Book XXII; Delaborde, III, 176 ff.). In Appendix XX will be found a

long document consisting of a great number of articles proposed by the queen of Navarre, the princes of Navarre and Condé, and the other chiefs of the Huguenot party, for the pacification of France, and divided under the heads of religion, restitution of goods and estates, council and justice, arms, and finances, together with measures to be taken to insure the performance of the edict (February 4, 1570).

[1378] _C. S. P. For._, No. 644, January 1570, articles sent by the queen of Navarre to the King.

[1379] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 508, note. The parlement of Toulouse was a special object of criticism by the Huguenots. In the act of peace they were exempted from its jurisdiction.

[1380] _C. S. P. For._, No. 672, February 3, 1570; cf. _R. Q. H._, XLII, 112-15, copied from Record Office; Delaborde, _Coligny_, III, 180.

[1381] _C. S. P. For._, No. 682, February 10, 1570. Not in Rochambeau.

[1382] _Ibid._, No. 674, February 5, 1570. This information had been conveyed to Jeanne d’Albret by a packet which had been intercepted (_ibid._, No. 689, February 17, 1570).

[1383] Waddington, “La France et les Protestants allemands sous Charles IX et Henri III,” _Revue Hist._, XLII, 256 ff.

[1384] The queen of Navarre to Charles IX. Has received his letter and communicated his reply to her son and nephew, and the noblemen who are with them. Assures him that it is impossible for them to live without the free exercise of their religion, which in the end he will be constrained to grant, and declares that all those who advise him otherwise are no true subjects to him (_C. S. P. Spain_, No. 683, February 11, 1570). Not in Rochambeau.

[1385] De Thou definitely says Paris and the court were indifferent as to the fate of the remoter provinces so long as the war did not touch them too (Vol. VI, Book XLVII, p. 37).

[1386] “Compertum nobis est nullam esse Satanae cum filiis lucis communionem; ita inter catholicos quidem et haereticos nullam compositionem, nisi fictam fallaciisque plenissimam, fieri posse pro certo habemus.”—Potter, _Pie V_, 86 (ed. Gouban), Book 4, letter I, p. 269; Pius V to Charles IX, January 29, 1570. At p. 272 is a letter in a similar vein to the duke of Anjou, written on the same day.

[1387] De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, VII, 184, note; V, 135; letter of Montluc, October 31, 1568.

[1388] _Ibid._, IV, 335.

[1389] It is to be regretted that there is no monograph upon the history of these viscounts. It would be quite worth doing. Communay, _Les Huguenots dans le Béarn et la Navarre_, and Durier, _Les Huguenots en Bigorre_, 1884, are valuable collections of documents. The sources are largely in the local archives of Upper Languedoc, Guyenne, Quercy, the Agenois, and Rouergue. My information is gathered entirely from the two works named above and Montluc; D’Aubigné; _Hist. du Languedoc_, V; Courteault, _Blaise de Montluc_, Paris, 1908; and Marlet, _Le comte de Montgomery_, Paris, 1890.

[1390] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 155, 156.

[1391] De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 354, 399, note.

[1392] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 501; _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, II, 399, note; V, 268 note.

[1393] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 495.

[1394] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 495, 496; La Popelinière, Book XIII.

[1395] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 208.

In _State Papers, Foreign_, Elizabeth, Vol. CXV, No. 990 is a document showing the provinces held by the Protestants. It is undated but the mention of the viscounts in it shows that it is of this time (printed in Appendix XXI).

[1396] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 576, note.

[1397] Bordenave, 166; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 575.

[1398] Bordenave, _Hist. de Béarn et de Navarre_, 268-77.

[1399] Olhagaray, _Histoire de Foix, de Navarre et de Béarn_ (1609), 578, however, gives the date March 4.

[1400] Bordenave, _Histoire de Béarn et de Navarre_, 216.

[1401] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 245.

[1402] In F. Fr., 15,558, fol. 293, is a memoir of Jean de Montluc to the King, of July, 1569, enumerating the munitions and provisions of the army before Navarrens.

[1403] _Mém. de Gaches_, 90.

[1404] I do not know that the actual text of this joint commission is known. Montgomery, in his letter at this time styled himself as follows: Lieutenant-général du roy en Guyenne, despuis la cousté de la Dordoigne jusques aux Pyrénées, en l’absence et sous l’autorité de messeigneurs les princes de Navarre et de Condé, lieutenant et protecteur de Sa Majesté, conservateur de ses édits et aussi lieutenant-général de la reine de Navarre en son comté de Bigorre!—De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 266, note.

[1405] Montgomery’s itinerary is printed in Appendix XXII.

The two parts of Montgomery’s expedition south of the Dordogne, first the union with the viscounts, and second, the campaign against Terride are to be distinguished, although they have been much confounded.

The sources and authorities for the history of this brief war are: Communay, _Les Huguenots dans le Béarn et la Navarre_; Durier, _Les Huguenots en Bigorre_; Bordenave, _Hist. de Béarn et de Navarre_, Book VII; Montluc, _Comment. et Lettres_, III, Book VII, pp. 254-89, and his letters for September, 1569 in Vol. V, pp. 164 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book V, chap. xiv; La Popelinière, Book XVIII; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 578-87; Dupleix, _Histoire de France_—his father was one of Montluc’s captains and for some time marshal of the camp to Biron in Guyenne; Marlet, _Le comte de Montgomery_; Courteault, _Blaise de Montluc_, chap. xi. The baron de Ruble, ed. Montluc, V, 211, note, says: “Les documents inédits sont presque innombrables. Outre les lettres conservées à la Bibliothèque Nationale, principalement dans la collection Harlay, St. Germain, vol. 323 et suivants, nous citerons, aux archives de Pau la série B 952 à 958: les registres consulaires d’Auch, les registres de Larcher aux archives de Tarbes, les registres consulaires de Bagnères-de-Bigorre.” The local archives of Bigorre contain many of Montgomery’s letters. Some of them have been published in _Arch. de la Gascogne_, VI.

[1406] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 286.

[1407] _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 164.

[1408] Damville ignored the railings of Montluc until November, when he wrote to the King in vindication of himself, giving a full account of their campaign against Montgomery (De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 243-57, notes; Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, Nos. 75 and 84. The first is printed in _Archives de la Gironde_, II, 148; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 521, note 2; the latter is given in tome XII, preuves, note 304). Damville seems to have anticipated an inquiry, for he carefully laid aside all of Montluc’s letters from May 26 to October 22, 1569. On February 27, 1570, Damville sent the King a stinging indictment of Montluc’s course. In it he declared Montluc was a rash impostor and accused him of forcing the people of Guyenne to pay unjust ransoms; of violating women; of misusing public moneys; and asserted that he courted investigation of his own conduct (De Ruble, _Montluc_, III, 394; V, 269, and notes; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 529, note 3; the letter was first published by Le Laboureur in the _Additions to Castelnau_, II, 130, from a copy in the Dupuy Coll., Vol. 755. M. Tamizey de Larroque discovered the original in the Coll. Godefroy in the Bib. de l’Institut). Most men of the time, however, deplored the contest between these two Catholic chiefs of the south, without taking sides (see _Archives de la Gironde_, II, 148). Montluc’s Spanish spy, Bardaxi, naturally reproaches Damville (K. 1,574, No. 154). Probably no judgment may fairly be pronounced until all the sources have been carefully examined. A life of Damville is a work sorely needed; it is a rich subject for some historical student.

The recent work of M. Courteault, _Blaise de Montluc_, 538-40, 551-53, 557-59, goes at length into this feud between Montluc and Damville. In the main the author sides with the marshal—“Damville acceptait les faits accomplis et ne jugeait pas utile de combattre Mongonmery” (p. 551). He declares that “prudemmement, il [Montluc] a passé dans son livre ce grave incident sous silence” (p. 551). He admits, however, that if the King had ordered an investigation Damville would have had something to answer for (p. 559).

There are numerous letters of Charles IX to Montluc in the St. Petersburg archives. In them Charles harps upon the disagreeable conduct of Montluc toward Jeanne d’Albret, and tries at one and the same time to repress the queen’s indefatigable propaganda lest it anger Spain, and to restrain Montluc because of his outrageous conduct and the illustrious blood of the queen of Navarre (La Ferrière, _Rapport_, 22.) Letters of the marshal Montmorency and of marshal Damville are also in this volume. Those of the latter cover the history of all the campaigns of Montgomery in Béarn. He condemns Montluc for the death of Terride. The marshal’s laconic language is strikingly in contrast with Montluc’s rhetorical complaint (La Ferrière, _Rapport_, 44). If we may believe Brantôme, “dans toutes les guerres Montluc gagna la pièce d’argent; auparavant il n’avoit pas grandes finances, et se trouva avoir dans ses coffres cent mille escus.” Charles IX once sharply reminded Montluc in a letter of November, 1562, that he was getting 500 livres per month for his table. (La Ferrière, _Blaise de Montluc d’après sa correspondance inédite_, Mém. lus à la Sorbonne, 1864.)

[1409] Coligny was quick to seize the opportunity afforded in the south to continue the war there until the crown came to terms with the Huguenots. After the King’s capture of St. Jean-d’Angély, Coligny crossed the Loire to join Montgomery (cf. Delaborde. III, 157, 161, 169, 170; _Montluc_, III, 347, October; _C. S. P. For._, No. 577, December, 1569; Letters from La Rochelle to the cardinal of Châtillon). The cardinal has received letters from his brother the admiral, dated from Montauban November 22, informing him that the princes are well, that their army is increasing, that the reiters are content and have received pay, and that there is no difficulty in joining with Montgomery and the viscounts. Their army will consist of 6,500 horse and 12,000 arquebusiers. For the proclamation issued from Montauban see Appendix XXIII. In _C. S. P. For._, No. 667, January, 1570, is an extract of a letter from La Rochelle, describing the position of the armies of the admiral and the count of Montgomery, who are on either bank of the Garonne, and in good spirits and health.

[1410] De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 263, 264. Letter of Montluc to Charles IX, January 9, 1570. He writes almost broken hearted.

[1411] So great was the desolation inflicted that the King was obliged to remit the _taille_ in Agenois (_Arch. municip. d’Agen reg. consul._, fol. 262). The Protestants were so encouraged that even those living in Agen, Montluc’s own town, dared to revolt (_Bull. du Com. de la langue et de l’hist. de France_, I, 478; _Reg. munic. d’Agen_, fol. 254). An interesting comparison might be made between the rules for the government of the camp issued by Coligny at this time—they are in K. 1,575, No. 7—and those issued by the prince of Condé at Orleans, in April, 1562. For an example of the severe discipline in the Protestant army see Claude Haton, II, 568; cf. De Thou, Book XXX.

[1412] De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 74.

[1413] _Ibid._, 314.

[1414] De Ruble, _op. cit._, III, 315-29; Montluc’s sang-froid is amazing as he writes.

[1415] Delaborde, III. 157, 161, 169, 170. Early in 1569 Montluc sent a complaint to Charles IX protesting against this export of grain. This trade redounded to the advantage of the commander of the Gascon coast, who was a brother of the bishop of Agen, and Montluc’s complaint gave rise to an acrimonious correspondence preserved in Coll. Harley St. Germain, No. 323, which throws some light on the interesting question of trade in the sixteenth century (see _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 395, note).

[1416] See Montluc’s observations in III, 368, 369. He gives a spirited account on p. 367 of an attack of the reiters on Monbrun, describing the way they fought in the close quarters of a town.

[1417] _C. S. P. For._, No. 543, December 19, 1569.

[1418] Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 262.

[1419] He took it long before historians attributed the honor to him (_ibid._, 382).

[1420] _Ibid._, 366.

[1421] “Il devoit considérer l’importance de la place qui estoit sur deux rivières.”—_Ibid._

[1422] _Ibid._, V, 266.

[1423] All this happened on the night of December 15 and 16 (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 384, 385). De Thou, V, Book XLV, 666-68, and Popelinière, Book XXII, both tell the tale. A learned dissertation in _Hist. du Lang._, XII, note 5, clears up a number of obscure points in these accounts.

[1424] The last of them got across by January 3, 1570 (_Montluc_, III, 384-91, and his letter of January 9, in V, 261-64).

[1425] For a description of Blaye see _Rel. vén._, I, 22, 23.

[1426] For a description of Brouage see _Rel. vén._, I, 27.

[1427] The sources are unanimous on this point, both Protestant and Catholic (La Noue, _Disc. polit. et milit._, chap. xxix; La Popelinière, Book XXII; Montluc, _Comment._, III, 395; Brantôme, ed. Lalanne, IV, 322; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 527-29, note; Delaborde, III, 189). The outrages of the reiters were so great that a special order of the day was required to govern their conduct (see K. 1,575, No. 17).

[1428] During the nine months which elapsed between the battle of Moncontour and the peace of St. Germain, the Huguenot army marched over 300 leagues.

[1429] La Popelinière, Book XXII; La Noue, chap. xxix; _Revue hist._, II, 542, 543.

[1430] La Noue’s observation on this point is curious; cf. Delaborde, III, 205.

