Europe in the Sixteenth Century 1494-1598 Part 32

| Genlis defeated and taken prisoner. July 19, 1572.

| Attempted a.s.sa.s.sination of Coligny. Aug. 22, 1572.

| The Ma.s.sacre of St. Bartholomew. Aug. 24, 1572.

Unfortunately, the apprehensions of Catherine had been in the meantime aroused. She had consented to the Treaty of St. Germain because she feared the Guises; she was now threatened by the more distasteful ascendency of Coligny, who, if we may believe Tavannes, advised Charles that he would never be truly King until he had emanc.i.p.ated himself from his mother's control. She therefore returned to the idea, often entertained, and often pressed upon her, of getting rid of the leaders of the Huguenots, more especially of Coligny. At what date she finally decided on this course it is impossible to say with certainty, but there is evidence to show that the scheme had a.s.sumed practical shape as early as February, 1572. Even then had the movement in the Netherlands met with complete success, King Charles might have made up his mind to declare war against Spain; Elizabeth might have cast away her doubts, and some of the Protestant princes of Germany would have joined the alliance. The position of Coligny would then have been too strong for Catherine, who, as she had often done before, might have submitted to the inevitable, and the hopes of Burleigh and Walsingham of beating back Catholicism behind the Alps and the Pyrenees might have been realised. Unfortunately, de la Noue was driven from Valenciennes, a French detachment under the Count of Genlis was cut to pieces by the son of Alva in an attempt to relieve Mons (July 19), and Genlis himself was taken prisoner. The hands of Catherine were now free, and she planned the a.s.sa.s.sination of Coligny with the Duke of Anjou and Henry of Guise. The attempt was made in the midst of the festivities which followed the marriage of Henry of Navarre and Margaret. Whether, if it had succeeded, Catherine would have been satisfied, or whether she hoped that the murder would cause the Protestants to rise, and thus give the Catholics an excuse for proceeding further, it is impossible to say. In any case, the a.s.sa.s.sin missed his aim; Coligny escaped with a serious wound, and it was necessary to proceed to further extremities. Accompanied by the Duke of Anjou, by Birago a Milanese, the successor of L'Hopital in the chancellorship, and by others, the Queen-mother visited the King, and, with threats and imputations that he was too timid to act, at last persuaded him. 'By G.o.d's death,' said he, 'since you insist that the admiral must be killed, I consent; but with him every Huguenot in France must perish, that not one may remain to reproach me with his death, and what you do, see that it be done quickly.' The King's consent obtained, the plan was rapidly concerted between Catherine, Anjou, Henry of Guise, and Charron, the 'Prevot des Marchands' of Paris. Whether, even then, it was intended to dispose of more than some of the leaders is doubtful, but, when once the order had gone out, the fanatical mob of Paris could not be restrained. On Sunday morning, August 24, the ma.s.sacre began, and was subsequently taken up in the provinces.

| No change in foreign policy contemplated.

Such appears to be the truth with regard to the causes of this pitiful tragedy, which some think had been premeditated as early as the Treaty of St. Germain itself. All direct evidence, however, has been destroyed, and the facts have been so distorted by partisanship, that certainty is no longer possible. The number of victims has been variously stated; but at the lowest computation they were not less than 1000 in Paris, and 10,000 elsewhere. Among the victims, besides Coligny, were Teligny, his son-in-law, and La Rochefoucauld, an important n.o.ble of Poitou. Navarre and the young Conde were spared, but were forced to abjure Protestantism, and were practically prisoners in the hands of Catherine and the Guises. As to any future policy, the Court had not made up its mind. Catherine, it is said, had hoped that, if the responsibility could be thrown upon the Guises, the Huguenots would rush to arms and attack them, and that an obstinate struggle would then ensue, which would weaken the two factions, and justify the King in interfering to restore order; thus both parties might be destroyed, and she and her favourite son Anjou might be left without dangerous rivals. Accordingly the King at first announced that the affair had been the result of the long-standing quarrel between the Guises and the Chatillons, which the Government had done its best to suppress. But as the Guises would not accept the responsibility, the King changed his tone, justified the crime by declaring that the Huguenots had been plotting against the crown, and, with singular baseness, urged Alva to put to death all the Huguenot prisoners he had taken before Mons. At the same time, Catherine was eager not to alienate the Protestants abroad. She looked upon the ma.s.sacre as a domestic incident, and was not unwilling to continue the policy of Coligny now that he was gone. This she was the more anxious to do, because she now entertained the idea of securing the crown of Poland, just vacant by the death of the last of its hereditary Kings, the Jagellons, for her favourite son Anjou. It was therefore announced that the Edict of Amboise would be kept, and negotiations were continued with the Protestant powers. This policy met with some success.

