, 288; anger of, at duke of Nemours for divorce of his wife, 293; Huguenots flee to protection of, 326; Henry III attempts to confiscate the lands of, 502.

Rome, 50, 299. _See also_ Gregory XIII; Pius IV; Pius V.

Romero, Julian, Spanish commander, 310.

Romorantin, Edict of, 104. _See also_ Edict.

Rosay-en-Brie, rendezvous of Huguenots at, 320.

Rotrou, county of, given to Condé, 316.

Rotterdam, all Holland lost to Spain save Amsterdam and, 446.

Rouen, 27, 127, 177; riots in, 47, 48, 71, 84, 142, 148; Reformed church in, 152; Condé thinks of going to, 154; Aumale approaches, 155; resolve to attack, 161, 162; siege of, 165-70; Marshal Brissac at, 182; objects to Edict of Amboise, 192; Catholic association in Rouennais, 216; port of, 228; opposition to Peace of Longjumeau in, 347; massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450; commercial dispute of, with Paris, 470.

Rouergue, raid of viscounts in, 395. _See also_ Milhaud.

Rouissillon, Edict of, 250, 251. _See also_ Edict.

Roy, Jacques le, archbishop of Bourges, aids in establishment of Catholic league in Berry, 354.

Roye, Eleanor de, princess of Condé, asks Elizabeth for aid, 187; death, 243.

St. Aignan, Coligny at, 182.

St. Ambroise, Alva at, 309, 311.

St. André, marshal, 7, 35, 69; Philip II writes to, 97; hostility of, to Huguenots, 98; joins Triumvirate, 98, 99; reprimanded by Catherine de Medici, 133; charged with corrupt practice, 141, 296; Condé demands retirement of, 150; captures Poitiers, 153; killed at battle of Dreux, 179; succeeded by Marshal Vieilleville, 181; daughter of, not permitted to marry young prince of Condé, 206.

St. Bartholomew, massacre of, influence of Bayonne Conference upon, 271, 281; Huguenot organization before and after, 324, 325, 383; massacre of, 449-53; responsibility of Catherine de Medici for, 449; causes fourth civil war, 474; German resentment because of, 468.

St. Catherine’s Mount, fortress of Rouen, 155, 167. _See also_ Rouen.

St. Cloud, 21, 138, 159; war in, 48, 49, 60.

St. Denis, 177; windmills in faubourg of, burned by Huguenots, 327; battle of, 332, 338.

St. Florens, abbey of, Condé massacres garrison of, 372.

Ste. Gemme, La Noue wounded at battle of, 415.

St. Germain, 131; Peace of, 416-18; infractions of, 420; plot to seize king at, 477, 478.

St. Honoré, faubourg of, windmills burned in, 327.

St. Jean-d’Angély, arms secretly stored at, 363; siege of, 389-90; townsmen of, 391, 392; honorable treatment of garrison of, by Charles IX, 392; revolts, 502.

St. Jean de Maurienne, Alva at, 311.

St. Lô, demolition of walls of, 207; Huguenot forces in, 472.

St. Louis (Louis IX), 367.

St. Marceau, Catholic camp in faubourg of, 343.

St. Martin-des-champs, 334.

St. Mathurin, 161.

St. Maur-des-Fosses, 293.

St. Omer, “Spanish Fury” at, 305.

St. Ouen, 327.

St. Palais, Catholic league at, 355.

St. Pierre, abbey of, Condé imprisoned in, 182.

St. Quentin, battle of, 8.

St. Roman, viscount of, made Huguenot governor in Languedoc, 461.

St. Sulpice, French ambassador in Spain: Catherine de Medici’s correspondence with, 247, 249; discovers plot to kidnap Jeanne d’Albret and seize Béarn, 266; succeeded by Fourquevaux, 283, 424.

Saintes, 283; arms secretly stored at, 363, 406.

Saintonge, exempt from gabelle, 85; revolt in, 150; mentioned, 379; duke of Anjou in, 381; La Noue in, 408.

Salic Law, 337.

Salzedo. _See_ Cardinal’s War.

Sancerre, count of, 33.

Sancerre, siege of, 460.

Santa Croce, cardinal of, 295.

Sardinia, 73; offered to Antoine of Bourbon, 132; troops from, 310.

Saumur, 141; garrison at, 309; Coligny plans to take, 385; duke of Alençon demands, 508.

Sauveterre (in Béarn), captured by Terride, 398.

Saverne, conference between dukes of Guise and Würtemburg at, 123.

Savigny, lieutenant in Touraine, 63, 64.

Savoy, 119, 144, 246; dowry of duchess of, 208; Alva’s march through, 311; troops of, 329.

Savoy, Emanuel Philibert, duke of, marries sister of Henry II, 1; urges extirpation of heresy, 210; mission of Don Juan de Acuna to, 308; treaty of, with Bern, 309; interview, with Damville, 488, 491.

Saxony, John William, duke of, 52.

Schomberg, German colonel in service of France, 371; missions of, to Germany, 463, 467, 504.

Scotch Guard, history of, 7; reduced, 208; meeting of, 342; supplanted by Swiss Guard, 342, n. _See also_ Montgomery.

Scotland, French troops sent to, 199; alliance with France, 243; Philip II and, 245; relations of, with England, 433, 434. _See also_ Cardinal of Lorraine; Mary Stuart.

Sedan, duke of Bouillon at, 472.

Seine River, guard of, 138; mouth of, 148; line of, 181; Coligny unable to cross, 185; Condé unable to cross, 371.

Seize (Sixteen) nucleus of Holy League in Paris, 318.

Sens, archbishop of, 114; Huguenots of, 127, 128; riot at, 133; mentioned, 209, 218, 232, 333, 339; highroad to, held by Huguenots, 327.

Sevignac, viscount of, 394.

Sforza, Ludovico, 70.

Shakerly, Thomas, an Englishman, 126.

Sicily, troops from, 310.

Siena, Montluc at, 156.

Sigismund Augustus of Poland, death of, 464.

Silly, Jacques de, representative of noblesse in States-General, 77.

Sipierre, lieutenant in Orléannais, 63, 69.

Sluys, Spanish fleet in, dispersed, 446; captured by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, 446.

Smith, English ambassador in France, tries to dissuade Huguenots from making peace, 198; demands restitution of Calais, 204; description of plague at Lyons, 236-38; saying of, about cardinal of Lorraine, 290; writes to Burghley, 290; interest of, in marriage negotiations of Elizabeth and duke of Anjou, 429.

Soissons (Soissonais), wheat dear in, 286; captured by Huguenots, 331; plot to seize, 350.

Somarive, cruelties of, 155.

Sorbonne, hostility of, to Huguenots, 96; students of, 127.

Spain, 131, 158; Catherine de Medici inclines toward, 137; money from, 184; urges extirpation of heresy, 210; saying of Spain’s ambassador, 232; commerce of, in Lombardy, 241, 242; impatient for fulfilment of promise at Bayonne, 283; Protestants of, 308, n.; policy of, in Switzerland, 371; fears French attack on Franche Comté, 418; offers duke of Anjou command of fleet against Turks, 423; demands that Charles IX suppress Huguenot activity in Netherlands, 426; prospect of war with France, 443; interest of, in Poland, 464; alarm over possible cession of border fortress in Picardy to prince of Condé, 512. _See also_ Alava; Alva; Chantonnay; Philip II.

“Spanish fury”, 305.

Splügen Pass, 241.

States-General, of Orleans, called, 55, 65, 68; relation of, to proposed National Council, 58, 68; transferred from Meaux to Orleans, 62; Huguenots hope to organize, 75; opening of, 75; debates in, 75-80; legislation of, 81; financial policy of, 87-89; factional rivalry in, 91; resolution of, governing clergy, 92; adjourned session of, at Pontoise, 89, 106-9, 117; demands of, 290; demand for, 421.

Stelvio Pass, 241.

Strasburg, 308.

Strozzi, cardinal, helps in formation of Catholic league at Toulouse, 214.

Strozzi, Italian artillery colonel, 249, 271; troops under command of, 329; destroys bridge of boats across Seine, 332; taken prisoner at battle of La Roche l’Abeille, 383; massacres garrison of Marans, 455; exchanged for La Noue, 476. _See also_ Italians.

Stuart, Mary, 5, 21, 48, 72, 163, 199; proposed marriage of, to Don Carlos, 94; sought in marriage by King of Denmark, 123; project to marry prince of Condé to, 243; Guises want to marry, to Charles IX, 244; duke of Anjou put forward as husband of, 423; marries Darnley, 424.

Stuart, Robert, suspected of murder of president Minard, 41, n.; kills constable Montmorency at battle of St. Denis, 332.

Superstition, 287. _See also_ Nonio; Nostradamus.

Sweden, relations of, with Poland, 466.

