CATHERINE DE MEDICI BETWEEN GUISE AND CONDÉ. PROJECT OF A NATIONAL
COUNCIL
The insurrection of Amboise was not wholly displeasing to many even in
the court. Huguenot dissidence and the discontent of many persons with
the government gave the cardinal and the duke of Guise many troubled
thoughts even after every external sign of disquiet had ceased. Strong
suspicion rested upon the prince of Condé[135] who was forbidden to
leave the court and so closely watched that he was afraid to speak
to any of his friends. The Guises were in a dilemma, not having the
courage to shed the blood royal,[136] yet, on the other hand, they
feared lest, by letting their suspicion pass in silence, the prince
might be rendered more daring and confident for the future.
So pointed did the accusation become that Condé finally demanded a
hearing before the Council, where he cast down the gauntlet to the
Guises, declaring that “whoever should say that he had any hand in
conspiring against the King’s person or government was a liar and would
lie as often as he said so;” he then offered to waive his privilege
as a prince of the blood in order to have personal satisfaction and
withdrew. But the cardinal of Lorraine, instead of accepting the
challenge, made a sign to the King to break up the session.[137]
Antoine of Navarre had been in the south of France during these events
but, nevertheless, he also did not escape suspicion; a secretary of
his who was staying in Paris to look after his affairs was searched
and all the furniture of his house ransacked to discover incriminating
papers, if possible.[138] The Bourbon prince was doubly alarmed at
the suspicion of guilt because his name was associated with that of
the English queen.[139] The king of Navarre may have had imperfect
knowledge that something was in the wind when he left the court
to visit his dominions in the south, but he was no party to the
conspiracy.[140] Of Queen Elizabeth’s indirect participation there
is no doubt at all. The belief prevailed in Paris that great offers
had been made to the earl of Arran by Gascony, Poitou, Brittany, and
Normandy, if he would lead an English descent into those parts,[141]
and in the two last-named provinces English merchants and sailors
animated the people to rebellion against the house of Guise by means of
proclamations in the French language _printed in England_.[142] But if
the Guises shrank from shedding the blood of the princes, they struck
as near to them as they dared, by urging the pursuit of Visières, a
former lieutenant of Montgomery, for whose apprehension, dead or alive,
a reward of 2,000 crowns was offered,[143] and Maligny, a lieutenant of
the prince of Condé.
Although the initial purpose of the conspiracy had failed, namely
to take the King and drive out the Guises,[144] Condé and his
followers did not fail to perceive that things were not entirely
unfavorable.[145] Catherine de Medici, who while jealous of the
position of the Guises in a place which naturally, and by tradition,
if the regencies of Blanche of Castille and Anne of Beaujeu counted as
precedents, belonged to her, had nevertheless sustained the drastic
policy followed out after the execution of Du Bourg, in spite of the
arguments of the admiral.[146] Now, however, she saw her opportunity
to make head against the cardinal and his brother and played into the
hands of Coligny and Condé.[147] She prevailed upon the King to send
the admiral upon a special mission to Normandy late in July, where
he was expected to take the edge off the Marshal Termes’ conduct, and
secretly abetted the faction of the constable.[148] The opportunity
was the better to do these things owing to the death of the chancellor
Olivier on March 27,[149] who had been an instrument of the Guises,
and the queen mother was quick to seize it. The famous Michel de
l’Hôpital[150] was immediately appointed to the vacancy. He was a man
of great knowledge in the law and of great culture; at the moment he
was president of the _chambre des comptes_ and had been chancellor to
Madame Marguerite of France, the duchess of Savoy (who had Protestant
leanings, and had interceded for Du Bourg), and was a member of the
_conseil privé_ of the King. L’Hôpital’s accession was followed by the
proclamation of letters of pardon to all recent offenders, provided
they lived as good Catholics, the King declaring that he was unwilling
to have the first year of his reign made notorious to posterity for
its bloody atrocities and the sufferings of his people.[151] This was
followed in May, 1560, by the royal edict of Romorantin, whereby the
jurisdiction of legal processes relating to religion was completely
taken away from the courts of parlement and from lay judges who had
power to pass summary judgments, and was remitted to the ecclesiastical
judges; which was interpreted as an assurance to accused persons
that they needed no longer fear the penalty of death, owing to the
opportunity of delaying sentences by means of appeals from the acts
and sentences of bishops to archbishops and from thence to Rome.[152]
