Book IV, prol.: “Je n’y ay entendu que le _hault allemant_.

[593] In Provins, on their own initiative, the townspeople taxed their town, bailiwick, and _réssort_ (_sénéchausée_) to the amount of 7,000 livres _tournois_, the sum being imposed upon persons of every class, those who had gone to the war in the King’s service alone being exempted. This levy created great discontent, especially among the clergy, who appealed against the bailiff and the _gens du roi_ to the Court of Aids, alleging that the levy was made without royal commission and without the consent of those interested. The bailiff compromised by promising the clergy to restore the money paid by them and not to demand more of them, and so the process was dropped (Claude Haton, I, 296, 297).

[594] On the siege of Bourges see D’Aubigné, II, 77 ff.; Raynal, _Hist. du Berry_, IV; _Mém. des antiq. de France_, sér. III (1855), II, 191 ff.; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 494, 495; Boyer, _Doc. relat. au régime de l’artillerie de la ville de Bourges dans le XVI^[e] siècle_, 641; in _Bull. du Comité de la langue, de l’hist. et des arts de la France_, III, 1855-56. The capitulation of Bourges is in _Mém. de Condé_, III, 634. See also the “Journal of Jean Glaumeau,” edited by M. Bourquelot in _Mém. de la Soc. des antiq. de France_, XXII. Philip II expressed his displeasure at the terms to St. Sulpice, saying, “que aulcunes des conditions semblaient du tout assez convenables des sujetz à leur roi” (_L’ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 70, 75. Alva’s opinion is given at p. 78).

[595] Claude Haton, I, 285. Philip II told St. Sulpice “quant un voyage de Normandie, bien qu’il l’estimait être bien entrepris, qu’il semblait qu’il eut été meilleur de s’adresser à Orleans, où étaient les chefs, afin qu’ils ne se grossissent d’avantage.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 75.

[596] _C. S. P. For._, No. 374, §7, July 27, 1562; No. 510, §1, August 10, 1562. For the operations of the reiters around Paris in the summer of 1562 see D’Aubigné, Book III, chap. xii; De Ruble’s notes are valuable.

[597] Daval, _Histoire de la réformation à Dieppe, 1557-1657_. Publ. pour la I^[re] fois avec introd. et notes par E. Lesens (Société rouennaise de bibliophiles. 2 vols., 1879).

[598] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 975, 976, 1,002. This solicitation was in the nature of an acknowledgment of an expression of interest in them made by the English queen. For as far back as March she had sent assurances of her interest to Condé and the admiral (_ibid._, No. 965, March 3, 1562).

[599] _C. S. P. For._, No. 973, April 1, 1562.

[600] _Ibid._, No. 1,013, §13, April 17, 1562. Elizabeth considered the suggestion of her ambassador so favorable that she sent Sir Henry Sidney to France in the spring to aid Throckmorton. See the instructions in _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,063, 1,064, April 28, 1562.

[601] “Et il assure que bien qu’elle prenne à dépit de voir que les catholiques soient secourus de deça, elle est persuadée que son meilleur est de se contenir et regarder de loin ce qui adviendra.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 55, July, 1562.

[602] “Réponses du duc d’Albe à St. Sulpice, October 8, 1562,” _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 79; cf. 92, 93, 103.