Swiss, payment of, by Francis I, 85; join Tavannes, 157; sent to aid of duke of Aumale, 162; enrolment of, to protect French frontier, 315, 318; Huguenots try to break French alliance with, 330; sufferings of, in the army, 342; cannot come till September, 384; at siege of Poitiers, 387, 453; refuse to let France enroll mercenaries, 454; sent into Languedoc and Dauphiné, 461; licensed, 469. _See also_ Froelich; Meaux.

Switzerland, French exiles from, 30, 94; cantonal system of, 111; mentioned, 144, 154; Spain’s ascendency in, 240; French interests in, 240-43; rivalry of France and Spain in, 299; French enrolments in, 307; fears joint attack of Spain and Savoy, 308; true policy of France in, 318; policy of Spain in, 371; debts of French crown in, 371. _See also_ Basel; Bellièvre; Bern; Freiburg; Grisons; Valois.

Taille, 81. _See also_ Debt; Finances.

Tarbes, Huguenots recover, 406.

Tarde, pastor of church at Ostabanès, 355.

Tavannes, marshal opposes extraordinary tribunals, 14; sent to Dauphiné after conspiracy of Amboise, 38; accuses Catherine de Medici of being privy to conspiracy of Amboise, 42, n.; foils attack on Dijon, 140; saves Châlons-sur-Saône, 149; forces of, 154; Swiss join, 157; Margaret of Parma sends aid to, 212; forms Confrérie du St. Esprit in Burgundy, 216; sent to guard frontier against reiters, 339; organizes Confrérie du St. Esprit in Burgundy, 352, 353; organizes Catholic league in Berry, 354; vigilance of, 362; refuses to seize Condé and Coligny by treachery, 365; at battle of Jarnac, 376; protests against siege of St. Jean-d’Angély, 390; bold reply of, to Spanish ambassador, 418, 419; urges marriage of duke of Anjou with Queen Elizabeth, 426; complicity of, in massacre of St. Bartholomew, 453.

Taxes, new, by Henry III, 509-11.

Teligny, sent to confer about peace, 344; sent to king in overtures for peace, 392.

Templars, loans of, 83.

Tende, count of, governor of Provence, blocks viscount of Rapin, 396.

Termes, marshal, 36, 39, 69; sent to Normandy after conspiracy of Amboise, 39; governor of Guyenne, 63; and Triumvirate, 99; succeeded by marshal Bourdillon, 182; Montluc ordered to report to, 215.

Terride, implicated with Montluc in plot to deliver Guyenne to Spain, 394; campaign in Béarn, 398-400.

Thionville, Alva at, 311.

Three Bishoprics, 124, 302; refuge of heretics from Lower Germany, 200; Emperor revives claim to, 336; promise of restoration of, to Emperor if he will stop progress of reiters, 393; counter-claims of France and Austria to, 424; claims of Casimir, count palatine, to, 521. _See also_ Metz; Toul; Verdun; Vieilleville.

Throckmorton, Sir Nicholas, English ambassador in France, 24, 126; urges Elizabeth to give aid to Huguenots, 184; confers with Coligny, 185; tries to dissuade Huguenots from making peace, 198.

Thuringia, landgrave of, 122.

_Tigre, Le_, a pamphlet written by Hotman, 39.

Tithes, Huguenots refuse to pay, 118. _See also_ Clergy; Dîme; Finances.

Tocsin, 160.

Toledo, Don Ferdinand Alvarez de, Spanish commander, 311.

Torcy, sent to interview Montgomery, 472.

Toul, riot at, 133, 301. _See also_ Metz; Three Bishoprics; Verdun.

Toulon, 306.

Toulouse, 14, 84, 368; riot at, 133, 142, 214; Huguenots suffer heavily in, 150; saved by Montluc, 157; refuses to recognize peace of Amboise, 192; Catholic league formed at, 214; opposition to peace of Longjumeau at, 347; revival of Catholic league in, 354; environs of, devastated by viscounts, 395; parlement of, asserts jurisdiction over Béarn, 397; Montgomery near, 398; invested by Coligny and Montgomery, 410, 411; parlement of, protests against Peace of St. Germain, 417, n.; massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450.

Touraine, 45, 63, 141, 154; Huguenots in, 95 and n.; duke of Montpensier mobbed by Huguenots in, 120, 121.

Tournay, heresy at, 197; revolt of, feared, 264.

Tournelles, Palais de, 3, 6.

Tournon, Cardinal, 50; writes to Philip II, 97; and Triumvirate, 98; Catherine de Medici offended at, 133.

Tournon, taken by Huguenots-Politiques, 502.

Tours, 33, 35, 127; Du Plessis, Huguenot pastor at, 64; riots at, 133, 140; drownings at, 154.

Trent, Council of, 114, 116, 117, 118, 124, 209, 299; cardinal of Lorraine collects money at, 181; findings of, 57, 209, 210, 234, 250, 273, 278, 295; conflict of Spanish and French ambassadors at, 261, 262.

Tresques, taken by Joyeuse, 396.

Trèves, archbishop of, 303.

Triumvirate, pillars of, 97; formation of, 98, 99; appeals to Philip II, 99; negotiations of, 121; tries to influence Antoine of Bourbon, 131, 133; intends to compel court to go to Bois de Vincennes, 137; Antoine surrenders to, 138; Catherine de Medici yields to, 143; asks Margaret of Parma for aid, 145; Huguenots demand withdrawal of, 150; overtures of, to Spain, 211; Spain’s slow reply to, 212, 224.

Trompette, Château, Huguenots attempt to seize, 213. _See also_ Bordeaux.

Troyes, 84, 127, 142, 232, 339; treaty of, 204, 209, 238, 239; Condé moves to, 333; Catholic league of Champagne formed at, 354; massacre of St. Bartholomew at, 450.

Tulle, inhabitants of, refuse to pay taxes, 492.

Tunis, “kingdom of”, promised to Antoine of Bourbon, 132.

Turenne, viscount of, sent to Montgomery, 472; sides with Montmorency, 474.

Turin, 311; Henry III at, 488; Damville at, 488.

Turks, 84, 89; relations of, with Catherine de Medici, 248; attack Malta, 248, 297, 302, 306; league proposed against, 277; fleet against, 423; league against, 423, n.; French relations with, 424; Spain demands discontinuance of French relations with, 426; friendliness of, to France, 453; make truce with Emperor, 464; Damville introduces, into Aigues Mortes, 492. _See also_ Lepanto.

Tuscany, money from, 184; duke of, 311; influence of, 423.

Tyrol, 242.

Uloa, Alonzo de, Spanish commander, 310.

Universities, Huguenots excluded from, 420.

Utrecht, revolt in, 265.

Uzes, duke of, resigns, 502.

Valais, forms league with Bern and Freiburg, 308.

Valenciennes, heresy at, 197; rebellious spirit of, 264, 266; Louis of Nassau takes, 445, 446.

Valéry, Synod of, 319.

Valois, wheat dear in, 286.

Valteline, 241.

Vargas, member of Alva’s Council of Blood, 312.

Vassy, massacre of, 134, 135; does not dismay Huguenots, 137; constable advises King to repudiate guilt of, 137; duke of Guise to blame for, 142; Dieppe revolts after news of, 148; convinces Philip II it is time to act, 211.

Vendôme, 127; rising in, 150.

Venetian ambassador, quoted, 65, 70, 201, 232.

Venice, money from, 184; in league against the Turks, 423, n.; Henry III at, 488.

Verdun, 301; France erects citadel at, 307, 315.

Vergt, battle of, 147, 154, 157, 215.

Vernon, 152.

Verre. _See_ Avignon.

Vesalius, physician of Philip II, attends Henry II, 3.

Vieilleville, marshal, governor of Metz, opposed to Guises, 125; succeeds St. André, 181; sent to Switzerland, 240, 241; sent to Metz, 307; confers with Condé, 328; moderation of, 356.

Vienna, cardinal of Lorraine sent to, 196.

Vienne River, duke of Anjou withdraws army across, 387.

Villebonne, governor of Rouen, 47, 48; guards Pont de l’Arche, 177.

Villefranche, Coligny at, 181.

Villeroy, reports on condition of king’s army before La Rochelle, 459; sent to Languedoc, 476.

Viscounts, 375; strength of, in the south, 391; early history of, 394-97; cross Loire River at Blois, 396; cross Dordogne River to join prince of Condé, 396; defeated in Périgord, 396; destroy Gaillac, 396; join Montgomery, 397; helped by feud between Montluc and Damville, 402, 403.

Visières, lieutenant of Montgomery, pursued by Guises, 41.

Vivarais, viscount of Rapin in, 396; Coligny in, 411.

Voulton, 334.

Wallachia, Poland hopes to recover, 455.

Walloons, at siege of Poitiers, 387.

Walsingham, urges marriage negotiations of Elizabeth to duke of Anjou, 422.

Warwick. _See_ Havre-de-Grace.

Warwick, earl of, instructions to, 166; seizes Havre de Grace, 167; hopes to compel towns of Seine to capitulate, 177; urges Elizabeth, 184; precarious position of, 187, 201; surrenders, 213.

Westelburg, count of, 373.