In August a supplementary decree ordered the bishops and all curates
to reside at their churches, the bishops being prohibited in the
future from proceeding against anyone in the matter of religion except
the Calvinist preachers or persons in whose houses Huguenot meetings
were held, the government thus tacitly permitting others to live in
their own way, which was interpreted as a virtual “interim.”[153]
The spirit of this legislation, as well as the skilful use of the
law made therein, is certainly due to the heart and brain of the
chancellor L’Hôpital, although Coligny is not without credit for his
influence.[154]
These changes had the double effect, first, of persuading the queen
to take the management of affairs upon herself and endeavor to remove
the house of Guise from court; and second, in giving the Huguenots
and their partisans the opportunity of strengthening themselves. The
leniency of the government drew back into France numbers of those who
had withdrawn, among them preachers from Geneva and England who gave
new life to the party by exhorting them to continue their assemblies
and the exercise of their religion.[155] There was fear that the
“interim” would be used by the Huguenots like the edge of a wedge to
open the way to possess churches of their own, and such a demand was
shortly to be made openly in the King’s council at Fontainebleau in
August, 1560.
It was apparent that there was not a province which was not affected,
and there were many in which the new religion was even spreading into
the country, as in Normandy, Brittany, almost all Touraine, Poitou,
Guyenne, Gascony, the great part of Languedoc, Dauphiné, Provence, and
Champagne.[156] The “religion of Geneva” extended to all classes, even
to the clergy—priests, monks, nuns, whole convents almost, bishops,
and many of the chief prelates. The movement seemed to be widest
among the common people, who had little to lose, now that life seemed
safe. Those who feared to lose their property were less moved. But
nevertheless all classes of society seemed deeply pervaded. While the
“interim” lasted only those were punished who were actually preaching
and holding public assemblies. The prisons of Paris and other towns
were emptied, and in consequence there was a great number of persons
throughout the kingdom who went around glorying in the victory over the
“papists,” the name which they give their adversaries. To add to the
discomfiture of the Guises, the breach between them and Montmorency was
widened.[157] The duke of Guise had purchased the right of the sieur de
Rambures to the county of Dammartin, not far from Paris, and adjacent
to that of Nanteuil,[158] which the duke had shortly before acquired,
the lower court of which was held in relief of Dammartin. In order to
do so the duke of Guise had persuaded Philippe de Boulainvilliers,
who had lately sold the property to the constable, to rescind the
contract which had been made, and sell it to him.[159] But the duke met
with a straight rebuff, for when he sent word of the transaction, the
constable answered by Damville, his son, that “as he had bought it, so
would he keep it.”[160] The feud between the Guises and Montmorency
naturally threw the “connestablistes” more than ever to the side of
Condé. Damville was sent to the King and the queen mother, who were
staying at Chateaudun, to inform them that the Guises were his declared
adversaries, and then went to confer with the prince of Condé, whom he
met, “environ le jour appelé la feste de Dieu au mois de Mai,”[161]
between Etampes and Chartres, near Montlhéry, when on his way to
Guyenne, to see his brother of Navarre. The Guises, who had information
of the interview, enlarged upon the dangerous conduct of Condé and
pushed the suit for the lands of Dammartin in the courts.[162]
Catholic zealots made much of the events of Amboise to enlarge
the reputation of the Guises. “During the whole of this Passion
week,” wrote the Venetian ambassador, “nothing has been attended to
but the sermons of the cardinal of Lorraine, which gathered very
great congregations, not only to his praise, but to the universal
astonishment and admiration, both on account of his doctrines and by
reason of his very fine gesticulation, and incomparable eloquence and
mode of utterance.”[163]
On the other hand, those who abhorred him on account of religion and
for other causes did not fail to defame him by libels and writings
placarded publicly in several places in Paris, where they were seen and
read by everyone who wished.[164] Scarcely a day passed without finding
in the chambers and halls of the King’s own palace notes and writings
of a defamatory nature abusing the cardinal of Lorraine. In Paris
the Palais de Cluny, belonging to the Guise family, full of furniture
of great value, was nearly burnt by a mob.[165] In several places the
cardinal’s painted effigy, in his cardinal’s robes, was to be seen,
at one time hanging by the feet, at another with the head severed and
