Book III, chap. i; _Rel. vén._, II, 71.

[473] _Lettres de Pasquier_, II, 96. Mignet characterizes the provisions of the Edict of January as “généréuses, simples, et sages.” Mignet, “Les lettres de Calvin” (_Journal des savants_, 1859, p. 762), and Haag, _La France protestante_, Introd., xix, as “le plus libéral édit qui ait été obtenu par les réformés jusqu’à celui de Nantes.”

[474] _C. S. P. For._, No. 789, §1, January 8, 1562, and cf. No. 750, §3, December 28, 1561. The importation of money from Germany into Lorraine was no secret.

[475] _Ibid._, No. 729, §3, December 16, 1561. Catherine de Medici, however, could speak the language (_ibid._, No. 2,155, December 3, 1571).

[476] _Ibid._, No. 729, §3, December 16, 1561. Chantonnay was morally the leader of the Triumvirate, beyond a doubt, and guided its policy. “The king of Navarre, the duke of Guise, the constable, the cardinal of Ferrara, the marshals St. André, Brissac, and Termes, the cardinal Tournon, have joined together to overthrow the Protestant religion and exterminate the favorers thereof—_which enterprise is pushed forward by the Spanish ambassador here and Spanish threatenings_.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 934, §1, March 14, 1562.

[477] _Ibid._, No. 758, §12, December 1; No. 531, §4, September 23, 1561.

[478] Antoine de Bourbon to Philip II December 7, 1561, K. 1,494, No. 116 (not in Rochambeau).

[479] _Despatches of Michele Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), October 18, 1561. The whole letter is exceedingly interesting.

[480] The Jesuits had long tried to get a legal status in France. Henry II, was favorable to them, but the Parlement of Paris, the secular clergy, and the Sorbonne were bitterly opposed. The Act of Poissy recognized the Jesuits as a college but not as a religious order, to the anger of the Sorbonne. See Douarche, _L’Université de Paris et les Jesuites_, Paris, 1888, chap. iv. At the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits from France in 1761, in reply to the question of the crown as to their legal status, the cardinal de Choiseul made the following answer: “Lorsqu’ils ont été reçus en France l’an 1561, par le concours des deux puissances, ils se sont soumis et ont été astreints par la loi publique de leur établissement à toute superintendance, jurisdiction et correction de l’évêque diocésain et à se conformer entièrement à la disposition du droit commun, avec la renonciation la plus formelle aux privilèges contraires portés dans les quatre bulles par eux présentées ou autres qu’ils pourraient obtenir à l’avenir.” ... “_Le véritable état des Jésuites en France parâit donc être, suivant les lois canoniques reçues dans le royaume, l’état des réguliers soumis à la juridiction des ordinaires conformement au droit com mun._” Cf. Eugene Sol, _Les rapports de la France avec l’Italie, d’après la série K. des Arch. Nat._, Paris, 1905, 119, 120. The original document is in the Archives nationales, K. 1,361, N. 1, C.

[481] _C. S. P. For._, No. 934, §2, March 14, 1562.

[482] _Ibid._, No. 931, March 9, 1562.

[483] _Ibid._, No. 924, §8, March 6, 1562; cf. _ibid._, No. 715, §4, December 12, 1561: “The Spanish ambassador was wondrous hot with the queen.”

[484] _Lettres du cardinal de Ferrare_, No. 14, March 3, 1562.

[485] _C. S. P. For._, No. 891, February 16, 1562.

[486] _Corresp. de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 17, March 25, 1562. This circumstance is noticed by almost all the chroniclers: D’Aubigné, Book V, chap, iii, 1; _Mém. de Condé_, I, 76, 77; _Arch. cur._, VI, 59.

[487] Claude Haton, I, 189.

[488] Beza, _Histoire ecclés._, I, 416.

[489] Collection Godefroy (Bibliothèque de l’Institut), Vol. XCVII, folio 19, March 6, 1562.

[490] _Inventaire des archives communales d’Agen_, BB., “Inventaire sommaire,” XXX, 28 (April 17, 1562).

[491] D’Aubigné, II, 7, gives a long list of cities where disturbances occurred.

[492] Vassy was a little town in the diocese of Châlons-sur-Marne, in a dependency of Joinville belonging to the Guises.