| Att.i.tude of European Powers.

| Anjou elected King of Poland. May 9, 1573.

The rulers of Europe expressed delight or disapprobation according to their sentiments, but guided their policy as their interest demanded. Philip was at first beside himself with joy; it meant, he thought, the end of the French alliance with the Netherlands; Alva, however, warned him that the overthrow of the Huguenots would strengthen France too much. Elizabeth declared her disgust, but could not afford to quarrel with France; while William the Silent, especially after the fall of Mons on September 19, was not in a position to abandon all hopes of French a.s.sistance. The Protestant Princes of Germany at first showed great indignation, but did nothing to interfere with the candidature of the Duke of Anjou, who was elected King of Poland (May 9, 1573).

| Effect of Ma.s.sacre on France.

| 4th Civil War. August, 1572-June, 1573.

| Treaty of La Roch.e.l.le. June 24, 1573.

| Rise of the Politiques.

At home, Catherine was not so successful, and 'France,' says Sully, 'atoned for the ma.s.sacre by twenty-six years of disaster, carnage, and horror.' On the news of the ma.s.sacre, the survivors took up arms, but they were not strong enough to meet their enemies in the field, and the resistance was confined to a few cities, of which Nimes and Montauban in the south, Sancerre and La Roch.e.l.le in the west, were the most important. The Government in vain attempted their reduction. The siege of La Roch.e.l.le cost the lives of some 20,000 men, and of more than 300 officers of some distinction. Sancerre was reduced to such straits that cats, rats, mice, and even dogs, were eaten; the last, says Jean de Lery, whose narrative has not been inaptly called a cookery book for the besieged, were found to be rather sweet and insipid. At last, on June 24, 1573, the Government despairing of success, and unwilling that the Polish amba.s.sadors should find their new King, the Duke of Anjou, who was in command of the army, besieging a Protestant town, concluded the Treaty of La Roch.e.l.le. By this treaty the Huguenots were promised liberty of conscience throughout France, and the right of holding services in La Roch.e.l.le, Nimes, and Montauban. These towns were also to be free from royal garrisons. In August, by the mediation of the Polish amba.s.sador, Sancerre was admitted to the same terms. But the treaty could not last. It was doubtful whether the Government were sincere, and it was not likely that the Huguenots would consent to forego their rights of worship. Besides all this, their cause was being strengthened by the rise of the 'Politiques,' or 'Peaceable Catholics' as they called themselves. This party, born of the horror and weariness which the Civil War had caused, was anxious to establish peace on the basis of mutual toleration. Its leaders were the two sons of the old Constable, Francis, Marshal of France and Governor of Paris, and Henry Damville, Governor of Languedoc. Their jealousy of the Guises they had inherited from their father, yet their ideas as to toleration would have been most distasteful to him, and, still more so, the opinions of his two youngest sons, William (Th.o.r.e), and Charles (Meru), who adopted the Huguenot faith. The Politiques were strongest in the south, where the adherents of the two creeds had been more equally balanced, and where the struggle had been most severe. As a whole they were not actuated by high principle. If they adopted the views of L'Hopital it was from cynical indifference to religion, rather than from conviction as to the merits of toleration, and the leaders at least were largely influenced by ambition or personal motives. Indeed, the ma.s.sacre of St. Bartholomew was followed by a general lowering of tone and of morality throughout France.

| Change in the character and views of the Huguenot | Party.