the body divided into four quarters, as was done to those who were
condemned. In the Place Maubert he was hanged in effigy and burnt with
squibs.[166]
But worse disturbances than violent manifestoes disquieted the
government. On June 1, 1560, the day of the Corpus Domini at Rouen,
when the procession passed through the city with the customary
solemnities, it was remarked that in front of a certain house before
which the procession passed no tapestry or any other decoration had
been placed. Villebonne, the King’s officer, “who on account of these
disturbances about religion remained there,” perceived the omission and
being suspicious of some clandestine meeting of the Huguenots, chose to
verify the fact instantly. He attempted to enter the house by force,
but met with such stout resistance on the part of its inmates that
the procession was interrupted, and a great tumult arose, both sides
having recourse to arms. After much fighting, each party having several
wounded, at length with the death of some defenders of the house and
after very great effort, the authorities quieted the uproar as well
as they could. Next morning upward of 2,000 persons appeared before
the royal magistrates, not only very vehemently to demand justice and
satisfaction for the death of those persons who had been killed, but
to present also the “Confession” of what they believed and the mode in
which they intended it should be allowed them to live, demanding that
the “Confession” should be sent to the King that it might be granted,
and protesting that if on that account his ministers proceeded
against any of them by arrest or capital punishment or other penalty,
they would put to death an equal number of Catholic officials of the
government. The president and four councilors of the Parlement of
Rouen journeyed to Paris to present the “Confession.” They assured the
King that the whole of Normandy was of the same opinion as those who
declared themselves. In its quandary the government blamed Villebonne,
accusing him of too much zeal and inquisitiveness. Moreover, fresh
commotions were heard of daily, and the government plainly feared some
sudden attack like that of Amboise.[167]
The Guises plucked courage, however, from the fact that under the
pretext of still preparing for the war in Scotland in support of Marv
Stuart,[168] they could fill France with soldiery.[169] Months before
the outbreak of the conspiracy of Amboise their agents had been at work
in Germany, using French gold for the purchase of arms, ammunition,
and above all, men, for Germany was filled with small nobles of broken
fortune, vagabond soldiers,[170] and lansquenets ready to serve
wherever the pay was sure and the chance for excitement and plunder
good.[171]
On March 30, 1560, Guido Giannetti, Elizabeth’s secret agent at Venice,
wrote to Cecil, “France will have enough to do in her religious wars
that have just sprung up, which will be worse than the civil war of
the League of the Public Weal, in 1465 under Louis XI.”[172] The
prophecy soon became true. In spite of the formidable preparations made
to continue the war in Scotland,[173] the more necessary since the
death of the queen dowager of Scotland, news of which reached France
on June 18,[174] France—or rather the French party in Scotland—on
July 6, 1560, signed the treaty of Edinburgh, which, so far as
the Guises were concerned, was the renunciation on their part of
aggression abroad.[175] Nothing but the grave state of home politics
could have induced the Guises so to yield the cause of their niece in
Scotland.[176]
The Huguenot issue promised to come to a climax during the summer
of 1560.[177] From all over France came reports of sedition and
insurrection. The Protestants were masters of Provence.[178] The
cardinal Tournon, returning from Rome, dared not bring with him the
cross of the legation, for fear of its meeting with disrespect by
the people of the places through which he would have to pass.[179]
From another source came the report that “very free sermons have been
delivered in the churches of Bayonne.”[180] The bishop of Agen wrote
the council that all the inhabitants of that city were in a state
of furious insurrection; that they went to the churches, destroyed
all the images, and maltreated certain priests. The queen mother
was mysteriously warned that unless she released certain preachers
imprisoned at Troyes she would become the most unhappy princess
living.[181] The Pope’s legate left Avignon in disgust at the license
of the “Lutherans,”[182] and when the pontiff proposed to send thither
the cardinal Farnese, who was willing to go provided a suitable escort
of Italian and Swiss infantry was furnished, France refused to consent,
being unwilling to allow a foreign prince to enter the kingdom on such
a warlike footing.[183]
At the same time the personal attack upon the Guises became more
venomous.[184] The enmity between the Guises and the house of
Montmorency had become so open and proceeded so far, owing to the
dispute about Dammartin, that it was expected they would take up arms.