[493] In the _Mémoires de Condé_, III, 124, there is an elaborate Protestant version of the massacre, preceded by a letter of the duke of Guise. The Guise account is in the _Mémoires du duc de Guise_, 471-88. Cf. D’Aubigné, 131; _Arch. cur._, IV, 103. The Spanish ambassador’s long letter of March 16 is in K. 1,497, No. 14. The quotation from Ranke is in his _Civil Wars and Monarchy in France_, 211.

[494] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, March 20, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 16. Accounts of this event abound. See La Popelinière, I, 287; Claude Haton, I, 208; D’Aubigné, II, 10; a letter of Santa Croce in _Arch. cur._, VI, 55; La Noue, _Mém. milit._, ed. Petitot, 128—very interesting; and a letter of an eye-witness in _Bull. de la Soc. de l’hist. du prot. franç._, XIII, 5.

On March 16, 1562, an ordinance of the king of Navarre enjoined the captains and lieutenants of each quarter of Paris who were elected by the bourgeoisie to appoint ensigns, corporals, and sergeants, and to enlist all the men capable of bearing arms in their divisions, both masters and servants (Capefigue, 234, 235).

[495] L’Aubespine to his brother, the bishop of Limoges, French ambassador at Madrid (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 22; _C. S. P. Eng. For._, No. 987, §7; manifesto of the prince of Condé to Elizabeth, April 7, 1562).

[496] This is D’Aubigné’s comparison, II, 14, and n. 2.

[497] Delaborde, II, 48; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 285, n.; _C. S. P. For._, No. 987, §12, March 31, 1562.

[498] “La mala reputacion que el chancellerio ne quanto à la fé.”—_Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 16, March 20, 1562.

[499] Tavannes, 271; _C. S. P. For._, No. 943, March 20, 1652.

[500] Paris, _Négociations relatives au règne de François II_, 880.

[501] “Monsieur le conestable ayst d’opinion que l’on (fasse) une lètre patente par laquelle le roy mon fils déclère qu’i ne voult poynt ronpre l’édist dernier.... Ne distes rien deset que je vous dis de l’ambassadeur (Chantonnay) qui ayst yci, mès au contrère distes qu’i comense à se governer mieulx et plus dousement qu’i ne solet en mon endroyt.”—Catherine de Medici to St. Sulpice, _circa_ April 11, 1562, in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 15, 16. This is a characteristic example of the queen’s eccentric spelling.

[502] D’Aubigné, II, 15.

[503] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 22; _C. S. P. For._, No. 967, March 31, 1562. Elizabeth wrote to Condé to “remember that in all affairs second attempts be even more dangerous than the first.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 965, March 31, 1562. On the political theory of the Huguenots that the King was a captive and that they were struggling for his relief, see Weill, 66.

[504] _C. S. P. For._, No. 969, March 31, 1562.

[505] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, March 25, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 17. He reports also that a boat was captured coming down the Seine loaded with 4,000 arquebuses and other ammunition, all of which was taken to the Hôtel-de-Ville.

[506] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 17, March 25, 1562.

[507] _C. S. P. For._, No. 967, §12, March 31, 1562.

[508] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 2-4, K. 1,497, No. 18; April 11, _ibid._, No. 22.

[509] La Noue, _Mémoires_, chap. ii, has described this march.

[510] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 8 and 11, 1562, K. 1,497, Nos. 21, 22.

[511] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 283.

[512] According to Hotman who had left Orleans on May 29, the Huguenot forces consisted of 15,000 foot and 5,000 horse.—Letter to the landgrave, June 7, 1562, in _Rev. hist._, XCVII March-April, 1908, p. 304.

[513] Condé had entered Orleans on April 2. On the 7th he wrote to the Reformed churches of France, requiring men and money in the interest of the deliverance of the King and the queen mother and the freedom of the Christian religion (_Mémoires de Condé_, II, 212).

[514] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 11 1562, K. 1,497, No. 22.

[515] _Ibid._, No. 21, April 8, 1562; De Ruble’s edition of D’Aubigné, II, 18-20; _C. S. P. For._, No. 997, April 10, 1562; No. 1,043, §2, April 24, 1562. Cf. Boulanger, “La réforme dans la province du Maine,” _Revue des Soc. savant. des départ._, 2^[e] sér., VII (1862), 548.