[603] Throckmorton, English ambassador in France, urgently pressed such a policy, “even though it cost a million crowns” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 418, August 4, 1562). It was in the form of alternative offers to the Huguenots. Upon receipt of Havre-de-Grace, England was to deliver three hostages in guaranty of the compact, to the count palatine of the Rhine, and to pay in Strasburg 70,000 crowns; also to deliver at Dieppe 40,000 crowns within twenty days after the receipt of Havre-de-Grace, and 30,000 crowns within twenty days following, to be employed by Condé upon the defenses of Rouen and Dieppe and in the rest of Normandy, with the understanding that Havre-de-Grace was to be delivered to France upon the restoration of Calais, and the repayment of the 140,000 crowns advanced. The second offer was to this effect: Upon receipt of Havre-de-Grace, England was to deliver three hostages and deposit 70,000 crowns in Germany, and to send 6,000 men into Normandy to serve at Rouen and Dieppe (_C. S. P. For._, No. 268, July, 1562; cf. Nos. 662, 663). After prolonged negotiations which were conducted by the vidame of Chartres, the treaty of Hampton Court was framed on these lines, on September 10, 1562 (_Mém. de Condé_, III, 689; _Mém. du duc de Nevers_, I, 131; D’Aubigné, II, 79, 80). Elizabeth’s proclamation and justification of her action is at p. 693 of _Mém. de Condé_.

The alliance between the prince of Condé and the English, with the implied loss of Calais to France, more than any other fact, reconciled Catherine de Medici to Spanish assistance. After August she personally urged this aid (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 58, 59). Still Philip emphatically gave her to understand that “si l’ambassadeur de Espagne avait fait espérer que son maître déclarerait la guerre aux Anglais il avait dépassé ses instructions, car les Espagnols étaient depuis si longtemps liés avec ces peuples qu’il était impossible de rompre cette alliance.”—St. Sulpice to Charles IX, November 12, 1562 (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 93).

The constable was at Yvetot in October, 1562, at the time of the descent of the English upon Havre and wrote to Charles IX that he was unable to take the field. At a later season he complains to Catherine of the calumnies heaped upon him, and bluntly says “that he is not in the humor to endure such things.”—_Coll. de St. Pétersbourg_, CIII, letters pertaining to the house of Montmorency; La Ferrière, _Rapport_, 46.

[604] Archambault to St. Sulpice, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 71; Charles IX to St. Sulpice, September 15, _ibid._, 74. The camps on the Loire were broken up on September 14, only sufficient forces being left to invest Orleans. The soldiers were sent to Normandy via Montargis, Angerville-la-Rivière, and Etampes, leaving posts at Gien, Beaugency, and Pithiviers to keep the lines open between north and south and to prevent D’Andelot from getting to Orleans.

On the siege of Rouen, see Claude Haton, I, 286-89. The city was taken October 26 (Floquet, _Hist. du Parlement de Normandie_, II, 435).

On Huguenot excesses in Rouen, see an arrêt of the Parlement of Rouen, August 26, 1562, in _Mém. de Condé_, III, 613, and another ordering prayers for the capture of Fort St. Catherine, October 7 (_ibid._, IV, 41).

[605] See his singular letter to Cecil of July 29, 1562, in _C. S. P. For._, No. 389.

[606] Cf. articles for the English agent Vaughan, of August 30, in Cecil’s handwriting (_ibid._, No. 550).

[607] _Ibid._, No. 763, Vaughan to Cecil, October 4, 1562; Forbes, II, 89.

[608] _C. S. P. For._, No. 790, October 7, 1562; Forbes, II, 93.

[609] Cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 803, October 8, 1562; Forbes, II, 101; report of a military expert to Cecil.

[610] It was taken by assault by the duke of Guise (_Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 414, note; Claude Haton, I, 285; _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 41).

[611] The English aid had been divided into three bodies, that portion which entered Rouen being only the vanguard. It was the middle portion which followed in ships up the river and was captured by Damville. The third body was of the rear guard and returned to Havre-de-Grace (_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 302, October 14, 1562). In the fight off Caudebec 200 English were killed, and 80 made prisoners, all of whom were hanged by the French—a more rigorous punishment than even sixteenth-century war nominally allowed (_ibid._, _For._, Nos. 870, 872, October 17, 18, 1562).

[612] _Ibid._, No. 901, October 23, 1562.

[613] _C. S. P. Ven._, October 27, 1562.

[614] _Ibid._, _For._, 932, §4, October 30, 1562.

