THE COLLOQUY OF POISSY. THE ESTATES OF PONTOISE. THE EDICT OF JANUARY,
1562
In the summer of 1561, France saw two separate assemblies convene: the
adjourned session of the States-General at Pontoise and the conference
of the leaders of the two religions at Poissy. In a sense the cause
of the political Huguenots was represented in the former, that of the
religious Huguenots in the latter, although the deliberations of the
two assemblies were finally combined in an instrument known as the
Act of Poissy. The elections in the provinces, each of which sent
up two[390] representatives from each bailiwick of the kingdom, had
enabled the opposition to go on record,[391] so that the crown had
early intimation of the sort of legislation that was likely to be
demanded. The business of the estates was to find a way out of the
financial difficulties which overwhelmed the King.[392]
The spokesman of the third estate, one Jean Bretaigne, mayor of Autun,
after a tedious prologue copiously laden with biblical and classic
lore, at last came to the pith of things: he summed up in a paragraph
of portentous dimensions the burden imposed upon the people by war and
the extravagance of the court during the past twenty years, declaring
that the people were so penniless that they had nothing to give the
King, “save a good and loyal will.” Things had come to such a pass
that mere economy and retrenchment, nor even an honest and effective
administration, although that was demanded and was promised by the
King, could save the future.[393] The immense resources of the clergy
must be made to restore the dilapidated finances of the monarchy;
the church must come to the material rescue of the state, as in the
days of Charles Martel. The entire revenue he argued, must be taken
of all offices, benefices, and ecclesiastical dignities not actually
officiated either in person or in a titular capacity, the Knights of
Rhodes and the Hospitalers of St. James included; all the fruits,
also, of benefices in litigation which the collators were accustomed
to take during the time of litigation should be appropriated by the
state, as well as the moneys of deceased bishops and monks. Moreover,
one-quarter of the income should be taken of all beneficiaries actually
resident in their benefices, in cases where the revenue was from 500
to 1,000 livres; of those having a revenue of 1,000 to 3,000 livres,
one-third; of those with incomes running from 3,000 to 6,000 livres,
one-half; of those ranging from 6,000 to 12,000 livres, two-thirds.
Those of the clergy whose incomes exceeded 12,000 livres and above were
to be permitted to retain 4,000 livres, the surplus being applied to
liquidate the King’s debts, save in cases where the beneficiaries were
bishops, archbishops, primates, and cardinals, to whom 6,000 livres
revenue was to be allowed. As to the monastic orders, their whole
treasury and revenues were to be appropriated, save enough for their
support, for the maintenance of their buildings, and for charity. And
this was not all: all houses, gardens, and real property within either
cities or faubourgs not actually employed for ecclesiastical uses, were
to be confiscated by the government; the clergy were to be made to pay
taxes upon the rich furniture and works of art or adornment given them
to enjoy either for a length of years or in perpetuity. Finally, all
lands providing revenues, either in money or in kind, as oil, wine, and
grain, in case of being let to contract or change of control, were to
be declared redeemable. If these measures should prove insufficient,
then recourse must be had to more drastic means, namely the direct
sale of the property of the church. Twenty-six million livres’ worth
of this could be readily sold, the speaker argued, which would be no
more than one-third of the church’s possession; the remainder should
be administered by a trustworthy commission, which, after paying the
stipends of the clergy in the amounts above indicated, should devote
the balance to the payment of the debts of the crown.[394]
This formidable programme, which suggests the policy actually followed
by France in 1789, in spite of the hot declaration of the constable
that the speaker presenting it ought to be hanged,[395] proved so
reasonable that the government, without going to the extreme proposed,
saw that the moment was a favorable one to secure important aid from
the clergy. The clergy, on the other hand, were sharp enough to
see that in order to save their property, they would have to make
sacrifice of a portion of it. At first they offered the crown a bonus
of ten million livres, which it refused as being too small a sum, and
demanded a greater subsidy.[396] A temporary settlement at last was
made on the basis of 1,600,000 livres annual revenue to be levied upon
the vineyards of the clergy, in order to relieve the King’s present
