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,