To crown all, the government received information through several
channels of a design against the King and his ministers of worse
quality than the recent Amboise conspiracy.[185] The information
that came to light caused the greatest anxiety because this time the
evidence seemed strongly to compromise the vidame de Chartres,[186]
and the prince of Condé.[187]
Although the war in Scotland was practically at an end, the Guises
had not relaxed their efforts to raise men and money.[188] Philip II,
knowing what was in progress, seems to have made a partial offer of
assistance. In July fifteen German captains were dispatched beyond the
Rhine, each commissioned to bring back three hundred pistoleers for the
King’s service;[189] letters were sent to the Rhinegrave and Duke John
William of Saxony, urging them to form a league of the German princes
and procure forces in case there should be need of them.[190] La Mothe
Gondrin was sent into Provence and Dauphiné, and another agent into
Champagne, on similar errands.[191] Fifteen hundred men with armor
and munitions were sent to the castle of Guise.[192] The Guises even
endeavored to effect a reconciliation with the constable through the
mediation of the marshal Brissac.[193]
The prevailing alarm was not allayed by the admiral, Gaspard de
Coligny, who at a full council meeting held at Fontainebleau, on
August 20, 1560, presented two petitions,[194] one for the King, the
other for his mother, asking the King, in the matter of religion, to
concede the petitioners two places of worship in two parts of the
kingdom for greater convenience, that they might there exercise their
rites and ceremonies as private congregations, without being molested
by anyone, arguing that meetings in private residences would thus be
obviated.[195] Coligny claimed to speak with authority, having been
officially sent into Normandy by the queen mother to inquire into the
cause of the disturbances there. A hot altercation ensued between the
admiral and the cardinal of Lorraine. Coligny had prudently omitted
signatures to the petition, but declared that he “could get 50,000
persons in Normandy to sign it,” to which the cardinal retorted
that “the King could get a million of his own religion to sign the
contrary.”[196] L’Hôpital, the chancellor, however, deftly diverted
the discussion into a political channel by a long discourse[197] upon
the condition of the realm, comparing it to a sick man, asserting
that the estates were troubled and corrupt, that religious dissidence
existed, that the nobility were dissatisfied, and concluded by saying
that if the source and root of all the calamities visiting France could
be discovered, the remedy would be easy.[198] In reply the cardinal
of Lorraine offered to answer publicly for the administration of the
finances and showed by an abstract of the government accounts that
the ordinary expenses exceeded the revenue by 2,500,000 livres (over
seven and one-half million dollars); his brother, the duke of Guise,
as lieutenant-general, laid papers upon the table with reference to
the army and forces of the kingdom.[199] An adjournment was then taken
until August 23, when, upon reassembling, each member of the Council
was provided with a memorandum containing a list of the topics which
the crown wished to have debated.[200]
Montluc, the bishop of Valence,[201] as the youngest privy-councilor,
began the discussion when the Council reconvened.[202] But the speech
of the occasion was that of Marillac, the liberal archbishop of Vienne,
who, taking his cue from the chancellor, in a long discourse[203]
enlarged upon the religious, political, and economic distress of
France. His address is a complete statement of the Huguenot programme
in church and state. He began by saying that the true “ancient and
customary” remedy was a general council, but failing that, recourse
must be had to a national council, and then proceeded to enumerate
the things to be considered therein; first, the intrusion of foreign
prelates—chiefly Italians—into French ecclesiastical offices,[204]
“who fill a third portion of the benefices of the kingdom, who have an
infinite number of pensions, who suck our blood like leeches, and who
in their hearts, laugh at us for being so stupid as not to see that
we are being abused;” secondly, he demanded that the clergy of France
show by some notable act that they were sincerely bent upon reform
and not merely seeking to fortify their prerogatives and privileges
under the pretension of reform; and to this end the illicit use of
money—“that great Babylonian beast, which is avarice, in whose path
follow so many superstitions and abominations”—must be guarded
against; thirdly, the wicked must make sincere repentance; fourthly,
for the adjustment of the political and economic questions vexing the
people the States-General must be convened. Then followed a statement
of conditions: that the king must live upon the income of the royal
domains, the spoliation of which should cease; that his wars be
supported by the old feudal aids and not by recourse to extraordinary
taxes.
