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.”

[376] Apparently the Sardinians were prepared to say something for themselves in the matter. For St. Sulpice, the French ambassador in Spain, who succeeded L’Aubespine, on October 8, 1562, writes to Antoine to this effect: “On lui a rapporté ‘comme les galères d’Espagne, venant d’Italie à Barcelone, et passant près de la Saidaigne, les habitans du pays, s’étaient mis en armes avec contenance de vouloir défendre l’abordée de leurs portes ausd. galères, de quoi s’étant depuis venus justifier par deça; ils avaient remontré qu’ils avaient entendu que ce roi les voulait bailler à un autre prince et qu’ils craignaient que lesd. galères y vinssent pour les contraindre de la recevoir à sgr., ce qu’ils ne voulaient permettre, le suppléant de ne les aliéner de sa courrone,’” etc.—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 83. His correspondence abounds with allusions to Sardinia, e. g., 17, 25, 35, 37, 79, 83, 84, 90, etc.

[377] In the presence of the king of Navarre, the constable, the dukes of Guise, Nevers, Montpensier, and Aumale, and of spiritual lords, the cardinal of Lorraine, who was archbishop of Rheims, and the bishops of Laon, Langres, Châlons, Noyon, and Beauvais, the last being the cardinal Châtillon, the only prominent Huguenot, who attended the coronation. The prince of Condé, the admiral, the duke de Longueville, the marshal Montmorency, and his brother Damville, were not present, because they would not assist at mass (“M. Damville is the constable’s best-beloved son, a Knight of the Order, one of the paragons of the court and a favourer of the reformed faith.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 395, §3, August 11, 1561). For a detailed account of the particulars and party issues manifested at the ceremony see De Crue, 309, 310, Catherine de Medici apparently took her time to advise Philip II of the coronation, for her letter (without date) was not received by the King until June 17, K. 1,494, No. 44.

[378] This mightily offended the Triumvirate, and the duke of Guise, the constable, and the marshal St. André forthwith left the court in high dudgeon.

Rochambeau, _Lettres d’Antoine de Bourbon et de Jeanne d’Albret_, Inventaire Sommaire, No. CXLIII, 27 juin 1561—“Attestation de Catherine de Médicis et Antoine de Bourbon, pour affirmer que la retraite du duc du Guyse, de conestable de Montmorency, et du mareschal de St. André n’est due qu’au seul respect et affection qu’ils portent au service du roi et au repos de ses sujets.”—Bib. Nat., F. Fr., 3,194, fol. 5.

[379] “Procès-verbal de la reconcilation entre le prince de Condé et le duc de Guise en presence du roi Charles IX,” in K. 1,494, No. 92; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 460; _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 449, August 24, 1561, 461, August 30, 1561; La Place, 139, 140.

[380] “Requeste présenté au roi par les Deputez des Eglises esparses parmi le royaume de France.” A printed copy is to be found in K. 1,495, No. 42. It is a really eloquent petition.

[381] Castelnau, Book III, chap, iii; _C. S. P. For._, No. 304, §3, July 13, 1561.

[382] Suriano definitely says the edict of July was the work of the chancellor. He gives a summary of the edict in a despatch of July 27, 1561 (Huguenot Society).

[383] Cf. _C. S. P. For._, 1561, No. 237; _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), June 25, 1561.

[384] Chantonnay to Philip II, July 24, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 52; _C. S. P. For._, No. 321, §2, Paris, July 16, 1561.

[385] Isambert, _Anc. lois franç._, XIV, 109 (Edit sur la religion, sur le moyen de tenir le peuple en paix, et sur la répression des séditieux).

[386] Suriano, August 25; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 453-58; Castelnau, Book III; _C. S. P. For._, No. 357; Beza, _Hist. ecclés._, I, 294 (ed. 1841); La Place, 130; D’Aubigné, I, 309.

[387] Castelnau, Book III, chap. iii; he admirably depicts the divided state of mind of the Parlement which resulted in the edict taking this neutral form. Suriano pithily observes: “Con questi dispareri le cose del Regno patiscono assai, et non si può far niuna deliberatione d’importanza che sia ferma et rissoluta, et di quà hanno havuto origine tanti editti nel fatto di Religione che sono stati publicati li mesi passati, li quali non solamente sono ambigui, ma diversi l’uno dall’altro et spesse volte contrarii, donde li heretici hanno preso tanto fomento che sono fatti più indurati et più ostinati che mai” (June 26, 1561).