Closely connected with the Politiques stood Navarre and Henry of Conde, who had been forced to abjure their faith and were practically prisoners in royal hands, and the King's brother, the Duc d'Alencon, who selfishly sided with Huguenots in the hope of securing the crown on the death of Charles IX. At this time, too, the results of the ma.s.sacre were seen in a complete transformation of the views of the Huguenots. Hitherto, the party had been dominated by the n.o.bility, great and small, who, in spite of the feudal colour which they gave to the movement, had a.s.serted that they were not fighting against the crown, but for the removal of foreign and unpopular ministers, while the third estate had limited its demands to an extension of the powers of the States-General. But now many of the greater n.o.bility had fallen, and many had abjured their faith. The importance of the _bourgeoisie_ and of the ministers had consequently increased, and under their influence republican ideas had become more prominent; while the feudal element, which was still represented by the smaller local n.o.bility, went to strengthen separatist tendencies. The change was accompanied by the appearance of numerous political pamphlets, of which the most striking were the _Franco-Gallia_ of Hotman, and the _Vindiciae contra Tyrannos_ from the pen of Languet, or possibly of Duplessis-Mornay, the faithful adviser of Henry of Navarre.

| The Franco-Gallia, and Vindiciae contra Tyrannos.

The _Franco-Gallia_, adopting the historical method, a.s.serts that the Teutonic nations saved France from the tyranny of Rome, revived the free inst.i.tutions of the Gauls, and established an elective monarchy, which governed through the people and for the people, in whom eventually the sovereignty resides. The decadence of this free const.i.tution began with the Capetian Kings, who in time overthrew the privileges of the Estates, and introduced the despotic rule of King and 'Parlement.' The writer goes on to ill.u.s.trate from the history of France the evil results of the rule of women, and holds that this is the reason for their exclusion from the throne, rather than any fundamental law, like the Salic Law, which conflicts with the primeval right of free election.

The author of the second treatise, the _Vindiciae_, adopts the opposite method, and seeks to prove his point by a deductive argument. Both King and people have made a contract with G.o.d: the King to rule his country well, the people to depose him when he fails to do so. Hence resistance to a tyrant is a duty. Nevertheless, the right of resistance does not belong to individuals, except, indeed, against an invader, an usurper, or a woman, if such, in defiance of law, seek to rule a country; for they are outside the law. In other cases, not the individuals, but their representative, the magistracy, should be the judge of breach of contract. Thus, although the doctrine of resistance is clearly enunciated, the resistance must come from the properly const.i.tuted authorities, and the writer objects to anything which savours of anabaptism or other extreme views.

| Political organisation of the Huguenots.

| Fifth Civil War. Feb. 1574-May 1576.

| Death of Charles IX. March 30, 1574.

The Huguenots did not limit themselves to theory. On the 24th of August, 1573, the anniversary of St. Bartholomew, the Protestants of Languedoc and Upper Guienne formed two federative republics, each divided into dioceses with small deliberative a.s.semblies, which were to send deputies to the central a.s.semblies at Nimes and Montauban. These, with an elective governor, were to have the power of levying troops and of imposing taxes on Protestant and Catholic alike. This republican form of government, in which we see the Presbyterian ideas of church-government applied to secular politics, was to be extended to all parts of France which the Protestants might subsequently win. After thus settling the government of the south, the Huguenots sent a pet.i.tion to the King demanding complete liberty of conscience and of worship throughout the kingdom, and the cession of two fortresses in each province as a security. The Politiques at the same time published a manifesto demanding toleration. 'If Conde had been alive and in possession of Paris he would not have asked so much,' said Catherine. And on February, 1574, the fifth war broke out. An unsuccessful attempt on the part of Navarre and Alencon to fly from St. Germain, led to the imprisonment of the Marshal Montmorenci, and Marshal de Cosse, another Politique. Henry of Conde effected his escape, and negotiated with the German princes for help. Before, however, any event of importance occurred, the unfortunate King, Charles IX., pa.s.sed away (March 30, 1574), tortured to the last by remorse, and terrified by visions of the ma.s.sacre to which, in an evil hour, he had consented.