[615] For details see _Corresp. de Catherine de Méd._, I, 420, note; Claude Haton, I, 287-91; and a relation in _Arch. cur._, IV, sér. 1, 67. Also in _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 116. The same volume has some letters addressed to the queen of Navarre upon his death. Cf. Le Laboureur, III, 887. Claude Haton, I, 292, 293, has an interesting eulogy of him.

[616] Charles IX and his mother were eye-witnesses of this struggle, viewing it from a window of the convent of St. Catherine “from which they could see all that took place within and without the city.”—_C. S. P. Ven._, October 18, 1562.

[617] It had been the queen’s hope that Rouen might be saved from sack, and with this object she had offered 70,000 francs to the French troops if they would refrain from pillage. But such a hope was slight, for Rouen was the second city of the realm and one of great wealth (_C. S. P. Ven._, October 17, 1562). Moreover, “Guise proclaimed before the assault that none should fall to any spoil before execution of man, woman, and child” (_ibid._, _For._, No. 920, Vaughan to Cecil, October 28, 1562). Catherine de Medici also throws the responsibility upon the duke of Guise (_Corresp._, I, 430). For other details of the sack, see Castelnau, Book III, chap. xii. “Le ravage de ceste ville fut à la mesure de sa grandeur et à sa richesse,” is D’Aubigné’s laconic statement (II, 88). Fortunately, for the sake of humanity, the sack was stayed after the first day. The German troopers committed the worst outrages. The marshal Montmorency is to be given credit for mitigating the horrors. Montgomery, though at first reported captured, escaped to Havre, having disguised himself by shaving off his beard (_C. S. P. For._, No. 939, October 30, 1562), and abandoned his wife and children, to the indignation of Vaughan, who vented his outraged sentiments to Cecil: “A man of that courage to steal away, leaving his wife and children behind him” (_ibid._, No. 920, October 28, 1562).

Among those in Rouen who were officially executed were a Huguenot pastor by the name of Marlorat, with two elders of the church, a merchant and burgess of the city, named Jean Bigot, and one Coton; Montreville, chief president of Rouen, De Cros, some time governor of Havre-de-Grace, eight Scotchmen who had passports of Mary Stuart to serve under Guise, and some French priests (D’Aubigné, II, 88; _C. S. P. For._, No. 950, §14, October 31, 1562; No. 984, §2, November 4, 1562).

[618] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 307, October 31, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 91; “Montgoméry qui les faisait tenir s’est sauvé, laissant le peuple livré à la boucherie.”—Letter of Catherine de Medici to St. Sulpice.

[619] Orleans had 1,200 horsemen and 5,000 footmen in it, besides the inhabitants, with provisions to last six months. Almost all the weak places had been fortified with platforms, ravelins, and parapets. The counterscarp was roughly finished. There were nine or ten cannon and culverins with a good store of powder. The greatest menace was the plague which daily diminished the number of the Protestants (_C. S. P. Eng._, 596, §6, September 9, 1562—report of Throckmorton who was on the ground).

[620] _C. S. P. Ven._, October 17, 1562. The Spanish ambassador had foreseen the possibility of such a contingency and early in April had cautioned Philip II not to play upon Antoine’s expectations to the point of exasperation (K. 1,497, No. 17).

[621] _C. S. P. Eng._, 1,050, November 14, 1562.

[622] “His arm is rotten and they have mangled him in the breast and other parts so pitifully”—in the endeavor to cut out the mortified flesh.—_C. S. P. For._, 1,040, Smith to Cecil, November 12, 1562. Cf. No. 932, October 30; for other details see _C. S. P. Ven._, November 8, 9, 10, 13, 1562; _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 116; D’Aubigné, II, 85. The knowledge of his death was kept a secret for two days (_C. S. P. For._, 1,079, November 20, 1562). The Spanish court wore mourning for four days in honor of his memory (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 103). He was a “trimmer” to the last, on his deathbed professing the confession of Augsburg, as a doctrine intermediate between Catholicism and Calvinism (_Despatch of Barbaro_ [Huguenot Society], November 25, 1562).