[1431] Cf. Elizabeth’s declarations of neutrality to Norris, (_C. S. P., For._, No. 704, February 23, 1570). Across the Channel the cardinal of Châtillon did all he could to secure the support of the English queen for the Huguenots (_ibid._, No. 742, the cardinal to Cecil, March 9, 1570; cf. Delaborde, _Coligny_, III, 185); La Ferrière, _Le XVI^[e] siècle et les Valois_, 254-56; and a letter of the cardinal to the prince of Orange, April 23, 1570, (_Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 373-77). But it was not from England direct, but from Germany, under the stimulus of English gold, that France looked for assistance to come to the Huguenots (_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 476, February 26, 1570).

[1432] See Appendix XXIV.

[1433] _State Papers, Foreign_, Elizabeth, Vol. CXII, No. 693 J, the cardinal of Lorraine to——. May 4, 1570, see Appendix XXV.

[1434] _Coll. des autographes de M. Picton_, No. 67. Order signed by the cardinals of Lorraine, Bourbon, and Pellevé, June 24, 1570, for the alienation of 50,000 _écus de rente_ of the property of the church.

[1435] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 332.

[1436] The actual document is still preserved in the Archives nationales, K. 1,725, No. 41. It is dated June 16, 1570, and countersigned by L’Aubespine.

[1437] He borrowed 4,000 livres, chiefly in Bordeaux; the munitions came from Toulouse and Bayonne. The provinces were required to furnish the supplies (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 400). The consular registers of Agen and Auch still preserve the records of his requisitions. According to the report of a Spanish spy, in K. 1,576, No. 5, the forces consisted of 10,000 footmen, 1,500 horse, and 18 pieces of artillery. This is surely exaggerated. His _Commentaires_ imply that his men were few in number and he expressly says that he was short of munitions and artillery.

[1438] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 401.

[1439] _Commentaries of Blaise de Montluc_, translated by Cotton, 368, 369. This occurred on July 23, 1570. To consummate Montluc’s humiliation, Charles IX filled his place, without giving him opportunity to resign, by appointing the marquis de Villars to be his successor. He did not reach Guyenne until October 22. In the meantime his brother, Jean de Montluc, bishop of Valence, and _commissaire des finances_ in Guyenne, and as much a Politique as the other was a bigot, exercised authority for him. Gascony was governed by the seigneur de Vigues (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 434).

[1440] _C. S. P. Spain_, No. 687, February 15, 1570.

[1441] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 1,023, June 20, 1570, La Noue to the cardinal of Châtillon; _ibid._, No. 1,107, July 22, 1570; Hauser, _La Noue_, 20-22. He received the name “Iron Arm” (Bras-de-fer) from the circumstance that he afterward wore a mechanism made of iron, with which, at least, he was able to guide his horse.

[1442] On Coligny’s campaign in Rouergue and the Cévennes in the spring of 1570, see _Revue hist._, II, 537-39, letters of the cardinal of Armagnac of April 1, April 11, and May 10.

[1443] Delaborde, III, 209-15.

[1444] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 618.

[1445] The parlement of Toulouse strongly protested against the edict (_Hist. du Lang._, V, 538, note 5). The Peace of St. Germain was registered by the Parlement on August 11, 1570 (_C. S. P. For._, August 11, 1570; cf. Delaborde, III, 230, 231). The Pope wrote with mingled alarm and regret over the Peace of St. Germain to the cardinals of Bourbon and Lorraine, on September 23, 1570 (Potter, _Pie V_, 103, 107, ed. Gouban, Book IV, letter 7, pp. 282, 285).

[1446] For an excellent discussion of the feudal interests and policy of the Huguenots in the civil wars, see Weill, _Les théories sur le pouvoir royal en France pendant les guerres de religion_, 73-80.

[1447] See the letter of the papal nuncio to Philip II, June 26, 1570, in Appendix XXVI. The Pope had protested even earlier than this (brief of Pius V to the cardinal of Lorraine, March 2, 1570, disapproving of the conditions of peace). The King, even if vanquished, ought not to have consented to such detestable terms. The Pope’s sorrow is the greater because of the cardinal’s assent to them (La Ferrière _Rapport_, 55).

[1448] In 1562 on account of fear lest the Moriscos might enter into relation with the Moors of Africa, the government of Spain forbade the use of arms among them. In 1567 an attempt was made to suppress their language and abolish their national customs. A terrible war ensued. Don John of Austria finally suppressed the revolt after it had lasted for ten years. But in 1570, in anticipation of a Turkish attack from the west the Moors again rebelled and Spain had to compromise (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 361; cf. Lea, _The Moriscos of Spain_).

[1449] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 485, July 20, 1570.

[1450] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 439.

[1451] “Montmorency bears the vogue in court.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,216, Norris to the Queen, August 31, 1570. To enhance his prestige at this time, Montmorency’s claim of right of precedence at court which the duke of Mayenne contested was decided by the Privy Council in his favor (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,083, July 9, 1570).

[1452] Christopher de Thou to the King, December 2, 1570 defending the Parlement against the accusation that it is unjust to the Calvinists: “Mais un tel crime et si execrable ne se scauroit asses punir, et seroit plus tost à craindre que nous fussions reprehensibles de trop grande rémission que de grand severité, qu’ils appelent cruauté.” He and his colleagues wish that the duke of Anjou might enter into possession of his appanage in order that the duchy of Alençon may be in the jurisdiction of the Parlement of Paris and not in that of Normandy (Collection la Jarriette, No. 2,796).

[1453] Sir Henry Norris under date of September 23, testifies that “the state here is very quiet, where all strife and old grudges seem utterly buried, and men live in good hope of the continuance thereof, since the occasioner of all the troubles [the cardinal of Lorraine] in this realm is out of credit” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,285, Norris to Cecil). The reiters in the course of their return home, pillaged the fair of Champagne (Claude Haton, II, 592 and note).

[1454] Thirty articles complaining of infractions of the Edict of Pacification, and desiring that they may be redressed, with the King’s answers in the margin (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,323, October, 1570).

[1455] _Ibid._, No. 1,359. Pierre Ramus was excluded from the College of Presles by this decree.

[1456] Ordonnance du Roy sur les defences de tenir Escolles, Principaultez, Colleges; ny lire en quelque art; ou science que ce soit, en public, privé ou en chambre, s’ilz ne sont congenuz et approuvez esté de la Religion catholique et romaine. Avec l’Arrest de la court du Parlement. Poictiers, B. Noscereau, 1570.

[1457] Claude Haton, II, 610 and 617.

[1458] _Ibid._, 629.

[1459] _Ibid._, 740.

[1460] The vidame of Chartres to the Marshal Montmorency, October 3, 1570. See Appendix XXVII. The scheme originated with the vidame de Chartres and the cardinal Châtillon (see La Ferrière, “Les projets de marriage d’une reine d’Angleterre,” _Revue des deux mondes_, September 15, 1881, p. 310); cf. Hume, _Courtships of Queen Elizabeth_, 115. In 1563 the prince of Condé had actually proposed the marriage of Charles IX and Elizabeth (_Revue des deux mondes_). August 15, 1881, p. 861.

[1461] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,521, January 27, 1571. Walsingham to Cecil.

[1462] Such an offer, in the nature of things, could not have been accepted. Aside from the fact that France at this juncture was unwilling to further any cause advocated by Spain, there was too much practical advantage to France in maintaining the _entente cordiale_ with the Turks. Turkish influence might be brought to bear upon the Emperor to neutralize his opposition to French enterprise in Poland; moreover, France had but recently concluded an advantageous commercial treaty with the Sultan. For accounts of the relations of France and Turkey at this time see Du Ferrier, _Un ambassadeur liberal sous Charles IX et Henri III_, 44-102; Flament, “La France et la Ligue contre le Turc (1571-73),” _Rev. d’hist. dip._, XVI, 1902, p. 619; Janssen, _History of the German People_, VIII, chap. v, “Turkish wars up to 1572.” The league of the Christian powers, whose efforts culminated in the famous engagement of Lepanto was formed in May, 1571. The king of Spain, the Pope and Venice were the principals thereof. Spain was to provide one-half of the forces, the Venetians one-third, and the Pope the remainder. The capture of Cyprus by the Turks in the spring of 1570 was the immediate cause of its formation (cf. _La vraye et très fidelle narration des succès, des assaults, defences et prinse du royaume de Cypre_, faicte par F. Ange de Lusignan, Paris 1580; _Commentari della guerra di Cipro e della lega dei principi cristiani contro il Turco_, di Bartolomeo Sereno, 1845; Herre, _Europäische Politik in cyprischen Krieg_, 1570-73, Leipzig, 1902—there is a review of this in _English Hist. Review_, XIX, 357; Miller, “Greece under the Turks 1571-1684,” _English Hist. Review_, XIX, 646). Europe expected a double attack on the part of Mohammedanism, both in the Mediterranean and by land against Hungary and Transylvania, as in 1530. Venice trembled for Zara in Dalmatia. These fears were not misplaced. The warlike preparations of the Sultan went so far as to offer pardon to all malefactors, except rebels and counterfeiters, who would serve in the galleys. The allied fleet lay at Candia during the winter of 1570-71 awaiting reinforcements. But there was a vast amount of anxiety and discontent among the allies, for nothing but the sense of a common peril could have united Venice and Spain, or Venice and the Pope. In the politics of Europe Venice was a neutral power, and neutrality in the religious politics of the time, in Philip II’s eyes, was almost tantamount to heresy. Moreover, as was inevitable, the tediousness of the preparations and the corruption of officials of the fleet was so great that men even died of hunger inflicted through fraud. Only Venice’s administration seems to have been efficient.

[1463] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 150.

[1464] _Négociations dans le Levant_, III, 13.

[1465] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 261, 267.

[1466] _Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, II, 28; III, 41.

[1467] Sir Thomas Smith, the English ambassador in France, described her in January, 1571 as “a pretty little lady, but fair and well-favored.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 8.

[1468] Even at the official ceremony (Godefroi, _Ceremonial français_, II, 20) of betrothal in the cathedral at Speyer the latent hostility of France and Spain was manifested. The Spanish ambassador refused to give precedence to the ambassador of Charles IX, and so absented himself, the Venetian envoy being compelled to do the same, because of the alliance between these two powers (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,355, Cobham to Cecil, October 22, 1570). For other details cf. Nos. 1,267, 1,275, 1,377, 1,430. On the negotiations see _Mém. de Castelnau_ (ed. Le Laboureur), II, Book VI, 467.

[1469] _Rel. vén._, II, 255. Killigrew in a letter to Lord Burghley, December 29, 1571, shrewdly observed, à propos of the change, that “divers of the followers of Guise have not letted to say that the duke of Alva knew the way to Paris’ gates.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,196. For an example of Biragues’ intriguing, and this of the most shameful sort, in connection with the proposed marriage of Henry of Navarre and Marguerite of Valois see La Ferrière, _Rapport_, 43. The Huguenots had hoped for L’Hôpital’s recall.—_Nég. Tosc._, III, 641.

[1470] Janssen, _History of the German People_, VIII, 117 ff.

[1471] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,590, March 5, 1571.

[1472] This is the keen observation of the Venetian ambassador (cf. _C. S. P. Ven._, 515, August 1, 1571).

[1473] The duke of Montmorency to Lord Burghley, May 20, 1571, see Appendix XXVIII. On the whole negotiation see La Ferrière, “Elisabeth et le duc d’Anjou,” _Revue des deux mondes_, August 15, 1881, p. 857; September 15, 1881, p. 307.

[1474] The words were used to De Foix (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,632, April 1, 1571, Walsingham to Burghley).

[1475] _Ibid._, No. 1,739, May 25, 1571; No. 1,813, Francis Walsingham to Lord Burghley: He told her that he had delivered a form of the English prayers to Monsieur de Foix, which form the Pope would have by council confirmed as Catholic if the Queen would have acknowledged the same as received from him (Note in margin, “an offer made by the Cardinal of Lorraine as Sir N. Throgmorton showed me”). That the Queen was bound to prefer the tranquillity of her realm before all other respects. There was never before offered to France like occasion of benefit and reputation.

[1476] Report of conference between Walsingham and De Foix, _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,732, May 25, 1571.

[1477] Anecdote reported by Walsingham to Burghley, _C. S. P., For._, No. 1,813, June 21, 1571.

[1478] _Ibid._, _Ven._, No. 576, August 16, 1571; _ibid._, _For._, No. 1,928, August 17, 1571.

[1479] _Ibid._, No. 1,883, July 27, 1571. De Foix and Montgomery were deeply discouraged, the former protesting to Walsingham that he had “never travailled more earnestly in any matter in his life” (_ibid._, No. 1,732). “The queen mother never wept so much since the death of her husband” (_ibid._, No. 1,886, July 30, 1571). “The queen mother was in tears.... M. de Limoges said that ... he never saw the King in greater chafe, and the Queen Mother wept hot tears” (_ibid._, January 8, 1572).

[1480] _Ibid._, No. 1,886, July 30, 1571.

[1481] _C. S. P. For._, No. 20, January 7, 1572.

[1482] _C. S. P. For._, No. 23, January 9, 1572, Smith to Burghley.

[1483] The Queen to Walsingham: Directs him to express her great regret to the French king and the queen mother that she cannot assent to their proposal brought by M. de Montmorency for her marriage with the duke of Alençon, and to assure them that the only impediments arise from the great disparity in their age, and from the bad opinion that the world might conceive of her thereby (_C. S. P. For._, No. 496, July 20, 1572; cf. No. 375, May 25, instructions to the earl of Lincoln).