needs.[397] But something more fundamental than this had to be done,
for these measures only supplied the King with funds for current
expenses, and did not admit of redemption of the debt or resumption of
the crown lands, which had been mortgaged for about thirty millions of
francs. This matter was the subject of investigation and debate through
the ensuing November and December. Finally, a scheme was worked out
whereby the royal domain was all to be redeemed by the clergy within
six years, and the remainder of the debt to be discharged within
another six.[398]
The contract of Poissy-Pontoise presents two important stipulations:
one, a gift of money to the King; second, the repurchase by the clergy
of the domains of the crown and the redemption of the debt. If this
contract had been observed, it would have rendered the other assemblies
of the clergy useless, but the failure to execute it made necessary the
subsequent assemblies of 1563 and 1567, which established a rule of
periodicity, as it were, and fixed the next session at 1573. By 1567,
the clergy had fulfilled its first obligation and declared itself ready
to resume the second by giving to the provost of the merchants and
to the _échevins_ of Paris the guarantees desired for the redemption
of the _rentes_. But the King at the same time insisted upon the
continuation of the subsidy of 1,600,000 livres. The clergy protested,
demanding his adherence to the contract of Poissy. The crown enforced
continuation, but as “an easement” waived claim to the “secular tithe”
heretofore exacted, and granted to the clergy, for the first time, the
right to collect taxes by its own agents, and the right to judge in a
sovereign capacity all cases which might arise from these financial
matters. The government observed this convention no better than the
first, and in addition to extraordinary subventions—two million livres
in 1572, nearly half of which was squandered by the duke of Anjou in
Poland—resorted to compulsory alienations of church property, as in
1563, 1568, 1574, which were made upon order of the King, without
recourse to papal affirmation. Purchasers were not wanting for the
new credit. The rate of interest fell to 5 per cent. in the autumn of
1561 as a result of these expedients, and, provided civil war could
be averted, it seemed probable that the dilapidated finances might be
rehabilitated.[399]
Simultaneous with the sitting of the estates at Pontoise to settle
the financial issue, the religious issue was being debated by the
doctrinal leaders of Catholicism and Calvinism, at Poissy.[400] This
solemn assembly had been summoned in June to meet on the second of
the following month,[401] in spite of the opposition of the clergy
and Spain, who warned Catherine that such a concession would lead to
disaster.[402] But delay ensued, and the assembly did not actually
convene until September, for the members were slow in coming.[403] The
conditions governing the meeting at Poissy were published in council
on August 8, namely, that the clergy should not be umpires; that the
princes of the blood should preside at the disputation, and that the
different proceedings should be faithfully recorded by trustworthy
persons.[404] With respect to the other matters the Calvinists were
required to make some concessions in order to avoid the reproach of
seeming to evade the colloquy. While awaiting the formal opening of the
conference at Poissy, Beza was invited by the court to speak before the
King, the queen mother, the king of Navarre, and the Council. He was
listened to with great attention by all until he began to deny the Real
Presence, when the Catholic party tried to stop his address, exclaiming
that it was blasphemy, and Beza and his partisans would certainly have
been ejected if their opponents had not been restrained by the royal
authority and compelled to listen to the end. At its conclusion the
cardinal Tournon exhorted the King to continue firm in the faith of his
ancestors,[405] and not to permit France to be reduced to the Swiss
cantonal system.[406]
Many of the clergy said that it was not pertinent for the colloquy to
determine these points, but that it was for the General Council to
decide; moreover, it was argued that as the delegates of the Spanish
clergy would shortly be coming through France on their way to Trent,
why should not they assist as well as the others?[407] Catherine, it
is said, had intended that there should be no disputation about dogma.
But there is some reason to believe that she confounded dogma with the
rites and observances of the church,[408] and it is certain that the
Huguenots were determined to push their privilege of free speech to
the very limit. Indeed, the conditions predicated by Beza formed the
substance of a petition presented by the Reformed leaders to Charles
IX.[409]
When the conference met a great attempt to maintain secrecy was made.
