Book III, chap. xxi; St. Sulpice, 28, 64, 102, 114, 130, 141, 160-63.

On Lansac, see _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, Index; upon Du Ferrier, consult Frémy, _Un ambassadeur libéral sous Charles IX et Henri III_, 1880.

The cardinal of Lorraine, while agreeing with Philip II, as to religion and heresy, looked with resentment upon the King’s attempt to appropriate the political destiny of Mary Stuart to his own ends (St. Sulpice to Lansac, December 15, 1562, p. 103). The whole council was filled with disaffection; 150 out of the 230 members present were Italians, most of these pensioners of Rome, so that the others resented their preponderance (Lansac to St. Sulpice, February 10, 1563, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 115).

There were conflicts as to precedence; some of the ambassadors like Lansac and Du Ferrier believed in qualified toleration of Protestants (St. Sulpice, 115); many of the members, while believing in the enlargement of the Pope’s prerogatives in religious affairs, were opposed to a reduction of governmental rights of control over ecclesiastical temporalities. Philip II’s attitude in this respect was identical with that of Charles IX—each wanted to exercise political control over the church within his kingdom (St. Sulpice, 198). Even the cardinal of Lorraine was an advocate of temporal independence (St. Sulpice, 161). See Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_; the Appendix has a valuable bibliography of the history of the Council of Trent. M. Baguenault de la Puchesse’ article in _R. Q. H._, 1869, may be added. The cardinal of Lorraine left Trent on March 23. M. Baschet questions (p. 214): “Que sont devenues toutes les dépêches qu’il a du écrire à la Reine mère, tant sur sa négociation avec l’Empereur, que sur sa visite à la Republique de Venise et son voyage en Cour de Rome, pour l’accomplissement desquels il s’était deplacé de sa résidence au Concile?” He was not aware of the fact, when he wrote in 1870, that Count Hector de la Ferrière had shortly before discovered them in the archives at St. Petersburg (La Ferrière, _Deux années de mission à Saint Petersbourg_, 51). For the cardinal’s mission to Venice see _R. Q. H._, October 1869, 349, 350, and 385, note.

[701] Forbes, II, 271; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,193, §5, December 5, 1562. Granvella to the King, March 10, 1563; Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 239; cf. Philip to Margaret of Parma, May 16, _ibid._, I, 249.

[702] The fear was amply justified. Granvella wrote to his sovereign on December 22, 1563: “Le situation actuelle de la France est plus fâcheuse qui j’aie vue depuis la mort du roi François.”—_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 284. Gachard, _Rapport sur les archives de Lille_, 218, cites a remark made in 1562: “Messieurs, acoustez bien ce qui adviendra en France entre les catholicques et les Huguenots; cas, au son flageolet de Franche il vous faudra danser par dechà.”

[703] On this subject see La Ferrière, _La Normandie à l’étranger_, and his article entitled, “La paix de Troyes avec l’Angleterre,” _R. Q. H._, XXXIII, 36 ff. Much of the article is reprinted from the introduction to _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II.

[704] _C. S. P. For._, No. 443, March 13, 1563, Smith to D’Andelot; cf. 511, the Privy Council to Warwick, March 23, 1563; Forbes, II, 363.

[705] The prince of Eboli and the duke of Alva proposed that Havre-de-Grace be put temporarily into the hands of Philip II, he to mediate between England and France! (St. Sulpice to Charles IX, July 11, 1563, and to Catherine, August 27; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 137, 151.)

[706] _C. S. P. For._, No. 498, March 22, 1563, Elizabeth to Smith.

[707] _Ibid._, Ven., No. 319, January 24, 1563.

[708] Charles IX to St. Sulpice, June 20, 1563; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 122, 123.

[709] _Ibid._, 136.

[710] Neither Coligny nor D’Andelot could be prevailed upon to serve in the war against England, although believing they had been shabbily treated by Elizabeth. The admiral openly refused; D’Andelot feigned illness; Condé alone, of the Huguenot leaders, bore arms against his former ally—“l’honneur de la France couvrait son ingratitude.”—_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xii, xiii, xvii; cf. _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 498, 511, 541, and especially 548, March, 1563. Elizabeth had replied to the envoy sent to her by the prince of Condé to notify her of the peace made by the prince with the King and to treat for the restitution of Havre-de-Grace, that as the envoy had neither power nor commission from the King, she would not negotiate with him, and that nothing must be said about Havre-de-Grace unless the affairs of Calais were first adjusted (_C. S. P. Ven._, May 18, 1563).