[623] “Le roi catholique est content que la reine mère ait l’entier gouvernement des affaires, tout en ayant près d’elle le cardinal de Bourbon.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 109, January 19, 1562 (1563).

[624] “Il y eut toujours dans la ville quatre corps de garde, Charles IX ordonna d’établir à Etampes un magasin de vivre pour fournir son armée.”—_Annales du Gâtinais_, XIX, 105.

[625] _C. S. P. Eng._, No. 1,070, November 20, 1562.

[626] Claude Haton, I, 305.

[627] _C. S. P. For._, 193, December 5, 1562; _ibid._, _Ven._, December 3; Forbes II, 27. La Noue gives a motive which led Condé to besiege Paris: “Non en intention de forcer la ville, mais pour faire les Parisiens, qu’il estimoit les soufflets de la guerre et la cuisine dont elle se nourissoit.”—_Mém. milit. de la Noue_, chap. ix.

[628] Charles IX to St. Sulpice December 11, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 98; _Despatch of Barbaro_ (Huguenot Society), December 7, 1562.

[629] Yet although the negotiations of the prince of Condé at this time were tentative and the statements of the crown not intended by it to obtain, nevertheless the claims advanced are to be observed, because the lines along which religious toleration was to develop in France and the outlines of subsequent edicts of toleration, like those of Amboise, Longjumeau, and Bergerac, are foreshadowed in the articles proposed now.

Condé first proposed the following three articles: (1) liberty of conscience with free exercise of religion where demanded; (2) security of life and property unto all; (3) the summons of a free council within six months, or, if that were impossible, then a general assembly of the realm. To these proposals the government replied that Calvinist preaching would not be permitted under any circumstances in Lyons and other frontier towns, which were defined, nor near those with a governor and garrison, nor in those towns which were seats of the parlements. Condé then modified the Huguenot demands, as follows: (1) That Calvinist preaching be permitted in the suburbs of frontier towns, or in certain ones so appointed; (2) that it should obtain only in those other places where it was practiced before the war began; (3) except that it should be lawful for all gentlemen and all nobles to have private service in their own houses; (4) all persons residing in places where preaching was not permitted should be suffered to go to the nearest towns or other places for the exercise of their religion, without molestation. In reply, the government excepted Paris and the _banlieue_ from these stipulations. All these conditions the government and Condé accepted on December 3, 1562, Lyons being declared _not_ to be a frontier city within the construction of the articles. Certain minor stipulations followed as to amnesty, recovery of property, etc. Cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,219, December 9, 1562; Beza, _Hist. des églises réformées_, II, 121 ff., ed. 1841.

[630] “M. de Nevers has already here from 800 to 1,000 horse. They look for 600 foot and horsemen, Spaniards and Gascons and Piedmontese, to arrive shortly. All this while they had driven the prince off with talk.”—_C. S. P. For._, 1,168, December 1, 1562—Smith to Throckmorton. These reinforcements reached Paris on the night of December 7, 1562; there were 10 ensigns of Gascons (40 or 50 in an ensign), in all about 500 or 600 men; of the Spaniards, 14 ensigns, “better filled,” about 2,500-3,000, all footmen, and few armed. Their weapons were arquebuses and pikes, and some bills and halberds. “With them a marvellous number of rascals, women and baggage” (Smith to Cecil, _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,205, December 7, 1562; cf. Barbaro [Huguenot Society], December 7, 1562. The Venetian ambassador went out to view them). These reinforcements are much exaggerated in the _Mém. de Condé_ (V, 103, 104, ed. London), which rates the Gascons as 3,000 and the Spaniards as 4,000.

[631] _C. S. P. Ven._, December 3 and 14, 1562. For an extreme example of Chantonnay’s overbearing policy, see Barbaro’s account of a conversation with the Spanish ambassador in the letter of January 25, 1563.