This speech highly pleased the admiral, who added three points,
namely, that, a religious “interim” be officially granted until the
findings of the Council of Trent, which the Pope was to be asked to
reconvene; that in event of refusal to do so, a national council of
the clergy of France be called in which the Huguenots should have
a representation;[205] and that the number of guards around the
court, “which were very expensive and only served to infuse fears and
jealousies into the people’s minds” be reduced.[206]
The upshot of the conference was the resolution to call a meeting of
the States-General for December 10 at Meaux (later changed to Orleans),
and in default of the convening of a general church council, to convene
a national body of the clergy at Paris on January 10, 1561, the long
interval being allowed in order to permit the Pope to act.[207] In the
meantime the _status quo_ was maintained with reference to the worship
of the Protestants, but for the sake of precaution, an edict was
issued by which all subjects of the realm, whether princes or no, were
prohibited from making any levy of men, arms, armor, horses, or moneys,
on pain of being declared rebels against his majesty.[208]
There is no doubt that the resolution of the Council of Fontainebleau
conformed to the conviction of a large element in France, the religious
troubles having stirred up a strong demand for another general council
of the church (the second session of the Council of Trent having been
interrupted by the defeat of the emperor Charles V in the Smalkald
war), or a national council, if the convocation of the former proved
impossible.[209] Even the cardinal of Lorraine, desirous of acquiring
fame by reforming the church of France, urged the course, though it
was hostile to the interest of the Holy See, until the development of
events at home persuaded him to change his tactics.[210]
The project of a national council was not pleasing to the Pope, who
cherished the hope of reconvoking the Council of Trent,[211] either
in France, Spain, or Germany.[212] When the cardinal of Lorraine
urged it, the Pope’s rejoinder was that he would not divide Christ’s
garment.[213] The Holy Father was in a quandary, being unable with
safety to grant a free council, or to refuse the general one. He wanted
to regard the prospective council as a _continuation_ of the Council
of Trent, and not as a new council.[214] But there were political
difficulties in the way of so doing, for not all the German princes
were in favor of the decrees of Trent, and the Emperor was bound by
his oath not to attempt execution of the decrees lest the princes of
the Confession of Augsburg become alarmed for fear that the Emperor,
His Catholic Majesty and the Most Christian King had formed a Catholic
concert.[215] The Kings of Spain and France, moreover, although in
favor of the general council, had reservations of their own regarding
the application of the Tridentine decrees.[216]
The matter of the council was of much importance to every ruler in
Europe. France, although resolved to convene the national clergy if
the Pope protracted things, nevertheless urged the latter to hasten to
grant a free and general council, not only by means of the bishop of
Angoulême, the French ambassador in Rome, and the cardinals, but also
through Bochetel, the bishop of Rennes, ambassador to the Emperor, and
Sebastian de l’Aubespine, the bishop of Limoges, ambassador to Philip
II. The Venetian senate, too, was importuned to use its influence. But
the Pope hesitated for a long time, because the secular governments and
himself were divided upon the question as to whether such a council
should be regarded as a continuation of the Council of Trent (as the
Pope wished), or as a council _de novo_. The Pope was fearful of
compromising the papal authority by admitting the French contention
of an authority superior to himself, for this he could never grant,
taking the ground that, whether present or absent, he was always the
head of and superior to all councils. Finally, Pius IV, alarmed by the
resolution of the French government to assemble a national council if
the general council should not be held, both because it would diminish
his authority and because, even though nothing should be resolved on
in opposition to the see of Rome, yet the assembling of a council by
France without its consent would be prejudicial, and might be made a
precedent by other states, came to the conclusion that further delay
was dangerous, and convoked the general council for Easter, 1561, at
Trent, “to extirpate heresy and schism and to correct manners,”[217]
declaring that the canons of the church could permit of no other course.