Charles IX sent the Sieur d’Ozances to Spain to soften Philip’s anger as much as possible. In a letter of July 18, from St. Germain to his ambassador in Spain, after stating the motives which have led him to dispatch D’Ozances, he adds: “Au demeurant, je ne doubte point qu’on sème de beaulx bruictz par delà, touchant le faict de la Religion, et qu’on ne nous face beaucoup plus malades que nous ne sommes; et, pour ceste occasion il m’a semblé qu’il serait fort à propos que le Sr. d’Auzances feist entendre au Roy, mon bon frère, les termes en quoy nous en sommes.” Then follow details upon the edict of pacification. This letter was sold at auction in 1877. It is catalogued in the _Inventaire des autographes et des documents historiques composant la collection de M. Benjamin Fillon_, Paris, Charavay, 1877 (Series I, 34, No. 132—“Lettre de Charles IX contre-sig. Robertet, à l’évêque de limoges, ambassadeur en espagne; St. Germain, 18 juillet, 1561”).

[388] Claude Haton, I, 122.

[389] _Ibid._, I, 129. In consequence of this state of things we find numerous ordinances passed in the summer of 1561 in restraint of violence; cf. “Edit sur la religion, sur le moyen de tenir le peuple en paix et sur la répression des séditieux, July 1561,” Isambert, XIV, 109; “Edit pour remedier aux troubles, et sur la répression des séditieux,” October 20, 1561, _ibid._, XIV, 122; “Edit sur le port d’armes à feu, la vente de ces armes et les formalités à suivre par les fabricants,” October 21, 1561, _ibid._, XIV, 123.

[390] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 237, February 17, 1561, says: “_one_ representative with absolute authority to treat and conclude what might be approved by the majority of votes.” But La Place, III, 121, says two representatives were chosen from each bailiwick. Cf. De Crue, _Anne de Montmorency_, 300.

[391] The estates of the Ile-de-France demanded that the council and government of the King should be formed according to the ancient constitution of the realm; that the accounts of the previous administration should be examined; that the queen mother should be removed from the government and be content with being guardian of the King’s person; that no stranger be admitted to be of the council; that no cardinal, bishop, or other ecclesiastical person having made suit to the Pope, should have any place in the Privy Council, not even the cardinal Bourbon, though he was a prince of the blood, unless he resigned his hat; that the king of Navarre be regent of the realm with the title of lieutenant-general, and that with him be joined a council of the princes of the blood and others; that the admiral and M. de Rochefoucault should have charge of the education of the King. On these conditions the Estates offered to discharge the King’s debts in six years; but in the event of refusal, they declared that the King must live upon the incomes of the royal domain, much of which was mortgaged (_C. S. P. For._, No. 77, sec. 3, March 31). Cf. _Despatches of Michele Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), June 10, 1561; De Crue, _Anne de Montmorency_, 300, 301; letter of Hotman to Bullinger, April 2, 1561 in _Mém. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV (1877), 656; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 455-58. For other information, see “Remonstrances du tiers-état du baillage de Provins,” in Claude Haton, II, 1137; “Remonstrance ... des villes de Champagne,” _ibid._, III, 1140, which shows the economic distress.

[392] La Place, 158 ff.; La Popelinière, I, 271 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book II, chap, xvi; Beza, _Hist. ecclés._, ed. 1840, I, 320 ff.; L’Hôpital, _Œuvres complètes_, I, 485 ff. De Thou, Book XXVIII, 74-77; Claude Haton, I, 155. A test vote, however, on religion was taken, resulting in 62 votes for liberty of worship in the case of the Huguenots, and 80 against it (letter of Hotman in _Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 300).

[393] _C. S. P. For._, No. 396, August 11, 1561; La Place, 146, 147, 150.

[394] La Place, 150-52; De Thou, IV, 74, 75. The full text, unpublished, of this discourse is in F. Fr., 3970, a volume which contains much unused material for the history of the estates of Pontoise. L’Hôpital’s address is one of the documents.

[395] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), August 24, 1561.

[396] _C. S. P. For._, No. 538, §5, September 26, 1561.

[397] De Crue, 312, 313; De Thou, IV, 74; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 461; Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, III, 160; _Rel. vén._, II, 21; K. 1,494, fol. 94. Notwithstanding this relief, the King demanded a further subsidy amounting to three million gold crowns from the local Estates to be paid in the following January (_C. S. P. For._, No. 682, §10, November 26, 1561).