[516] “Leurs desseins cachés ont autre racine que celle de la religion, encores qu’ils le veuillant couvrir de ce manteau.”—Catherine de Medici to St. Sulpice, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 59, August 9, 1562.

[517] “Déclaration faicte par monsieur le prince de Condé, pour monstrer les raisons qui l’ont contrainct d’entreprendre la défense de l’authorité du roy, du gouvernement de la royne, et du repos de çe royaume” (Orleans, 1562); cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,003, Orleans, April 1, 1562.

The prince of Condé is said to have issued a coinage of his own at this time with the superscription, “Louis XIII.” Chantonnay, however, says that they were medals (K. 1,497, No. 27, May 2, 1562). See the memoir of Secousse: “Dissertation où l’on examine s’il est vrai qu’il ait été frappé, pendant la vie de Louis I^[er], prince de Condé, une monnie sur laquelle on lui ait donné le titre de roi de France,” _Mém. de l’Acad. roy. des inscrip. et bell. lettres_, XVII (1751); Poulet, _Correspondance du cardinal de Granvelle_, III, 85. Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny_, 303, is convinced the story is a fabrication.

[518] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 11, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 22.

[519] K. 1,497, No. 21, April 8, 1562.

[520] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,013, §12, April 17, 1562.

[521] _Archives curieuses_, sér. I, IV, 175.

[522] Rouen was taken in the night of April 15. Floquet, _Histoire du parlement de Normandie_, II, 380.

[523] Raynal, _Histoire du Berry_, IV, 35.

[524] The stopping of the couriers in the service of Spain by the Huguenots was a source of great anxiety to Chantonnay. April 8 he wrote to Philip advising that the couriers be sent via Perpignan and Lyons in order to avoid being intercepted, as the Huguenots commanded the whole line of the Loire. Cf. Letters to Philip II, April 24, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 25; K. 1,497, No. 21; K. 1,497, No. 28.

His letter of May 5 (K. 1,497, No. 28) describes the adventure of a courier bearing a dispatch of the bishop of Limoges. He was given twenty blows with a knife, but managed to escape. St. Sulpice reports a similar experience of “le chevaucher de Bayonne” in a letter to Catherine, June 30, 1562. D’Andelot intercepted a letter from the duke of Alva (K. 1,497, No. 26, April 28, 1562) and the prince of Condé one from the bishop of Limoges to Catherine de Medici (K. 1,497, No. 33). The activity of the Huguenots in Gascony gave the French and Spanish governments special disquietude because they continually overhauled the couriers bearing official dispatches between Paris and Madrid. The letters of St. Sulpice contain many complaints because of the rifling of his correspondence (see pp. 30, 35, 37, 38, 41, 59). But the Huguenots were not the only ones who scrutinized letters unduly. Philip II frequently asked to be shown the letters of Charles IX and his mother to his wife, so that St. Sulpice advised Catherine always to send two letters, one of which was to be a “dummy” to be shown to the King (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 136). The Spanish ambassador told Philip he would have to come out into the open and declare war to protect his own interests (K. 1,497, No. 26, April 25, 1562). He anticipated as early as this the probable combination of the French Huguenots and the Dutch rebels, and warned Margaret of Parma to be on her guard (_Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, Nos. 30, 33, to Philip II).

[525] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,043, §2, April 24, 1562.

[526] On April 24 the cardinal of Lorraine came to Paris with 1,000 horse (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,043, §11, April 24, 1562; _Corresp. de Chantonnay_, April 28, K. 1,497, No. 2).

[527] This famous document, which is dated April 21, 1562, is in K. 1,496, B, 14, No. 61, and is on exhibition in the Musée des Archives. Chantonnay’s letter to Philip II on April 24 sheds an interesting light on the situation. In it the ambassador advises the King to write personally to the queen mother, but not to write individually to the others, but rather a single letter, because if Antoine of Navarre were not addressed as _King of Navarre_ he would refuse to receive it, whereas if the letter were written to all in common, this complication might be avoided (K. 1,497, No. 25).

[528] The Spanish King acceded to this request on June 8, 1562 (Philip II to Margaret of Parma; Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, II, 218-23.)