No one was permitted to enter except those who had been formally
appointed;[410] the duke of Guise carried the keys to the conference
hall, and careful search was made at the beginning of each sitting to
find any who might be hid.[411]
The principal points in dispute turned upon the use of images; the
administration of the sacrament of baptism; the communion; the mass;
the laying-on of hands and the vocation of ministers, and finally the
consideration of a possible accord in doctrine, in which points the
usages of the primitive church and the reasons of separation were
involved.[412]
[Illustration: THE COLLOQUY OF POISSY
(Tortorel and Perissin)]
On the second day of the conference (September 16) the cardinal of
Lorraine spoke, dwelling upon these principal points: first, that the
King, being a member of the church and not its head, could not set
himself up as a judge in matters of religion and faith, but was subject
to the church like every other Christian; second, the definition of the
authority of the church was extended even over princes.[413]
Before long, however, it became evident, both that the attempt to
reconcile the Catholic and the Calvinist parties was an impossibility,
and that the government’s policy of accommodation was exciting
discontent.[414] The demands of the Huguenots, based on Beza’s
arguments, were as follows:
1. That bishops, abbots, and other ecclesiastics should not be
constituted in any way judges of the Huguenots, in view of the fact
that they were their opponents.
2. That all points of difference be judged and decided according to
the simple word of God, as contained in the New and Old Testaments,
since the Reformed faith was founded on this alone, and that where any
difficulties arose concerning the interpretation of words, reference
should be made to the original Hebrew and Greek text.[415]
This second article was a rock of contention from the very beginning.
The whole Catholic doctrine of tradition having equal weight with
Scripture was denied in this article. It was manifest, indeed, from the
first that three things would _not_ be suffered to be considered: (1)
a change of religion; (2) the authority of the Pope; (3) the possible
alienation of church property.[416] This state of things, together
with the fact that the prolongation of the session entailed great
expense,[417] brought about a change of plan. Five persons, the bishop
of Valence, the archbishop of Sens, and MM. Salignac, d’Espence, and
Boutellier, were appointed by the queen and agreed to by the clergy,
to confer with five representatives of the Calvinists, viz., Peter
Martyr,[418] Beza, De Gallars, Marborat, and D’Espine.[419] Within ten
days more the prelates and ministers had ceased to confer and were
taking their departure.[420] The assembly of Poissy dissolved of itself
on October 18, having accomplished nothing,[421] except doctrinally
still further to disunite the Protestant world, which otherwise might
possibly have had a council of its own, composed of French, Scotch,
English, Germans, Danes, Swiss and Swedes, to face the Council of
Trent.[422]
Two days later the cardinal and the duke of Guise departed from the
court, in spite of the urgency of the queen mother to have them remain,
accompanied by the dukes of Nemours and Longueville and other great
personages and mustering six or seven hundred horse. Outwardly there
was no sign of disaffection. Immediately afterward the constable also
left, expressing dissatisfaction with the tolerant policy of the
government. It was plain throughout the proceedings at Pontoise (and
at Poissy) that the chancellor of France, L’Hôpital, and the admiral,
had the chief direction of affairs in their hands, although the queen
mother and the king of Navarre had the greater show of authority.[423]
The Vatican had been an anxious observer of affairs in France, and
early in June, 1561, the Pope had resolved to send the cardinal of
Ferrara, Hippolyte d’Este, to France as legate.[424] The principal
points of his mission to the French court, where he arrived on
September 14, were to entreat the French crown that the annates might
still remain as the Pope’s revenue; that there might be no change of
religion and observance in the church; to solicit the King to recognize
the Council of Trent and to break off the colloquy at Poissy.[425]
But when the legate presented his credentials, at the instance of the
chancellor, who impugned his powers, the estates protested against
the entry of any of the Pope’s bulls or letters without the King’s
consent and seal.[426] The Parlement of Paris went even farther, and
refused to confirm the King’s letters-patent. But the King’s council
overrode this resolution, and recognized the legate’s credentials,
although L’Hôpital steadfastly refused to affix the seal of state to
the council’s action.