[711] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 936, April 17, 1563. Warwick in a letter to Lord Robert Dudley and Cecil of April 23, 1563, estimates the French force around Havre at 10,000 French and 6,000 Swiss (_ibid._, No. 659; Forbes, II, 398).

[712] _C. S. P. For._, No. 652, Mundt to Cecil, April 20, 1563, from Strasburg; cf. No. 659, Warwick to the Privy Council on the authority of the Rhinegrave, April 23, 1563; Forbes, II, 398. Nevertheless, the French continued to fortify Metz against the future (_C. S. P. For._, No. 705, May 4, 1563).

[713] The church complied by mortgaging its possessions to this amount (Claude Haton, I, 330). They were redeemed in the March following (Catherine de Medici to St. Sulpice, December 22, 1563; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 203); _Journal de Bruslart_, 141. The transaction cost the church 3,230,000 livres. Some of the clergy claimed that the King had no right to do this without papal authorization (Claude Haton, _loc. cit._).

[714] The rate was fixed at five _livres_ for each measure of wine, and at 6 _sous_, 8 _deniers_, for each _queue_ (Claude Haton, I, 330, 331). The farm of this _gabelle_ was sold at Provins for the sum of 600 livres.

[715] “ ... Led. prince dit avoir moyen de faire sortir ... les Allemans qu’il a en grand nombre.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 101; _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 688; 748, §§13, 20; 753, §§5, 10; No. 764 (_anno_ 1563); _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 326, May 18, 1563.

[716] _C. S. P. Eng. For._, No. 750, §§6, 7, May 16, 1563; No. 753, §5, May 17; No. 770, May 20, 1563.

[717] _C. S. P. For._, 584, April 5, 1563; Forbes, II, 573.

[718] Warwick had barely 5,000 men of all sorts to defend the town (_C. S. P. For._, No. 680, Muster of April 29-30, 1563). There was much sickness. Food was scarce. “The estate of victuals here,” wrote the earl to the Privy Council on April 30, “rests now upon a scarce proportion of one month in bread and corn (of beer we can make no further account than as long as we are masters of water, to brew), having neither flesh, fish, butter, nor cheese, nor any meat of the queen’s store but bacon for two days. The clerk of the store here is as bare in money as victuals.... The enemy’s chief hope for taking this town rests upon famine.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 676; Forbes, II, 402. Warwick pointed out, however, that if the queen “would put forth a power upon the sea” and keep the mouth of the Seine open, as well as prevent relief from being brought from Flanders and Brittany, Havre might be saved. “Their whole relief must come to them by Picardy side, which will not suffice long; neither can they be victualled by land any way, if the commodities of the seas be by this means taken away.”—_C. S. P. Dom._, XXVII, 15, January 12, 1563. Cf. XXVIII, 48, May 8, 1563.

[719] _C. S. P. For._, No. 786; Forbes, II, 427.

[720] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 328, May 28, 1563.

[721] _Rel. vén._, I, 375.

[722] _Ibid._, I, 429.

[723] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 338, July 27, 1563; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 141, 142.

[724] I have come upon an interesting item in the history of the art of war in connection with this siege of Havre. In January, 1563, a Corsican, resident in Spain, by the name of Pietro Paolo del Delfino offered his services to St. Sulpice. “Il va dans l’eau,” wrote the ambassador to Catherine, “et m’a assuré qu’avec certains engins il empéchera que nul navire venant d’Angleterre puisse aborder aud. Havre sans grand danger.” In June Delfino arrived at Bois de Vincennes, where he was well received, according to his own statement (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 112, and n. 4). But I do not find any further mention of him. Was this invention a sort of torpedo? We know that shells were first used in the siege of Orleans in this year.

[725] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 341, August 6, 1563; on the progress of the siege and the condition of Havre cf. _ibid._, _For._, 1563, Nos. 754, §6; 762, 806, §§4, 5; 828, 835, 852, §4; 853, §4; 857, §8; 871, 881, 894, 907, §2; 941, 967, 973, §2; 977, §4; 982, §9; 998, 1007, 1021, 1024, 1026, §7; 1044, §4; 1049, 1081, 1086, 1100, 1208, 1296. In Appendix VI is a letter of Admiral Clinton to Lord Burghley, July 31, 1563, in which he says that the plague, not the arms of France, has conquered them.