He promised to send 10,000 foot and 3,000 cavalry, chiefly Italians and Germans; cf. De Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, IV, 214. At about the same time the constable appealed to Rome through Santa Croce, for a loan of 200,000 écus and a body of soldiers (_Arch. cur._, VI, 86).

[529] The Swiss Diet, which met at Soleure on May 22, offered 6,000 infantry to be commanded by the captain Froelich (Letter of Hotman in _Revue hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 305).

[530] _C. S. P. For._, No. 6, §1, May 2, 1562. The Spanish ambassador was deeply incensed at Catherine for making this new overture. The intermediary was the Rhinegrave, but Chantonnay persuaded the leaders not to recognize him (_Corresp. de Chantonnay_, April 28, 1562; K. 1,497, No. 26). The duke of Savoy offered to furnish 10,000 footmen and 600 horse, 3,000 of the former and 200 of the latter to be at his expense. This was the fruit of Chantonnay’s interview with Moreta, the Savoyard ambassador, early in April, when he discussed with him a possible restoration of the fortresses in Piedmont (K. 1,497, No. 21, April 8, 1562).

[531] The Pope offered to give 50,000 crowns per month.

[532] “Suisses, lansquenetz et reystres, seront en ce pays devant la fin de ce moys, sans vostre secours d’Espagne.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 24, June 12, 1562. It must be understood that in many European states, especially those of Germany, the maintenance of regular troops did not yet obtain as a practice. Instead, the princes depended upon mercenary forces recruited by some distinguished captain. These troops, which answered to the _condottieri_ of Italy were called _Lanzknechts_ or _Reiters_. Languet stigmatizes this practice in _Epist. ad Camerariam_, 28; cf. _Arch. d’Orange-Nassau_, I, 104. In Protestant Germany there was a feeling that the policy of France threatened to extinguish the gospel in other regions besides France and therefore should be opposed by common consent. The elector palatine, the landgrave, and Charles, margrave of Baden, planned to send an embassy into France in the name of the Protestant princes to allay the dissensions there, and to ask that the same liberty of religion might be granted as was allowed by the edict of January 17. Many advocated an open league between all the Protestant states for mutual protection, in the hope that the mere knowledge of such a league would restrain their adversaries (_C. S. P. For._, No. 11, May 2, 1562). Opinion was divided in Germany as to whether Condé also should make foreign enrolments, or whether the territories of those who had suffered these levies to be made should be invaded by the Lutherans. Agents of the Guises circulated a printed apology for the massacre at Vassy (D’Aubigné, II, 16, and n. 2; La Popelinière, I, 327).

Rambouillet and D’Oysel, the agents of France in these countries (St. Sulpice, 77; _Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 364) made much of the King of Spain’s aid and carried credentials from Chantonnay. The duke of Guise even sent an agent, the count of Roussy, to England, to discover Elizabeth’s intentions, and to ascertain the military state of her kingdom (cf. Beza, _Hist. des églises réformées_, ed. of Toulouse, I, 373; De Ruble, IV, 103 ff.; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 13; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,037, April 21, 1562).

The argument of the Catholics with the German Protestant princes and imperial cities was that the Huguenots were political dissidents and rebels, and that religion was a pretext with them (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 65). In order to counteract this teaching the Huguenots circulated a pamphlet written by Hotman throughout the Rhine provinces which attempted to neutralize the differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism. (This curious pamphlet is printed in _Mém. de Condé_, II, 524; La Popelinière, I, 325. In this capacity Hotman was invaluable. Some of his letters at this time are in _Mém. de l’Acad._, CIV, 662-65.)

The German princes as a whole tried to prevent soldiers from going out of Germany. The landgrave Philip of Hesse arrested an officer of cavalry who was secretly enlisting horsemen in Hesse and who said he was doing so for Roggendorf, tore up the officer’s commission before his face, and made him swear to leave his castle without a passport. The duke of Württemberg also took care that no volunteers should march through Montbéliard into France, and Strasburg forbade anyone to enlist under severe penalties. The bishops of the Rhine kept quiet; only in Lorraine and the Three Bishoprics was Catholic enlisting unimpeded. The recruiting-sergeant of the Guises in Germany was the famous Roggendorf, a Frisian by birth who had been driven out of his native land in 1548 and since then had lived the life of an adventurer, part of the time in Turkey. (See an interesting note in Poulet, I, 542, with references.) On April 8 the king of Navarre in the name of Charles IX, signed a convention with him engaging the services of 1,200 German mounted pistoleers and four cornettes of footmen of 300 men each (D’Aubigné, II, 33, n.). These forces entered France late in July and reached the camp at Blois on August 7 (D’Aubigné, II, 76, n. 3).