The cardinal began his negotiations by offering on the part of the
Pope to resign the tenths and subsidies exacted by the church, and
promising all the help His Holiness could give with honor, on condition
that the resolution of the estates of Orleans, prohibiting payment
of the annates, which the estates of Pontoise had reasserted, should
not be executed. The nuncio argued that this action was a violation
of the concordat of 1516, and that the principle in the case had been
decided by the council of Basel, and accepted by Charles VII in the
Pragmatic Sanction. Accordingly, the nuncio asked for a revocation
of the actions taken touching the property of the church, and that
things be restored to the state in which they originally were.[427]
But the cardinal’s arguments were of no effect. The execution of the
new law went forward. The first province where it was applied was
Guyenne—within the government of the king of Navarre, then Touraine,
and the Orleannais.[428]
An even more interested observer, perhaps, of French affairs than
the Pope, was Philip of Spain. The progress of heresy in France, the
seizure of the property of the church there, the attitude of the
French crown toward the Council of Trent, the uncertainty of Antoine
of Bourbon’s conduct—these were all disquieting facts to the Spanish
ruler. Philip curtly told Catherine and her son that her government
must abandon its policy of weakness and dissimulation, that too many
souls were being imperiled by her course, and that coercive measures
must be used.[429] The duke of Alva had the boldness to declare that
unless the government of France revived the rigorous suppressive
measures of Henry II, and punished every heretic, His Catholic Majesty
was resolved to sacrifice the welfare of Spain and even his own life
in order to stamp out a pest which he regarded as menacing to both
France and Spain.[430] Singly and together the bishop of the Limoges
(who was still at the Spanish court) and D’Ozances, while deploring
the malice of the times and “the disasters of which everyone knew,”
tried to justify their government on the ground that Calvinism had
become a necessary evil in France and that it was better to give it
qualified toleration than to plunge the country into fire and war.
They pointed to the deliberations of the assembly of Fontainebleau, to
the States-General of Orleans, to the _arrêts_ of the Parlement, and
the findings of Pontoise and Poissy in proof; they asserted that the
queen mother and the king of Navarre—they were cautious not to style
him thus in Philip’s presence, however—were “of perfect and sincere
intention” not to let heresy increase in France; “the scandal and
outrage” of heretical preaching never would be permitted in Paris or
at the court, although it was necessary to permit the Protestants to
have their own worship outside of some of the towns; that the purpose
of the crown was fixed never to change or alter the true religion; that
France was not hostile to the Council of Trent, but in her distress was
naturally impatient; and finally they importuned the king of Spain not
to show his anger, but to give “advice and comfort” for the sake of the
friendship which existed between their country and his, and for the
repose of Christendom.[431]
The appeal fell upon deaf ears. Philip coldly replied that it was
useless for France to expect the advice or assistance of Spain so long
as her government tolerated heresy in any degree whatsoever; that those
at the court who were Huguenots, like the admiral and the prince of
Condé, should be sent away forthwith, and all others should be coerced;
that from the point of view of religion it was blasphemy to permit the
Huguenots to have any places of worship, and from the political point
of view it was suicide to tolerate them, for “there could never be new
things in religion without loss of obedience to the temporal power,” in
proof of which the King pointed out that in certain of the provinces
of France the people were refusing to pay tithes and taxes, at the
same time triumphantly asserting that he was better informed of things
happening in France than in Spain; that as to the Council of Trent, the
Germans would have nothing to do with it and Spain had no need of it,
while France was torn by heretical controversy, so that it might well
be said that the council sat for the benefit of France alone.[432]
One of the points upon which Philip II dwelt with earnestness in the
interviews he granted the two ambassadors of France was the vicious
education under which Charles IX’s brother Henry, duke of Orleans, was
being brought up. He emphatically condemned the Huguenot environment
of the young prince. It did not seem a coincidence therefore, when a
plot was discovered in November to seize the duke of Orleans—afterward
Henry III—who was to have been made _capo di parti_ by the Catholics.
It was even said the conspirators aimed also to remove the king and
queen of Navarre, Condé, and the admiral, by poison. The duke of
Nemours was charged with being the principal author of it, and was
to have carried the young duke off to Lorraine or Savoy.[433] This
supposition was given greater probability when the whole company of
the Guises suddenly left the court and departed for Lorraine. But
Catherine was not yet intimidated, though she prudently dropped the
investigation which she had set on foot when she discovered clues
that led to the Escurial and the Vatican.[434] In spite of the omens,
she still adhered to a middle course. The government resolved to send
twenty-five bishops and two archbishops to Trent, although they went
“very unwillingly.”[435] At the same time permission was granted to
the ministers of the Reformed churches to preach in private houses
or in gardens environed with houses (the erection of churches being
prohibited), if it was done without tumult.[436] At court the ministers
of the Reformed churches preached one day, when the queen of Navarre,
the prince of Condé, and the admiral would be present. The next
day either some Cordelier, Jesuit, Jacobin, Minim, or other of the
cloistered sects, preached, on which occasion, the King, the queen
mother, the king of Navarre, the cardinal of Ferrara, accompanied
by those who leaned toward the see of Rome, would be present. But
moderation was exacted of both sects. On one occasion a famous preacher
of the Minims, who had won some credit with the Catholics for his
railings, was in the night secretly taken from his lodgings and carried
to the court to answer for his rabid utterances.[437]
But it was increasingly manifest that events, both within and without
France, were passing beyond the grasp of the government. The Huguenots,
sometimes from fear no doubt, but not infrequently for effrontery, went
to their services with pistols and matchlocks, in spite of the laws
against the bearing of arms; and they even were bold enough to march
through the streets singing their psalms, to the anger and scandal of
Catholic Christians.[438] An outbreak was imminent at any time.