[398] _Ibid._; cf. No. 750, §7, December 28, 1561. Most of this debt was held by Paris. It amounted to 7,560,056 livres.

[399] _Rel. vén._, I, 409-11. Upon the whole question, see De Crue, _Anne de Montmorency_, chap. xiv; Esmein, _Histoire du droit français_, 632-33.

[400] De Ruble, _Le colloque de Poissy_ (1889); Klipfel, _Le colloque de Poissy_ (1867).

[401] _C. S. P. For._, No. 265, §9, June 23, 1561; La Place, 131.

[402] Paris, _Négociations relatives au règne de François II_, 550, 615-22; _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VI, 137; Klipfel, _Quis fuerit in Gallia factionum status_, Paris 1863, 23.

[403] Theodore Beza, “the Huguenot pope,” did not reach the court until August 23, where he was cordially received by the prince of Condé, before whom he preached “in open audience, whereat was a great press” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 461, August 30, 1561). For the active agency of Beza at court before the assembly at Poissy met, see La Place, 155-57.

[404] The Sorbonne protested against the whole proceeding, but its request was not granted (La Place, 154; cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 458, August 28, 1561, No. 485, September 8, 1561).

[405] _C. S. P. For._, No. 492, September 10, 1561.

[406] “Far diventar questo Regno cantoni di Svizzeri” ... (_Despatches of Suriano_ [Huguenot Society], Aug. 15, 1561; cf. _English Hist. Review_, VIII, 135). Elsewhere the Venetian ambassador says: “E cosi si va alla via di redurre quella provincia a stato populare, come Svizzeri; e distruggere la monarchia e il regno.”—_Rel. vén._, I, 538. De Thou, Book XXV, observes: “Qui primam, quam Deo debebant, fidem irritam fecissent; qua semel violate, minime dubitaverint regem ipsum petere quo regnum everterent, et confusis ordinibus, in rei publicae formam, Helvetiorum exemplo, redigerent.”

[407] _C. S. P. For._, No. 421, August 19, 1561; _ibid._, _Ven._, No. 280, September 8, 1561.

[408] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), September 18, 1561.

[409] “Demandes des ministres protestantes au roi,” K. 1,494, No. 95.

[410] Upon the personnel of the assembly, see the references in D’Aubigné, I, 315, n. 4.

[411] _C. S. P. For._, No. 516, §7, September 20, 1561.

[412] “Paroles prononcées par Theodore de Beza touchant le sacrement.”—K. 1,495, No. 77. 1, “Profession de foi concerté par les prélats de France;” 2, “Première proposition des Catholiques; première proposition des hérétiques.”—Latin, K. 1,495, No. 78; cf. _Rel. vén._, II, 75.

[413] The cardinal’s definition of the church was, “the company of Christians in which is comprised both reprobates and heretics, and which has been recognized always, everywhere, and by all, and which alone had the right of interpreting Scripture.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 507, September 17, 1561; cf. Suriano (Huguenot Society), September 22. His address is given at length in La Place, 179 ff. It was published at the time. Suriano, August 23, 1561, says all the delegates “made very long speeches.” Upon the doctrinal tactics of the cardinal of Lorraine at the colloquy of Poissy, see the letters of Languet, _Epist. secr._, II, 139, September 20, 1561; 159, November 26, 1561.

[414] The first president of the Parlement of Paris was committed to keeping his house because of offensive agitation (_C. S. P. For._, No. 461, August 30, 1561).

[415] Proposition de Théodore de Bèze, K. 1,494, No. 96.

[416] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 280, September 8, 1561.

[417] _C. S. P. For._, No. 511, September 19, 1561.

[418] Not being a Frenchman, but an Italian—his name was Pietro Martire Vermigli—he received a separate safe-conduct (Suriano [Huguenot Society], August 23; _Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, p. 302).

[419] La Place, 199.

[420] _C. S. P. For._, No. 602, October 1, 2 1561. For a description of the last days of the Colloquy, see _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), October 16, 1561.

[421] _C. S. P. For._, No. 624, October 18, 1561. In K. 1,495, No. 66, is a résumé by the Spanish chancellery of Chantonnay’s dispatches dealing with the colloquy.