[726] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 343, August 14, 1563.

[727] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxvi-xxviii; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 177, 194, 195.

[728] “Adieu le droit de Calais,” wrote Robertet, Charles IX’s secretary, on July 4, 1561, to St. Sulpice (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 142).

[729] _C. S. P. Ven._, 347, November 11, 1563; _ibid._, _For._, No. 6, January 4, 1564; No. 47, January 15.

[730] _Ibid._, _Ven._, No. 348, November 18, 1563; _Archives de la Gironde_, XVII, 293.

[731] The text of the treaty is in Rymer’s _Foedera_, XV, 640. La Ferrière has an extended account of the negotiations in _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxxiv-xliv. For other details see _C. S. P. For._, 1564, Nos. 6, 47, 250-53, 297, 307-10, 314, 347, 363, 364. On the great commercial importance of the treaty of Troyes, see De Ruble, _Le traité de Cateau-Cambrésis_, 193, 194.

[732] _C. S. P. Ven._, 1564, No. 388.

[733] “A Paris arriva toute la maison de Lorraine vestue de deuil, pour faire une solemnelle demande de justice exemplaire sur la mort du duc de Guise.”—D’Aubigné, II, 204; the request bearing date September 26, 1563, is in _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 667.

Coligny was so fearful of suffering violence in Paris from the bigotry of the populace or at the instigation of the Guises, that he would not enter the city.

[734] On these feuds see _C. S. P. For._, _anno_ 1563, No. 748, §§1-6, 15; No. 753, §1; No. 770; No. 896, §3; No. 912, §4; No. 1,003, §3; No. 1,212; No. 1,233, §4; No. 1,249; No. 1,287: No. 1,337, §3; No. 1431; No. 1,445, §8; _Proceedings of the Huguenot Society_, letters of April 20, 30, May 1, 21, 27, 31.

[735] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,558, December 29, 1563. “Le connétable lui même, tout en étant homme de bien catholique, était cependant carnale, et voulait avoir appui des deux cotés.”—Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 240.

[736] For examples see _C. S. P. For._, No. 982, §§1, 2, an episode of the last week of June, 1563; _ibid._, _Ven._, No. 333; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxix.

[737] A law was made in August forbidding the wearing of any weapon but sword and dagger; concealment of firearms was an offense punishable by confiscation of lands and goods (Edict of Caen, August 24, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 147; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,394, October 1563; _ibid._, No. 912).

[738] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,003, July 14, 1563; _ibid._, _Ven._, No. 330, June 10.

[739] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxxii, xxxiii (many examples).

[740] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 896, §§3, 17; 912 §4.

[741] _Ibid._, Nos. 1,155, 1,387, 1,394, 1,431, 1,445, _anno_ 1563.

[742] The fisheries of France, however, were profitable. “They quietly make their herring fishery ... without impeachment.... Their fish-markets were never better furnished.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,356, Throckmorton to the queen November 1, 1563.

[743] Castelnau, Book V, chaps. vii-ix.

[744] “Instructions pour le Sieur de Lansac, envoyé en Espagne, janvier 1564,” _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 223.

[745] August 18, 1563. The officiai promulgation is in _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 574. _Déclaration faicte par le Roy en sa majorité tenant son lict de justice en sa cour de Parlement de Rouen_, Robert Estienne, Paris, 1563.

[746] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 101, 102; _R. Q. H._, XXIV, 459; Claude Haton, I, 363, and n. 2; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xxiii; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,190, September, 1563.

The declaration, by a technicality, contravened the testament of Charles V (1374), which for centuries had been the law regulating the King’s majority. Charles IX was born on June 17, 1550, so that he was _in his fourteenth year_, though not yet fourteen years old. The Parlement of Paris for more than a month refused to register the edict, not on political, but on religious grounds. It objected to “la mention de l’édit de pacification d’Amboise, introduite sans motif dans la déclaration de l’édit de la majorité, ce _que semblait reconnaître deux religions_.”—_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd.,