[1484] This objection was one so difficult to make without giving offense that it required all the delicacy of the English envoys to say anything at all. In _C. S. P. For._, No. 494 under date of July 20, 1572, will be found a draft of instructions to Walsingham in Burghley’s handwriting on this matter, and by him endorsed: “Not sent.” Burghley evidently preferred to leave this delicate subject to his sovereign. See the queen to Walsingham, _ibid._, No. 502, July 23, 1572, printed in full by Digges, p. 226.

[1485] Smith’s comments to Burghley are candor itself. “These two brethren be almost become ‘Capi de Guelphi et Gibellini.’ The one has his suite all Papists, the other is the refuge and succour of all the Huguenots, a good fellow and lusty prince.”—_Ibid._, No. 23, January 9, 1572. He glosses over Alençon’s imperfections by the remark that “he is not so tall or fair as his brother, but that is as is fantasied,” and adds: “Then he is not so obstinate, papistical, and restive like a mule as his brother is.”—_Ibid._, No. 28, January 10, 1572.

[1486] See below for details of this treaty. Coligny’s letter is analyzed in _C. S. P. For._, No. 500, July 22, 1572 (not in Delaborde).

[1487] La Ferté to——; draft, endd. by Burghley: Windsor, 6th September, 1572.—_C. S. P. For._, No. 555.

[1488] _C. S. P. For._, No. 502, July 23, 1572, the Queen to Walsingham.

[1489] Walsingham to Lord Burghley: “ ... and if he sees no hope then to further what he may the league.”—_C. S. P. For._, January 17, 1572; _Hatfield Papers_, II, 46.

[1490] Charles IX to M. de la Mothe-Fenelon: Directs him to inform the queen of England that the duke of Alva does all he can to encourage the 500 or 600 English refugees in Flanders in their enterprise against England, in which they will be assisted by Lord Seton with 2,000 Scots, who have determined to seize on the prince of Scotland, and send him into Spain. Directs him and M. de Croc to watch and do all in their power to frustrate this design (_C. S. P. For._, No. 330, May 2, 1572; cf. Introd., xii, xiii and No. 257).

[1491] On the efforts of Alva to revive the commerce of Flanders see D’Aubigné, Book V, chap. xxxii, p. 265; _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 94, 95, January 28 and 31, 1572; Motley, _Rise of the Dutch Republic_, chap. v; Altmeyer, _Histoire des relations commerciales des Pays-Bas avec le Nord pendant le XVI siècle_; Bruxelles, 1840; Reiffenberg, _De l’etat de la population, des fabriques et des manufactures des Pays-Bas pendant le XV^[e] et le XVI^[e] siècle_, Bruxelles, 1822.

[1492] “The answer of the Merchant Adventurers to the French king’s offer to establish a staple in France” in _C. S. P. For._, No. 515, July, 1572: It would be no commodity for them to have a privilege in France, as those things in which they are principally occupied, viz., white cloths, are chiefly uttered in Upper and Lower Germany. Besides, if they alter their old settled trade, they would also have to seek for dressers and dyers in a place unacquainted with the trade. It is dangerous to have the vent of all the commodity of the realm in one country, especially seeing the French have small trade to England. There is besides such evil observance of treaties and so evil justice in France. The drapers of France so much mislike the bringing of cloth into France that they will not endure it, insomuch as January last, by proclamation, all foreign cloth was banished. The converting of the whole trade of England into France would be hurtful to the navy, for that the ports there are so small that no great ship may enter.

For the Merchant Adventurers in the sixteenth century see Burgon, _Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham_, I, 185-89.

[1493] _C. S. P. For._, No. 278, April 20, 1572, Queen Elizabeth to Charles IX.

[1494] Walsingham, _ibid._, No. 135.

[1495] _Ibid._, No 143, September 26, 1571.

[1496] _Ibid._, No. 247.

[1497] Walsingham to Lord Burghley: Has been asked whether that enterprise having good success, and the French king lending all his forces to the conquest of Flanders, the queen of England would be content to enter foot in Zealand, Middleburgh being delivered into her hands. They fear that the French king will not be content with Flanders, whatsoever is promised (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,202, December 31, 1571).

[1498] _Rel. vén._, I, 543; _C. S. P. For._, No. 687, February 15, 1570. Sir Henry Norris to Cecil. The King keeps his chamber, which they marvel not at who know his diet.

[1499] For a character-sketch of Charles IX see Baschet, _La diplomatie vénitienne_, 539-41; cf. _Rel. vén._, II, 43 and 161. Lord Buckhurst, in a letter to Queen Elizabeth of March 4, 1571, gives an account of one of Charles’ hunting parties in the Bois de Vincennes, which illustrates his temperament. “After dinner,” he relates, “the King rode to a warren of hares thereby, and after he had coursed with much pastime, he flew to the partridge with a cast of very good falcons; and that done, entered the park of Bois de Vincennes, replenished with some store of fallow deer. Understanding that Lord Buckhurst had a leash of greyhounds, he sent to him that he might put on his dogs to the deer, which he did, but found that the deer ran better for their lives than the dogs did for his pastime. After this the King and all the gentlemen with him fell to a new manner of hunting, chasing the whole herd with their drawn swords, on horseback, so far forth as they being embosked were easily stricken and slain; they spared no male deer, but killed of all sorts without respect, like hunters who sought not to requite any part of their travail with delight to eat of the slain venison.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,589, March 4, 1571. In the spring of 1573 the French consul in Alexandria sent Charles three trained leopards for deer-hunting (Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 51). In June, 1571, the King was somewhat seriously injured while hunting, by striking his head against the branch of a tree (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,777, June 8, 1571). In March, 1572, he again was injured (letter of the King to the duke of Anjou, March 21, 1572, in Coll. Pichon, No. 28). His passion for the chase often led him to neglect the business of state, conduct which Coligny once sharply reproved (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,156, November 29, 1571), and he was frequently ill from fatigue or exposure (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 301). The King himself inspired the French translation of a Latin treatise of the sixteenth century on hunting, by Louis Leroy de Coutances, _Libre du roy Charles_. His patronage also inspired another work on the same subject: “Du Fouilloux, La Vénerie de lacques du Fouilloux, Gentilhomme, Seigneur dudit lieu, pays de Gastine, en Poitou. Dédise au Roy Très-Chrestien Charles, neufiesme de ce nom. Avec plusieurs Receptes et Remèdes pour guérir les Chiens de diverses maladies. Avec Privilege du Roy. A Poitiers, Par les de Marnefz, et Bouchetz, frères, circa 1565.” Charles IX was also given to low practical jokes. For example this is reported of him from Paris, September 18, 1573: The King, in an old cloak and evil-favoured hat, withdrew himself “to a little house upon the bridge from all the ladies, and there cast out money upon the people to get them together, and made pastime to cast out buckets of water upon them while they were scrambling for the money.”—_C. S. P. For._, Paris, September 18, 1573.

[1500] Walsingham reported to Burghley in August 12, 1571: “This prince is of far greater judgment than outwardly appears. There is none of any account within his realm whose imperfections and virtues he knows not,” although, he adds, “those who love him lament he is so overmuch given to pleasure.”—_Ibid._, No. 1,921.

[1501] In May 1571 the Guises were in discredit. The duke went to Joinville, the cardinal of Lorraine to Rheims, the duke of Mayenne started for Turkey. Guise did not come back to Paris till January 1572 (Bouillé, _Histoire des ducs de Guises_, II, Book IV, chap. iv).

[1502] “He appeared at all hours near his majesty’s chair upon the same terms as the lords who had never left the court” (_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 576, September 15, 1570). Coligny first became a member of the _conseil du roi_ at this time (Soldan, _Vor d. St. Barthloomäusnacht_, 39). Blois was practically the capital of France at this time. Paris was avoided both to save creating suspicion among the Huguenots and because of its Guisard sympathies. “He would change from white to black the moment he was in Paris” said Walsingham of the King. Capefigue, _Hist. de la réforme_, III, 92, points out Blois was “le siège naturel d’un gouvernement qui voulait s’éloigner du catholocisme fervent. Placé à quelques lieues d’Orleans, donnant la main à la Rochelle, et par la Rochelle, se liant au Poitou, à la Saintonge, au Béarn.”

[1503] The King conceives of no other subject better than of the admiral, and there is great hope that he will use him in matters of the greatest trust, for he begins to see the insufficiency of others, some being more addicted to others than to him, others more Spanish than French, or given more to private pleasures than public affairs (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,921, August 12, 1571).

[1504] Alva to Philip II, April 5, May 22, 1572, in Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II_, II, 239. In December, 1570, the marshal Cossé was sent to La Rochelle. In March, 1571, Cossé and Biron were sent a second time.

[1505] See Walsingham, Letter of August 12, 1571, to Leicester. He gained a great ascendency over Charles IX (Languet, _Epist. ad Camer._, 132-36, 140. “Count Ludovic is the King’s avowed pensioner.”)—_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,156, November 29, 1571. Some of his correspondence is in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III.

[1506] On the secret interview of Charles IX, Louis of Nassau, and La Noue at Blois, see D’Aubigné, Book VI, chap. i, 282; _Mémoires de la Huguerye_, I, 25. The Dutch cause suffered fearfully in this autumn. On November 1 and 2 a frightful storm made terrible inundations on the coast; hundreds of vessels were wrecked; in West Frisia alone nearly 20,000 persons were drowned (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 385).

[1507] For details, see Capefigue, III, 44. Charles IX gave evasive replies to all the remonstrances of the Spanish ambassador (Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 177, August 15, 1571).

[1508] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,578, Walsingham to Cecil; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 694.

[1509] Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, II, 239—Alva to Philip II, April 5, 1572; cf. p. 250; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 441. The Prince of Orange in 1569 began the practice of issuing letters of marque and reprisal in virtue of his position as sovereign prince of Orange. As a result in the next year the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay were crowded with vessels hostile to Spain. The most famous of these marauders soon destined to become known as the “Beggars of the Sea” was Adrian de Bergues. On one occasion within the space of two days, he overhauled and captured two merchant fleets, the one of 40, the other of 60 sail (_Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 351). Upon the importance of La Rochelle as a seaport, see La Noue, chap. xxviii. Some of Strozzi’s correspondence when in command of the fleet before La Rochelle in 1572 is in F. Fr., XV, 555; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 760-63.

[1510] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,921, August 12, 1571. Languet makes Charles IX’s reply less emphatic than this. Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 177, August 15, 1571. I am inclined to believe that Walsingham colored the anecdote. Languet shows the hesitations and vacillations of Charles IX, pp. 132, 136, 140. The Spanish ambassador’s grounds of fear for Flanders were the more substantial because the garrisons that had occupied St. Jean-d’Angély, Niort, Saintes, and Angoulême during the late war were newly stationed in the border fortresses of Picardy. To Alava’s alarmed inquiry Charles IX blandly replied that “the reason why these troops were sent to the frontiers was to give them employment, because if the King had disbanded them all at once the soldiery might have mutinied for lack of pay” (_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 499, February 19, 1571; No. 575, August 1, 1571).

[1511] “The only impediment to the marriage between the prince of Navarre and the lady Margaret is religion.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,038, Walsingham to Cecil, September 16, 1571. The whole matter was referred to eight counselors to settle: those of the Huguenots were Jeanne d’Albret, La Noue, Louis of Nassau, and Francourt (_C. S. P. For._, March 29, 1572; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 417). The Pope made objection that, aside from the difference of religion, the parents of Henry of Navarre and Marguerite of Valois were relatives within the third degree, and refused to grant the dispensation for the marriage (_Nég. Tosc._, III, 712-14). To this demur the Huguenots triumphantly argued that it was not necessary for the Pope or any other priest to give dispensation, since it was a _royal_ marriage and it was not fitting for the King’s authority to be demeaned by that of the church (Claude Haton, II, 661). There was violent opposition by radical Huguenots, especially the pastors, to the marriage, and fear lest the Pope’s refusal to grant a dispensation might lead to a rupture between France and Rome like that of England under Henry VIII (_Nég. Tosc._, III, 733 and 740). Finally it was arranged that the marriage should be celebrated by a priest of the church of Rome, and that Henry would accompany his wife to mass in the church where the ceremony was to be held, but that he was to retire before the service so that he was neither to be present at the mass nor hear it said (_ibid._, 662 and note, 663, note). The cardinal of Lorraine, with his usual “trimming” wrote to the queen mother: “Madame, je vous baise très humblement les mains de ce qu’il vous plaît me mander la conclusion du marriage de madame vostre fille, puisqu’il est au contentement de vos majestés et selon les désirs des catholiques.”—_Collection des autographes_, No. 278, April 17, 1572.

For the preliminaries of the marriage of Marguerite of Valois and Henry of Navarre see _Revue des deux mondes_, October 1, 1884, pp. 560-64.

[1512] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 516; August 15, 1571. Spain and France clashed in Switzerland, too, at this time. For Switzerland refused to permit forces to fight the Turk on the ground that the Swiss were unused to maritime warfare, yet the Grisons and the Tyrol raised two regiments for the French King (_ibid._, _For._, No. 189, March 25, 1572, from Heidelberg or Strasburg).

[1513] “There have been no other speeches but war with Spain.”—Killegrew to Lord Burghley, December 8, 1571; _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,163; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, dispatches of April 17 and 20, 1572 and _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,156, 2,162, November 29, December 7, 1571. Alva fully expected war (Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, II, 259, Alva to Philip II, May 24, 1572).