Wheat, price of, 286, 287, 343, 408.

William of Orange, sends assurance to Coligny, 379; restoration of, demanded by Huguenots, 417; urges alliance of France and England, 440, 441; issues proclamation from Dillenberg, 444; at Frankfort Fair, 446; overtures of France to, 462; treaty with England, 463, n.; plots in Franche Comté, 492, 493; possible marriage of daughter of, to duke of Alençon, 503.

Windmills, burned by Huguenots in faubourgs of Paris, 327.

Worcester, earl of, sent to France, 455.

Würtemburg, conference of duke of Guise with duke of, at Saverne, 123; sister of duke of, proposed as wife of Henry of Navarre, 422.

Zealanders, disperse Spanish fleet at Sluys, 446.

Zurich, alarmed at approach of duke of Alva, 308; neutrality of, 371.

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

[3] _Mém. de Tavannes_, 239.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11] Throckmorton, _loc. cit._

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

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

[14] There is an account of the funeral in _Arch. cur._, III, 309-48. The MS account of the funeral expenses is in the Phillipps Collection, 2,995. Compare Galembert, _Funerailles du roy Henri II, Roole des

## parties et somme de deniers pour le faict des dits obsèques et pompes

funèbres_. Publié avec une introduction. Paris, Fontaine, 1869.

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

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

[17] _Rel. vén._, I, 195. “De fort petit sens,” says La Planche, 202.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[29] Tavannes, _op. cit._

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

[31] Brissac was governor of Piedmont under Henry II, where he sustained the interests of France so energetically that Philip hated him. The Guises made great efforts to attach him to their party, with the hope of playing him against the Bourbons and Montmorencys (Paris, _Négociations_, 73, note). After the peace of Cateau-Cambrésis, the fortresses of the duke of Savoy were dismantled, to the intense anger of the latter. Cf. Fillon Collection, 2,654: Letter of July 16, 1560, to the duchess of Mantua, complaining that the people of Caluz have revolted against the authority of the marshal Brissac. This hard feeling probably explains Brissac’s transfer to the government of Picardy, in January, 1560, to the chagrin of the prince of Condé, who asked for the place (Varillas, _Hist. de François II_, II, 35; De Thou,

## Book XXV, 518) after the marriage of Emanuel Philibert to the sister of

Henry II. See Marchand, _Charles I de Cossé, comte de Brissac_, Paris, 1889, chap. xvi.

[32] La Place, 26.

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

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

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

[36] The pretext was Montmorency’s complaint because his son Damville was not given the government of Provence, which St. André had held (_Rel. vén._, I, 435; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 401).

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

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

[39] La Planche, 203.

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

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

[42] For Henry II’s policy toward Protestantism see De Crue, _Anne de Montmorency_, 244-48; Weiss, _La chambre ardente_, Introd.; Hauser, “De l’humanisme et de la réforme en France,” _Rev. hist._, LXIV (1897), 258, minimizes the intellectual causes of the French Reformation.

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

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

The Venetian ambassador wrote in 1563: “In quel tempo medesimo fu tra questi principalmente, che cercorno di seminar la false dottrina un predicator della regina di Navarra, madre del presente re di Navarra, nominate Ugo, il quale alienò prima l’animo di quella regina dalla religion cattolica, e poi cercò d’alienare e di corromper, come fece, infiniti altri uomini e donne delli più grandi.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 50. A unique explanation, which I have not found noticed elsewhere is preserved by Jean de Gaufreton, _Chronique bordelaise_ (1877), I, 92: “En cette année les catholiques commencèrent d’appeller les Luthériens et protestants ‘Huguenots,’ et les autres nomèrent les catholicques papistes à cause, qu’ils tenoyent le parti du pape, et qu’ils soustenoyent son authorité. Mais la raison pourquoy les Luthériens furent appellées Huguenots procède de ce que les princes protestants d’Allemagne et Luthériens ayant envoyé une solemnelle ambassade au roy, à la requête des Luthériens et protestants de France pour demander libre exercice du Luthéranisme en son royaume, en faveur des dits Luthériens français, comme le chef de cette ambassade voulut en sa première audience parler latin devant le roy, assisté des messieurs de son conseil, il ne put jamais dire que les deux mots à sçavait ‘hue nos’ et s’arresta tout court. Despuis les courtisans appellèrent les Luthériens françois ‘hue nos,’ et en suite ‘Huguenots.’”

[44] Isambert, XIII, 494.

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

[46] Vargas, _Histoire de François II_, 314.

[47] Granvella to Philip II, June 14, 1561—_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VI, 569.

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

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

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

[51] _Mém. de Condé_, I, 264.

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

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

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

[55] La Planche, 237.

[56] _Ibid._, 226.

[57] La Place, 28.

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

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

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

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

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

[63] La Place, 28.

[64] La Planche, 209.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[73] See the character sketch in _Rel. vén._, I, 437-39.

[74] Cf. La Place, 28.

[75] Baschet, 497, 498.

[76] See _C. S. P. For._, 1559-61, _passim_.

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

[78] La Planche, 273.

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

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

[81] La Planche, 212. “Il Cardinale de Lorraine è quà Papa e re,” _Nég. Tosc._, III, 404, August 27, 1559.

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

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

[84] _Rel. vén._, I, 431. See the character-sketch by Suriano in _Rel. vén._, II, 47; _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 272, 1561.

[85] La Planche, 212.

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

[87] La Planche, 216.

[88] _Ibid._, 212, 216.

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

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

[91] _C. S. P. For._, No. 543.

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

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

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

[95] _C. S. P. For._, No. 256, November 14, 1559; _ibid._, _Ven._, No. 132, March 6, 1560.

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

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

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

[99] La Planche, 237.

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

[101] _Rel. vén._, I, 525.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[108] La Planche, 239.

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

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

[110] La Planche, 238.

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

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

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

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

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

[116] It is said that the cardinal and his brother received intimations of danger from Spain, Italy, Savoy, Germany, and Flanders (La Place 32; Castelnau, Book I, chap, viii) and it is certain that the cardinal Granvella, Philip’s representative in the Netherlands, warned them. De Thou says that warnings came from Germany, Spain, Italy, and France. Paillard in _Rev. hist._, XIV, 81, is dubious about an Italian source, but it is confirmed by _C. S. P. Ven._, 137, March 6, 1560. He thinks that any Spanish source of information was impossible, for the reason that Philip II learned everything from Chantonnay. Granvella’s warning is acknowledged by Chantonnay in a letter of March 3, 1560, to his brother. He was expressly told that the aim of the conspiracy was to make away with the cardinal of Lorraine and all those of the house of Guise (_Rev. hist._, XIV, 80, 81). This is supported by the testimony of the constable and the Venetian ambassador (D’Aubigné, I, 263, n. 3). It seems certain that this information was conveyed to the Guises by February 12 (_Rev. hist._, XIV, 83; _Mém. de Condé_, I, 387; D’Aubigné,

## Book II, chap. xvii). Dareste, “François Hotman et la conspiration

d’Amboise,” _Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes_, sér. III, V, 361, thinks that Hotman’s own indiscreet boasting at Strasburg was responsible, at least in part, for the discovery of the plot.

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

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

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

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

[120] _C. S. P. For._, No. 859, March 15, 1560; _ibid._, _Ven._, No. 135, March 16.

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

[122] His orders at this hour are printed in the _Mém.-journ. du duc de Guise_, 457; _Mem. de Condé_, I, 342; La Popelinière, I, 166; cf. La Planche, 225, who gives the gist of them.

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

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

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

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

[127] The instructions of the King are a curious witness of the fury of the Guises: “Je vous prye, y estant arrivé, faire si bonne dilligence que vous les puissiez chastier comme ils méritent, sans avoir aucune pitié ny compassion d’eux.... Aussy je vous envoye des lettres _dont le nom est en blanc_ et lesquelles vous ferez remplir à votre fantaisie, que j’escrips aux principaux seigneurs et gentilshommes dudit païs à ce qu’ils ayent _à assembler leur voysins et vous accompaigner_ en ceste entreprinse.”—_Négociations relatives au règne de François II_, 342, 343.

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

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

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

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

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

[133] Monod, “La jeunesse d’Agrippa d’Aubigné,” _Mém. de l’Acad. de Caen_, 1884.

[134] _C. S. P. For._, 1560, Introd. Hotman vented his disappointment at the failure of the conspiracy and his wrath because of the cruel policy of the Guises in a famous pamphlet directed against the cardinal of Lorraine. It bore the significant title “Le Tigre.” See De Thou,

## Book XXV, 512; Weill, 40, 98, Asse, “Un pamphlet en 1560,” _Revue de

France_, January 1876, and Dareste, _Mém. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV (1877), 605. Hotman’s authorship of it remained undiscovered for years. A counselor named Du Lyon, believed to be the author of it, a printer named Martin, and a merchant of Rouen, who had sponsored it, were hanged in the Place Maubert (Castelnau, Book I, chap, xi; La Planche, 312, 313; La Place, 76, 77).

