Book I, chap. ii, makes this very clear. The Edict encountered strong

opposition in the Parlement, which twice rejected it by a plurality vote (_C. S. P. For._, No. 849, January 28, 1562; Claude Haton, I, 185, 186). Benoist, _Histoire de l’Edit de Nantes_, I, Appendix, gives the text together with the first and second mandamus of the King, February 14 and March 11, 1562, expressly enjoining the Parlement “to proceed to the reading, publishing, and registering of the said ordinance, laying aside all delays and difficulties.” The first mandamus, “Déclaration et interprétation du roy sur certains mots et articles contenus dans l’edict du XVII de janvier 1561,” declared that magistrates were not officers within the meaning of the edict (Isambert, XIV, 129, n. 2). Klipfel, _Le colloque de Poissy_, chap. iii, makes the point that the Parlement of Paris was criminally wrong in arraigning itself upon the side of violence and encouraging the intolerance of the populace. The Parlement of Rouen was more complacent, and seems promptly to have registered it (_C. S. P. For._, No. 891, §10, February 16, 1562).

The Edict of January is sometimes wrongly dated January 17, _1561_. The error arises from the confusion of the calendar in the sixteenth century. In 1561 the year in France legally began at Easter, which, of course threw January 17, into the year 1561. But in 1564 a royal _ordonnance_ abolished this usage and established January 1 as the beginning of the year, which brought forward January 17 into its proper year, 1562. The reform of the calendar by Gregory XIII would alter the _date of the month_ also, according to modern reckoning. But it is simpler to let established dates stand. Henry III authorized the use of the Gregorian calendar in France in 1582. For a lucid account of these changes see _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, Introd., x-xi by the baron de Ruble.

[471] Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 71.

[472] Claude Haton, I, 177, and n. 1. For other details see Castelnau,