-- 5. _The reign of Henry III., March 1574-July 1589._

| Henry III. leaves Poland and reaches France. Sept.

| 1574.

The death of Charles IX. gave Henry a pretext for hastily leaving Poland, where he had already become unpopular. He did not, however, appear to be in any hurry to reach his new kingdom. Warned by his mother to avoid North Germany, since 'the German princes had too many causes of quarrel with France,' he pa.s.sed through Austria and Italy. At Venice, he wasted two months in luxury and debauch, and is said to have been corrupted by the licence of that town. On his arrival in France (September, 1574), he seemed for a moment inclined to adopt a conciliatory policy. But his mother, now that her favourite son was King, hoped that if he were victorious over the Huguenots her influence would be paramount, and expected everything from the hero of Jarnac and Moncontour. The King therefore announced that he would recognise liberty of conscience, but would not tolerate religious practices which deviated from Catholicism, and that he would speak of peace when his castles and his cities had been restored.

| Peace of Monsieur. May, 1576.

Thus the war dragged on, though without any decisive events, and soon Henry III. began to crave for peace that he might indulge in his pleasures. The definite alliance of the Politiques with the Huguenots of the south, which took place in December, enabled the rebels to hold their own. In September, 1575, Alencon, and in the following February, Navarre, effected their escape. Meanwhile Duke Casimir, son of the Elector Palatine, who dreamt of heading an aggressive Calvinistic party in Europe, had invaded France, ravaged Burgundy and the Bourbonnois, and, in March, joined Alencon at Soze. Finally, by the exertions of Francis of Montmorenci, the Marshal, who had been released by the King, the Peace of Monsieur (May, 1576) gave to the Huguenots better terms than they had hitherto obtained. They were allowed to worship where they liked, except within two leagues of Paris, and within the domains of any lord who might withhold his sanction. Cases in which Protestants were concerned were to be tried by 'Chambres mi-parties' in each 'Parlement,'--that is, by courts composed of an equal number of judges of the two religions. The Estates were to be convened at Blois; and eight cities were to be held by the Huguenots in pledge of the fulfilment of the treaty. The Duke of Alencon, or Anjou, as he had now become in consequence of the accession of Henry of Anjou to the throne, was to receive the duchies of Berry, Touraine, and Anjou, with reservation of the rights of suzerainty to the crown. To Henry of Navarre was given the governorship of Guienne, and to Henry of Conde that of Picardy, with Peronne as his residence. The last concession was an important one, for Picardy hitherto had been very Catholic in its sympathies, and had divided the Huguenots from their Protestant allies in the Netherlands. The Peace of Monsieur was received with violent indignation by the Catholics of France, and led to an agitation which was directed almost as much against the crown as against the Huguenots.

| The Catholic Leagues.

| The Guises adopt democratic views.

The idea of forming a.s.sociations of 'Better Catholics' was no new one. Shortly after the Edict of Amboise, in 1563, we find mention of several, such as the Fraternity of the Holy Ghost in Burgundy, and the Christian and Royal League of Champagne. With the ma.s.sacre of St. Bartholomew these a.s.sociations had fallen into neglect; they were now to be revived on a much more important scale. The first of these new leagues was that of Peronne, organised by Humieres, the old governor who refused to surrender the fortress to Conde (1576). The example was speedily followed elsewhere, and formed the counterpart to Huguenot federation in the south (cf. p. 419). The organisation of these leagues was a military one. Their objects were declared to be: the defence of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church; the preservation of Henry III. in the obedience of his subjects, and after him 'of all the posterity of the House of Valois'; the execution of the resolutions which should be presented by the Estates which were about to meet; and the restoration of the ancient liberties as they existed in the time of Clovis, the first Christian King. In this declaration we are reminded of a new departure in the policy of the Guises. Hitherto they had attempted to secure their power as the first ministers of the crown, and supported the principles of despotic rule. But Henry III. threatened to shake himself free from their influence, and was already leaning upon his favourites 'the Mignons.' Accordingly, Henry of Guise, who, by the death of his uncle, the cardinal, in 1574, was the undoubted leader of his house, a.s.sumed a position of antagonism to the crown, and even began to dream of some day winning the throne itself. The unpopularity which Henry III.

incurred by the Peace of Monsieur and by his foppish follies, caused the Duke to lean on popular support, while many of the Catholic n.o.bles had joined the Politiques. Thus the party of the Guises, without completely breaking with the upper cla.s.ses, began to seek its fulcrum in a lower stratum.

| Henry III. tries to make use of the States-General.