[632] _Ibid._, _For._, 1,183, December 3, 1562; No. 1,238, §7, December 13, 1562. It is fair to say, though, that Condé was almost without artillery, having but eight guns, so that there was no possibility of breaking the wall. The only way to take the city would have been by an assault with scaling-ladders (letter of Hotman in _Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 311).

[633] Claude Haton, I, 307; _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 314, December 11, 1562. See Throckmorton’s earnest plea in _C. S. P. For._, 1,195, December 6, 1562, for sending financial assistance to him. The English intervention in Normandy was demonstrated to be a safe and profitable venture; besides other advantages which they might draw from Rouen, Havre, and Dieppe (which could safely be recovered) the archbishopric of Rouen was worth 50,000 francs; the two abbeys inside the town 10,000; the abbey of Fécamp 40,000 francs; the benefices within the town valuable; the _gabelle_ in salt and other royal rights in Rouen and Dieppe worth 50,000 crowns, which would double when the English merchants came, so that the military occupation of Normandy would cost less than the profits therefrom. But arguments were in vain to persuade Elizabeth’s double policy of caution and parsimony. Sir Nicholas drove Smith’s warning of December 7 home by another one to Elizabeth, urging her “to deal substantially” with Condé, “for wanting the queen’s force of men it is not likely he will be strong enough to accomplish his intents.”

[634] Too late the English government was alive to the danger of its losing all, owing to the narrow policy hitherto pursued, and Cecil hurried Richard Worseley, captain of the Isle of Wight, off to Portsmouth on December 7 to secure 5,000 pounds, as earnest of more money to be sent into France in aid of the Huguenots, whence he was to hasten to Havre, warn the earl of Warwick not to give credit to any reports of peace unless so informed by Throckmorton or Smith, and see that the town was speedily fortified and guarded (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,033, December 7, 1562; Forbes, II, 124, 125).

[635] Claude Haton, I, 307; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,240, December 13, 1562.

[636] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,238, December 13, 1562. On December 14, 1562, Condé wrote anxiously from his camp at St. Arneuil asking for succor, especially that Montgomery, who had gone to England for assistance, might be sent to him. (See Appendix V.) Montgomery was in Portsmouth with Sir Hugh Poulet, who was commissioned to bring over the balance of 15,000 pounds to Havre (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,270, December 16, 1562).

[637] _Ibid._, No. 1,276, December 18, 1562; No. 1,278, December 19, 1562.

[638] Guise had 22 cannon; Condé’s artillery consisted of 4 field-pieces, 2 cannon, and a culverin, which “never shot a shot” (Throckmorton to the Queen, _C. S. P. For._, January 3, 1563. He was an eye-witness of the battle. Forbes, II, 251).

[639] Claude Haton, I, 308, 309. Cf. note for other references.

[640] _C. S. P. Eng._, No. 228, 229, January 3, 1562; the admiral to Montgomery (Delaborde, _Gaspard de Coligny_, II, 180), December 28, 1562, from the camp at Avarot; cf. _C. S. P. Eng._, No. 181, January 2, 1563—the admiral to Queen Elizabeth; Forbes, II, 247.

[641] De Thou, Book XXXIV, and Le Laboureur’s additions to Castelnau, II, 81.

[642] “They did not strike a stroke” and “were defeated in running away.”—_C. S. P. For._, January 3, 1563; Forbes, II, 251.

[643] Claude Haton, I, 311.