In the spring of 1572 Schomberg was dispatched to Germany to contract alliances with the Lutheran princes (_Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 403; _C. S. P. For._, No. 189, March 25, 1572). The German princes anticipated that if the Low Countries were united to the crown of France that power would become too formidable. They wanted France to content herself with Flanders and Artois. As for Brabant and the other provinces that were once dependent upon the empire, their purpose was to put them upon their old footing and to give the government of them to some prince of Germany, who could not be other than the prince of Orange. Holland and Zealand were to be united to the crown of England (Walsingham, 143, French ed., letter of August 12, 1572 to Leicester). Yet momentous as the French project in the Low Countries was, it was but part of a grander scheme, for France aimed also to acquire a decisive influence in Germany, with the ultimate purpose of acquiring so great ascendency over the German states as to be able to transfer the crown of the empire, for centuries hereditary in the house of Hapsburg, to the head of the French prince (_Rel. vén._, I, 445). This project was part of the mission of Schomberg in Germany (_Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, Introd., 23, 268-73). In Germany the elector of Saxony and the landgrave of Hesse were strong partisans of France (_ibid._, IV, Introd., 25).

The strongest advocate of France for the imperial crown was the elector palatine, who burned with an ambition to “Calvinize the world,” and embraced with ardor a project which could not fail to redound to the honor of the Huguenots. The elector of Saxony and the landgrave were less complacent. The first was a friend of the emperor Maximilian and expressed his indignation at the imperial pretensions of Charles IX. Even William of Hesse, in spite of his hereditary attachment to the crown of France, returned a guarded reply (_ibid._, IV, Introd., 28 and 123).

[1514] The revolt took place on Easter Sunday, April 6, 1572. On the whole subject of the revolt of the Netherlands at this time see Janssen, _History of the German People_, VIII, chap. ii; La Gravière, “Les Gueux de Mer,” _Revue des deux mondes_, September 15, 1891, p. 347; November, 1891, p. 98; January 15, 1892, p. 389.

[1515] See the letter of President Viglius to Hopper in _Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 415, and _C. S. P. For._, No. 260, April 19, 1572.

[1516] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 418-19. On the alliance concluded at the Frankfurt Fair see _ibid._, III, 448. For the whole subject consult Waddington, “La France et les protestants allemands sous les règnes de Charles IX et Henri III,” _Revue historique_, XLII, 266 ff.

[1517] The treaty of Blois provided for a defensive league between Queen Elizabeth and Charles IX and stipulated the amount of succor by sea or land to be rendered by either party in case of need; if either party were assailed for the cause of religion or under any other privileges and advantages for the pretext, the other was bound to render assistance; a schedule of the number and description of the forces to be mutually furnished, together with their rates of pay, was annexed. De Frixa and Montmorency were sent to England to ratify the treaty. A full account of the gorgeous reception of Montmorency will be found in Holinshed and the Account Book of the Master of the Revels. The earl of Lincoln left for France, May 26, 1572. He was instructed to say, if any mention was made of the Alençon marriage, that Elizabeth felt offended by the way she had been treated in the Anjou negotiations and that in any case “the difference in age should make a full stay.”

Text of the treaty of Blois in Dumont, _Corps diplomatique_, V, Part I, 211. The letter of the King to Elizabeth after the signature is in _Bulletin de la société du prot. français_, XI, 72.

[1518] _Mémoires et correspondance de Du Plessis-Mornay_, I, 36-38 (Paris, 1824).

[1519] _Ibid._, II, 20-39; cf. Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France_, 248. On the authorship of the memoir consult same volume Appendix II.

[1520] _C. S. P. For._, No. 419, Captain Thomas Morgan to Lord Burghley from Flushing, June 16, 1572; Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II_, II, 268, Alva to Philip II, July 18, 1572.

[1521] La Popelinière, XXVII, 108; Fillon Collection, No. 133, Charles IX to the Duke of Longueville, governor of Picardy from Blois, May 3, 1572. Enjoins him to repair the fortifications of Picardy, and to be on guard against the duke of Alva, who was arming under the pretext of repressing the Gueux.

[1522] Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II_, II, 356 and note 3; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 425-26; _Mém. de la Huguerye_, 105; see La Popelinière’s account (XXVII, 107), of the situation of the city. It was the capital of Hainault.

[1523] _C. S. P. For._, No. 406, June 10, 1572, to Torcy.

[1524] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 437.

[1525] Coll. Godefroy, CCLVIII, No. 8. French dispute with Spain over navigation of the Sluys.

[1526] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 441-42.

[1527] In _ibid._, 463-64, 467-68, will be found a list of the principal officers of the prince of Orange and of the towns at his devotion (cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 374, July, 1572).

[1528] _Ibid._, Nos. 478, 511, July, 1572.

[1529] The estates met at Dordrecht on July 15 (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 447).

[1530] He had received his recall and the duke of Medina-Coeli had been sent to succeed him, and at this hour was on the ground urging a policy of moderation (Raumer, I, 202). Yet Alva refused to give up (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 437).

[1531] The march of the Spanish army that intercepted Genlis was so accurate as to give rise to the belief that Alva had prior information. It is uncertain. Mendoza, who was with the Spanish army (_Commentaires_, Book VI, chap. vii) seems to confirm the suspicion. His account (chaps. vii-xiii) is very vivid. Only thirty of Genlis’ men escaped; the rest were either killed or drowned. On the warnings given to Genlis, see a relation in _Archives curieuses_, VII. There is an unpublished account of Genlis’ defeat in F. Fr., 18,587, fol. 541. According to La Huguerye, 125, he was strangled in prison.

[1532] It did so on September 19. See a letter of William of Orange to his brother John, September 24, 1572, in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 511. La Noue prophesied the fall of the city when he saw the heights of Jemappes occupied by the troops of Spain (Hauser, _La Noue_, 33).

[1533] As late as August 11, 1572, the Prince of Orange was still looking for the coming of the admiral Coligny into the Low Countries (see a letter of his to his brother John, of this date in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 490).

[1534] Albornoz to secretary of state Cayas, from Brussels, July 19, 1572 (see Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, II, 269). A note of M. Gachard adds: “Cette lettre, datée de St. Leger, le 27 avril 1572, était écrite par Charles IX au comte Louis de Nassau. Il y disait qu’il était déterminé, autant que les occasions et la disposition de ses affaires le permettraient à employer les forces que Dieu avait mises en sa main à tirer les Pays-Bas de l’oppression sous laquelle ils gémissaient. Une traduction espagnole de cette lettre existe aux Archives de Simancas, _papeles de Estado_, liasse 551.” Charles IX. repudiated its authenticity (see a letter to Mondoucet, French agent in Flanders, dated August 12, 1572, in _Bulletin de la Commission d’hist. de Belgique_, séries II, IV, 342). The admiral Coligny, without knowing of the incriminating evidence in Alva’s hands after the failure before Mons, urged Charles IX to declare war upon Spain at once as the shortest and safest way out of the difficulty (Brantôme, _Vie des grandes capitaines françois_—M’l’admiral de Châtillon).

[1535] As late as August 21, France had the hardihood to protest her innocence of any enterprise in Flanders (Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, II, 271, Philip to Alva, August 2, 1572; _ibid._, II, 273, Alva to Philip, August 21, 1572).

[1536] There is in existence the record of an extremely curious conversation of the admiral Coligny upon this subject with Henry Middelmore, one of the English agents in France, in which the latter frankly said: “Of all other thinges we colde least lyke that France shulde commaunde Flawnders, or bryng it under theyr obedience, for therein we dyd see so apparawntlye the greatnes of our dainger, and therefore in no wyse colde suffer it.”—Ellis, _Original Letters_, 2d series, III, 6. I find the same thought expressed in a letter of Thomas Parker to one Hogyns, written from Bruges, June 17, 1572. See Appendix XXIX.

[1537] On this last phase see _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, IV, Introd., xlix ff., and Froude, _Hist. of England_, X, 312.

[1538] For a particular account see Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France_, 257-64. Two of Lord Burghley’s correspondents give accounts (_C. S. P. For._, Nos. 537, 538, August 22, 1572). See also an interesting extract from the registers of the Bureau of the Ville of Paris in _Archives curieuses_, VII, 211.

[1539] For the order of Marcel, provost of the merchants, immediately before the massacre, see _Arch. cur._, VII, 212. On the council of August 24, see Cavalli, 85. Charles IX at first denied any responsibility and blamed the Guises. When this proved a dangerous explanation, he asserted the massacre was made to foil a similar plot on the part of the Huguenots.

[1540] At Blois not only the Huguenots were not mistreated but the city became a city of refuge (D’Aubigné, III, 344, note 6). The Mayor of Nantes refused to carry out the orders for massacre (_Bulletin de la Soc. du prot. franç._, I, 59). Hotman was saved from the massacre at Bourges by his students; on the massacre at Troyes see the relation in _Arch. cur._, VII, 287; and for that at Lyons an article by Puyroche in _Bulletin de la Soc. du prot. franç._, XVIII, 305, 353, 401; for Normandy, _ibid._, VI, 461; _Revue retrospective_, XII, 142 (Lisieux); on the massacre at Rouen, Floquet, _Hist. du parlement de Normandie_, III, 126 ff.; on the massacre at Bordeaux see _Arch. de la Gironde_, VIII, 337. De Thou, Book LIII, says there were 264 victims. On the massacre at Toulouse see _Bull. de la Soc. du prot. franç._, August 15, 1886; _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 639. On the non-execution of the massacre in Burgundy see _Bull. de la Soc. du prot. franç._, IV, 164, and XIV, 340 (documents). The reason for this leniency was the nearness of Burgundy to the frontier.

[1541] The contemporary literature on the massacre is given by M. Felix Bourquelot, editor of the _Mém. de Claude Haton_ in a long note in II, 673-76. Summarized, these opinions are the following: 1. The massacre was done in order to avert a massacre by the Huguenots, after the wounding of Coligny. This was the belief of Marguerite of Navarre (_Mémoires_, ed. Guessard, 264).

2. The massacre was premeditated by Charles IX and his mother from the time of the Bayonne conference.

3. The massacre was intended to be a military stroke, the government preferring to attempt their overthrow in this way rather than by battle on the open field.

Salviati, the papal nuncio, who ought to have known, explicitly denies the rumor that a conspiracy was on foot by the Huguenots. In a dispatch of September 2 (I quote the French translation of Chateaubriand who copied them for the Paris archives) he says: “Cela n’en demeurera pas moins faux en tous points, et ce sera une honte pour qui est à même de connaître quelques choses aux affaires de ce monde de le croire.” In reply to the Pope’s urgency to extirpate the Protestants, he wrote on September 22: “Je lui fis part de la très grand consolation qu’avaient procuré au Saint Père les succès obtenus dans ce royaume par une grace singulière de Dieu, accordée à toute la Chrétienté sous son pontificat. Je fis connaître le désir qu’avait sa Sainteté, de voir pour la plus grande gloire de Dieu, et le plus grand bien de France, tous les hérétiques extirpés du royaume, et j’ajoutai que dans cette vue le Saint Père estimait que très à propos que l’on revoqua l’édit de pacification.” On October 11th, he writes: “Le Saint Père, ai je dit en éprouve une joie infinie, et a ressenti une grande consolation d’apprendre que sa Majesté avait commandé d’écrire qu’elle espérait qu’avant peu la France n’aurait plus d’Huguenots.” Cardinal Orsini, who was dispatched as legate from Rome to congratulate Charles IX and to support the exhortations of Salviati, describes his audience with the King on December 19. Orsini assured the King that he had eclipsed the glory of all his house, but urged him to fulfil his promise that not a single Huguenot should be left alive in France: “Se si rigardavva all’objetto della gloria, non potendo niun fatto de suoi antecessori, se rettamente si giudicava, agguagliarsi al glorioso ac veramente incomparabili di sua Maesta, in liberar con tanta prudentia et pietà in un giorno solo il suo regno da cotanta diabolica peste.... Esortai ... che con essendo servitio ni di Dio, ni di sua Maesta, lasciar fargli nuovo piede a questa maladetta setta, volesse applicare tutto il suo pensiero e tutte le forze sue per istirparla affatto, recandosi a memoria quelle che ella haveva fatto scrivere a sua Santità da Monsignor il Nuntio, che infra pochi giorni non sarebbe pi un ugonotto in tutto il suo regno.”—Bibliothèque Nationale, MSS Ital., 1,272. The Pope proclaimed a jubilee in honor of the massacre.

Subjoined is a list of the leading authors and articles upon this subject. The most recent consideration which sifts all preceding investigation is that by Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France_, London, 1904, chaps. xv, xvi; Phillipson, “Die römische Curie und die Bartholomaüsnact,” _West Europa_, II, 255 ff.; Baguenault de Puchesse, “La St. Barthélemy: ses origines, son vrai caractère, ses suites,” _R. Q. H._, July-October, 1866; “La premeditation de St. Barthélemy,” _R. Q. H._, XXVII, 272 ff.; Boutaric, “La St. Barthélemy d’après les Archives du Vatican,” _Bib. de l’école des Chartes_, sér. III, 3; Theiner, Continuation of Baronius, I (Salviati’s letters); Gandy, “Le massacre de St. Barthélemy,” _Revue hist._, July, 1879; cf. review in _Bull. de la Soc. prot. français_; Rajna, in _Archivio storico ital._, sér. V, No. XXIII, January 15, 1899; Michiel et Cavalli, “La Saint-Barthélemy devant le sénat de Venise. Relation des ambassadeurs ... traduite et ann. par W. Martin,” Paris, 1872; Soldan, _Hist. Taschenbuch_, 1854; G. P. Fisher, “The Massacre of St. Bartholomew,” _New Englander_, January, 1880; Loiseleur, “Les nouvelles controverses sur la St. Barthélemy,” _Rev. hist._, XV, 1883, p. 83; “Nouveaux documents sur la St. Barthélemy,” _Rev. hist._, IV, 1877, p. 345; Tamizey de Larroque, “Deux lettres de Charles IX,” _R. Q. H._, III, 1867, p. 567; “La St. Barthélemy, lettres de MM. Baguenault de Puchesse et G. Gandy,” _R. Q. H._, XXVIII, 1880, p. 268; Dareste, “Un incident de l’histoire diplomatique de Charles IX,” _Acad. des sc. moral. etc._, LXXI-II, 1863, p. 183; Laugel, “Coligny,” _Revue des deux mondes_, September, 1883, pp. 162-85.