One reason why the Protestant princes of Germany were unable immediately to make strong protest to the French crown was that the envoys of the elector palatine, the dukes of Deuxponts and Württemberg, the landgrave of Hesse and the margrave of Baden, were unprovided for a month with letters of safe conduct, by the precaution of the Guises, with the result that Roggendorf led 1,200 cavalry in the first week in May across the Rhine and through Trèves into France for the Guises, though the Protestant princes did all they could to hinder the passage and expostulated with the bishops of Trèves and Cologne for allowing them to be levied in their territories. Failing greater things, the Protestant princes of Germany, in July, 1562, put Roggendorf under the ban in their respective states (cf. _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 244 and 269, June 13 and July, 1562). In the end, despite the enterprise of the Guises, the French Catholics may be said to have been unsuccessful beyond the Rhine, that is in Germany proper, but not in Switzerland or the episcopal states. D’Oysel, who was sent by Charles IX in July to Heidelberg (D’Aubigné, II, 97, and n. 1; Le Laboureur, I, 430) received a short and definite answer “which showed him how groundless were his hopes of aid from that quarter, a document to which so much importance was attributed that it was forthwith printed for wider circulation” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 414, August 3, 1562, and the Introduction, xi).

The king of Spain’s captains had money and were ordered that as soon as soldiers were taken from Germany into France they should enlist men for the defense of his territories (_C. S. P. For._, No. 11, May 2, 1562). In the bishopric of Trèves soldiers were enrolled easily, as the passage from thence to France was short (_ibid._, No. 74, May 19, 1562).

In Switzerland the Huguenots endeavored to prevail upon the Protestant cantons to prevent the Catholic cantons from lending support to Guise (_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 285, April 29, 1562). The Guises asked for a levy of foot from the papist cantons of Switzerland in the King’s name (_Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 289, April 8, 1562). The cantons promised to send 15 ensigns; but the Protestant cantons especially Bern, told the prince of Condé that they would not suffer any soldiers to be levied against him in their territory, on pain of confiscation of goods. Nevertheless the Catholic Swiss managed to make some enrolments, the men quitting home on July 8. On August 7 these mercenaries arrived at Blois, having come by way of Franche Comté (De Thou, Book XXX). They were commanded by Captain Froelich (see D’Aubigné, II, 148; Zurlauben, _Hist. milit. des Suisses_, IV, 287 ff.; Letter of Hotman in _Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 307).

[533] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 22.

[534] “La fleur du monde.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 41. For details see _ibid._, 24, 26-29, 36-38, 41, 50-54; _Correspondance du cardinal de Ferrare_, Letter 40, July 3, 1562; D’Aubigné, II, 91, and n. 2; Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, 220.

[535] St. Sulpice was dubious of Philip II’s purpose and suspected political designs “sous le titre de notre secours” (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 39). Nevertheless he believed in Philip’s methods of repression—even the Inquisition. See his letter to the French ambassador at Trent on p. 28.

[536] _C. S. P. For._, No. 46, §3, May 11; No. 86, §1, May 23, 1562. Cf. No. 248—Challoner to Elizabeth from Bilboa, June 24, 1562. Spain established a naval base at La Réole to help Noailles, lieutenant of the King in Guyenne (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 61).

[537] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 21, April 8, 1562; _C. S. P. Eng. For._, No. 1,058, April 27, 1562; _ibid._, No. 6, §2, May 2, 1562.

[538] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 33, May 2, 1562. Philip has commented on the margin to the effect that if the Catholics were as active as the Huguenots they would be better off.

[539] Chantonnay particularly notices this in a dispatch of April 18, 1562, K. 1,497. So also does the Tuscan ambassador (_Nég. Tosc._, III, 481, June, 1562). Traveling in France was dangerous (Windebank to Cecil, _C. S. P. Dom._, XXII, 53, April 8, 1562).