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

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

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

[136] La Planche, 267.

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

[138] La Planche, 268.

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

[140] _Mém. de Condé_, I, 398; La Popelinière, I, 170.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[146] La Planche, 219, 20.

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

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

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

[150] La Place, 38. On L’Hôpital see Dupré-Lasale, _Michel de l’Hôpital avant son elévation au poste de chancellier de France_, 2 vols., 1875; Amphoux, _Michel de l’Hôpital et la liberté de conscience au XVI^[e] siècle_; Guer, _Die Kirchenpolitik d. Kanzlers Michel de l’Hôpital_, 1877; Shaw, _Michel de l’Hôpital and His Policy_.

[151] La Place, 37.

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

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

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

[155] Castelnau, Book I, chap, xi; _Rel. vén._, I, 415 and n. 2.

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

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

[158] Nanteuil, near La Fère (Aisne).

[159] La Place, 38.

[160] _C. S. P. For._, No. 232, June 24, 1560; D’Aubigné, I, 276; _Mém. de Condé_, I, 151.

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

[162] La Place, 41.

[163] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 149, 1560.

[164] _Rel. vén._, II, 139; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 417. La Planche, 217, gives a sample lampoon.

[165] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 151.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[180] _Ibid._, No. 416, August 13, 1560.

[181] _Ibid._, _Ven._, No. 188, July 30, 1560.

[182] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 416, August 13, 1560.

[183] _Ibid._, No. 494, September 7, 1560.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[192] _Ibid._, No. 354, July 19, 1560.

[193] _Ibid._, No. 317, July 8, 1560; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 421-23, June, 1560.

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

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

[196] Castelnau, _loc. cit._

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

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

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

[200] Castelnau, _loc. cit._; La Planche, 352.

[201] See Reynaud, _Jean de Montluc, evêque de Valence_, 1893.

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

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

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

[205] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 424, August 29, 1560.

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

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

[208] La Place, 70.

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

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

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

[211] Maynier, _Etude historique sur le concile de Trente (1545-62)_, 1874; _Journal du concile de Trente, redigé par un secrétaire vénitien présent aux sessions de 1562 à 1563, et publié par Armand Baschet, avec d’autres documents diplomatiques relatifs à la mission des Ambassadeurs de France au concile_; Desjardins, _Le pouvoir civil au concile de Trente_, Paris, 1869; Baguenault de la Puchesse, “Le concile de Trente,” _R. Q. H._, October, 1869.

[212] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 161, 1560.

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

[214] _Ibid._, No. 569, September 8, 1560.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[221] Paris, _Négociations_, 495; Forneron, _Histoire de Philippe II_, I, 225. The Venetian ambassador learned the news within less than a month (_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 199, September 28, 1560).

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

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

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

[224] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 411, August 9, 1560.

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

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

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

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

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

[230] _Ibid._, No. 726, November 18, 1560.

[231] _Ibid._, No. 619, October 10, 1560.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[241] La Place, 38; La Planche, 378; Castelnau, Book II, chap. x; _Rel. vén._, I, 557; Brantôme, III, 278.

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

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

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

[245] La Planche, 375, 376.

[246] _Ibid._, 318.

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

[248] _Ibid._, 316, 317.

[249] Baschet, _La diplomatie vénitienne_, 499.

[250] _Rel. vén._, II, 65.

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

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

[253] La Planche, 218.

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

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

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

[256] La Planche, 260.

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

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

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

[260] “The soldiers through necessity have begun to rob.”—_C. S. P. For._, _ibid._

[261] La Place, 48.

[262] La Place, 49.

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

[264] “MM. de Guise avoient asseuré le pape et le roi d’Espagne de chasser du royaume les huguenots; desseignent (après le procès du prince de Condé et luy executé) d’envoyer de la gendarmerie et de gens de pied sous la charge des sieurs de Sainct André, Termes, Brissac et Sipierre, leurs amis, pour chasser les hérétiques et faire obeyr le roy.”—Tavannes, 257 (1560).

[265] _Mém. de Condé_, II, 379; Chantonnay to Philip II, November 28, K. 1,493, No. 108; _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), November 22; Claude Haton, I, 130, 131.

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

[267] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), November 25, 1560.

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

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

[270] _Rel. vén._, I, 543. On the situation after death of Francis II see Weill, chap. ii.

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

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

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

[274] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), December 3, 1560.

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

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

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

[278] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), December 18, 1560.

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

On Sardinia see _Rel. vén._, I, 555. Even the prospect of becoming emperor was held out to him (_ibid._, I, 559; II, 76).

[280] “Although the duke of Guise is popular, above all with the nobility, yet everybody so detests the cardinal of Lorraine that if the matter depended upon universal suffrage, not only could he have no

## part in the government, but perhaps not in the world! It is cynically

reported that his Right Reverend and Lordship took the precaution to send his favorite and precious effects early into Lorraine.”—_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 221, December 16, 1560.

[281] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), December 18, 1560; _Rel. vén._, I, 433. “I found the court very much altered ... not one of the house of Guise.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 832, December 31, 1560.

[282] Claude Haton, I, 11.

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

[284] D’Aubigné, I, 302; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 176; _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), March 29, 1561; _C. S. P. For._, No. 77, § 3, March 31, 1560; La Place, 120, 121; De Crue, _Anne de Montmorency_, 299.

[285] Cf. Viollet, _Inst. polit. de la France_, II, 95.

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

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

[288] See the remarkable character-sketch of the Venetian ambassador in _Rel. vén._, I, 425-27.

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

[290] D’Aubigné, I, 304; Paris, _Négociations_, 789.

[291] La Place, 85, 87.

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

[293] The address is printed _in extenso_ in _Œuvres complètes de l’Hôpital_, I, 375 ff.

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

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

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

[297] La Place, 93.

[298] _Ibid._, 93-109.

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

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

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

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

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

[304] _Rel. vén._, I, 443.

[305] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), February 17, 1561.

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

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

[307] Dareste, _Histoire de France_, III, 456, 457.

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

[309] An ordinance of 1270 authorized a loan of 100,000 _livres tournois_ for the crusade that culminated in disaster before Tunis. Cf. G. Servois, “Emprunts de St. Louis en Palestine et en Afrique,” _Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes_, sér. IV, IV, 117. Philip III borrowed of his great vassals and from the Flemish towns (Langlois, _Le règne de Philippe le Hardi_, chap. v).

[310] Boutaric, _La France sous Philippe le Bel_, 297.

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

[312] Esmein, _Histoire du droit français_, 631-34.

[313] Vührer, _Histoire de la dette publique en France_, I, 22-25.

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

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

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

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

## Part I, pp. 266-69. Larger references will be found in the bibliography

appended to the chapter.

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

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

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

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

[317] La Planche, 113.

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

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

[320] La Place, 121.

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

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

[323] _Ibid._, No. 850, January 1, 1561.

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

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

[326] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), March 1, 1561.

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

[328] _Ibid._, _Ven._, No. 242, March 3, 1561.

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

[330] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 467, and note.

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

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

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

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

[334] _C. S. P. For._, No. 11, March 4, 1561; _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), February 19, 1651. A letter of December 26, 1560, to the King, published in the _Revue d’hist. diplomatique_, XIII, No. 4 (1899), 604, “Dépêches de Sebastien de l’Aubespine,” states the _real_ mission of Don Juan de Manrique.

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

[336] Lacombe, _Catherine de Médicis entre Guise et Condé_, 108. The edict was actually a confirmation of the edict of Romorantin. See _Mém. de Coudé_, II, 266; text of the Edict of Romorantin in Isambert, XIV, 31.

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

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

[339] For the rise of Protestantism in Normandy see Le Hardy, _Histoire du protestantisme en Normandie depuis son origine jusqu’ à la publication de l’Edit de Nantes_, Caen, 1869; Lessens, _Naissance et progrès de l’hérésie de Dieppe, 1557-1609_: Publication faite pour la I^[ére] fois d’après le MS de la biblioth. publ. av. une introd. et des notes, Rouen, 1877; Hauser, “The French Reformation and the Popular Classes,” _American Historical Review_, January, 1899.

[340] _Archives de la Gironde_, XIII, 132; XVII, 256.

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

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

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

[344] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 456.

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

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

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

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

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

[350] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 158, April, 1561; cf. No. 124, April 20, 1561.

[351] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 188, and n. 1.

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

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

[354] _Ibid._, No. 16.

[355] On the whole see De Crue, _Anne de Montmorency_, 294, 295.

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

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

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

[359] La Place, 122, 123.

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

[361] La Place, 123; Ruble, III, 71; De Crue, 303; Chantonnay to Philip II, April 7, K. 1,494, B. 12, 73; April 9, B. 12, 75. Cf. _Mémoires de Condé_, III, 210 ff.: “Sommaire des choses premièrement accordées entre les ducs de Montmorency, Connestable et De Guyse, ... et le Mareschal Sainct André, pour la Conspiration du Triumvirate, et depuis mises en délibération à l’entrée du Sacré et Sainct Concile de Trente, et arrestée entre les Parties en leur privé Conseil faict contre les Héréticques et contre le Roy de Navarre en tant qu’il gouverne et conduit mal les affaires de Charles IX.”