[1542] The duke of Guise is not so bloody, neither did he kill any man himself but saved divers; he spake openly that for the admiral’s death he was glad, for he knew him to be his enemy. But for the rest, the King had put to death such as might have done him very good service (_C. S. P. For._, No. 584, September, 1572).

[1543] Montluc clearly appreciated that this was the case and developed the idea in his _Commentaires_, VI, 231-33. Quite as remarkable are the observations of the Venetian ambassador: _Rel. vén._, II, 171. Spain anticipated the possibility of a French attempt to recover the Milanais: “The King of Spain being suspicious of the said league has given commission that Italy and Milan be in readiness.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 120, February 7, 1572, from Venice.

[1544] _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 528, note, 544, note 2. On the siege of Montauban, see La Bret, _Histoire de Montauban_, 2 vols., 1841. There is a letter of the marshal Brissac on the resistance in F. Fr., No. 15, 555, fol. 104.

[1545] See abstract of Biron’s commission in _C. S. P. For._, November 6, 1572; cf. _Correspondance inédite d’Armand de Gontaut Biron, maréchal de France_, par E. de Barthélemy, Paris, 1874, from the originals at St. Petersburg.

[1546] _Coll. des autographes_, 1844, No. 104, Charles IX to the duke of Longueville, November 4, 1572.

[1547] _C. S. P. For._, No. 640, November 13, 1572; cf. No. 637; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 38-39, letter of Brunynck, secretary to the prince of Orange, to John of Nassau, December, 1572.

[1548] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 667, 673, §§17-20 (1572).

[1549] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 683 and 755, Worcester to the Queen, February 5, 1573.

[1550] This petition is a remarkable compound of current politics and biblical history. In it the inhabitants of La Rochelle, her “tres obeissains fidelles subjects,” beg that she will consider and follow the example of Constantine, who broke off all alliance with his friend Licinius to whom he had given his sister in marriage, on account of his tyranny practiced on the Christians of the East. They remind her also of the evil done by Herod in keeping his rash oath. She ought not therefore to keep the league with those who wish to exterminate her people in Guyenne, which belongs to her, and whose arms she bears. If she will succour them they will willingly expose their lives and goods in order to acknowledge her as their sovereign and natural princess (_ibid._, No. 682, 1572).

[1551] _Ibid._, No. 800, February 28, 1573; No. 948, May 3, 1573; _Chroniques Fontenaisiennes_, 166, 167.

[1552] See Claude Haton, II, 710, 711, 717, 718, 722-25, 726, 729, 731. The government sent out inspectors to make an inventory of the grain still available. Much of it was confiscated for the use of the army at an established price, and a maximum price fixed for the sale of the remainder.

[1553] _Ibid._, 715, 716 (see a discourse upon the extreme dearth in France and upon the means to remedy it, in _Arch. cur._, VI, 423). The dearness of all things, according to the writer, probably Bodin, is the result of the excessive luxury which prevails among the higher classes and the combination made by the merchants to raise prices. He proposes the establishment of public granaries and that the government price be made obligatory for all dealers.

[1554] _C. S. P. For._, No. 800, February 28, 1573.

[1555] _Ibid._, No. 1,000, May 31, No. 1,027, June 9, 1573.

[1556] The Politiques hoped to persuade Charles IX to stop the war at home and exact redress from Spain for the massacre in Florida by attacking the Spanish West Indies. Even the duke of Anjou favored this. See Appendix XXX.

[1557] La Popelinière, XXI, 214 and 232 _bis_; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,042, Dr. Dale to Lord Burghley, June 16, 1573: “The hearts of all men were being discouraged with the long siege” and the King’s heart bled “to see the misery of his people that die for famine by the ways where he rode.”

[1558] La Rochelle at first refused to let La Noue enter. On the whole matter see Hauser, _La Noue_, chap. ii.

[1559] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,547, March 21, 1573; Raumer, II, 265; the marshals Biron and Strozzi, with Pinart, were commissioned for the purpose (_Arch. hist. du Poitou_, XII, 233). The negotiations may be seen in detail in Loutzchiski, _Doc. inédits_, 62 ff.

[1560] _Vie de La Noue_, 95; Letter of Charles IX to the duke of Anjou, February 7, 1573, Coll. Lajariette, Paris, 1860, No. 669; Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 57. At the same time Charles IX wrote in person to Montgomery, trying to lure him from the enterprise he was engaged in. See Appendix XXXI.

[1561] _C. S. P. Ven._, Nos. 540, 541, April 6 and 20, 1573.

[1562] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 1,050, June 22, 1573; _Chroniques fontenaisiennes_, 169.

[1563] See the series of documents on this head in Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, Nos. 25, 29, 30, 38, 41-43. 46, 73, 77.

[1564] When the army disbanded, it was a frequent sight in the villages to see the wounded or sick being transported in baggage wagons (Claude Haton, II, 737). The villages near La Rochelle where the camp had been established were burned upon the evacuation of the troops “to prevent the plague which began to be hot.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,107, Wilkes to Walsingham, July 31, 1573; cf. No. 1,052, June 25, to the same effect.

[1565] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,072, Dr. Dale to the Queen, late in June, 1573.

[1566] The articles were sent to the Catholic camp on July, 6.

[1567] _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 543, note; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,090, July 11, 1573.

[1568] Lery, _Histoire mémorable de la ville de Sancerre_, contenant les entreprises, buteries, assaux et autres efforts des assiégeans: les résistances, faits magnanimes, la famine extrème et délivrance des assiegez, 1574; Discours de l’extrème famine etc. dont les assiegez de la ville de Sancerre ont été affligez et ont usé environ trois mois, _Arch. cur._, VIII, 21.

[1569] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,101, July 23, No. 1,107, July 31, 1573. In Languedoc and Dauphiné the Huguenots were strong, and possessed of many towns (see a letter of Louis of Nassau in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 75 and the “Names of all the towns in the south of France of which the Huguenot party could be sure of, together with a list of the noblemen attached to the party” in Appendix XXXII).

[1570] _Vie de La Noue_, 99; _C. S. P. For._, No. 965, May 16, No. 1,095, July 23, 1573. A deputation of Huguenots of Languedoc came to Fontainebleau in September, 1573 (cf. Letter of Schomberg to Louis of Nassau, September 29, 1573, _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 211 and Appendix 117).

[1571] Long, 115, 116. The instrument of government contained 89 articles.

[1572] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 972, 986, March 20 and 30, 1573. The collection of these forced loans was expedited by the presence of Strozzi’s men-at-arms and the Scotch Guard in the Louvre; and two bands of Swiss at St. Cloud. In this way, Charles IX was able to collect the money “without danger of commotion,” and avoided that worst of expedients to the crown, the States-General (see particulars in Dr. Dale’s letter to Burghley of January 11, 1573, _ibid._, No. 1,291). In June the assembly of the clergy agreed to furnish the queen mother 200,000 livres and within three years to redeem 1,800,000 livres’ worth of the King’s debts. The clergy made a great stroke by obtaining the creation of four receivers-general for the collection of these subsidies, the appointments to which they sold for between 600,000 and 700,000 livres, thus saving themselves that amount in the final (_ibid._, No. 1,027, June 9, 1573). But this relief came too late for the government to continue the prosecution of the war before La Rochelle. The capitulation with the Rochellois was too far advanced to be withdrawn. Moreover, the crown itself was anxious to close the war.

[1573] Catherine de Medici to Schomberg, September 13, 1572, _Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, Appendix, No. 13; Weill, 86; _Revue retrospective_, V, 363.

[1574] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 876. On July 7 the Tuscan ambassador wrote: “E, se questo regno si liberassi delle guerre civili, saria facil cosa la rompessi con Spagna; chè questo, credo, sia il fine di tutti li trattamenti che fa Orange in questo regno.”—_Ibid._, 883.

[1575] _Ibid._, IV, 108, 109.

[1576] In the same month William of Orange dispatched to France the Seigneur de Lumbres, whose popularity with the King was so great that he even offered to take him into his service (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, Introd., p. 21, and p. 165), and another agent with instructions to treat with the King and the queen mother (_ibid._, IV, 119-24, May, 1573). William stipulated for the preservation of the rights and privileges of whatever provinces and towns might be conquered by France, and that in case of open war by France upon Spain, in lieu of an annual subsidy of 400,000 florins, France should give assistance with men and ships of war, besides the sum mentioned, to be paid within two years after the conclusion of peace (_ibid._, IV, 116-19; cf. the prince of Orange to Louis of Nassau upon the proposed French alliance, June 17, 1573).

[1577] _Ibid._, IV, 33. On May 15, 1573, the prince of Orange concluded a treaty with England, permitting the English to enter the Scheldt in return for which the prince was to be permitted to purchase arms and ammunition and powder in England (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 94). For William of Orange’s connection with La Rochelle see _ibid._, 43 and 56. Compare letter of Charles IX to the duke of Anjou, March 18, 1573, complaining of the depredations of the “Wartegeux” on the Norman coast (Coll. Godefroy, CCLVIII, No. 49).

[1578] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 273, 274; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, IV, 270, 271, note.

[1579] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 270 and Appendix 43. Schomberg and Louis of Nassau drew up the articles of the proposed treaty. In Appendix 44 will be found the articles as originally drawn up, and on p. 116 the modified form of them as they were changed by the prince of Orange. The most important change is that whereby the prince altered the word “subjection” as applied to the Netherlands to “protectorate.” The further idea is expressed that these negotiations would be fruitless unless the Edict of Pacification were established with full force in France (_ibid._, IV, 270, 271). On the whole subject of French negotiations in Germany after St. Bartholomew see Waddington, _Rev. hist._, XLII, 269 ff.

[1580] De Thou, VII, 37 (cf. Louis of Nassau’s letter to his brother on the subject in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 278 ff.). Charles IX was ill at the time and the queen mother went alone to Blamont (_ibid._, IV, 276, 277; _Mém. du duc de Bouillon_). The Spanish ambassador in France was not unobservant of the favorable policy of Charles toward the Netherlands and so informed the duke of Alva (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 132). The peace of La Rochelle was a hard blow to Spain (Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 201; St. Goard to Charles IX, July 17, 1573 in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 164-69). These negotiations of the prince of Orange and his brother with England and France, however, came too late to save Haarlem. On July 12 the unhappy city succumbed. On the 14th the Spaniards entered and began a regular massacre, in which nearly 1,800 persons were either slain with the sword, hanged, or drowned (_ibid._, IV, 173; cf. a letter of the prince of Orange to Louis of Nassau, giving details of the surrender on July 22, 1573, _ibid._, 175).

[1581] _C. S. P. For._, No. 686 (1572).

[1582] _Ibid._, No. 673, December 20, 1572.

[1583] These were Montluc, bishop of Valence, and M. de Rambouillet. The former’s speeches (April 10 and 22), are printed in _Mém. de l’estat de France_, II, 147, 224, in a French translation. The original discourses were in Latin. In _Arch. cur._, IX, 137, is a letter of one of Rambouillet’s suite.

[1584] See the account of the election in _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,082, June 5, 1573; cf. Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 189; Castelnau, ed. Le Laboureur, III, 298. The news of the duke of Anjou’s success was naturally received with greater pleasure in Paris than anywhere else in Europe. Bonfires were lighted and the _Te Deum_ sung in honor of his election (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,027, June 9, 1573). The clergy, in the assembly of the clergy which took place soon after the news arrived, voted the duke a subsidy of 300,000 crowns (_ibid._, No. 992).

[1585] Claude Haton, II, 734; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 886, 887.

[1586] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 886, 887.

[1587] Claude Haton, II, p. 735.

[1588] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,100, July 23, 1573.

[1589] The existence of a plot to kidnap the duke of Anjou in Germany in order to force France to return the Three Bishoprics was suspected by Schomberg (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, Appendix, Nos. 112, 113). The duke was also afraid to go to Poland by way of Germany, fearing to get into difficulties on account of the massacre of St. Bartholomew, which still vividly angered the Protestant princes (_ibid._, IV, Introd., p. xxvi, and pp. 15, 19, 26, 32). His first thought was to go by way of Venice and Ragusa, through Servia, Bulgaria, and Moldavia (Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 197; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 168, note). The advantage of the ancient alliance between France and Venice at this time would have been great. There was also some thought of his going entirely by sea, and the good offices of England were invoked to protect his journey (Castelnau, ed. Le Laboureur, III, 345). The young prince of Condé had been invited to go along, but excused himself on the ground that he was afraid of being arrested for his father’s debts, “being a marvellously great sum.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,245, December 12, 1573.