[540] _C. S. P. Dom._, XXII, 60, April 17, 1562. Paris wore red and yellow ribbons—the Guise colors. “Ceux de Paris disent publiquement qu’on doit renvoyer la reine en Italie et qu’ils ne veulent plus avoir de roi qui ne soit catholique. Ils en ont d’ailleurs un que Dieu leur a donné, c’est le grand ‘roi de Guise.’” Letter of Hotman in _Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 305.

[541] D’Aubigné, Book II, chap. iv.

[542] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 36, May 28, 1562.

[543] The importance of Lyons so near the cantons of Switzerland and Geneva is emphasized in _Nég. Tosc._, III, 488, July 6, 1562.

[544] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 24, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 25. On the situation in Rouen, see _Mém. de Condé_, III, 302 ff.; and the diary of a citizen in _Revue retrospective_, V, 97. Montgomery who was in western Normandy about Vire sent the King’s letter back to him after polluting it with filth, at least so says Chantonnay, K. 1,497, No. 27, May 2, 1562.

[545] See Carel, _Histoire de la ville de Caen sous Charles IX, Henri III et Henri IV_, Caen, 1886.

[546] The duke of Bouillon, commandant of Caen Castle, made an attempt to restrain the populace (_C. S. P. For._, No. 303, §7, July 12, 1562). He posed as a neutral, but ultimately became a Huguenot.

[547] _C. S. P. For._, No. 101, May 27, 1562.

[548] _Ibid._, No. 68, May 18, 1562; cf. No. 69, §10.

[549] _C. S. P. For._, No. 69, §16, May 18, 1562.

[550] Forbes, II, 8; cf. Planche, _Histoire de Bourgogne_, IV, 556.

[551] Upon these negotiations see _Mém. de Condé_, III, 384, 388, 392, 393, 395.

[552] _C. S. P. For._, No. 106, §2, May 28, 1562. The King’s army had but twenty-two pieces of artillery at the beginning of the first civil war (_Rel. vén._, II, 101).

[553] _C. S. P. For._, No. 107, May 28, 1562; No. 174, June 9; _Mém. de Condé_, III, 462. Another edict of the King put the military government of Paris in the hands of the provost of the merchants and the _échevins_ of the city (“Déclaration portant permission au Prévost des Marchands et aux Echevins de la Ville de Paris, d’établir ès Quartiers d’icelle, des Capitaines, Caporaux, Sergents des Bandes, et autres Officiers Catholiques. A Monceaux, le 17 May 1562;” also in _Ordonnances de Charles IX_, par Robert Estienne, fol. 187; _Mém. de Condé_, III, 447), in compliance with a popular request made a week earlier; “Ordonnance du Roy, donnée _en conséquence de la Requête_ des Habitans de Paris, par laquelle il leur est permis de faire armes ceux que dans cette Ville sont en état de porter les armes, et d’en former des Compagnies, sous des Capitaines qui seront par eux choisesr,” May 10, 1562 (_Mém. de Condé_, III, 422, 423). The Venetian ambassador wisely observed “Perciochè dar liberamente l’armi in mano ad un populo cosi grande e cosi furiosi, benchè fosse cattolico, non era farse cosa molto prudente.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 98; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 280.

[554] See Chantonnay’s letter to Philip II of May 28, inclosing the edict and giving these and other details, K. 1,497, No. 36.

[555] “Cependant tout se ruyne et se font tous les jours infiniz meurdres et saccagemens de part et d’autre vous verrez par les chemyn’s une partye de la pitié qui y est, et ce royaume au plus callamiteux estat qu’il est possible.”—L’Aubespine à l’Evêque de Limoges, June 10, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 22.

[556] Chaumet, “Procès-verbal des titres et ornements brûlés par les protestants,” _Les protestants et le Cathédrale d’Angoulême en 1562_, in _Bull. de la Soc. arch., etc._ 4^[e] sér., VI, 1868-69 (Angoulême, 1870), 497.

Gellibert des Seguins, _Aubeterre en 1562_; “Enquête sur le passage des protestants en cette ville, le pillage de l’église Saint-Jacques et la destruction des titres et papiers du chapitre,” _Bull. de la Soc. arch., etc._, 1862, 3^[e] sér., IV (Angoulême, 1864).

