Chapter LXXVI: Book XXII: ; Delaborde, III, 176 ff.). In Appendix XX will be found a (2)

[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.