[422] _C. S. P. For._, No. 753, from Strasburg, December 30, 1561. Writing just a week earlier, on December 23, to his sovereign, Chantonnay strongly condemned the course of Catherine at Poissy because it had militated against the authority of Trent, and had given courage to the heretics to continue their synods.—K. 1,494, No. 104. Other references to the Colloquy of Poissy are De Thou, IV, 84 ff.; De Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, 76 ff.; _Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis_, I, Introd., ci, 239. Chantonnay’s correspondence, covering both the colloquy and the meeting of the estates at Pontoise, is in K. 1,494, No. 89, August 5; No. 90, August 20; No. 101, September 12 (especially valuable for the financial settlement); No. 102, September 15.

[423] _C. S. P. For._, No. 659, §10, November 14, 1561. Of these the chancellor was the more aggressive, opposing the efforts of the clerical party to delay and obstruct action (D’Aubigné, I, 311).

[424] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 248; _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 225 and 245, June 6-13, 1561; No. 273, June 23, 1561. The choice was a tactless one on the part of the Pope and one certain to antagonize Catherine de Medici as well as the political Huguenots, for the cardinal was a relative of the Guises by marriage. Don Luigo d’Este, the duke of Ferrara’s brother, was the son of Alphonso d’Este and Lucretia Borgia. He resigned his place in the church and married the duchess of Estouteville, a marriage indicating the Guise policy of aggrandisement (_C. S. P. For._, No. 904, March 27, 1560). The marriage made bitter feeling between the House of Ferrara and the Guises. “There is a breach between the Dukes of Ferrara and Guise touching the former’s mother, who, being very rich, and lately fallen out with her son, had secretly sent to the Duke of Guise, a gentleman with a message that she would come to France and end her life there and be as his mother. Word was sent her that she would be welcome; and if her son would not permit her to come with her substance, he would take into his hands the assignation made by the late king upon certain lands for the payment of 100,000 crowns yearly to the Duke till such time as 600,000 crowns, borrowed from him at the Duke of Guise’s last voyage to Rome, were paid off. The Duke keeps his mother with good watch for fear of her escaping to France.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 446, August 22, 1561. The cardinal traveled with great pomp, having no less than four hundred horses in his train.

[425] _C. S. P. For._, No. 538, §1, September 26, 1561.

[426] D’Aubigné, I, 311; _Rel. vén._, II, 87; _C. S. P. For._, No. 602, October 12, 1561.

[427] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), September 23, 1561.

[428] _Ibid._, October 22, 1561. For further details of the negotiations, see _ibid._, November 3, 1561; _C. S. P. For._, No. 682, §9, November 26; Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 89.

[429] Philip II to Catherine, September 29, 1561; to Charles, _ibid._, K. 1,495, No. 72. To Chantonnay he wrote three days later: “También hazed entender á la Reyna como por este camino perdera su hijo, esse reyno y la obediencia de sus vassalos.”—K. 1,495, No. 80. The words were not merely urgent advice—they implied a threat.

[430] Weiss, _L’Espagne sous Phillippe II_, I, 114, 115; cf. Forneron, _Histoire de Philippe II_, I, 253, n. 3. See also the remarkable “Rapport sur une conférence entre l’ambassadeur de France et le duc d’Albe, au sujet des affaires du roi de Navarre et des troubles pour cause de la religion” (French transcript, apparently of a report of the Spanish chancellery), in K. 1,496, No. 136, December 20, 1561. The Pope indorsed the proposition of Spanish intervention in France (Vargas to Philippe II, November 7, 1561, in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VI, 398, 404).

[431] “Aux villes et pays où ils sont là declaires leur bailler quelques lieux prochaine hors des dictes villes”—Résumé des points principaux traités par l’ambassadeur de France auprès du roi Philippe II (Communications du duc d’Alba), November 9, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 58; “Propositions faites par M. d’Ozance et l’ambassadeur ordinaire en Espagne, l’évêque de Limoges, dans deux audiences à eux données par le roi Philippe II” (Résumé avec annotations), Minute, Notes de chancellerie, K. 1,495, No. 69, Madrid, September 17, 1561; “Points principaux d’une négociation spéciale de M. d’Ozance, envoyé de Catherine de Médici avec réponses notées à la marge, point par point: Communications au duc d’Albe après une déliberation du Conseil d’état, prise lui absent,” November 12, 1561, K. 1,495 No. 89; “Précis des points traités par M. d’Ozance et de l’Aubespine, ambassadeur de France,” K. 1,495, No. 94, December 10, 1561; “Réponses à faire par ordre de Philippe II à M. d’Ozance, sur les nouvelles propositions de cet ambassadeur,” K. 1,495, No. 98, December 15, 1561; “Memento addressé par l’évêque de Limoges au duc d’Albe” (Note à communiquer au roi Philippe II), K. 1,495 No. 100, December 20, 1561; Philip II to Chantonnay: “Avis de ce qu’on a répondu à M. d’Ozance,” December 21, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 102; “Rapport sur une conférence entre l’ambassadeur du France et le duc d’Albe, au sujet des affaires du roi de Navarre et des troubles pour cause de la religion” (copié en Français), K. 1,496, folio 136, Madrid, December 20, 1561.

