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.”