[362] La Planche, 454.

[363] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 448.

[364] _Rel. vén._, I, 534.

[365] The original letter is preserved in the Musée des Archives Nationales, No. 665. See the _Mémoires de Condé_, III, 395.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[383] Cf. _C. S. P. For._, 1561, No. 237; _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), June 25, 1561.

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

[385] Isambert, _Anc. lois franç._, XIV, 109 (Edit sur la religion, sur le moyen de tenir le peuple en paix, et sur la répression des séditieux).

[386] Suriano, August 25; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 453-58; Castelnau, Book III; _C. S. P. For._, No. 357; Beza, _Hist. ecclés._, I, 294 (ed. 1841); La Place, 130; D’Aubigné, I, 309.

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

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

[388] Claude Haton, I, 122.

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

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

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

[392] La Place, 158 ff.; La Popelinière, I, 271 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book II, chap, xvi; Beza, _Hist. ecclés._, ed. 1840, I, 320 ff.; L’Hôpital, _Œuvres complètes_, I, 485 ff. De Thou, Book XXVIII, 74-77; Claude Haton, I, 155. A test vote, however, on religion was taken, resulting in 62 votes for liberty of worship in the case of the Huguenots, and 80 against it (letter of Hotman in _Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 300).

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

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

[395] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), August 24, 1561.

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

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

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

[399] _Rel. vén._, I, 409-11. Upon the whole question, see De Crue, _Anne de Montmorency_, chap. xiv; Esmein, _Histoire du droit français_, 632-33.

[400] De Ruble, _Le colloque de Poissy_ (1889); Klipfel, _Le colloque de Poissy_ (1867).

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

[402] Paris, _Négociations relatives au règne de François II_, 550, 615-22; _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VI, 137; Klipfel, _Quis fuerit in Gallia factionum status_, Paris 1863, 23.

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

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

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

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

[407] _C. S. P. For._, No. 421, August 19, 1561; _ibid._, _Ven._, No. 280, September 8, 1561.

[408] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), September 18, 1561.

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

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

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

[412] “Paroles prononcées par Theodore de Beza touchant le sacrement.”—K. 1,495, No. 77. 1, “Profession de foi concerté par les prélats de France;” 2, “Première proposition des Catholiques; première proposition des hérétiques.”—Latin, K. 1,495, No. 78; cf. _Rel. vén._, II, 75.

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

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

[415] Proposition de Théodore de Bèze, K. 1,494, No. 96.

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

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

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

[419] La Place, 199.

[420] _C. S. P. For._, No. 602, October 1, 2 1561. For a description of the last days of the Colloquy, see _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), October 16, 1561.

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

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

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

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

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

[426] D’Aubigné, I, 311; _Rel. vén._, II, 87; _C. S. P. For._, No. 602, October 12, 1561.

[427] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), September 23, 1561.

[428] _Ibid._, October 22, 1561. For further details of the negotiations, see _ibid._, November 3, 1561; _C. S. P. For._, No. 682, §9, November 26; Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 89.

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

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

[431] “Aux villes et pays où ils sont là declaires leur bailler quelques lieux prochaine hors des dictes villes”—Résumé des points principaux traités par l’ambassadeur de France auprès du roi Philippe II (Communications du duc d’Alba), November 9, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 58; “Propositions faites par M. d’Ozance et l’ambassadeur ordinaire en Espagne, l’évêque de Limoges, dans deux audiences à eux données par le roi Philippe II” (Résumé avec annotations), Minute, Notes de chancellerie, K. 1,495, No. 69, Madrid, September 17, 1561; “Points principaux d’une négociation spéciale de M. d’Ozance, envoyé de Catherine de Médici avec réponses notées à la marge, point par point: Communications au duc d’Albe après une déliberation du Conseil d’état, prise lui absent,” November 12, 1561, K. 1,495 No. 89; “Précis des points traités par M. d’Ozance et de l’Aubespine, ambassadeur de France,” K. 1,495, No. 94, December 10, 1561; “Réponses à faire par ordre de Philippe II à M. d’Ozance, sur les nouvelles propositions de cet ambassadeur,” K. 1,495, No. 98, December 15, 1561; “Memento addressé par l’évêque de Limoges au duc d’Albe” (Note à communiquer au roi Philippe II), K. 1,495 No. 100, December 20, 1561; Philip II to Chantonnay: “Avis de ce qu’on a répondu à M. d’Ozance,” December 21, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 102; “Rapport sur une conférence entre l’ambassadeur du France et le duc d’Albe, au sujet des affaires du roi de Navarre et des troubles pour cause de la religion” (copié en Français), K. 1,496, folio 136, Madrid, December 20, 1561.

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

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

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

Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, III, 245-50; De Crue, _Anne de Montmorency_, 315, 316. The official inquiry entitled, “Enquête sur l’enlèvement du duc d’Orleans,” is in F. Fr. 6,608.

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

[436] _Despatches of Michele Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), November 3, 1561; _C. S. P. For._, No. 659, §5, November 14, 1561.

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

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

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

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

[441] K. 1,495, No.47, June 19, 1561. Cf. _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), October 1. Upon these insurrections in the south, see D’Aubigné, I, 322-26; De Thou, II, 235 ff. (ed. 1740); _Mém. de Condé_, III, 636; Long, _La réforme et les guerres de religion en Dauphiné_; Pierre Gilles, _Hist. ecclés. des églises réformées vaudoises_, chap. xxii; _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 211.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[451] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VI, 432-43: “Rapport secret du secretaire Courtville,” December, 1561.

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

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

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

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

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

[457] “Le conseil du roi, voyant que les mouvements les plus divers agitaient le royaume, décide que chaque gouverneur, lieutenant, sénéschal et autres ministres, se rendissent à leurs gouvernements.”—Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 89.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[467] _Archives de la Gironde_, XV, 57.

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

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

[470] Isambert, XIV, 124-29; Raynaldus, XXXIV, 292, 293. The original document is on exhibition in the Musée des Archives at Paris. It is catalogued K. 674, No. 4. Although authorized on January 17, the edict was not printed until March 13, 1562 (_C. S. P. For._, No. 930, §11; 934, §1). The Edict of July had been only negative in its character, simply forbidding judges and the magistrates from pursuing the Huguenots, but not in any sense recognizing their religion. Castelnau,

## Book I, chap. ii, makes this very clear. The Edict encountered strong

opposition in the Parlement, which twice rejected it by a plurality vote (_C. S. P. For._, No. 849, January 28, 1562; Claude Haton, I, 185, 186). Benoist, _Histoire de l’Edit de Nantes_, I, Appendix, gives the text together with the first and second mandamus of the King, February 14 and March 11, 1562, expressly enjoining the Parlement “to proceed to the reading, publishing, and registering of the said ordinance, laying aside all delays and difficulties.” The first mandamus, “Déclaration et interprétation du roy sur certains mots et articles contenus dans l’edict du XVII de janvier 1561,” declared that magistrates were not officers within the meaning of the edict (Isambert, XIV, 129, n. 2). Klipfel, _Le colloque de Poissy_, chap. iii, makes the point that the Parlement of Paris was criminally wrong in arraigning itself upon the side of violence and encouraging the intolerance of the populace. The Parlement of Rouen was more complacent, and seems promptly to have registered it (_C. S. P. For._, No. 891, §10, February 16, 1562).

The Edict of January is sometimes wrongly dated January 17, _1561_. The error arises from the confusion of the calendar in the sixteenth century. In 1561 the year in France legally began at Easter, which, of course threw January 17, into the year 1561. But in 1564 a royal _ordonnance_ abolished this usage and established January 1 as the beginning of the year, which brought forward January 17 into its proper year, 1562. The reform of the calendar by Gregory XIII would alter the _date of the month_ also, according to modern reckoning. But it is simpler to let established dates stand. Henry III authorized the use of the Gregorian calendar in France in 1582. For a lucid account of these changes see _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, Introd., x-xi by the baron de Ruble.

[471] Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 71.