[432] Summary of Philip II’s letter to Chantonnay of January 18, 1562, in K. 1,496, No. 34.

[433] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), November 4, 1561. The _Journal du Concile de Trente_ (ed. Baschet), 89, says the intention was to carry him into Lorraine, to prevent his becoming tainted with heresy. Lignerolles, an intimate of the duke of Nemours, later confessed the latter’s complicity in the plot to kidnap the young prince and spirit him away to Savoy, but the affair was hushed up and Lignerolles was shortly afterward released. The prince de Joinville, Guise’s son, seems to have been more actively interested than his father. The correspondence between Chantonnay and Philip leaves no room for doubt of the fact that Nemours was acting as the agent of Spain (K. 1,494, No. 106, October 31, from St. Cloud; No. 114, November 28, 1561), although Philip repudiated complicity in a letter to Catherine (K. 1,495, No. 90, November 27, 1561), and Chantonnay declared the whole story was a trick of the Huguenots.

[434] D’Aubigné, 321. Chantonnay seems to have been apprehensive lest the circumstances might precipitate the civil war which every one feared (Letter to Philip II, November 28, 1561, K. 1,494, No. 114), and seized the opportunity afforded by it to read the queen mother a lecture. The ambassador “used great threatenings toward the queen mother and the king of Navarre for their proceedings in religion.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 659, §§1, 2.

Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, III, 245-50; De Crue, _Anne de Montmorency_, 315, 316. The official inquiry entitled, “Enquête sur l’enlèvement du duc d’Orleans,” is in F. Fr. 6,608.

[435] _C. S. P. For._, No. 715, §1, December 12, 1561.

[436] _Despatches of Michele Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), November 3, 1561; _C. S. P. For._, No. 659, §5, November 14, 1561.

[437] _C. S. P. For._, No. 717, §7, December 13, 1561. For some of the famous Catholic preachers of Paris in 1561, see Claude Haton, I, 213, 214, and notes.

[438] Claude Haton, I, 177, 178.

[439] _C. S. P. For._, No. 617, October 15, 1561.

[440] _C. S. P. For._, No. 304, §4, July 23, 1561.

[441] K. 1,495, No.47, June 19, 1561. Cf. _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), October 1. Upon these insurrections in the south, see D’Aubigné, I, 322-26; De Thou, II, 235 ff. (ed. 1740); _Mém. de Condé_, III, 636; Long, _La réforme et les guerres de religion en Dauphiné_; Pierre Gilles, _Hist. ecclés. des églises réformées vaudoises_, chap. xxii; _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 211.

[442] “Aulx petites villes, elles se sont ralliez les unes avec les autres en ung faict, ung monopole et une ligue ensemble.”—_Mémoires-journaux du duc de Guise_ (M. & P., sér. I, VI, 467, col. 2); Letter of Joyeuse to the constable; duplicate to the duke of Guise (September 16, 1561). For the work of this league see pp. 468-71. Guillaume, vicomte de Joyeuse; was lieutenant to the governor of Languedoc and later a marshal of France.

[443] These princes were Wolfgang William, duke of Deuxponts; William, landgrave of Hesse; Frederick the Pious, count palatine of the Rhine (D’Aubigné, I, 333, 334; Le Laboureur, I, 673). The leading Protestant princes of Germany were Augustus, elector of Saxony; Joachim II, margrave of Brandenburg, John Frederick duke of Saxony; Christopher, duke of Württemberg; Wolfgang William, duke of Deuxponts (Zweibrücken); John Albert, duke of Mecklenberg; John the Elder, duke of Holstein; Joachim Ernest, prince of Anhalt, and Charles, margrave of Baden. These are enumerated in a letter of Hotman, December 31, 1560. See _Mém. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV, 653, and _Bulletin de la soc. prot. franç._, 1860.