The change is represented not only in the articles of these Catholic Leagues but also in the Catholic pamphlets of the day, which began to borrow the popular doctrines of the _Franco-Gallia_ and other Huguenot writings. Denying the application of the Salic Law to France, they a.s.serted that the t.i.tle of the House of Lorraine was superior to that of the Bourbon, and even to that of the House of Valois itself, since it could trace its descent through the female line from Charles the Great himself. In the face of these new developments, Henry III.

followed for some time an oscillating policy. At first he forbade all a.s.sociations. Subsequently he abandoned that idea, and tried to utilise them for the purpose of influencing the elections to the States-General which were to meet at Blois according to the Treaty, in the hope, by the aid of the Catholic majority thus obtained, of putting down both the Guises and the Huguenots. In this he was only partially successful. The Huguenots, indeed, despairing of success owing to the terrorism and intrigues of the League, declined even to send deputies from those districts and towns which were in their power, and the Catholics finding themselves in a majority, demanded that there should be only one religion in France. Yet so great was the dislike to a continuance of the war that they refused the necessary supplies, and brought forward const.i.tutional demands which made Henry III. only too glad to be quit of them (March 1577).

| Sixth Civil War, 1577.

| Treaty of Bergerac. Sept. 17, 1577.

In the war which had broken out in the meantime, the King was somewhat more successful. The Duke of Anjou (Alencon), who had now deserted the Huguenots, took command of the royal army; the aristocratic prejudices and the religious indifference of the Politiques could ill agree with the earnestness of the republican and Calvinistic burghers; and Damville, who by the death of his brother had now become Duke of Montmorenci and Marshal of France, soon abandoned the alliance and made his peace with the court (May, 1577). Under these circ.u.mstances the Huguenots lost ground. In May fell La Charite on the Loire; in August, Brouage, a place next in importance to La Roch.e.l.le; and it was only the want of union among the Catholics themselves, and the utter weariness of the country, which enabled the Huguenots to gain such favourable terms as they did by the Treaty of Bergerac (September 17, 1577). Their right of worship was indeed restricted to the domains of n.o.bles, to all cities where worship was held at the date of the peace, and elsewhere to one city or its suburbs in each senechaussee--Paris itself being specially excluded. The 'Chambres mi-parties' were also confined to the four southern 'Parlements' where the Huguenots were strongest. But they still had eight cities intrusted to them in pledge for six years, and Conde received St. Jean d'Angely instead of Peronne. The King was probably sincere in desiring to maintain the Peace of Bergerac, for he was anxious if possible to escape from the thraldom of the Guises, and the violations of the treaty which occurred were due to the insubordination of the governors of provinces, to the popular fanaticism, and to the stubborn ill-will of the Law Courts.

| Seventh Civil War, April 1580, to Peace of Fleix, | Nov. 1580.

In 1580, indeed, 'The Lovers' War' broke out. This was caused, however, rather by quarrels between the King and Henry of Navarre concerning the dower of Margaret, and it is noticeable that the great Protestant leader, de la Noue, disapproved of it, and that neither La Roch.e.l.le nor the southern towns took part in it. It was ended by the Peace of Fleix, in Perigord (26th November, 1580), which confirmed the Treaty of Bergerac, and closed the Seventh Civil War.

| Disorganisation of France.