[1590] _Ibid._, No. 1,097, July 18, 1573, from Frankfurt.

[1591] _Ibid._, No. 1,177, September 20, 1573; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 295.

[1592] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,168, September 18, 1573.

[1593] For Catherine’s intense interest in the Polish question, see Vol. IV of her _Correspondance_, _passim_, and _Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 267.

[1594] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 299-306, 309-18, 322-24—a series of remarkable political judgments.

[1595] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 31; Appendix, No. 69 and p. 96.

[1596] _Ibid._, IV, Appendix, Letters 1-8 refer to Schomberg’s mission to Germany in the spring and summer of 1572.

[1597] The history of Henry of Anjou’s career in Poland has been written at length by the marquis de Noailles, _Henri de Valois et la Pologne_, Paris, 1867 (see also L’Epinois, “La Pologne en 1572,” _R. Q. H._, IV, 1868, p. 266; Bain, “The Polish Interregnum,” _English Hist. Review_, IV, 645). In Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, Nos. 54, 62, 64, 66, 70, 72, is a series of letters dealing with French interest in Poland at this time.

[1598] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, Appendix, Nos. 69 and 71.

[1599] _Ibid._, IV, Appendix, No. 17, Schomberg to Catherine de Medici, October 9, 1572. The landgrave bluntly said that twice before such overtures had been made to German princes—in 1567 and 1571—and that civil war and the massacre had followed (_ibid._, No. 72).

[1600] St. Goard to Charles IX, July 9, 1573, _ibid._, IV, Appendix, No. 66; Schomberg to the duke of Anjou, February 10, 1573, _ibid._, Appendix, No. 34. The intense Catholic prejudices of the duke of Anjou, now king of Poland, were a serious bar to the progress of Schomberg’s negotiations in Germany. He warned the duke not to give the impression of Spanish leanings (Schomberg to the duke of Anjou, October 9, 1572, _ibid._, IV, Appendix, No. 18), and seems almost to have persuaded him to abandon his intense Catholic-Spanish predilection (_ibid._, pp. 15, 268). The duke of Anjou is even said to have given Schomberg 100,000 francs. The letter is said to have been burned at the time of the Coconnas conspiracy in order to shield the duke of Alva’s son (_ibid._, IV, 384).

[1601] Charles IX to St. Goard, May 10, 1573, regarding a dispatch of the Spanish ambassador to Philip II telling of the negotiations of the King with Louis of Nassau (_ibid._, IV, Appendix, No. 55).

[1602] _Ibid._, IV, Appendix, No. 51.

[1603] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,202, 1,286, November 11, 1573, January 2, 1574.

[1604] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 894, December 23, 1573.

[1605] _Ibid._, 891-93, November 5, 1573.

[1606] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,132, 1,138, August 18-22, 1573.

[1607] The attack was aggravated by a heavy cold taken while hunting so that Charles IX was compelled for a season to quarter himself in a small inn at Vitry. He was not scarred by the pox but he lost flesh alarmingly by reason of the illness and never recovered his health, and passed into quick consumption (cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,229, November 18, 1573, Dr. Dale to Burghley).

[1608] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 891; _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 485.

[1609] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,235, November, 1573.

[1610] The écu which formerly had circulated as 57 sous _tournois_ went up to 58; Spanish pistols, which were at 55 rose to 56; testons de France valued at 12 sous by the edict rose to 12 sous 6 d. _tournois_. Bad coin was driven out of the realm. Claude Haton, II, 749, 750.

[1611] _Ibid._, 752, 753.

[1612] Claude Haton, II, 760 (1574).

[1613] See details in _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 567, December 30, 1573. The queen mother was accused of planning to take La Rochelle by surprise (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 309-11; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 896).

[1614] _C. S. P. Ven._, Nos. 568, 569, January 22, February 1, 1574.

[1615] For details of this war see _Chronique des guerres en Poitou, Aunis, Xaintonge et Angoumois de 1574 à 1576_, ed. by Fontenelle de Vaudoré, Paris, 1841.

[1616] _C. S. P. For._, No. 570, February 6, No. 572, February 28; _ibid._, _Eng._, No. 1,336, March 8, No. 1,338, March 8, No. 1,357, March 23, No. 1,342, March 15 (1574).

[1617] On March 9, 1573, Sir Thomas Smith wrote to Walsingham: “Pirates of all nations infest our seas and under the flag of the prince of Orange or the count of Montgomery, pillage the English and foreigners impartially.” (Cf. Walsingham, 392. _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 575, March 24, 1574.)

[1618] Montgomery to Burghley, from Carentan, March 23, 1574 (C. S. P. For., 1351; cf. _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 576, March 26; Delisle, _Les deux sièges de Valognes en 1562 et 1574_, St. Lô, 1890).

[1619] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,352. Commission from the King to the sieur de Torcy, etc., dated Bois de Vincennes, March 11, 1574. Montgomery’s reply is subjoined, dated March 22; _ibid._, _Ven._, No. 577, April 2, 1574. Montgomery must have been in error as to the date of his arrival at Coutances, which he puts on March 11. It must have been earlier. Torcy’s commission bears this date. On May 29 the chief of the Huguenots, or rather, Montgomery, wrote to Lord Burghley from Carentan, justifying the taking up arms, and stating what need there is of the favor and protection of the Queen (_ibid._, _For._, No. 1,429, May 24, 1574).

[1620] Weill, 128, 129.

[1621] _Mém. du duc de Bouillon_, 89. The scheme was to deprive the duke of Anjou of the command before La Rochelle and put the duke of Alençon and Henry of Navarre in command both by land and by sea. It failed, though Charles IX seems to have been willing, because Anjou flatly refused to resign (see letter in Appendix XXXIII).

[1622] Forneron, _Histoire des ducs de Guise_, II, 276. On the whole question see De Crue, _Le parti des Politiques au lendemain de la St. Barthélemy_, Paris, 1892; Weill, 133 ff.

[1623] Weill, 88, 89. The actual author was Beza.

[1624] Weill, 132; citing La Huguerye, II, 84.

[1625] Weill, 95-97.

[1626] _Ibid._, 133.

[1627] See Corvière, _L’organisation politique du parti protestant tenu à Millau_ (1886).

[1628] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,349, 1,356, March 17 and 30, 1574. There were ten ensigns in every regiment, each of 300 men.

[1629] _Ibid._, No. 1,388, April, 1574. The prince was reputed to have about 6,000 or 7,000 reiters, “French, German, or Swiss.”—_Ibid._, No. 1,433, Wilkes to Walsingham, May 31, 1574.

[1630] See details in _ibid._, No. 1,322, February 16, 1574.

[1631] Hume supposes (_Courtships of Queen Elizabeth_, 177) that Elizabeth, knowing that this plot was in progress, again withdrew her permission for an interview with the duke of Alençon. She feared the result if the interview were unsuccessful; she would not allow a public visit under any circumstances, and did not wish a private. The recent expedition against La Rochelle had also angered her subjects, so that now the negotiations were once more apparently at a standstill. But we must not forget her private scheme. Nothing could be more in line with Elizabeth’s policy than to promote a family quarrel in the French royal house. That she was well informed of the plot can scarcely be doubted, for March 16, 1574, we find a safe-conduct for Alençon in the foreign papers; and the permission given for him to come to the Queen as soon as he has notified her of his arrival in England. April 1, moreover, Dale wrote to Walsingham, “The Duke has hope in the Queen and feareth much”—there is nothing more to explain the reference. Hume does not explicitly state Elizabeth’s connivance and the editor of Hall, Vol. II, does not mention the plot at all (p. xxi); neither does Burlingham in his résumé. It can scarcely be doubted, however, that Elizabeth was actively interested or, at least, informed of its progress.

[1632] _Mém. de madame Mornay_, 74, 75.

[1633] De Thou, Book LVII; _Arch. cur._, VII, 105.

[1634] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 572, February 28, and _ibid._, _For._, Nos. 1,331, 1,336, 1,350, March 2, 8, 22, 1573.

[1635] The duke of Alençon and the king of Navarre issued a declaration denying all knowledge of Guitery’s enterprise against the King at St. Germain. Tractprinted at Paris by Frederic Morel, 1574, p. 8; cf. _Lettres de Henri IV_, I, 60; _Mém. de la Huguerye_, I, 182, note 2.

[1636] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 573, March 10, 1574.

[1637] _Ibid._, No. 574, March 17, 1574.

[1638] _Ibid._

[1639] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,377, 1,378, April 10-12, 1574; _ibid._, _Ven._, Nos. 580, 581, April 9-10.

[1640] But it is not to be doubted that back of the affair was a secret movement of the liberal Huguenots and the Politiques to put Alençon upon the throne in event of the death of Charles IX and so foil the succession of the bigoted Henry of Anjou. _Vie de Mornay_, 23: Jalluard à Taffin, ministre du St. Evangile, May 8, 1574: “L’emprisonnement du duc d’Alençon, roy de Navarre, mareschal de Montmorenci, et autres, ont apporté non seulement un grand estonnement, mais aussi rompu des grands desseins.”—_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, V, 2; cf. IV, 375. Moderate men perceived the value of Alençon as a counterpoise to Henry of Poland (cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,431, May 25, 1574). On the entire matter see De Crue, “La Molle et Coconat et les négociations du parti des Politiques,” _Rev. d’hist. dip._, VI, 1892, p. 375.

[1641] _Arch. cur._, VIII, 127 ff. Among other charges, La Mole was accused of practicing sorcery—“that there should be an image of wax and a strange medal in the chamber of La Mole for some enchantment.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,398, Dr. Dale to Burghley, April 27, 1574.

[1642] _Ibid._, April 22, 1574; No. 1,398, April 27, 1574.

[1643] _Ibid._, _Ven._, No. 586, May 2, 1574.

[1644] _Ibid._, and _ibid._, _For._, No. 1,401, Dale to Burghley, April 30, 1574. The whole process was a mockery of justice. According to another report the King promised “that he would write to the Parlement to delay the proceedings. But the bearer of the letters, on arriving at Paris found the Porte St. Antoine closed. The execution was so much hurried that in a moment they were both executed. It is said this was done by reason of a perfumer relating to the first President what had passed in Court, and that the Queen Mother had obtained their pardon. For which cause they were made to come more quickly from the Conciergerie, the carriage made to journey hastily, and directly they arrived at the place of execution they were executed without the usual proclamations.”—_C. S. P. For._, No 1,403, May 2, 1574.

[1645] Claude Haton, II, 765.

[1646] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 584, April 19, 1574. Both Henry of Navarre and his fellow-prisoner seemed to have believed in these days that if Charles IX should die their own expectation of living would be slender, and their only hope be in corrupting the guard. But they were without money. This is the purport of a cipher dispatch, dated May 22, from Paris and sent to Burghley to be deciphered by him personally. This he actually did, for the draft is in his handwriting (_ibid._, _For._, No. 1,422, 1574; cf. No. 1,431). His reply—to Walsingham—was sent three days later (by a slip of the pen he has, however, written “March” instead of May).

[1647] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,408, Dr. Dale to Burghley, May 5, 1574. See a letter of Emanuel Philibert of Savoy, to Charles IX protesting against the arrest of Montmorency, May 19, 1574, in Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 92. Elizabeth seems to have interested herself very much in their fate and sent Thomas Leighton to France in their behalf. The face of affairs thus was changed, for to give some credibility to her stories of a happy family, Catherine had to allow the princes more liberty. Besides, Leighton was captain of Guernsey, and could be of great assistance to Montgomery so that he had to be well treated and his desires gratified. The Guises, however, were gaining great influence in court again and in event of the King’s death, Alençon expected the Bastille. To escape this he desired money from Elizabeth to bribe his guards and Burghley actually recommended that this course be followed. De Thoré, the youngest of the constable’s sons, fled to Cassel for safety (Claude Haton, II, 763 and note). The fury of the Guises pursued him even in Germany (see a letter of one Davis to count John of Nassau, June 7, 1574, in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 19, giving some particulars on this head, and one of Schomberg to the same, August 28, at p. 49).

[1648] See _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,417, May 17, 1574; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 520, note 1.

[1649] Yesterday he was more ill-at-ease than ordinarily, and no one entered his room, but at sunrise several gentlemen and priests came in. The priests performed the service, at which the queen mother was present. He has been of better countenance since hearing of the execution of De la Mole and Coconnas, and said he hoped to live to see the end of all his conspirators (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,403, May 2, 1574). Early in April, two couriers were dispatched to Poland to warn Henry of Anjou to be ready for any emergency (_ibid._, _Ven._, No. 590, May 2, 1574). Dr. Dale, the English ambassador, reports, under date of May 22: “On the 22d the King fell suddenly sick. The audience appointed with the ambassador of the duke of Florence was countermanded, the best physicians sent for, and the opinion is that the King is in great danger. The falling down of blood into his lungs is come to him again, and the physicians gave their opinion that if it should happen again they could not assure him of any hope. Paris, 22 May, 1574.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,422.

[1650] Frémy, _Un ambassadeur liberal sous Charles IX et Henri III_, 226. The King actually said “Tirez moy ma _custode_,” from the Latin word _custodire_, to protect. Claude Haton, II, 767, gives an impressive account of the deathbed scene.

