Catherine de Medicis obtained the promise of an amnesty for the prisoners, but faith was broken with them by Guise. Many of them were hanged from the iron balcony of the Château of Blois. Many were consigned to the oubliettes, loathsome dungeons in which they reflected and languished until blessed unconsciousness stopped the wheels of the thinking machine, and the less diffident rodents took a closer interest in their constitutions.

Catherine was wise enough to see that the sword had a limited application in dealing with reformers. She realized that conscience would only be amenable to argument, and that a certain freedom should be admitted. The conference of Poissy, which she was instrumental in assembling, was a great effort to establish a better understanding between the conflicting parties.

Condé was cited before the King for complicity in the conspiracy of Amboise and condemned to suffer the extreme penalty; but the death of Francis II himself before the time fixed for the execution caused the Prince to be set at liberty. Refusing to accept a pardon he was declared innocent. Condé, at the trial, threw down his glove as a challenge to his accuser, but Guise was not to be drawn.

The King, soon after the trial of Condé, showed signs of serious illness. Inflammation of the ear spreading to the neighbouring bone set up an abscess on which Ambroise Paré, the surgeon who had treated Guise's facial wound at Boulogne, pronounced operation necessary. Catherine opposed this procedure, and, considering the gravity of the case and the primitive surgical methods then in vogue, she might well be given credit for conscientious reasons. Yet her enemies accuse her, not merely of culpable interference, but of the actual murder of her son. Even Balzac, perhaps her greatest champion, has been so misled by the circumstances, as practically to accept the charge as well founded. This writer goes further, and, though he refutes many other serious allegations against her, formulates and supports one which, on analysis, seems preposterous, namely, the wilful murder of her second son, Charles IX. Charles died of lung disease, a malady which accounted also for the death of her fourth son, the Duke of Anjou. Balzac states that she encouraged the profligacy of Charles with a view to his early demise and the accession of her favourite son Henry, to the throne. Blind to the inherent viciousness

1 Some writers state that this wound was received at the Siege of Calais.

of Charles, which brooked no control, blind to the sad tale of her domestic unhappiness, the bitterness of which engendered indifference to her family's instruction, and blind to her political pre-occupation and cares, Balzac is again obsessed by the apparent motive to rid herself of an incumbrance, even though it was her son. At the worst she was guilty of wilful neglect in the moral upbringing of her sons, for which the circumstances mentioned above are not put forth as an excuse, but as a mere explanation of her attitude. On the death of Francis II she wrote to her daughter in Spain, as follows: God has taken from me your brother, whom I loved, and left me with three young children, alone in a country where I can trust no one.'

On the accession of Francis II the distinction between political and religious Huguenots was marked. The indictment against Condé was for heresy and treason, but it was mainly on the latter part of the charge that he was condemned, although there is strong evidence that neither his nor Coligny's politics involved the slightest menace to the Crown until later. Catherine de Medicis, the shrewdest observer of political events and their significance, saw no revolutionary aspect in reform until some years after the accession of Charles IX. From then there was no room for doubt. Whatever the designs of the main body, and of Calvin himself, the leaders of the Huguenots were actuated solely by religious fervour, by desire for religious reform, until accumulated grievances, combined with the heat of battle, imbued a lust of blood-the blood of king and commoner alike. But Guise insisted on regarding all heresy as equivalent to treason.

Balzac gives a description of a dinner supposed to have taken place before the French Revolution, at which two of the guests were the young lawyer, Robespierre, and Marat, the future victim of Charlotte Corday. The former relates a dream in which he had an interview with Catherine de Medicis and a long discussion of her policy of two centuries previously. The reciprocal of the fancy puts little strain on the imagination. The shrewd politician of the sixteenth century must have foreseen a vast social upheaval, but it would have surprised her perhaps to learn that its incubation would require two hundred years. She could not have anticipated the Edict of Nantes and its duration for eighty-seven years, nor the century of undisputed monarchial power which followed its abolition.

But she might well have conjured up Robespierre and conversed with him in her dreams.

The death of Francis II, in 1560, gave his mother that power in State control so long yearned for. His successor, Charles IX, was a minor, ten years old, and someone had to take the reins of government. A contest for the regency with the King of Navarre was considered possible, but the liberty of his brother, Condé, notwithstanding their different persuasions, proved an adequate recompense for his renunciation of it. The dejected Guise could not alter it; he had perforce to descend from his pedestal. The widowed Mary Stuart went to the Cardinal at Rheims. Montmorency was recalled from the seclusion to which he had retired after his St. Quentin failure. A reconciliation between the latter and Guise was soon brought about by St. André, and these three formed the famous triumvirate.