[557] The strife in Toulouse was occasioned by an edict of the parlement of Toulouse (May 2) forbidding Calvinist worship and the wearing of arms by the Huguenots (K. 1,495, No. 35; a printed copy of the edict). Both parties fought for three days for possession of the Hôtel-de-Ville where arms were stored. Nearly 5,000 Protestants, it is said, were killed (_Corresp. de Chantonnay_, 1497, No. 36, May 28, 1562; _Commentaires de Montluc_, Book V, 234-37,) La Popelinière (who saw it), I, 311 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book II, chap. iv; _Lettres du cardinal de Ferrare_, No. 30, June 23, 1562; cf. _Histoire véritable de la mutinerie, tumulte et sedition faite par les prestres de St. Medard contre les Fideles, le Samedy XXVII juin de 1562_; Bosquet, _Histoire sur les troubles advenus en la ville de Tolose, l’an 1562, le dix-septiesme may_, Nouv. édition, avec notes, Paris, 1862; _Histoire de la délivrance de la ville de Toulouse_, 1862.

[558] Stanclift, _Queen Elizabeth and the French Protestants_ (1559-60), Leipzig, 1892.

[559] _Coll. des lettres autographes_, Hotel Drouot, March 18, 1899, No. 19; Cardinal Châtillon to the queen mother, May 28, 1562, protesting that peace is impossible without the banishment of the Guises from court. Cf. _R. Q. H._, January 1879, 14, 15.

[560] “Tous jours sur le point que messieurs de Guise, conestable et mareschal de St. André se retirent de la cour.”—L’Aubespine, sécretaire d’état à son frère M. de Limoges, ambassadeur en Espagne, June 10, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 22; cf. the same to the same, June 12, p 24. On these unsuccessful negotiations, see D’Aubigné, II, 33-35; La Popelinière, I, 323; _Mém. de. Condé_, 489; La Noue, _Mém._, Book I, chap, ii; Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, IV, chap. xix.

Condé further justified the revolt of the Huguenots on the ground that the King and his mother were “prisoners” in the hands of the Triumvirate, but the statement was too transparent to be believed. Catherine herself, in order to disprove it, took the King to Monceaux with her (_Corresp. de Chantonnay_, May 28, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 36), whence she wrote to the Parlement of Paris explaining the reason of her action. The Parlement promptly approved her course. _Mém.—journaux du duc de Guise_, 495, col. 2: “Acte par lequel la Reinemère et le Roy de Navarre declarent que la retraite voluntaire que font de la cour du duc de Guise, le Connestable et le mareschal de St. André, ne pourra porter préjudice à leur honneur” (May 28, 1562).

[561] “Nostre camps et à douse lyeu d’Orleans et byentot nous voyront set que en sera.”—Catherine de Medici to Elizabeth of Spain, June 13 or 14, 1562, in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 31.

[562] A parley was held with the usual lack of success on June 21 between the prince of Condé and his brother at Beaugency, which was neutralized for the purpose (D’Aubigné, II, 37, and n. 4). The baron de Ruble discovered the correspondence of the principals in the interview. The king of Navarre exhorted his brother to accept the conditions offered by the King, i. e., to let the Huguenots dwell peaceably in their houses until a council settled the matters in dispute. He promised in any event that the Protestants should have liberty of conscience. But when the prince insisted on having the edict enforced in Paris even, Antoine replied that the crown would never consent to such terms (_C. S. P. For._, No. 329, §§1, 2, July 17, 1562). Even while the truce existed straggling prisoners were taken daily by either side. (For other military details, see _Mém. de La Noue_ [ed. Panthéon litt.], 284; D’Aubigné, II, 39, 40; Beza, _Histoire des églises réformées_, I, 540, 541; and the “Discours ou récit des opérations des deux armées catholique et protestante dans les premiers jours de juillet,” in De Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, IV, 414).

[563] Not so the royal troops, which were quartered upon the towns of the region and nearly consumed the people by their exactions (Claude Haton, I, 279).

[564] The Catholics, in derision, called the Huguenot gentry “millers.” During the interview on June 9 between the prince and the queen mother, the latter said: “Vos gens sont meusniers, mon cousin,” a fling which the prince of Condé more than matched by the rejoinder: “C’est pour toucher vous asnes, madame!” This anecdote is related by D’Aubigné, II, 35.