The resolution of the French government had forced the hand of the
Pontiff, who, however, consoled himself by the thought that either the
national council would not now take place, or that the Guises would
prevail in the States-General, so that the national council could
be silenced, if held.[218] The Pope figured that he would force the
Catholic princes to side with him, lest by hazarding a change of
religion in a national council they would also endanger their kingdoms.
Philip II concurred in this belief. A king so orthodox as he had not
failed to watch the course of the movement in France upon the ground of
religious interests. But the Spanish King had also a political interest
in France. His own Flemish and Dutch provinces were turbulent with
revolt, and Granvella wrote truly when he said that it was a miracle
that with the bad example of France, things were no worse in the Low
Countries.[219] Accordingly, Philip II sent Don Antonio de Toledo
into France to divert the French King from the idea of a national
council.[220] The means of persuasion were readily at hand, for the
French King was already far too compromised with Philip II to refuse
his request. After the arrest of the vidame of Chartres, Francis II, in
a long ciphered letter of August 31, 1560, to his ambassador in Spain,
had besought the Spanish king to be prepared to assist him, in case it
should be necessary.[221] To forefend the proposed national council,
Philip II now offered at his own expense to give the French aid in
suppressing all rebellion and schism.[222]
Warlike preparations accordingly went forward under cover of a proposed
intervention in Scotland,[223] which the uncertainty regarding Condé
and Antoine of Bourbon facilitated, for it was currently believed
that both the king of Navarre and the prince absented themselves from
court on purpose.[224] At the court the rumor prevailed that both
were plotting recourse to arms, so much so that on September 2 the
cardinal Bourbon was sent to them, desiring them in the name of the
King to repair to the court, which, on the next day, was moved from
Fontainebleau to St. Germain.[225] The marshal Brissac was transferred
from the government of Picardy to that of Normandy, and Du Bois, master
of the footmen, was instructed to conduct all the footmen he could levy
with great secrecy into Normandy, while all the men in the ordinary
garrison of Picardy and other frontier points were drawn in toward
Orleans.[226] At the same time the Rhinegrave was notified to come, but
met unexpected opposition.[227]
Parallel with these military preparations new financial measures
were taken. On October 11, 1560, the King demanded 100,000 crowns
(testons—a silver coin valued at ten or eleven sous; the amount was
between $750,000 and $775,000) from the members of the Parlement, the
provost, the chief merchants of Paris,[228] and “certain learned men
of the Sorbonne.”[229] The Parisians murmured because they thought the
military display was meant to intimidate them. In November the crown
imposed 10,000 francs (approximately $7,500) upon Orleans and demanded
100,000 more to pay the troops.[230] Lyons furnished a loan[231] and
money was also secured by confiscations from the Huguenots on the part
of the local authorities in many places.[232]
In the provinces disturbances continued to take place.[233] In Amboise
and Tours the people stormed the prisons and released all those who had
been confined as agitators on account of religion.[234] The valley
of the Loire seems to have been the storm center of these provincial
uprisings, and in the middle of October[235] the king came hastily to
Orleans with three companies of veteran infantry from the garrisons
of Picardy.[236] It was now decided to convene the States-General at
Orleans instead of Meaux.[237] On October 30 the prince of Condé,
who all along had borne himself as if innocent and who came with his
brother to Orleans, was arrested,[238] and the vidame of Chartres, who
had been incarcerated in the Bastille, was sent for from Paris that he
might be examined face to face with Condé.[239] Besides being accused
of implication in the conspiracy of Amboise, he was accused of being
the author of the recent insurrection at Lyons.[240]