The pillage of St. Medard by the Huguenots in 1561, a reprehensible act, considering the leniency shown them by the regent and the chancellor, was a prelude to widespread destruction of property all through the South, which lasted a year. Pasquier says Protestants destroyed churches, Catholics destroyed people. The statement may be misleading; the Catholics had most property for destruction, particularly that form which proved irresistible to the novateurs, namely, Church property; and the Catholic, in selecting his adversary's person for retaliation, had little choice of object on which to demonstrate his feelings. Several other sects besides the Calvinists, such as Libertines, Anabaptists, Atheists, and other followers of Berengarius, amused themselves with iconoclasm.

The Huguenots were arming everywhere and were ready for a general rising. An attempt was made to carry off the young King from Fontainebleau, but the plot failed, probably, the present writer thinks, owing to Condé's purposive delay. Condé then published a manifesto at Orleans, announcing his readiness to lay down arms if Guise would disband the army. This was not done. Condé temporized, demanding of Catherine the expulsion of the triumvirate and thorough investigation of the Vassy affray. But the Catholics had enough of waiting, and, defying the regent, a force of 10,000, with Conde's brother, Navarre, at its head, marched on Orleans, where the Huguenot army was. Condé's unexpected strength

VOL. X-16

secured the immunity of his stronghold from attack and the Catholics headed for Rouen, in the taking of which Navarre was fatally wounded. He had been accused by the Pope of lukewarmth in this campaign.

The death of Navarre gave Condé a claim on the regency which he was not in a position to enforce, and which was not likely to be recognized by the Catholics in power. Soon after this death the Catholics, led by the triumvirate, routed their opponents at Dreux, and the disordered bands of the latter retreated to Orleans, their leader, Coligny, being powerless to prevent pillage en route.

In February, 1563, Guise decided on the siege of Orleans and took up his position at Olivet, in the vicinity. After three weeks he was killed by a Huguenot, Poltrot de Meré, who was executed for the act in the Place de Grève, Paris. The death of Guise occurred in actual warfare, a fact which strips the crime of much heinousness : the adage of fairness in love and war applied especially to sixteenth-century events. The Treaty of Amboise, which conceded much liberty to the Huguenots, was supposed to end hostilities; but Coligny did not cease in Normandy, nor were the Catholics particularly desirous of peace, though the exhausted state of the country called for it.

The Council of Trent had been re-opened in 1562, and a dispute arose as to whether it should be considered a new institution or merely a continuance of the old one. The latter signification would have excluded the Protestants and was objected to in Germany and France. But as the Protestants did not recognize the Pope's jurisdiction their objections were not taken into account. Their refusal to accept representation on it previously and their denial of its impartiality made compromise impossible. Its chief object was the interpretation of the dogmas of the Church and the effecting of reforms. In the latter object, especially, the Protestants maintained it had failed. The Council was re-dissolved in 1563, and the death of Calvin in 1564 corresponded with a great display of activity by the Catholics of France. The Council had proved a disturbing factor to Luther and to Calvin. After the death of the latter his system remained long in statu quo, notwithstanding the efforts of his numerous ardent successors. War was not to be abolished or abandoned; there was to be no attenuation of its horrors, but Calvinism had won its greatest battles.

A reconciliation was effected by Catherine de Medicis between young Guise, Coligny, and Condé, which promised a long peace. Condé was undoubtedly a most chivalrous opponent, fearless, and honourable; actuated by deep religious conviction he desired nothing better than to remain loyal, so long as that conviction was not compromised. Ever ready to forgive an injury he was generous to a fault, and desirous of effecting his object by peaceful methods. Many prominent Catholics exhibited high esteem for him while they showed distrust of the Guises, including the Cardinal of Rheims.

The latter, after his return from Trent, lived quietly at Rheims for about two years. He then went to visit Paris in state, with a large retinue, during the absence of the Court. Montmorency, son of the Constable, who was head of the army in Paris, forbade him to reside in the town, and the Cardinal, with his followers, had to leave. A Catholic League, formed with the ostensible object of protecting the King and opposing Protestant contraassociations, was declared illegal on representations of its dangers by Protestants and Catholics alike. A list of Nobles was drawn up who were forbidden to enter Paris.

Young Guise,' a politician-one that would circumvent God,' was of different stamp from Condé. Vindictive and unforgiving, his reconciliations were dictated by policy, or effected under compulsion to which he had sometimes to yield. He was not averse from accepting the friendship of Condé, but while on seemingly good terms with Coligny he was in reality irreconcilable with him, declaring that he (Coligny) was concerned in his father's death at Orleans. But comparative peace, with irregular skirmishes, prevailed for some time after the death of Navarre, and Coligny and Condé were received at court in company of Guise.

Reports of the treatment meted out to the Protestants of the Low Countries by the Duke of Alba alarmed the French leaders of reform, and they feared a continued peace at home. The King, who was at Meaux with his mother, was advised of a Huguenot plot to seize him, and he proceeded to Paris. Condé attacked and took St. Denis. The Spaniards sent reinforcements from Brussels and Condé was held between two fires. Montmorency set out with the army from Paris and was killed, at the age of seventy-four, in the battle which ensued. The King's brother Henry, Duke of Anjou, was now appointed