Chapter LXXV: Book XXII: ; Delaborde, III, 176 ff.). In Appendix XX will be found a (1)

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.