In Paris, on October 12, the Protestants assembled together to the
number of 7,000 or 8,000 to hear one of their ministers preach, half a
mile from the town. The Catholics thereupon shut the gates to prevent
their re-entry. Finding the gates closed, the Protestants forced them,
and many were wounded and some slain on both sides.[439] From the
provinces word had come in July that the duke of Montpensier, going to
his house in Touraine for the burial of his mother, and finding numbers
in many towns who made open profession of Calvinism, by virtue of his
governorship of that country, imprisoned about one hundred and forty
in Chinon. Whereupon the people, not forgetting his conduct toward
them in the previous reign, when he razed the houses of several who
were reported to him to be Huguenots, assembled in great numbers—about
12,000 or 15,000, we are told—surely a great exaggeration, and marched
so fast upon him that he was besieged in his house and forced to
release all the prisoners in order to appease the multitude.[440]
The organized nature of the Huguenot agitations in various localities,
especially in southern France, did not escape the keen observation of
Philip’s ambassador.[441] At Montpellier in Languedoc the Protestant
organizations, by September, had taken the form of a definite league,
with the sweeping motto: “No mass, no more than at Geneva,” whose
operations were so thorough that many Catholics were on the point of
emigrating to Catalonia.[442]
Quite as formidable as armed and insurrectionary religion at home was
the drift of the negotiations of both parties abroad. The formation
of the Triumvirate had been taken as a sign by both parties that the
issue between them was, as in Germany before the Smalkald war, likely
soon to pass from religious difference and political rivalry into
military combat; and both sides accordingly prepared against this
fatal day. Naturally, the Protestant German princes who had followed
the proceedings at Poissy with intense interest[443] were the ones
looked to for assistance by the Huguenots. In May, 1561, the prince
of Condé had sent Hotman to the chief German princes, begging them
not to desert the cause of the true religion in France and saying
that Philip II was endeavoring to terrify the queen from making any
concessions to the Huguenots.[444] The fact that some of these, as
the count palatine of the Rhine, and the landgrave of Thuringia were
Calvinists, while others were Lutherans, was not an insuperable barrier
to co-operation, although the Lutherans wished that the confession
of Augsburg might first be recognized in France. But the prevailing
opinion was that the adherents of both of the Protestant faiths should
first unite in endeavoring to secure freedom of worship and liberty
of conscience in France, and then they might proceed to establish
uniformity of religion, if possible.[445] Two propositions were made to
the German princes. The first was that if the Guises, or any of their
confederates, tried to enlist soldiers in Germany, measures should
be taken to stop the effort; secondly, that if the Guises or their
accomplices resorted to the use of arms against Condé and Coligny and
were supported by Spain, then assistance should be given them. Some of
the German princes agreed at once to this latter proposition, provided
the expenses of such military support were defrayed by the Huguenots;
but others thought that the matter could only be settled in a general
assembly of the princes. The circle of Huguenot negotiations at this
moment was a wide one and their prospects were bright. For at this
time Denmark, too, was suing for French favor. Among the ambassadors
who came to offer the condolences of their sovereigns for the death of
Francis II and to congratulate young Charles, had come an envoy of the
Danish king proposing the marriage of his sister to a French prince
and himself to marry Mary Stuart. This proposed Franco-Danish alliance
could have produced no other effect than to facilitate the Protestant
cause in France.[446] On the other hand, the prospect of Swiss support
of the Catholic cause in France was not good. Aside from the great
expense this alliance had always entailed, the number of the Catholic
cantons had been diminished by the secession of Glaris, which had
lately gone over to Protestantism, in consequence of which the rest,
seeing themselves weakened, had asked aid from the duke of Savoy and
the Pope.[447]
The Catholics adroitly emphasized the difference between the two
Protestant faiths, with the hope not only of preventing Lutheran
support of the Huguenots, but even of securing their aid against the
French Calvinists. The duke of Guise went in person to confer with
the duke of Württemberg at Saverne (February 15, 1562),[448] while
Philip II redoubled his efforts to alienate the king of Navarre.[449]
The support of the Spanish monarch was the vital factor in French
politics. The French Calvinists had no single _most powerful ally_ to
support them, such as the Catholic party enjoyed in the assistance of
Spain. England was the only Protestant power capable of being a rival
to Spain, and England was too cautious or too much occupied with home
politics to risk embroilment abroad.