[644] For contemporary accounts of the battle of Dreux, see: “Discours de la bataille,” in _Mém. du duc de Guise_, ed. Michaud, 497 ff.; Beza, _Histoire des églises réformées_, I, 605 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book III, chaps. xiii, xiv; Tavannes, 392 ff.; La Noue, _Mém. milit._, chap. x; De Thou, Book XXXIV; _C. S. P. Eng._, No. 1,282, abstract of a printed pamphlet; No. 1,316, December 21; No. 1,323, December 22, 1562—letter of the admiral to the earl of Warwick; to Queen Elizabeth, Delaborde, II, 178, 179. For details as to the number of prisoners, etc., see _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,286-88, 1,316, 1,317, 1,335, §§4-6; 1,334, 1,353, §6; 1,563, Nos. 12, 22, 28, narrative of Spanish troops. Excellent accounts of the battle are to be consulted in De Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, II, 366 ff.; Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny_, 140-45; and the duke of Aumale’s _History of the Princes of Condé_ (Eng. trans.), I, 150-68. The standard treatment of the subject is Coynart, _L’Année 1562 et la bataille de Dreux: étude historique et militaire; extraits divers, correspondance officielles du temps_ (1894).

Montaigne has an interesting essay upon some peculiar incidents of the battle. Two curious occurrences happened. The duke of Guise was the first to alight from his horse and courteously receive the prince of Condé (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,326, December 26, 1562); the two slept in the same bed that night (_ibid._, _Ven._, December 21, 1562). The duke of Aumale was unhorsed and nearly the whole army rode and trampled over him, yet he was unhurt, owing to the heavy suit of armor he wore (_ibid._, _For._, No. 375, §3, 1563; cf. No. 400, §2).

[645] The Parlement ordered the bishops of France to declare that in all parishes those who knew who were Huguenots should denounce them within nine days to their priests under pain of excommunication. This practice led to a large exodus of the Huguenots in many of the towns (Claude Haton, I, 312, 316, 317, and note, 318).

[646] The German form of the name was Bessenstein.

[647] _C. S. P. For._, No. 14, §2, January 3, 1563.

[648] _Ibid._, No. 16, §2, January 3, 1563, and No. 32—D’Andelot to Elizabeth from Orleans, January 5, 1563; cf. Forbes, II, 263.

[649] Sarpi, _Histoire du Concile de Trent_, Book VII, chap. xlviii.

[650] _C. S. P. For._, No. 15, §1, January 3, 1563.

[651] _Ibid._, _Eng. For._, No. 35, January 6, 1563; Forbes, II, 270; No. 54, §2, January 7; No. 69, §1, January 11, 1563.

[652] La Mothe Fénélon to St. Sulpice, December 17, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 103, 104.

[653] _C. S. P. Ven._, December 27, 1562.

[654] Randolph wrote to Cecil on January 5, 1563: “We thought ourselves happy till we heard of the prince’s taking, but despair not as longe as the admiral kepethe the feeldes.”—_C. S. P. Scot._, I, 1, 160.

[655] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 83, January 13, 1563; No. 84, §3, same date; No. 109, §6, January 17; No. 137, §5, January 23, 1563.

[656] _Ibid._, No. 83, §3, January 13, 1563.

[657] “Coll. d’un ancien amateur,” Hôtel Drouot, February 10, 1877, No. 34: Eleanor de Roye to Catherine de Medici from Orleans, December 22, 1562, asking that pity be taken upon the prince of Condé; _C. S. P. For._, No. 35, January 6, 1563; Forbes, II, 270; No. 146, §3: “This night (January 24) Condé was brought into this town with a strong guard. He came on horseback, and was brought through the town in a coach covered with black velvet, by torch-light, and the windows of the coach open; but the torch was so carried that none could see him.” The government had good reason to fear an attempt would be made to rescue him while he was at Chartres.

[658] “A ce soir bien tard j’ay receu la lettre qu’il vous a pleu m’escripre par la poste et vous puis asseurer Madame qu’il y a deux jours que Madame la Princesse et mon nepveu Dandelot veullent vous envoyer la response et advis de mon nepveu monsieur l’admiral et de toute leur compaigne. Mais je les en ay engarder sur la tente qu’auyons au retour du Plessis qui devoit estre samedy au matin pour estre rendu certain de vostre volonté, à quoy les voys tous fort affectionnés pour faire une bonne paix,” etc., etc.—Montmorency to Catherine de Médicis, Orléans, 12 janvier 1563 (Fillon Collection, No. 2652).