[472] Claude Haton, I, 177, and n. 1. For other details see Castelnau,

## Book III, chap. i; _Rel. vén._, II, 71.

[473] _Lettres de Pasquier_, II, 96. Mignet characterizes the provisions of the Edict of January as “généréuses, simples, et sages.” Mignet, “Les lettres de Calvin” (_Journal des savants_, 1859, p. 762), and Haag, _La France protestante_, Introd., xix, as “le plus libéral édit qui ait été obtenu par les réformés jusqu’à celui de Nantes.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

[480] The Jesuits had long tried to get a legal status in France. Henry II, was favorable to them, but the Parlement of Paris, the secular clergy, and the Sorbonne were bitterly opposed. The Act of Poissy recognized the Jesuits as a college but not as a religious order, to the anger of the Sorbonne. See Douarche, _L’Université de Paris et les Jesuites_, Paris, 1888, chap. iv. At the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits from France in 1761, in reply to the question of the crown as to their legal status, the cardinal de Choiseul made the following answer: “Lorsqu’ils ont été reçus en France l’an 1561, par le concours des deux puissances, ils se sont soumis et ont été astreints par la loi publique de leur établissement à toute superintendance, jurisdiction et correction de l’évêque diocésain et à se conformer entièrement à la disposition du droit commun, avec la renonciation la plus formelle aux privilèges contraires portés dans les quatre bulles par eux présentées ou autres qu’ils pourraient obtenir à l’avenir.” ... “_Le véritable état des Jésuites en France parâit donc être, suivant les lois canoniques reçues dans le royaume, l’état des réguliers soumis à la juridiction des ordinaires conformement au droit com mun._” Cf. Eugene Sol, _Les rapports de la France avec l’Italie, d’après la série K. des Arch. Nat._, Paris, 1905, 119, 120. The original document is in the Archives nationales, K. 1,361, N. 1, C.

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

[482] _Ibid._, No. 931, March 9, 1562.

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

[484] _Lettres du cardinal de Ferrare_, No. 14, March 3, 1562.

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

[486] _Corresp. de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 17, March 25, 1562. This circumstance is noticed by almost all the chroniclers: D’Aubigné, Book V, chap, iii, 1; _Mém. de Condé_, I, 76, 77; _Arch. cur._, VI, 59.

[487] Claude Haton, I, 189.

[488] Beza, _Histoire ecclés._, I, 416.

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

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

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

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

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

[494] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, March 20, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 16. Accounts of this event abound. See La Popelinière, I, 287; Claude Haton, I, 208; D’Aubigné, II, 10; a letter of Santa Croce in _Arch. cur._, VI, 55; La Noue, _Mém. milit._, ed. Petitot, 128—very interesting; and a letter of an eye-witness in _Bull. de la Soc. de l’hist. du prot. franç._, XIII, 5.

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

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

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

[497] Delaborde, II, 48; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 285, n.; _C. S. P. For._, No. 987, §12, March 31, 1562.

[498] “La mala reputacion que el chancellerio ne quanto à la fé.”—_Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 16, March 20, 1562.

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

[500] Paris, _Négociations relatives au règne de François II_, 880.

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

[502] D’Aubigné, II, 15.

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

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

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

[506] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 17, March 25, 1562.

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

[508] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 2-4, K. 1,497, No. 18; April 11, _ibid._, No. 22.

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

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

[511] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 283.

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

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

[514] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 11 1562, K. 1,497, No. 22.

[515] _Ibid._, No. 21, April 8, 1562; De Ruble’s edition of D’Aubigné, II, 18-20; _C. S. P. For._, No. 997, April 10, 1562; No. 1,043, §2, April 24, 1562. Cf. Boulanger, “La réforme dans la province du Maine,” _Revue des Soc. savant. des départ._, 2^[e] sér., VII (1862), 548.

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

[517] “Déclaration faicte par monsieur le prince de Condé, pour monstrer les raisons qui l’ont contrainct d’entreprendre la défense de l’authorité du roy, du gouvernement de la royne, et du repos de çe royaume” (Orleans, 1562); cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,003, Orleans, April 1, 1562.

The prince of Condé is said to have issued a coinage of his own at this time with the superscription, “Louis XIII.” Chantonnay, however, says that they were medals (K. 1,497, No. 27, May 2, 1562). See the memoir of Secousse: “Dissertation où l’on examine s’il est vrai qu’il ait été frappé, pendant la vie de Louis I^[er], prince de Condé, une monnie sur laquelle on lui ait donné le titre de roi de France,” _Mém. de l’Acad. roy. des inscrip. et bell. lettres_, XVII (1751); Poulet, _Correspondance du cardinal de Granvelle_, III, 85. Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny_, 303, is convinced the story is a fabrication.

[518] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 11, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 22.

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

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

[521] _Archives curieuses_, sér. I, IV, 175.

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

[523] Raynal, _Histoire du Berry_, IV, 35.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[533] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 22.

[534] “La fleur du monde.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 41. For details see _ibid._, 24, 26-29, 36-38, 41, 50-54; _Correspondance du cardinal de Ferrare_, Letter 40, July 3, 1562; D’Aubigné, II, 91, and n. 2; Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, 220.

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

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

[537] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 21, April 8, 1562; _C. S. P. Eng. For._, No. 1,058, April 27, 1562; _ibid._, No. 6, §2, May 2, 1562.

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

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

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

[541] D’Aubigné, Book II, chap. iv.

[542] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 36, May 28, 1562.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[550] Forbes, II, 8; cf. Planche, _Histoire de Bourgogne_, IV, 556.

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

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

[553] _C. S. P. For._, No. 107, May 28, 1562; No. 174, June 9; _Mém. de Condé_, III, 462. Another edict of the King put the military government of Paris in the hands of the provost of the merchants and the _échevins_ of the city (“Déclaration portant permission au Prévost des Marchands et aux Echevins de la Ville de Paris, d’établir ès Quartiers d’icelle, des Capitaines, Caporaux, Sergents des Bandes, et autres Officiers Catholiques. A Monceaux, le 17 May 1562;” also in _Ordonnances de Charles IX_, par Robert Estienne, fol. 187; _Mém. de Condé_, III, 447), in compliance with a popular request made a week earlier; “Ordonnance du Roy, donnée _en conséquence de la Requête_ des Habitans de Paris, par laquelle il leur est permis de faire armes ceux que dans cette Ville sont en état de porter les armes, et d’en former des Compagnies, sous des Capitaines qui seront par eux choisesr,” May 10, 1562 (_Mém. de Condé_, III, 422, 423). The Venetian ambassador wisely observed “Perciochè dar liberamente l’armi in mano ad un populo cosi grande e cosi furiosi, benchè fosse cattolico, non era farse cosa molto prudente.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 98; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 280.

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

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

[556] Chaumet, “Procès-verbal des titres et ornements brûlés par les protestants,” _Les protestants et le Cathédrale d’Angoulême en 1562_, in _Bull. de la Soc. arch., etc._ 4^[e] sér., VI, 1868-69 (Angoulême, 1870), 497.

Gellibert des Seguins, _Aubeterre en 1562_; “Enquête sur le passage des protestants en cette ville, le pillage de l’église Saint-Jacques et la destruction des titres et papiers du chapitre,” _Bull. de la Soc. arch., etc._, 1862, 3^[e] sér., IV (Angoulême, 1864).

[557] The strife in Toulouse was occasioned by an edict of the parlement of Toulouse (May 2) forbidding Calvinist worship and the wearing of arms by the Huguenots (K. 1,495, No. 35; a printed copy of the edict). Both parties fought for three days for possession of the Hôtel-de-Ville where arms were stored. Nearly 5,000 Protestants, it is said, were killed (_Corresp. de Chantonnay_, 1497, No. 36, May 28, 1562; _Commentaires de Montluc_, Book V, 234-37,) La Popelinière (who saw it), I, 311 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book II, chap. iv; _Lettres du cardinal de Ferrare_, No. 30, June 23, 1562; cf. _Histoire véritable de la mutinerie, tumulte et sedition faite par les prestres de St. Medard contre les Fideles, le Samedy XXVII juin de 1562_; Bosquet, _Histoire sur les troubles advenus en la ville de Tolose, l’an 1562, le dix-septiesme may_, Nouv. édition, avec notes, Paris, 1862; _Histoire de la délivrance de la ville de Toulouse_, 1862.

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

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

[560] “Tous jours sur le point que messieurs de Guise, conestable et mareschal de St. André se retirent de la cour.”—L’Aubespine, sécretaire d’état à son frère M. de Limoges, ambassadeur en Espagne, June 10, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 22; cf. the same to the same, June 12, p 24. On these unsuccessful negotiations, see D’Aubigné, II, 33-35; La Popelinière, I, 323; _Mém. de. Condé_, 489; La Noue, _Mém._, Book I, chap, ii; Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, IV, chap. xix.

Condé further justified the revolt of the Huguenots on the ground that the King and his mother were “prisoners” in the hands of the Triumvirate, but the statement was too transparent to be believed. Catherine herself, in order to disprove it, took the King to Monceaux with her (_Corresp. de Chantonnay_, May 28, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 36), whence she wrote to the Parlement of Paris explaining the reason of her

## action. The Parlement promptly approved her course. _Mém.—journaux du

duc de Guise_, 495, col. 2: “Acte par lequel la Reinemère et le Roy de Navarre declarent que la retraite voluntaire que font de la cour du duc de Guise, le Connestable et le mareschal de St. André, ne pourra porter préjudice à leur honneur” (May 28, 1562).

