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,