[659] _C. S. P. For._, No. 35, §2, January 6, 1563; Forbes, II, 270.

[660] Catherine expressed this determination as far back as October 20 in a letter to St. Sulpice (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 87; _C. S. P. For._, No. 37, January 6, 1563).

[661] _C. S. P. Ven._, February 2, 1563.

[662] Cf. _L’Ambassade St. Sulpice_, 93, 108, 114, 116, and _Corresp. de Cath. de Méd._, I, 508, 548. This was the real mission of Don Fernando de Toledo, a bastard son of the duke of Alva and grand prior of the order of St. John in Castile, who was sent to France to congratulate Charles IX on the victory of Dreux (cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 187, January 29, 1563, from Madrid; No. 190, January 30, from Madrid; No. 234, February 3, from Madrid). St. Sulpice this early surmised that Alva, at any rate, though he did not yet so suspect the political designs of Philip II, desired the continuation of civil war in France in order that Spain might profit by her distress, and so wrote to Catherine de Medici.—_L’ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 93, November 12, 1562. In consequence of this attitude, religious and political, the arguments of France fell upon deaf ears (see _ibid._, 122, and note).

[663] Cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 35, §2, January 6, 1563; No. 109, § 4, January 17; No. 182, §9, January 28; Forbes, II, 270, 287.

[664] _C. S. P. Ven._, February 6, 1563.

[665] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 234, February 3, 1563, from Madrid. No. 194, January 30, 1563. The money was used to purchase the services of 3,000 reiters and some new levies of Swiss. Pending their arrival, Charles IX called out the _arrière-ban_—cavalry of the nobility obliged to serve upon call—to prosecute the war (_C. S. P. Ven._, February 17, 1563). See the interesting account of the interception of 13,000 écus d’or probably by the Huguenots, though it may have been by robbers, sent from Flanders in February, 1563 (Paillard, “De tournement au profit des Huguenots d’un subsidé envoyé par Philippe II à Catherine de Médicis,” _Rev. hist._, II, 490).

[666] _C. S. P. For._, No. 145, January 24, 1563; Forbes, II, 300.

[667] _Ibid._, _Eng. For._, No. 289, February 12, 1562. “If the admiral,” wrote the earl, “should, for want of present aid, be discomfited and driven to make composition, they may reckon not only upon the whole power of France being bent against this place (Harfleur), but that the same will, with the assistance of Spain and Scotland and their confederates, be also undoubtedly extended against England. But if he be now aided with 10,000 men and 200,000 crowns, further inconvenience will be stayed and may serve a better purpose than the employment at another time of a far greater number at larger charges. It would be better for the queen to convert a good part of her plate into coin than slack her aid.”—_Ibid._, _Eng._, No. 290, February 12, 1563; add Nos. 285, 287. Warwick in seconding Coligny’s appeal (_ibid._, _For._, No. 294, February 12, 1563) urged haste in the matter of the money, as “if it is not sent in time it will be the ruin of the cause through mutiny of the reiters, who may even kill the admiral;” moreover, as the admiral’s forces were all cavalry, English infantry was wanted.

[668] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 265, 276, 280, 282, 289, February, 1563.

[669] _Ibid._, _Eng._, No. 291. Throckmorton’s report of his conference with Admiral Coligny, February 12, 1563. It is astonishing, after this display of selfishness and greed, that Coligny should still have retained patience with, and faith in, Elizabeth.

[670] The duke was short of heavy guns and had to send to Paris for them to come to Corbeil by water, from thence to Montargis, and so after by land to the river. The defenders had improvised a mill on the island into a fortress but after the arrival of the heavy guns, so hot a fire was poured upon them that they were compelled to retire across the bridge, “leaving many to the mercy of the fish” (Claude Haton, I, 319).

[671] _C. S. P. For._, No. 323, February 17, 1563. Both D’Aubigné,