Both Rome and Spain at this moment took a resolute attitude. Shortly
after the conference of Poissy came to an end, a consistory of the
curia, on October 10, 1561, had resolved to resist the Protestants in
France.[450] The counter-reformation programme deliberated at Trent
recognized Philip II as the secular head of the movement (“à ceste
fin d’un commun consentement le tout chef et conducteur de toute
l’enterprise”) who was to wheedle or compel the king of Navarre to
commit himself in favor of the Catholic cause in France, of which the
duke of Guise was to be formally recognized as leader. The Spanish
monarch was also to bring pressure to bear upon the Emperor to compel
the Catholic princes of Germany to prevent the Lutherans and Rhenish
Calvinists from supporting the Protestants of France. France must be
saved from self-ruin for the sake both of religion and the preservation
of other Catholic nations. Time and circumstances would show the hour
of such intervention, but everything must be prepared in advance.[451]
Aside from his inflexible religious convictions, in Philip’s eyes,
policy also pointed toward Spanish intervention in France. Spain,
Spanish Burgundy, and Flanders were, as Montluc of Valence declared,
“les trois plus belles fleurs de chapeau du roy Philippe;” each of them
bordered France, and France lay between Spain and them, splitting the
Spanish empire like a wedge. Under these circumstances the prevention
of heresy in France was not merely an act of religious duty but an act
dictated by political expediency. Moreover, Spain might territorially
profit by such a policy. The son of Charles V dreamed of acquiring
ducal Burgundy, which his father had failed to secure; the Three
Bishoprics might be wrested away from Charles IX, either violently or
as the price of Spanish aid, and joined to Franche Comté they would
materially strengthen Spain’s midcontinental road from Lombardy to the
mouths of the Rhine.[452]
Fear of Spain and of the Guises gave Catherine de Medici more anxiety
than the insurrections of the Huguenots.[453] The government was
justly apprehensive of Philip II’s movements and warned Joyeuse to be
on his guard against any effort to throw Spanish troops across the
frontier.[454] Reinforcements were sent to Calais.[455] At the same
time more captains and companies were sent to Metz, where Vieilleville,
the governor, was ordered not to admit anyone known to be a Guisard
into the city, as the Guises were suspected of wishing to hand it over
to Philip.[456] Precautionary changes were also made in the military
posts, in the case of those known to be well-affected to the Guises,
the changes all being in favor of the Huguenot party.[457] De Gourdan
was removed from Calais and the command given to the sieur de Grammont,
who had married a sister of the vidame de Chartres; the prince de la
Roche-sur-Yon was made king’s lieutenant in Paris; the admiral made
governor of Normandy in place of the duke of Bouillon; Condé was sent
to Picardy, where the marshal Brissac had lately resigned on account of
illness.[458]
“Here is new fire, new green wood reeking, new smoke and much contrary
wind blowing,” wrote Shakerley to Elizabeth’s ambassador, Throckmorton,
on December 15, 1561.[459] The words were wisely as well as quaintly
used. From the capital to every edge of France unrest, suspicion,
conspiracy, insurrection prevailed. The Catholic orders began to
fortify the abbeys. Every day Catherine’s determination to maintain an
even balance of the two religions was producing greater tension and
more heat. Violence was ominously on the increase.[460] Robbery was
common under pretense of searching for heretics.[461] In the hope of
bettering things, the crown relieved the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon of
the lieutenancy and committed it to the marshal Montmorency, from whose
religious moderation and popularity much was expected.[462] The capital
of France at this season presented a strange and terrible appearance.