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

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

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

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

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

[566] _Ibid._, No. 425, August 5, 1562; _Archives de la Gironde_, XVII, 270. The constable seized Tours and Villars Châtellerault (D’Aubigné, II, 41-44). For the operations of Burie in Périgord, see _Archives de la Gironde_, XVII, 271. At Bazas a local judge, with the aid of Spanish troops actually crucified some Calvinists (_ibid._, XV, 57).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[577] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, II, 345, and note. His title was “conservateur de la Guyenne” (O’Reilly, _Histoire de Bordeaux_, 221).

[578] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, II, 357.

[579] _Ibid._, 416, 421.

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

[581] See _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 37 ff.; De Thou,

## Book XXXIII; D’Aubigné, II, 95; _Bull. de la Soc. de l’hist., du prot.

franç._, II (1854), 230; _C. S. P. For._, 837 and 415, §12 (1562). I have purposely built this account upon Montluc’s narration in Book V of his _Commentaires_. An additional source for Lectoure and the battle of Vergt is his long letter to Philip II, published in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 84-86; add also De Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, 244-56.

[582] _Mém. de Condé_, III, 756: “Fragment d’une lettre de l’ambassadeur du duc de Savoye, à la Cour de France. De Paris du dernier de juillet, 1562;” cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 492, 493.

[583] See an article by De Crue, “Un emprunt des Huguenots français en Allemagne et en Suisse (1562). Pleins pouvoirs données à M. d’Andelot par le prince de Condé—Orleans, 7 juillet, 1562,” _Rev. d’hist. dip._, 1889, 195.

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

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

[586] “Ceux-ci [reiters] sont toujours prêts à se battre, mais en tout le reste, ils n’obéissent à personne et montrent la plus grande cruauté. Ils pillent tout, et cela ne leur suffit pas. Ils dévastent tout et détruisent les vins et les récoltes.”—Letter of Hotman in _Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 311.

[587] Claude Haton, I, 294.

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

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

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

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

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

[592] The long presence of the reiters in France during the civil wars introduced many German words into the French language, for example _bière_ (_Bier_); _blocus_ (_Blockhaus_); _boulevard_ (_Bollwerk_); _bourgmestre_ (_Burgmeister_); _canapsa_ (_Knapsack_); _carousser_ (_Garaus machen_); _castine_ (_Kalkstein_); _halte_ (_halt_); _trinquer_ (_trinken_) and of course _reitre_ (_Reiter_) and _lansquenet_ (_Lanzknecht_). See Nyrop, _Grammaire historique de la langue française_, I, 51. Rabelais abounds with such words, e. g., “Je ne suis de cas importuns _lifrelofres_ qui, par force, poultraige et violence, contraignent les lans et compaignons _trinquer_, voire _carous_ et alluz qui pis est.” Rabelais, Book IV, prologue. So also in

## Book IV, prol.: “Je n’y ay entendu que le _hault allemant_.”

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

[594] On the siege of Bourges see D’Aubigné, II, 77 ff.; Raynal, _Hist. du Berry_, IV; _Mém. des antiq. de France_, sér. III (1855), II, 191 ff.; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 494, 495; Boyer, _Doc. relat. au régime de l’artillerie de la ville de Bourges dans le XVI^[e] siècle_, 641; in _Bull. du Comité de la langue, de l’hist. et des arts de la France_, III, 1855-56. The capitulation of Bourges is in _Mém. de Condé_, III, 634. See also the “Journal of Jean Glaumeau,” edited by M. Bourquelot in _Mém. de la Soc. des antiq. de France_, XXII. Philip II expressed his displeasure at the terms to St. Sulpice, saying, “que aulcunes des conditions semblaient du tout assez convenables des sujetz à leur roi” (_L’ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 70, 75. Alva’s opinion is given at p. 78).

[595] Claude Haton, I, 285. Philip II told St. Sulpice “quant un voyage de Normandie, bien qu’il l’estimait être bien entrepris, qu’il semblait qu’il eut été meilleur de s’adresser à Orleans, où étaient les chefs, afin qu’ils ne se grossissent d’avantage.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 75.

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

[597] Daval, _Histoire de la réformation à Dieppe, 1557-1657_. Publ. pour la I^[re] fois avec introd. et notes par E. Lesens (Société rouennaise de bibliophiles. 2 vols., 1879).

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

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

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

[601] “Et il assure que bien qu’elle prenne à dépit de voir que les catholiques soient secourus de deça, elle est persuadée que son meilleur est de se contenir et regarder de loin ce qui adviendra.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 55, July, 1562.

[602] “Réponses du duc d’Albe à St. Sulpice, October 8, 1562,” _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 79; cf. 92, 93, 103.

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

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

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

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

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

On Huguenot excesses in Rouen, see an arrêt of the Parlement of Rouen, August 26, 1562, in _Mém. de Condé_, III, 613, and another ordering prayers for the capture of Fort St. Catherine, October 7 (_ibid._, IV, 41).

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

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

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

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

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

[610] It was taken by assault by the duke of Guise (_Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 414, note; Claude Haton, I, 285; _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 41).

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

[612] _Ibid._, No. 901, October 23, 1562.

[613] _C. S. P. Ven._, October 27, 1562.

[614] _Ibid._, _For._, 932, §4, October 30, 1562.

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

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

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

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

[618] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 307, October 31, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 91; “Montgoméry qui les faisait tenir s’est sauvé, laissant le peuple livré à la boucherie.”—Letter of Catherine de Medici to St. Sulpice.

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

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

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

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

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

[624] “Il y eut toujours dans la ville quatre corps de garde, Charles IX ordonna d’établir à Etampes un magasin de vivre pour fournir son armée.”—_Annales du Gâtinais_, XIX, 105.

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

[626] Claude Haton, I, 305.

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

[628] Charles IX to St. Sulpice December 11, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 98; _Despatch of Barbaro_ (Huguenot Society), December 7, 1562.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[643] Claude Haton, I, 311.

[644] For contemporary accounts of the battle of Dreux, see: “Discours de la bataille,” in _Mém. du duc de Guise_, ed. Michaud, 497 ff.; Beza, _Histoire des églises réformées_, I, 605 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book III, chaps. xiii, xiv; Tavannes, 392 ff.; La Noue, _Mém. milit._, chap. x; De Thou, Book XXXIV; _C. S. P. Eng._, No. 1,282, abstract of a printed pamphlet; No. 1,316, December 21; No. 1,323, December 22, 1562—letter of the admiral to the earl of Warwick; to Queen Elizabeth, Delaborde, II, 178, 179. For details as to the number of prisoners, etc., see _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,286-88, 1,316, 1,317, 1,335, §§4-6; 1,334, 1,353, §6; 1,563, Nos. 12, 22, 28, narrative of Spanish troops. Excellent accounts of the battle are to be consulted in De Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, II, 366 ff.; Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny_, 140-45; and the duke of Aumale’s _History of the Princes of Condé_ (Eng. trans.), I, 150-68. The standard treatment of the subject is Coynart, _L’Année 1562 et la bataille de Dreux: étude historique et militaire; extraits divers, correspondance officielles du temps_ (1894).

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

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

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

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

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

[649] Sarpi, _Histoire du Concile de Trent_, Book VII, chap. xlviii.

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

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

[652] La Mothe Fénélon to St. Sulpice, December 17, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 103, 104.

[653] _C. S. P. Ven._, December 27, 1562.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[661] _C. S. P. Ven._, February 2, 1563.

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

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

[664] _C. S. P. Ven._, February 6, 1563.

[665] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 234, February 3, 1563, from Madrid. No. 194, January 30, 1563. The money was used to purchase the services of 3,000 reiters and some new levies of Swiss. Pending their arrival, Charles IX called out the _arrière-ban_—cavalry of the nobility obliged to serve upon call—to prosecute the war (_C. S. P. Ven._, February 17, 1563). See the interesting account of the interception of 13,000 écus d’or probably by the Huguenots, though it may have been by robbers, sent from Flanders in February, 1563 (Paillard, “De tournement au profit des Huguenots d’un subsidé envoyé par Philippe II à Catherine de Médicis,” _Rev. hist._, II, 490).

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

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

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

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

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

[671] _C. S. P. For._, No. 323, February 17, 1563. Both D’Aubigné,

## Book III, chap. xvi, and La Noue, _Mém. milit._, chap. x, have vivid

accounts of this siege; cf. also De Thou, Book XXXIV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[679] Catherine wrote with truth: “Ce royaume est réduit en telle extrémité que la necessité veut que l’on ne perde l’occasion de faire pacifier, principalement pour jeter hors les étrangers, mêmement les Anglais.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 101.

[680] “La guerre,” said Catherine with words of simple dignity, which were repeated in the instructions of the special envoys sent to notify the court of Vienna and Madrid, the Vatican and the Council of Trent, “a tellement appauvri le royaume qu’il est réduit à un état digne de commisération. La voie des armes était impossible; le remède propre à un tel mal, l’expérience a démontré, c’est un libre et général concile.”—_Corresp. de Cath. de Méd._, II, Introd., v. Philip II, reproached the regent of Parma for not lending assistance to France. See her letter justifying her conduct in Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 266, August 12, 1563.