A significant change was made in the provincial administration at
this time. The Guises, having observed the dissatisfaction that
prevailed because so many offices, dignities, and commissions had
been distributed among them, in order to fling a sop to the princes
of the blood and their faction, advised the King to create two
new governments in the middle of the kingdom in favor of the duke
of Montpensier and his brother, the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon. In
compliance with this suggestion the government of Touraine, to which
province was added the duchies of Anjou and Vendôme and the counties
of Maine, Blois, and Dunois, was created in favor of the former, and
the government of Orleans, to which was added the duchies of Berry,
the _pays_ Chartrain, the Beauce, Montargis, and adjacent places,
in favor of the latter. But the new office was reduced to a shadowy
power by the revolutionary step of appointing provincial lieutenants
over the governors, who were responsible to the duke of Guise as
lieutenant-general of the realm, in this case the sieur de Sipierre
being lieutenant in the Orléannais and Savigny in Touraine, each of
whom was a servitor of the Guises.[241]
There is little reason to doubt that the Huguenots would have made
a formidable revolt at this early day if they had been certain of
effective leadership. But the cowardice of Antoine of Navarre, the
logical leader of the party, prevented them from so doing. The great
influence he might have exerted as first prince of the blood was in
singular contrast with his weak character.[242] His policy, which he
flattered himself to be a skilful one of temporization, was looked upon
with contempt by the Huguenots, who despised him for weakly suffering
his brother to be so treated and then added to his pusillanimity
by foregoing his governorship of Guyenne, which was given to the
marshal Termes.[243] In vain the Huguenot leaders urged upon him their
supplications and their remonstrances;[244] in vain they laid before
him the details of their organization; that six or seven thousand
footmen throughout Gascony and Poitou were already enrolled under
captains; that between three and four thousand, both foot and horse,
would come from Provence and Languedoc; that from Normandy would come
as many or even more, with a great number of cavalry; that with the aid
of all these he would be able to seize Orleans (thus controlling the
States-General), and Bourges, with Orleans the two most important towns
in central France. They assured him that thousands were merely waiting
for a successful stroke to declare themselves and that money was to be
had in plenty; for every cavalryman and every footman was supplied with
enough money for two months and that much more would be forthcoming,
provided only the king of Navarre would declare himself the protector
of the King and the realm and oppose the tyranny of the Guises.[245]
This was the moment chosen by Catherine de Medici to assert herself.
Hitherto, there had been no room for her between the two parties, each
of which aspired to absolute control of the King. The queen mother had
no mind to see herself reduced to a simple guardian of the persons
of her children, utterly dependent upon the action of the council,
without political authority nor “control of a single denier,”[246]
and perceived that she might now fish to advantage in the troubled
waters; to change the figure, she determined to play each party against
the other[247] in the hope of herself being able to hold the balance
of power between them. This explains her double-dealing after the
conspiracy of Amboise, when she represented to Coligny that she wished
to be instructed in the Huguenot teachings in order, if possible,
that she might be able to discover the “true source and origin of
the troubles,” and conferred with Chaudien, the Protestant pastor in
Paris, and Duplessis, the Huguenot minister at Tours, at the same time
also inquiring into the political claims of the Huguenots, having the
cardinal of Lorraine concealed, like Polonius, behind the arras;[248]
why, too, she used fair words at the conference at Fontainebleau and
simultaneously saw Francis II write to Philip II asking for Spanish aid
in the event of civil war.