[1651] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 591, May 30, 1574. For other accounts see _Arch. cur._, VIII, 253, 271. There is a remarkable tract in the State Paper office “giving particulars of the ancestors and birth of Charles IX, the civil wars of his reign, his victories, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, his famous sayings, his wife and daughter, his decrees, his motto, his favorite servant, his master and nurse, his liberality, his sports, his study of music and singing, the fiery spectre seen by him, his breaking the law, his speech in the senate, his amours, his affliction of the ecclesiastics, his study of liberal sciences, his food, drink, and sleep, a prodigy preceding his death, his sickness, his discourse before his death, his death and testament, description of his body and stature.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,628 (1574). The queen of France returned to Vienna and died in a convent in 1592.

[1652] Isambert, XIV, 262.

[1653] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,448, June 10, 1574.

[1654] Henry III, to Elizabeth (see Appendix XXXV).

[1655] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,449 and 1,464, _anno_ 1574.

[1656] Catherine risked a Protestant uprising in order to sate her vengeance upon the man who had slain Henry II. The Venetian ambassador, however, conjectured that there was more of policy than of revenge in the act. “It was certainly more to please the Parisians from whom she hoped to have efficient aid than for any other reason that she had Montgomery put to death.”—_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 588, May 20, No. 597, June, 1574. Matignon was made a marshal of France as his reward (_ibid._, _For._, No. 176, June 13, 1575). For particulars of Montgomery’s execution see _Arch. cur._, VIII, 223 ff.; and the _Discours de la mort et execution de Gabriel comte de Montgommery, par arrest de la court, pour les conspirations par luy commises contre le roy_, Lyon: Benoist Rigaud, 1574.

[1657] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 926-27, April 5 and May 11, 1574.

[1658] “Tenuti per forastieri e Alemanni.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 228.

[1659] Claude Haton, II, 778. These bandits were sometimes called “Foruscits” or “Fuorisciti,” from the Italian _uscir fuora_ (see a letter of the cardinal of Armagnac in _Rev. hist._, II, 529).

“En 1576 les paysans du Dauphiné s’étant soulevés, entreprirent vainement ce qu’ils ont exécuté plus de deux siècles après cette époque. Ils se rassemblèrent en un corps considérable pour piller et brûler les châteaux, et exterminer les gentilshommes. Mandalot, à la tête d’une troupe déterminée, dissipa avec promptitude ce rassemblement qu’on appela la ‘Ligue des Vilains.’”—_Histoire ou mémoire de ce qui se passa à Lyons pendant la ligue, appelée la Sainte-Union, jusqu’à la reddition de la ville sous l’obeissance du roi Henri IV_, Bibliothèque de Lyon, No. 1,361.

[1660] “On taschast de réconcilier par tous moyens les malcontens et principalement ceux qui, par le passé, ont eu crédit et autorité en France, qui pourront augmenter les troubles et soustenir la mauvaise et pernicieuse volonté de ceux qui voudroient invertir l’ancienne et naturelle succession de la couronne de France.”—Du Ferrier to Catherine de Medici, June, 1574, in Frémy, _Un ambassadeur liberal sous Charles IX et Henri III_, 235.

[1661] Articles proposed by the count palatine’s ambassador for a pacification (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,556, _anno_ 1574). The post was subsidized by the French King by way of Reinhausen, Neustadt, Kaiserslautern, Limbach (near Hamburg), Saarbrück, St. Avold, and Metz (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, V, 49).

[1662] _Vie de La Noue_, 87.

[1663] The Poles made a hard attempt to prevent Henry from leaving the kingdom. They were dissatisfied that he assumed the title of King of France without consulting them, and wanted him to govern his new kingdom through ministers chosen from among them, and to employ himself in military exploits against the Tartars and Turks (Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 121).

[1664] Frémy, _Un ambassadeur liberal sous Charles IX et Henri III_, 232.

[1665] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,543, September 10, 1574.

[1666] The duke and his fellow-captives made several efforts to escape, in one of which Alençon narrowly missed doing so (see the account in _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 600, July 26, 1574). In consequence, when Catherine started to meet her son at Lyons, leaving the government of Paris in care of the Parlement (_ibid._, No. 1,509, July 10, 1574), the young princes traveled in the coach with her. “Her chickens go in coach under her wing, and so she minds to bring them to the King.”—_Ibid._, _For._, No. 1,511, Dale to Walsingham, August 9, 1574.

[1667] _Ibid._, No. 1,537, Dale to Sir Thomas Smith and Francis Walsingham, September 2, 1574, from Lyons.

[1668] See the striking comments of the Venetian ambassador, _Rel. vén._, II, 245, 246.

[1669] _Rel. vén._, II, 245, 246.

[1670] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,543, September 10, 1574, No. 1,555, September 11, 1574; Thomas Wilkes to Walsingham and Dr. Dale to Sir Thomas Smith and Walsingham. There were 6,500 Swiss at Châlons (_ibid._, No. 1, 537, September 2, 1574). Henry III had sent orders in advance of his coming, commanding that on the 30th of August all the companies of ordinance should retire in garrison and await the orders of the provincial governors. Troops were levied in Picardy, Champagne, Brie, Burgundy, and Lorraine, to prevent the Protestant reiters from gaining entrance into the country and were put under the command of the duke of Guise, Vaudemont, and the marshal Strozzi (Claude Haton, II, 779).

[1671] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,590, November 4, 1574. The headquarters of the Catholic forces were between Dijon and Langres, but troops patrolled the whole course of the Marne and extended westward to Sens. Artillery was sent up the Seine from Paris. The camp of the horse was fixed near Troyes (Claude Haton, III, 779).

[1672] De Thou, Book L, chap. xii; _Vie de Mornay_, 23; Coll. Godefroy, CCLIX, No. 2, “Les habitants du diocèse de Montpellier au roi, 4 juin, 1574.”

[1673] For other interesting details see _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,568, September 29, 1574.

[1674] Le Laboureur, II, 135.

[1675] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,584, October 23, 1574.

[1676] Schomberg’s comment is amusing: “Monsieur le mareschal Damphille se contint sagement, dont les ennemis de ceste maison s’arrachent la barbe.”—August 28, 1574, in _Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, 49.

[1677] _Chroniques fontenaisiennes_, 228-32; L’Estoile, I, 37; Weill, 137, note 3.

[1678] “A little piece of money might win the reiters to join with them of the religion.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,623, December 23, 1574.

[1679] Aigues-Mortes was a strong port and the staple of salt for Languedoc, Dauphiné, the Lyonnais, and Burgundy (_ibid._, No. 17, January 25, 1575). Dr. Dale thought that the project was to connive at a Turkish attack in Germany for the purpose of embarrassing the Catholic princes there (_ibid._, No. 1,620, December 23, 1574).

[1680] The plot was an old one and long in preparation. See a letter of St. Goard to the King, May 20, 1573 (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, Appendix, No. 59). The Spanish had been advised by word from Besançon, on April 3, that those of Geneva and Bern had confederated with the Lutheran cantons and secured the favor of the duke John Casimir, whose purpose was to overcome Besançon and the free county of Burgundy (cf. letter of De Grantyre, the French agent in the Grisons, to Bellièvre, April 8, 1573, Coll. Godefroy, CCLVIII, No. 52, and the letter of Charles IX to Bellièvre, May 9, 1573, _ibid._, No. 55). The author of the plan was a Dr. Butterich, councilor of the elector (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, V, 89, 99, 101, 107, 120-3). The Swiss cantons were also appealed to, but Beza hesitated (_ibid._, 111). Spain had secret information of the plot (_ibid._, 89). It finally failed (see a letter of Butterich to John of Nassau, June 6, 1575, _ibid._, 214; cf. Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, Part II, 106, July 11, 1575).

[1681] An example of eccentric partisanship is afforded by the duke d’Uzes, who was a Huguenot, but who for enmity toward Damville joined the King. Henry III made him a marshal and left him in chief command when he went to Rheims (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,617, December 23, 1574; No. 13, January 16, 1575). Bellegarde was also made marshal in this year (_ibid._, No. 1,570, September 29, 1574).

[1682] “Seminario della guerra.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 230.

[1683] Claude Haton, I, 782, 783.

[1684] See the luminous _Relazione del Giovanni Michel_, the Venetian ambassador in France in 1575, ed. Tommaseo, II, 229-33.

[1685] _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, III, 105, note, June 15, 1574.

[1686] _Ibid._, 165-66, Requesens to Philip II, September 24, 1574: “Il y a en France beaucoup d’Espagnols qui ont déserté des Pays-Bas; il sont recueillis par M. de Guise et d’autres qui leur font un bon traitement et leur donnent de grosses payes.” M. Gachard has paraphrased the letter.

[1687] “La longa continuazione della guerra, che tutti li paesani che prima erano disarmati e vilissimi, tutti dati all’arte del campo e all’agricoltura, ovvero ad alcuna delle arti mecaniche, adesso sono tutti armati, e talmente essercitati e agguerriti che non si distinguono dalli più veterani soldati; tutti fatti archibugieri eccellentissimi.”—“Relazione del Giovanni Michel,” _Rel. vén._, II, 232; cf. Long, 167: “Des violences et des outrages exercés par quelques petits gentilhommes sur des paysans excitèrent la vengeance des villageois voisins, qui, furieux, accoururent en grand nombre. Les provocateurs imprudents se sauvèrent, mais leur maisons furent pillées et saccagées. On voit déjà _la haine du peuple_, poussé au desespoir par les impôts et par les exacteurs, contre les privilegiés. Le peuple, si mal disposé, ne devait pas être provoqué dans son ressentiment. Les defenseurs de la cause commune vont se lever.”

[1688] The English ambassador gives particulars of the cardinal’s death. “The King would needs go in procession with the Battus, who are men that whip themselves as they go as a sort of penance. The cardinal went in this solemn procession well-nigh all the night, and the next day he said mass for a solemnity, wherewith he took a great cold and a continual fever which brought him into a frenzy, wherein he continued divers days. A Jew took upon him to work wonders and gave him a medicine whereby he came to his remembrance for a time. Upon the medicine there did break out certain pustules or spots in his body like the pourpres, whereby some would say he was poisoned. Shortly after he fell into his old frenzy and so died, the 18th day after he first fell sick.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,624, December, 1574.

[1689] _Ibid._, No. 58, March 23, 1575. This letter is not printed in the _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_. The Venetian ambassador has a long and interesting character-sketch of the queen in _Rel. vén._, II, 243. There are several monographs upon this “pure, douce et mélancolique figure” [Galitizin, _Louise de Lorraine reine de France (1553-1601)_; Meaume, _Etude historique sur Louise de Lorraine reine de France (1553-1601)_, Paris, 1882; Baillon, _Histoire de Louise de Lorraine, reine de France, 1553-1601_, Paris, 1884].

[1690] _C. S. P. For._, No. 33, March 3, 1575.

[1691] The Pope finally advanced a sum upon the security of the crown jewels (_C. S. P. For._, No. 168, June 6, 1575).

[1692] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 55, 57, 67, March, 1575. The clergy in Dauphiné protested against the burden laid upon the church there by the King’s measure, complaining that its support was not costing the crown a sou there; one of them even had the face to declare that they had more to hope from Damville than from the King (_ibid._, No. 67, March, 1575).

[1693] Declaration et protestation de Henry de Montmorency, seigneur Damville, mareschal de France, gouverneur et lieutenant général pour le Roy en Languedoc. Issued from Nîmes, April 25, 1575. There is an abstract of it in _C. S. P. For._, No. 106, 1575.

[1694] “L’organisation politique de cette Union (Union protestante)”fut élaborée dans les assemblées tenues à Milhau, en décembre, 1573, et en juillet, 1574. La base fut l’autonomie des villes, que usurpèrent peu à peu l’administration. La Rochelle et Montauban confièrent l’autorité à des chefs électifs, pris dans la bourgeoisie. En suite ces républiques urbaines se fedérèrent. Il fut décidé que chaque généralité aurait son assemblée et que délégués des généralités formeraient les états généraux de l’Union. Ainsi se constitua au sein du royaume une république fédérative, où l’élément aristocratique ne tarda pas à dominer (Lavisse et Rambaud, “_Histoire générale_, V, 147;” cf. Cougny, “Le parti républicain sous Henri III,” _Mémoires de la Sorbonne_, 1867; Hippeau, “Les idées républicaines sous le règne de Henri III,” _Revue des Soc. savant. des départ._, IV^[e] sér., III).

[1695] L’Estoile, I, 3, 38.

[1696] I have availed myself of the synopsis in _C. S. P. For._, No. 112, May, 1575.

[1697] Dr. Junius to the prince of Condé, _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, V, 237.

[1698] See Dr. Dale’s observations in letter to Burghley, May 21, 1575; _C. S. P. For._, No. 138.

[1699] _Ibid._, No. 121, May 4, 1575. Through the duke of Savoy Henry III seems to have offered to set Montmorency free, provided Damville would deliver up Aigues-Mortes (_ibid._, No. 168, June 6, 1575).

[1700] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 114 and 287, _anno_ 1575.

[1701] Letter of the duke of Guise to M. de Luxembourg from Châlons, September 3, 1575, _Coll. des autographes_, 1846, No. 213. The duke of Guise was anxious for the safety of Langres.

[1702] _C. S. P. For._, No. 235, July 15, 1575, from Cracow.

[1703] _C. S. P. For._, No. 345, September 13, 1575. In Appendix XXXIV will be found a long account in Latin from the pen of Dr. Dale upon the condition of France at this time.