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

Poltrot was put to death on March 18; for the trial, see _Mém.-journ. de François, de Lorraine_ (Michaud Coll.), 506, 537 ff.; Paulin Paris, _Cabinet hist._, I^[ère] part., III, 49 ff. A conspicuous instance of the high-mindedness of Jeanne d’Albret is the letter of consolation she wrote to the duchess of Guise after the assassination of the duke (La Ferrière, _Rapport_, 39).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[691] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., iv.

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

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

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

[695] Claude Haton, I, 354.

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

[697] _C. S. P. Ven._, April 21, 1563.

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

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

[699] “Articles de l’alégation de messieurs les ambassadeurs, estant de present à la cour; envoyez, l’un par nostre saint père le Pape, l’autre par l’Empereur, Roy des Romains, l’autre par le Roy d’Espaigne, et le Prince de Piedmont. Au Roy de France et princes de son sang, au mois de Fevrier, 1563,” _Mém. de Condé_, V, 406-8; cf. _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 135 and 167.

[700] Lansac and Du Ferrier were the ambassadors of France at Trent. Lansac’s instructions, which outline the policy of France, are in Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, etc., 251-65; add D’Aubigné,

## Book III, chap. xxi; St. Sulpice, 28, 64, 102, 114, 130, 141, 160-63.

On Lansac, see _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, Index; upon Du Ferrier, consult Frémy, _Un ambassadeur libéral sous Charles IX et Henri III_, 1880.

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

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

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

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

[703] On this subject see La Ferrière, _La Normandie à l’étranger_, and his article entitled, “La paix de Troyes avec l’Angleterre,” _R. Q. H._, XXXIII, 36 ff. Much of the article is reprinted from the introduction to _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II.

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

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

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

[707] _Ibid._, Ven., No. 319, January 24, 1563.

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

[709] _Ibid._, 136.

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

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

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

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

[714] The rate was fixed at five _livres_ for each measure of wine, and at 6 _sous_, 8 _deniers_, for each _queue_ (Claude Haton, I, 330, 331). The farm of this _gabelle_ was sold at Provins for the sum of 600 livres.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[721] _Rel. vén._, I, 375.

[722] _Ibid._, I, 429.

[723] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 338, July 27, 1563; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 141, 142.

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

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

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

[727] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxvi-xxviii; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 177, 194, 195.

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

[729] _C. S. P. Ven._, 347, November 11, 1563; _ibid._, _For._, No. 6, January 4, 1564; No. 47, January 15.

[730] _Ibid._, _Ven._, No. 348, November 18, 1563; _Archives de la Gironde_, XVII, 293.

[731] The text of the treaty is in Rymer’s _Foedera_, XV, 640. La Ferrière has an extended account of the negotiations in _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxxiv-xliv. For other details see _C. S. P. For._, 1564, Nos. 6, 47, 250-53, 297, 307-10, 314, 347, 363, 364. On the great commercial importance of the treaty of Troyes, see De Ruble, _Le traité de Cateau-Cambrésis_, 193, 194.

[732] _C. S. P. Ven._, 1564, No. 388.

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

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

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

[735] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,558, December 29, 1563. “Le connétable lui même, tout en étant homme de bien catholique, était cependant carnale, et voulait avoir appui des deux cotés.”—Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 240.

[736] For examples see _C. S. P. For._, No. 982, §§1, 2, an episode of the last week of June, 1563; _ibid._, _Ven._, No. 333; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxix.

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

[738] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,003, July 14, 1563; _ibid._, _Ven._, No. 330, June 10.

[739] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxxii, xxxiii (many examples).

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

[741] _Ibid._, Nos. 1,155, 1,387, 1,394, 1,431, 1,445, _anno_ 1563.

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

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

[744] “Instructions pour le Sieur de Lansac, envoyé en Espagne, janvier 1564,” _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 223.

[745] August 18, 1563. The officiai promulgation is in _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 574. _Déclaration faicte par le Roy en sa majorité tenant son lict de justice en sa cour de Parlement de Rouen_, Robert Estienne, Paris, 1563.

[746] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 101, 102; _R. Q. H._, XXIV, 459; Claude Haton, I, 363, and n. 2; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxiii; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,190, September, 1563.

The declaration, by a technicality, contravened the testament of Charles V (1374), which for centuries had been the law regulating the King’s majority. Charles IX was born on June 17, 1550, so that he was _in his fourteenth year_, though not yet fourteen years old. The Parlement of Paris for more than a month refused to register the edict, not on political, but on religious grounds. It objected to “la mention de l’édit de pacification d’Amboise, introduite sans motif dans la déclaration de l’édit de la majorité, ce _que semblait reconnaître deux religions_.”—_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxiv. The Venetian ambassador gives an interesting character-sketch of Charles IX at this time (_Rel. vén._, I, 419).

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

[748] “S’étaient tous départis avec une hâte extrème causée sur la disposition du pape.”—Testu to Catherine de Medici, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 207. “Les évêques français se déclarent obligés de

## partir, se voyant privés de ressources.”—Baschet, _Journal du Concile

de Trente_, 239.

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

[750] _Annales Raynaldi_, 1564, No. 1; Labbé, XIV, 939; cf. _R. Q. H._, October, (1869), 402.

[751] For the grounds of objection see _R. Q. H._ (October, 1869), 365, 366, and 401-8; Frémy, _Diplomates du temps de la Ligue_, 45. In Vol. LXXXVI, _Coll. de St. Pétersbourg_, is a collection of letters, many of them from Lansac and the cardinal of Lorraine while at the Council of Trent. These are the letters whose disappearance Baschet wondered at and deplored (La Ferrière, _Rapport_, 58).

[752] Charles IX to St. Sulpice, February 26,1564, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 229; D’Aubigné. II, 223; L’Estoile, I, 19; _Bulletin de la Soc. prot. franç._, XXIV, 412. Catherine makes no allusion to this

## scene in her letter to Elizabeth of Spain at this season (_L’Ambassade

de St. Sulpice_, 237). But on a subsequent occasion, when the cardinal of Lorraine dropped the remark that the Council of Trent ought to be called _Spanish_, the queen mother replied “qu’il avait raison, et que aussi lui même s’était montré tel et plus de ce parti que de tout autre.”—_Ibid._, 383.

[753] _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 462; Frémy, _Diplomates de la ligue_, chap. i.

[754] Tavannes, 291.

[755] Vargas, Spanish ambassador in Rome, to the cardinal Granvella, February 22, 1561 (_Papiers d’état du card. de Granvelle_, VI, 512, 513; _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 460).

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

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

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

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

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

[761] “Après la déclaration que seigneurs ont envoyée en Espagne des deniers qu’ils y ont demandez, ils ne voyant pas qu’on se haste beaucoup de leur respondre.”—_Ibid._

[762] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 492.

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

[764] La Popelinière, Book viii, 499; _Rel. vén._ II, 99.

[765] “Cependant la ligue ne s’est pas renfermée dans l’enceinte de Paris. Paris, qui l’avait incertaine et hesitante encore, la renvoya aux provinces, toute brûlante et toute armée. Elle s’associa à leur intérêts, réfléta leur passions et leur caractère, feroce en Languedoc, durement obstinée en Bretagne, partout modifiée dans sa nature et sa durée par la politique locale des municipalités.”—Ouvré, _Essai sur l’histoire de la ligue à Poitiers_ (1855), 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[772] “Ordonnance de Blaise de Montluc, chevalier de l’ordre et lieutenant du roi en Guyenne, sur l’opinion qui devoit estres les sujets fidèles à sa Majesté en la séné-chaussée d’Agenois, et sur l’ordre qu’ils devoient tenir pour résister aux entreprises des sujets rebelles.”—Ruble, _Comment. et Lettres de Montluc_, IV, 190; La Faille, _Annales de Toulouse_, II, 62. The preamble is a recital of Catholic grievances and Huguenot violence.

[773] D’Aubigné, II, 213, and n. 6; _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 214.

[774] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,000, _anno_ 1563.

[775] Mourin, _La réforme et la ligue en Anjou_, 21, 22.

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

[777] Martin, _Histoire de France_, IX, 201; Anquetil, I, 213.

[778] “Si la Réforme acquit une si grande importance, au point que les esprits superficiels y virent l’origine des libertés actuelles, c’est qu’auparavant avait éclaté une révolution sociale et économique, dont les luttes religieuses ne furent que les arrière-maux. Tant que les historiens, dans leurs études sur la Réforme, ne tiendront pas compte de ce dernier point de vue, ils n’écriront à son sujet que les romans ou des pamphlets.”—Funck-Brentano, Introd. to new ed. of Montchrétien’s _L’Œconomie politique_, LXXI.

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

[780] See Hauser, _Ouvriers du temps passé_; Pariset, _Histoire de la fabrique lyonnaise_, 1901; Roussel, “Un livre de main au XVI^[e] siècle,” _Revue internationale de sociologie_, XIII (1905), 102, 521, 825.

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

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

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

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

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

“La corruption des bonnes 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._