The Venetian ambassador said truly that the famous Roman temporizer,
Fabius Cunctator, would have recognized his daughter in this astute
woman of Etruria.[249] For fear of being sent back to Italy or of
staying in France without influence, she aimed to play the two parties
against one another. She did not hesitate to hazard the crown in
order to keep the government in her hands, although, as the Venetian
ambassador said, “to wish to maintain peace by division is to wish to
make white out of black.”[250]
The time was a peculiarly propitious one. With the prince of Condé
out of the way[251] she counted upon the vacillation and hesitancy of
the king of Navarre to keep the Huguenots from overt action, while
the prospect of the coming States-General, which had grown out of the
assembly at Fontainebleau, as the bishop of Valence had predicted,[252]
filled the Guises with dismay, so much so that when the demand for the
summons of that body began to grow, they had endeavored to persuade
the King to ordain that whoever spoke of their convocation should be
declared guilty of _lèse-majesté_.[253] The reason of their alarm is
not far to seek. The demand for the States-General was the voice of
France, speaking through the noblesse and the bourgeoisie. crying
out for a thorough inquiry into the administration of the Guises and
reformation of the governmental system of both state and church; as
such it was a menace to the cardinal and his brother and in alignment
with the demands of the political Huguenots. The costly wars of
Henry II, the extravagance of the court; the burdensome taxation;
the venality of justice; the lawlessness and disorder prevailing
everywhere; the impoverishment of many noble families, and the rise
of new nobles out of the violence of the wars in Picardy and Italy,
more prone to license and less softened by the social graces that
characterized the old families;[254] the dilapidation of ancestral
fortunes and the displacements of wealth; the religious unrest; the
corruption of the church—all these grievances, none of which was
wholly new, were piling up with a cumulative force, whose impending
attack the Guises regarded with great apprehension.[255]
The administration of the cardinal of Lorraine and his ducal brother
had not mended matters, but in justice to them it should be said
that their ministry was quite as much the _occasion_ as the _cause_
of the popular outcry for reform. The evils of the former reign
were reaching a climax which their haughtiness and ambition served
to accentuate.[256] Misappropriation of public moneys, exorbitant
taxation, denial of justice, spoliation of the crown lands, especially
the forests, the dilapidation of church property, and the corruption
of manners, were undoubtedly the deepest popular grievances. In the
demand for redress of these grievances all honest men were united. In
1560 the cry of the Huguenots for freedom of worship was the voice of
a minority of them only. Most Huguenots at this time were political
and not religious Huguenots, who simply used the demand of the new
religionists as a vehicle of expression; this sentiment also for local
risings to rescue arrested Calvinists, the participants in many cases
being actuated more by the desire to make a demonstration against the
government than by sympathy with the Calvinist doctrines.[257]
The debts of the crown at the accession of Francis II aggregated
forty-three millions of livres,[258] upon which interest had to be
paid, without including pensions and salaries due to officers and
servants of the royal household, and the gendarmerie, which were from
two to five years in arrears,[259] a sum so great that if the entire
revenue of the crown for a decade could have been devoted to its
discharge, it would not have been possible to liquidate it. The result
was the provinces abounded with poor men driven to live by violence and
crime, while even the nobility, because of their reduced incomes, and
the soldiery on account of arrears of wages, were driven to plunder the
people.[260] Even members of the judiciary and the clergy had recourse
to illicit practices.[261] The regular provincial administration was
powerless to suppress evils so prevalent, whose roots were found in
the condition of society. It was in vain that the crown announced that
it was illegal to have recourse to arms for redress of injuries and
commanded the governors in the provinces, the bailiffs, seneschals,
and other similar officers to stay within their jurisdictions and
vigilantly to sustain the provost-marshals in suppressing sedition or
illegal assemblies. Some men thought the remedy lay in more drastic
penalties and advocated the abolishment of appeal in criminal causes,
as in Italy and Flanders.[262] But history in many epochs shows that
the social maladies of a complex society cannot be so cured. Obviously
the true remedy lay in searching out the causes of the trouble and
destroying them, and this was the intent of the demand for the
States-General.
The summons of the States-General of Orleans and the further act of
the government in announcing that it would summon a national council
of the French clergy to meet in Paris on January 10, 1561, unless
the Council General was called in the meantime, were equivalent to
promises that reform would be undertaken in both state and church.
The double announcement was the simultaneous recognition of one
necessity—reformation.