[444] _Mém. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV (1877), 66; _C. S. P. For._, No. 399, August 12, 1561.

[445] _C. S. P. For._, No. 319, July 15, 1561, from Strasburg. Hotman visited the elector palatine at Germersheim; the landgrave of Hesse at Cassel; the elector of Saxony at Leipsic, whence he went to Stuttgart. He did not see the duke of Württemberg in person, and was compelled to write to him instead. (See his letter, September 27, 1561, in _Mém. de l’Acad des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV, 660.) Thence he went to Heidelberg, from which point he wrote a second letter to the duke of Württemberg, and one to the duke of Deuxponts.

[446] La Place, 121, 122; _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 249; Arch. nat., K. 1,495, folio 47, Chantonnay to Philip II, June 19, 1561.

[447] _C. S. P. For._, No. 736, November 26, 1561.

[448] Chantonnay’s correspondence shows that agents of the duke of Guise were busy in Germany as early as October, 1561, K. 1,494, No. 105, October 28, 1561. Cf. Hubert Languet, _Epist. secr._, II, 142, 159, 202; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, I, 216-18, 226-52; _Bulletin de la soc. de l’histoire du prot. français_, XXIV.

[449] _C. S. P. For._, No. 724, §2, December 14, 1561.

[450] _C. S. P. For._, No. 602, October 11, 1561, from Rome.

[451] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VI, 432-43: “Rapport secret du secretaire Courtville,” December, 1561.

[452] Cf. Montluc, bishop of Valence, “Discours sur le bruit qui court que nous aurons la guerre à cause de la religion,” _Mém. de Condé_, ed. London, III, 73-82. A note adds: “Ce discours se trouve aussi au fol. 61 recto du MS R et il est à la suite d’une lettre de M. de Chantonnay, du 24 mars 1561. Il dit à la fin de cette lettre, que l’on disoit communement que ce Discours étoit de l’évêque de Valence (Montluc). Ce Discours a été copié dans ce MS sur l’édition qui en fut faite dans le tems.”

[453] On November 23, 1561, Charles IX wrote to the bishop of Limoges in regard to Philip II: “Dites-lui que je le prie si l’on luy a donné quelques doubtes et soupçons de mes déportements, qu’il vous en dye quelcun et ce qu’il la mys en doubte, affin que s’il veult prendre tant de paynes d’envoyer ung homme fidelle en lieux où il aura oppinion qu’on fera quelques préparatifs, je luy face cognoistre que c’est une pure menterie.”—_Catalogue ... de lettres autographes de feu M. de Lajariette_, Charavay, Paris, 1860, No. 667. Five days later, on November 28, 1561, Catherine de Medici wrote to the same ambassador: “Je me défie tent de seux qui sont mal contens ... car je ne veos ni ne suys conselliée de venir aus armes.”—_Collection de lettres autographes ayant appartenu à M. Fossé-Darcosse_, Paris, Techener, 1861, No. 193.

[454] _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 211. Philip II was reputed to have spent 350,000 crowns of his wife’s dowry in Germany (_C. S. P. For._, No. 659, §18, November 14, 1561). Catherine sent a special agent, Rambouillet, into Germany to assist Hotman in discovering information about Spain’s intrigues there (_C. S. P. For._, No. 713, December, 1561; _Mém. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV [1877], 661). D’Ozances in Spain received special instructions to decipher Philip II’s conduct if possible.

[455] _C. S. P. For._, No. 265, §11, June 23, 1561. This was in consequence of the apprehension aroused early in May by the appearance of a large body of Spanish infantry and cavalry to survey Abbeville whence they returned toward Guisnes (_ibid._, No. 248, from Paris, May 18, 1561).

[456] _Ibid._, No. 712, December 9, 1561, from Strasburg; No. 717, §6, December 13, 1561, from Paris. There had been some anxiety lest the Emperor might avail himself of the distraction in France to seize the Three Bishoprics. But at this moment, on account of the activity of both the Turk and the Muscovite, and because he was angry with the Pope over the Council of Trent, Ferdinand, was friendly to France and cordially received Marillac, the bishop of Vienne (D’Aubigné, I, 332, 333).