[1704] _C. S. P. For._, No. 120, _anno_ 1575. Even before leaving Poland Henry III had anxiously written to Elizabeth urging the good offices of his ambassador in England, De la Mothe-Fenelon (see the letter in Appendix XXXV). The articles of peace agreed to during the life of King Charles provided that in the event of the death of one of the contracting parties, that party’s successor should be allowed the space of one year to accept or refuse the conditions of peace, the other party being bound by the articles to continue in friendship in the event of the former accepting these articles; the Queen now insisted that, when these articles were first agreed to, the French King was at peace with all his vassals and had by the Edict of January conceded to the Huguenots the free exercise of their religion, and therefore at the present time he was bound to observe all that had been promised (_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 624, April 24, 1575).

[1705] _Correspondance de Philippe II_, III, 209 and note.

[1706] _Ibid._, 271.

[1707] _Ibid._, 333.

[1708] _Ibid._, 348.

[1709] _Correspondance de Philippe II_, III, 319, 320.

[1710] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 622, March 22, 1575. In Arch. nat., K. 1537, No. 22, is the report of a Spanish spy, written from Calais on March 18, 1575, which confirms the suspicion of English tampering in France. Printed in Appendix XXXVI.

[1711] Schomberg’s observations were absolutely just, for on July 23, 1575, at Heidelberg, an instrument was signed by Charles Frederick, the elector palatine, Henry, prince of Condé, and Charles de Montmorency, in which the count palatine acknowledged the receipt from the English Queen of 50,000 “crowns of the sun, each crown being of the value of six English shillings sterling,” which amount was transferred to “Henri de Bourbon, prince de Condé, chief of those of the religion in France, as well as of those Catholics with them associated” (i. e., the Politiques). Elizabeth’s name was to be shielded throughout, the elector assuming entire liability for repayment which was to be made “before the army now levied in Germany for service in France shall depart to France” (see _C. S. P. For._, No. 254, “The obligation and quittance of the prince of Condé,” July 23, 1575, Heidelberg; cf. _ibid._, _Ven._, 627; July 12, 1575, the guess of the Venetian ambassador in France). Cf. _ibid._, No. 633, September 7, 1575. The Venetian ambassador seems to have thought that trouble in Ireland would prevent England from advancing any more to the Huguenots (_ibid._, No. 631, August 9, 1575). The harvest of 1575 was generally good. But no invading army would enter France before the grain was cut and stacked (cf. _ibid._).

[1712] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 634, September 11, 1575.

[1713] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 388, October 3, 1575; L’Estoile, _anno_ 1575; see the interesting details of Henry III’s curious fits of contrition in Frémy, “Henri III, pénitent; étude sur les rapports de ce prince avec diverses confréries et communautés parisiennes,” _Bull. du Com. d’hist. et d’archéol. du diocèse de Paris_, 1885.

[1714] Claude Haton, II, 780; Walsingham to Burghley, _State Papers, Foreign,_ Elizabeth, CV, No. 51, printed in Appendix XXXVII. From Dreux the duke issued a manifesto, September 17, 1575, in which he explained his conduct and complained of the undue taxation and the imposition which the people were suffering in the King’s name, declaring that he would take under his protection all the French of the two religions, and demanding the call of the Estates-General for redress of grievances (Claude Haton, II, 781 and note). Alençon styled himself “Gouverneur-général pour le roy et protecteur de la liberté et bien publique de France” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 365, September, 1575).

[1715] Claude Haton, II, 784, 785.

[1716] Paris furnished the King 4,000 soldiers at its own expense. The new troops were lodged in the faubourgs of St. Germain, St. Marceau, and Notre-Dame des Champs (_ibid._, 787).

[1717] Claude Haton, II, 788-89; D’Aubigné, Book VII, chap. xix. From this circumstance the duke was often called Le Balafré. (_C. S. P. For._, No. 450, November 10, 1575.)

[1718] Claude Haton, II, 797.

[1719] _C. S. P. For._, No. 422, October 29, 1575. The King called these pilgrimages “nouaines” (cf. _ibid._, No. 506, Dr. Dale to Lord Burghley, December 20, 1575).

[1720] Protestant worship was provisionally authorized in the towns held by the confederates. Angoulême and Bourges refused to open their gates to Alençon and so he was offered Cognac and St. Jean-d’Angély instead. The prince of Condé was refused admittance to Mezières (Claude Haton, II, 805, note).

[1721] For details as to this levy, see Claude Haton, II, 804. This tax was laid upon the clergy, as well as others, and called forth a protest from the former, who pleaded an edict issued by Henry III at Avignon shortly after his return from Poland, forbidding the governors to enforce the payment of tailles, munitions, etc., upon the clergy.

[1722] Fontanon, IV, 840.

[1723] Claude Haton, II, 820.

[1724] Paris remonstrated against this (_ibid._, 828 and note 1).

[1725] _Ibid._, 817; L’Estoile, I, 46.

[1726] Claude Haton, II, 806-8.

[1727] _C. S. P. For._, No. 535.

[1728] Dr. Dale writes on February 28: “The Guises are nothing privy to the queen mother’s doings and she likes as evil of them.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 634, February 28, 1576.

[1729] _C. S. P. For._, No. 592, January 1576: “The King of Spain makes the King very great offers to break the peace.”

[1730] Dr. Dale to Sir Thomas Smith and Walsingham. All the fair promises of the delivery of Bourges and La Charité are like to come to nothing, as may appear by the enclosed letter of Monsieur to the Court of Parliament. There is a secret League between Guise, Nemours, Nevers, Maine, and others of that house, together with the Chancellor, against all that would have any peace, and if it should be made, to begin a sharp war afresh (_C. S. P. For._, No. 583, _anno_ 1576). From the first Languet was skeptical. He anticipated reaction (_Epist. secr._, I, Part II, 181, 205).

[1731] M. Frémy has published a work in which he makes the bizarre claim that the origin of the Académie française is to be at least remotely ascribed to Henry III (_Les origines de l’Académie française._ _L’Académie des derniers Valois, 1570-1585_, d’après des documents nouveaux et inédits, 1888. There is a review of it in the _English Hist. Review_, III, 576). Some one has said that “all the Valois kings were either bad or mad.” The aphorism would seem to apply to the character of Henry III, in both capacities. He was a mountebank, a roisterer, a dabbler in philosophy, a religious maniac, and a moral pervert. L’Estoile and Lippomano especially abound in allusions or accounts of him (e. g., _Rel. vén._, II, 237-39). Compare this account with the earlier observations of Suriano, _ibid._, I, 409, and Davila, VII, 442. On the “mignons,” Henry III’s favorites, see L’Estoile, I, 142, 143. Henry III’s very handwriting manifests his character: “Son écriture semble tout d’abord régulière, mais elle n’est pas formée, les lettres s’alignent sans s’unir, sans se rejoindre, certainement c’est une des écritures les plus difficiles à déchiffrer.... C’est l’homme qui s’y révèle l’indolent, l’efféminé monarque qui de son lit écrivait ces lignes à Villeroy: ‘J’ay eu le plaisir d’avoir veu vostre mémoire très bien faict comme tout ce qui sort de vostre boutique, mais il fault bien penser, car nous avons besoin de regarder de près à nos affaires. Je seray sitost là que ce seroit peine perdue d’y répondre. Aussi bien suis-je au lit _non malade, non pour poltronner, mais pour me retrouver frais comme la rose_.’”—La Ferrière, _Rapport de St. Pétersbourg_, 27.

[1732] See the remonstrance in _C. S. P. For._, No. 505, December 19, 1575.

[1733] _Ibid._, No. 584, January 9, 1576.

[1734] For particulars see Dale’s letter to Smith and Walsingham, _ibid._, No. 605, February 6, 1576; Claude Haton, II, 829.

[1735] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 614, 625, 662, February 14-22, March 8, 1576. Mayenne, whose marquisate was erected into a duchy on January 1, 1576, had succeeded his brother, the duke of Guise, as chief commander of the royal forces, and advanced toward Lorraine in order to prevent the reiters from joining the enemy. Henry III had sent Biron (he had been made a marshal in the June preceding—_ibid._, No. 178, June 13, 1575) to them to persuade them not to enter France, representing that a truce had been concluded between the King and the duke of Alençon. But the prince of Condé replied that if the duke had made his peace with the King, he, the prince, had not. Biron failed and La Noue was sent, who likewise was unsuccessful (Claude Haton, II, 824, 825).

[1736] _C. S. P. For._, No. 662, Dale to Smith and Walsingham, March 8, 1576; Claude Haton, II, 832.

[1737] _C. S. P. For._, No. 740, April 17, 1576.

[1738] Dr. Dale wrote truly to Lord Burghley saying that the Protestants had “gotten more without any stroke stricken than ever could be had before this time by all the wars, as appears by the note of the provinces that are to be under the government of them and their friends.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 777, May 11, 1576.

[1739] La Popelinière, III, 361.

[1740] This claim ran back to the reign of Charles VII; the original amount was 25,000 livres. Louis XI altered it to 6,000 livres, plus the county of Gaure and the town of Fleurance, and this revised form was approved by Charles VIII in 1496 (cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 672, §5; May 16, 1576).

[1741] Henry of Navarre’s memoir is given _in extenso_ in _ibid._, No. 671, May 15, 1576.

[1742] La Popelinière, III, 365.

[1743] Maffert, _Les apanages en France du XVI^[e] au XIX^[e] siècle_ (1900).

[1744] Articles du maréchal de Dampville, gouverneur de Languedoc et des Etats du pays, présentés au Roi pour la décharge de la province, May 2, 1576.—Coll. Godefroy, XCIV, No. 21.

[1745] Nusse, “La donation du duché de Château-Thierry par le duc d’Alençon à Jean Casimir, comte palatin du Rhin,” _Annales de la Société hist. et archéol. de Château-Thierry_, Vol. XI (1875), p. 61.

[1746] The text of the Paix de Monsieur is in Isambert, XIV, 280. The sources for the history are many. The correspondence of Dale, the English ambassador in France, and the other English agents, Wilkes and Randolph, in _C. S. P. For._, 1876, for March, April, and May, is full and detailed (cf. D’Aubigné, Book VIII, chap. xxvii; De Thou, Book LXXII). La Popelinière, III, 360 ff., gives the text of the treaty and the letters-patent of the King. The act was registered in Parlement on May 14, 1576, though signed by the King on May 2.

[1747] Two days before this scene took place, the newly elected king of Poland Stephen Bathori, prince of Transylvania, had written informing the deposed Valois that he had assumed the Polish crown and desiring to know what Henry would have done with the household stuff he had left behind in Poland (_C. S. P. For._, No. 789, May 29, 1576). The Emperor had had numerous partisans, but refused to accept the condition that he fix his residence in Poland (_Epist. secr._, I, Part II, 143).

[1748] See the vivid details in Claude Haton, II, 834-40, 847, 851, 858.

[1749] _Ibid._, 855-60.

[1750] The words in brackets are faded and are supplied from No. 460.

[1751] Ellipses indicate places where the MS is faded or creased so as to be illegible.

[1752] The words in brackets are faded and are supplied from No. 455.

[1753] The date is in Burghley’s hand.

[1754] The MS is torn here.

[1755] The reference to the original cipher is “State Papers, Scotland, Elizabeth, Vol. III, No. 82.” (This is not signed addressed or endorsed. Pencil note by editor: “See April 29.”)

[1756] The Editor’s pencil note to the cipher (Scotland ii. 82) is “March 12,” but the letter is calendared under [March 20].

[1757] Cayas, secretary to Philip II.

[1758] On the margin, in the writing of Philip II: “Es menester tener prevenido lo que se les ha de dar para este tiempo.”

[1759] This heading is in another hand.

[1760] This copy is on the other side of the same sheet of paper.

[1761] For _est_.

[1762] The original probably has _amener_.

[1763] _Il_ is missing.

[1764] M. d’Auzances (or Ausances) was lieutenant of the king in the district of Messin.

[1765] Places in Lorraine.

[1766] Laon.

[1767] Soissons.

[1768] Boulogne.

[1769] This letter is printed V. and is altered in ink to B.

[1770] From Communay, _Les huguenots dans le Béarn et la Navarre_, p. 175. The italicized portions are further details which I have added.—J. W. T.

[1771] Cf. Courteault, p. 553 n. 2.

[1772] Cf. _Les huguenots en Béarn_, p. 64.

[1773] _Ibid._, pp. 65, 68.

[1774] _Ibid._, p. 68.

[1775] The above document was sent by Biron to M. de Fourquevaux, French ambassador in Spain. There is an extract from the letter of Biron to Forquevaux translated into Spanish, same carton (K. 1,515), pièce No. 69. Biron’s letter is dated March 17, 1570, from Narbonne.

[1776] A space is left blank to the MS.

[1777] This letter of Sir Henry Norris is a draft originally intended to be sent to the Queen, with the terms of address altered throughout—_your highness_ altered to _your honour_, etc.

[1778] The MS is torn here.

[1779] The postscript is in the same hand as the king’s signature.

[1780] A space is left blank in the MS.

[1781] See the subscription and the notice of receipt at the end of the despatch.

[1782] Although the Catalogue has the date February 18 it is a mistake; the document has very clearly 17th.

[1783] The postscript is found thus, between the date and the signature.

[1784] Altered in Burghley’s hand from _Iº Julii._