[565] Cf. Guise’s letter to the cardinal of Lorraine, Appendix III; _C. S. P. For._, No. 238; No. 264, §3, June 29.

[566] _Ibid._, No. 425, August 5, 1562; _Archives de la Gironde_, XVII, 270. The constable seized Tours and Villars Châtellerault (D’Aubigné, II, 41-44). For the operations of Burie in Périgord, see _Archives de la Gironde_, XVII, 271. At Bazas a local judge, with the aid of Spanish troops actually crucified some Calvinists (_ibid._, XV, 57).

[567] La Noue admits that the boasted discipline of the Huguenots was disgraced by their atrocities here (_Mém. milit._, chap. xvi; cf. _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 288, July 16, 1562).

[568] On the war in Lyonnais, Dauphiné, Provence, and Languedoc, see D’Aubigné, Book III, chap. vii. The notes are valuable. Des Adresse proclaimed all Catholics in Lyonnais, Burgundy, Dauphiné, and Limousin rebels to the King (_C. S. P. For._, 340). He was not a Huguenot in the proper sense, but rebelled against the King, and sided with the Huguenots because he was jealous of La Mothe Gondrin, who was made _lieutenant du roi_ instead of himself in Dauphiné (see D’Aubigné, II, 49, n. 5).

[569] D’Aubigné, II, 48. He recovered Châlons-sur-Marne in June and Macon in August (Tavannes, 339, 343).

[570] It was at this moment that D’Andelot was sent to Germany for succor (_C. S. P. For._, No. 374, §7, July 27, 1562).

[571] At Pont Audemer the duke caused a preacher to be hanged, and afterward some of the best citizens and even boys (_C. S. P. Ven._, 355, July 23, 1562). There was also fear lest the English would land troops in Guyenne (_Archives de la Gironde_, XVII, 284).

[572] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 354, July 23, 1562; Claude Haton, I, 301; _C. S. P. For._, 185, June 13, 1562; cf. 246, §24; but see the duke of Aumale’s disclaimer to the queen mother, of July 9, asserting that those of Rouen, Dieppe, and Havre were plundering indiscriminately (Appendix IV).

[573] D’Aubigné, II, 52-73. The prince of Orange found himself in a very difficult position. His principality was continually exposed to the attacks of the king of France and those of the Pope from Avignon. Moreover, the conduct of the Huguenots compromised him on account of their violence toward the priests in the sanctuaries (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, I, 71, 72; Raumer, II, 2111561).

[574] Forneron, _Histoire de Philippe II_, I, 294. Montluc is unequaled in the keenness of his political penetration. The baron de Ruble says with truth that the old soldier rivals Hotman and Bodin in this respect. Witness the paragraph written in December, 1563, to be found in the memoir he sent to Damville justifying his resignation of the lieutenancy of Guyenne (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 297, 298 and note).

[575] There are few more interesting annals in the history of war than the racy, egotistical, garrulous, yet sometimes pithy narrative of this veteran leader. The fifth book of Montluc’s _Commentaires_ is wholly taken up with the war in Guyenne in 1562-63. His correspondence during the same period is in IV, 111-225; add Beza, _Histoire des églises réformées_, which is remarkably accurate and impartial.

[576] Coll. Trémont, No. 51.—Antoine de Bourbon to M. de Jarnac, from the camp at Gien, September 12, 1562, relative to sending forces into the south to join those of Burie and Montluc.

[577] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, II, 345, and note. His title was “conservateur de la Guyenne” (O’Reilly, _Histoire de Bordeaux_, 221).

[578] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, II, 357.

[579] _Ibid._, 416, 421.

[580] “The French spared the women there, but the Spaniards killed them, saying they were Lutherans disguised. These ruffians slew some 300 prisoners in cold blood—not a man escaped saving two that I saved.”—Montluc, II, 457, 458. When these Spaniards later mutinied and deserted in the summer of 1563, not even the Catholics regretted their departure (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 144, 152). For the terms on which they came, see Montluc, IV, 452, 453; D’Aubigné, II, 91, n. 2; 94, n. 4.

[581] See _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 37 ff.; De Thou,