Armed bands roamed the streets. The city more resembled a frontier
city in a state of siege than a mercantile or university town. The
students of the Sorbonne paraded the streets and went armed to mass,
the authorities being powerless to control them.[463]
The condition in the provinces was as bad; only here the odds seem to
have been in favor of the Protestants. In Guyenne a Huguenot mob sacked
a town, committed many outrages, and finally besieged the governor,
Burie, in his house.[464] A worse occurrence was the murder of Fumel,
an eminent lawyer in Languedoc, as an “enemy of the religion.”[465]
There were riots in Troyes, Orleans, Auxerre, Rouen, Meaux, Vendôme,
Bourges, Lyons, Tours, Angers,[466] Bazas.[467] The Huguenots of Sens
erected a church outside the town. Then finding that they outnumbered
the Catholics they pillaged the treasury of the cathedral and robbed
the monasteries.[468]
Still the queen mother persevered, taking her counsel from the
chancellor L’Hôpital, the admiral Coligny, the prince of Condé, and
his brother, D’Andelot, and adhered to her resolution to permit
the Huguenots to enjoy freedom of worship. On January 3, 1562, the
chancellor made an earnest plea for religious toleration before the
Court of Parlement,[469] which was followed by the most decisive
action the government had yet taken, namely the issuance of the famous
edict of toleration of January 17, known as the Edict of January,
which was the first that granted exercise of the Reformed religion _in
public_.[470]
This edict was expressly declared to be _provisional_ in its nature,
pending the decisions of the Council of Trent, which, by a coincidence,
was opened on the day following, January 18, 1562, the first formal
session being set for the second Thursday in Lent.[471] The preamble
recited that the government’s action was taken in consideration of
the state of affairs prevailing in the kingdom; that it was not to be
construed as approving the new religion; and that it was to remain
in force no longer than the King should order; it deprecated the
“disobedience, obstinacy, and evil intentions of the people” which made
even provisional recognition of Calvinism necessary. Specifically, the
edict provided for the restoration by the Huguenots of all property
unlawfully possessed by them; it forbade them to _erect_ any churches,
either within or without the cities and towns (Art. 1) or to assemble
for worship within the walls thereof either by day or night, or under
arms (Arts. 2, 5). Protestant worship was required to be in the
daytime, outside the town gates, in the open, or, if under cover, in
buildings occasionally used, and not formally consecrated as churches.
For this reason the Reformed ministers preached, some in the fields,
others in gardens, old houses, and barns, according to their particular
inclinations or convenience. For they were expressly forbidden to build
any chapels, or meddle with the churches, upon any account. Access
to their meetings was always to be permitted to the King’s officers,
i.e., bailiffs, seneschals, provosts, or their lieutenants, but _not_
to officers of judicature (Arts. 3, 6; and supplementary declaration
of interpretation, February 14, 1562). Furthermore, the raising of
money among the Huguenots was to be wholly voluntary and not in the
form of assessment or imposition. They were to keep the political
laws of the Roman church, as to holidays and marriage, in order to
avoid litigation and confusion of property rights; and to refrain from
harboring any person who might be accused, prosecuted, or condemned
by the government, under penalty of a fine of 1,000 crowns, to be
devoted to charity, together with whipping and banishment (Arts. 8,
9, 12). The use of reproachful or vituperative language touching the
faith or practice of the Catholic church was made a misdemeanor (Art.
10). Finally, all Protestant synods or consistories were required to
be held by permission of or in presence of the lieutenant-general of
the province concerned, or his representative, and the statutes of the
churches were to be communicated to him (Art. 7, and supplementary
declaration and interpretation of February 14, 1562).
In order to prevent seditions, an edict was sent to the judges of the
towns, in the name of the King, by which the authorities were ordered
to disarm all Catholics in their towns of every species of weapon and
to make them deposit their arms in the local city hall or other common
point, where they were to be kept under the guard of the _procureur_
and the _échevins_.[472]
It is a question worthy of consideration, whether the preachings
of the Reformed might not have been peaceably maintained after the
Edict of January, the provisional form gradually being modified until
complete religious toleration would have been secured, if Spain had not
continued to tamper with French politics, and if the persistence of the
political Huguenots had not continued to push things to such a point
that at last the two causes, originally separate, became the obverse
and reverse sides of the same issue and had to stand or fall together.
On the other hand, had not these concessions of the crown been too long
delayed? Was the edict “dead from birth,” as Pasquier wrote?[473]