[457] “Le conseil du roi, voyant que les mouvements les plus divers agitaient le royaume, décide que chaque gouverneur, lieutenant, sénéschal et autres ministres, se rendissent à leurs gouvernements.”—Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 89.

[458] _C. S. P. For._, No. 595, October 9, 1561; No. 602, October 12, 1561; No. 624, October 18, 1561; No. 659, §20, November 14, 1561. The appointments of Coligny and Condé never became operative, owing to the outbreak of civil war early in the next year. They are important only as they reflect Catherine’s policy of caution and craft.

[459] _Ibid._, No. 729. Thomas Shakerley was an Englishman by birth, who had once been a page to Edward VI, while the latter was prince. He had left England nine years before and had spent most of his time in Rome, where, becoming an organist, he “obtained the estimation of a cunning player for the substance and solemnity of music.” He came to France in the suite of the cardinal of Ferrara. The Spanish ambassador approached him with an offer to enter the secret service of Spain, which Shakerley patriotically communicated to Throckmorton (_ibid._, No. 730, §5, December 18; No. 750, §10, December 28, 1561).

[460] On December 27, the Protestants congregated in the Faubourg St. Marceau, whereupon the priests and Papists assembled at St. Medard and determined to attack them. One of the Protestant soldiers going to remonstrate was run through. The Protestants who were appointed to guard the assembly, seeing this, ran to his succor, but were driven back by the numbers. Other Protestants coming up put their attackers to rout and forced their way into the church, when the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon, the King’s lieutenant, arrived with a strong force of horse and foot and carried off several to the Châtelet (_ibid._, No. 783, January 4, 1561; _Mém. de Condé_, II, 541 ff.; Claude Haton, 179, and note; _Arch. cur._, IV, 63 ff.; and an article in _Mém. de la soc. de l’hist. de Paris_, 1886).

[461] _C. S. P. For._, No. 758, §13, December 31, 1561.

[462] _Ibid._, No. 789, §2, January 8, 1562. The prince de la Roche-sur-Yon passed for a Calvinist, while the marshal Montmorency was a liberal Catholic. The queen mother hoped the change would be acceptable to both parties. Another reason for this change was that the constable and the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon were the principals in a law-suit involving 10,000 ducats income. It was possible for the lieutenant of Paris to use influence with the Parlement of Paris before which the case was to be tried, and this more obviously favored the constable’s side of the suit. Cf. details in Chantonnay’s letter to Philip II, January 5, 1562, K. 1,497, B. 15.

[463] _C. S. P. For._, No. 925; cf. Castelnau’s description of the bandits in the Faubourg St. Marcel, Book III, chap. v.

[464] _C. S. P. For._, No. 789, §2, January 6, 1562.

[465] _Archives de la Gironde_, VIII, 207. The King sent a special officer to put the offenders to death and destroy the village, but it is significant that this commission was not intrusted to Villars, who was sublieutenant in Languedoc and notorious for his treatment of the Huguenots (_C. S. P. For._, No. 750, §10, December 28, 1561).

[466] Claude Haton, I, 195-98, 236, 237. His spleen is evidenced, though, in saying that: “à cause de la grande liberté à mal faire et dire qui leur estoit permise sans aulcune punition de justice ... si le plus grand larron et voleur du pays eust esté prins prisonnier il eust eschappé à tout danger voire à la mort, moyennant qu’il se feust déclaré Huguenot et de la nouvelle prétendue religion.”—_Ibid._, I, 124. This is one of the earliest characterizations of the Huguenot faith. It was afterward currently referred to as the “R. P. R.”

[467] _Archives de la Gironde_, XV, 57.

[468] Claude Haton, I, 194, 195, and note.

[469] Chantonnay to Philip II, January 5, 1562, K. 1,497, B. 15. The Spanish ambassador violently expostulated with Catherine de Medici, Antoine of Bourbon, and others after this address was over (K. 1,497, January 11, 1562), for which Philip II commended him (K. 1,496, No. 34, 3 _verso_).

[470] Isambert, XIV, 124-29; Raynaldus, XXXIV, 292, 293. The original document is on exhibition in the Musée des Archives at Paris. It is catalogued K. 674, No. 4. Although authorized on January 17, the edict was not printed until March 13, 1562 (_C. S. P. For._, No. 930, §11; 934, §1). The Edict of July had been only negative in its character, simply forbidding judges and the magistrates from pursuing the Huguenots, but not in any sense recognizing their religion. Castelnau,