The Peace of Fleix was followed by five years of feverish peace, which served only to ill.u.s.trate the utter disorganisation of the country and the demoralisation of all cla.s.ses. Although there were not wanting earnest, if fanatical, adherents of the two creeds, these formed an ever lessening minority; and for the most part, as a competent observer tells us, 'Men were combating not for the faith, nor for Christ, but for command.' Of the greater n.o.bles, the Guises were attempting to overawe the crown, if not to seize it for themselves; the rest, like Henry de Montmorenci the Marshal, and the Duke of Mercur, strove to make themselves independent in the provinces of which they were governors. The smaller n.o.bility played the same game on a less magnificent scale, and in some cases had degenerated into brigands; while many, both great and small, spent their leisure in duels and a.s.sa.s.sinations, often caused by some shameful intrigue. Even the women resorted to the dagger to free themselves from an inconvenient lover, or to avenge some act of infidelity. While the upper cla.s.ses were thus disturbing the country with their ambitions and their vices, the lower cla.s.ses were bemoaning their social grievances, and threatening social war. At the head of this seething ma.s.s of iniquity, and of political, social, and moral anarchy, stood a vacillating, effeminate King, and an intriguing Queen-mother.

Henry III. had in earlier life shown some character. He was far more able than his brothers, the unfortunate Charles IX., or the Duke of Anjou (Alencon); and had distinguished himself in the battles of Jarnac and Moncontour. His natural gifts, however, had been choked in a life of licence and of luxury, and ever since his accession he had gone from bad to worse. He dressed himself more like a woman than a man; he surrounded himself with favourites, and with lap-dogs; he relieved the monotony of his debaucheries by ridiculous acts of penance and superst.i.tion which deceived no one. No doubt, the idea of raising new men to power to balance the ambitions of the older n.o.bility was not altogether a foolish one, and some of the favourites, like epernon, Joyeuse, and the Marshal de Biron, were men of capacity. But others, like Villequier and D'O, would have disgraced any court; while all were influenced by sordid and unworthy motives. By the King's side stood the Queen-mother, still intriguing for power though life was fast ebbing, and descending to the arts of a procuress to win her opponents. Clearly there was no hope for France until the last of this degenerate race of the Valois had disappeared. The only chance for a continuance of internal peace, such as it was, lay in a vigorous foreign policy, which might have monopolised the attention of the turbulent spirits, and put the King at the head of a united people.

| Sovereignty of Netherlands accepted by Anjou. Sept.

| 1580-Feb. 1582.

| Expedition to the Azores. June 1582.

| The French Fury. Jan. 16, 1583. Anjou leaves | Netherlands, June 1583, and dies. a.s.sa.s.sination of | William of Orange. July 10, 1584.

For this, the offer of the sovereignty of the Netherlands to the Duke of Anjou, in September, 1580, furnished an opportunity which Catherine, angry at the recent occupation of Portugal by Philip (cf. p. 298), eagerly embraced. Even the King himself approved; while Elizabeth received with favour the advances of Anjou for her hand in marriage. The sovereignty was finally conferred on the Duke in February, 1582. In the June of that year, Catherine sent an expedition to the Azores in support of Antonio, the Pretender of Portugal. William of Orange might well hope that France was about to return to the policy of Coligny, and, in alliance with the Protestant Queen of England, and the Netherlands, finally to join issue with the representative of the Catholic reaction. His hope was not, however, to be realised. Henry III. was not prepared for so bold a course, and was half-jealous of his brother. Elizabeth had been only scheming to prevent the Netherlands from being incorporated into France, and, if possible, to embroil France with Philip, and, for all her love-making, had no intention of really marrying Anjou. The expedition to the Azores, as well as another which was despatched in June, 1583, was destroyed by a Spanish fleet under the Marquis de Santa Cruz. Anjou, ill satisfied with the restricted authority granted to him, rashly attempted to establish himself in a more independent position by seizing Bruges and Antwerp (January 16). The attempt failed, and in June, 1583, Anjou retired from the Netherlands to die in the following June. One month after (July, 1584), William the Silent fell a victim to the pistol of Balthazar Gerard.

| Sovereignty of Netherlands offered to Henry III. Oct.

| 1584.

| The Catholic League.