2. Henry's grasp of this point is evident in his letter of August 17, 1598, to the due de Luxembourg. An extract of the pertinent parts of the letter may be found in the Bulletin de La société de l'histoire de protestantisme français, vol. II, 1853, p. 30.Google Scholar

3. Henry used this argument himself. See his addresses to the Parlement of Paris on February 7 and February 16, 1599. Reprinted Ibid., pp. 128–136.

4. The most accessible copy of the Edict of Nantes is in Isambert, and Taillandier, , Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises, vol. XV, 1829, pp. 170–210.Google Scholar

5. The clergy rebuked the king vehemently, even those who held positions dependent upon the crown and might, therefore, have been expected to be more docile. See, for example, the letter of the Cardinal d'Ossat, French Ambassador to Rome, to Henry IV, in the Bulletin de La société de l'histoire de protestantisme français, vol. XLVII, 1898, pp. 284–285.Google Scholar The letter is also reprinted in translation in Baird, Henry M., The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre, 1886, vol. II, pp. 431–433.Google Scholar

6. Through deputations, remonstrances, and delays the Parlement of Paris resisted the edict for ten months before it finally registered it. The provincial parlements then attempted the same thing, but the king treated them curtly and commanded them to obey the royal pleasure, whereupon most of them submitted quickly. The most recalcitrant of the parlements, however, that of Rouen, continued its resistance and did not register the edict without restrictions until 1609.

7. The king clearly predicted such a development in a speech in 1597. See the excerpt in Will, J. S., Protestantism in France, 1921, vol. II, p. 10.Google Scholar

8. The whole of the Settlement of Nantes, consisting of both parts of the edict and the two letters patent, may be found in Benoist, Elie, Histoire de l'Edit de Nantes, vol. I, “Recueil d'édits, conferences, et autres pieces,” 1693, pp. 62–98.Google Scholar

9. The Peace of Montpellier of 1622, which concluded a Protestant revolt, reduced the number of fortified towns to two, La Rochelle and Montauban.

10. By 1610 the amount of the subsidy had fallen from 180,000 écus to 50,000 écus. Mariéjol, J.-H., Histoire de France, 1598–1643, Lavisse, E. gen. ed., 1911, p.150.Google Scholar He tried to make an end to the General (political) Assemblies in 1599, in 1601, in 1605, and again in 1608.

11. Sully, Maximilien de B´thune, due de, Sages et royales oeconomies d'eat at Miehaud, and Poujoulat, , eds., Mémoires pour servir a l'histoire de France, series 2, vol. III, 1837, p. 383.Google Scholar

12. Letter of May 18, 1610, to de Thou., M.Mémoires et Correspondence de Duplessis Mornay, vol. XI, 1825, p. 29.Google Scholar

13. Letter of May 21, 1610, to the due de Bouillon. Ibid., p. 37.

14. Reprinted in de Serres, Jean, Inveataire géinéral de l'histoire de France, 1643, p. 879.Google Scholar

15. Rohan, , Henri, , due de, , Mémoires, (ed. of 1667), vol. II, p. 4.Google Scholar

16. Sully gave his resignation on January 26, 1611.

17. The assembly was originally called for Châtellerault, but a brevet of May 2, 1611, transferred it to Saumur. Châtellerault was within the provincial government of Sully while Saumur was in that of Duplessis Mornay. At the time of the first authorization Sully was still in favor. After his retirement the queen feared his dissatisfaction, and the transfer of the assembly was probably an attempt to neutralize his influence. Duplessis Mornay was a moderate whom she trusted. Both the brevet convoking the assembly to Châtellerault and that transfering it to Saumur, may be found in the Mercure François, vol. II, 1614, pp. 163–164.Google Scholar

18. Rohan, op. cit., vol. II, p. 9.

19. The assembly numbered about 70 elected deputies representing the fifteen Protestant provinces of France and Béarn, the two deputies general, and some Protestant nobles present by invitation, making a total of about 82. Mercure François, vol. II, 1614, p. 165.Google Scholar Men of the calibre of Duplessis Mornay were outnumbered by fanatics from the provinces, but the Sully-Bouillon groups stalemated each other with the result that the presidency of the assembly fell upon Duplessis Mornay.

20. Henry IV had always insisted that the Hugenots submit to him a list of six names from which he would select the two deputies general and bad refused on more than one occasion to permit the assemblies to nominate the two deputies directly as they attempted to do in 1611. Redress of grievances before the assembly was dissolved was a bold demand since such a privilege would make it possible for the assembly to put more coercive pressure upon the crown. Even the Estates General had never won this privilege. The complete cahier of the grievances and requests of the deputies circulated as a pamphlet. It was reprinted ibid., pp. 185–198, and in Duplessis Mornay, op. cit., pp. 231–246. It was reprinted with the queen's replies in Rohan, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 69–105.

21. These arrangements were included in the Réqlement général drawn up by the Assembly. It has been reprinted in Rohan, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 57–66.

22. Rohan's own account of the affair may be found ibid., pp. 22–32. There is also a short account in Richelieu, , du Plessis, A. J., cardinal et duc de, Histoire de la mère et du fils, (ed. of 1730), vol. I, pp. 195Google Scholar et seq.

23. This internal division of the Protestants was demonstrated many times, most notably in the autumn of 1615 concerning the question whether the Protestant armies would support Condé in his most recent rebellion. Unanimity was, in fact, never obtained, for when the General Assembly then meeting at Nimes ordered rebellion only three provinces—Languedoc, Guienne, and Poitou—answered the call to arms, and even within these provinces several towns, including the important fortress of Montpellier, refused to join the insurrection. At the same time one of the king's Protestant officers, the Marshal Lesdiguières. offered to raise 6,000 men in the heavily Protestant Dauphinè for service against the rebels.

24. An alliance was signed on the same day as the marriage treaties by which each crown was bound to bring 6,000 infantry and 1,200 cavalry to the other's aid in case of need. Perrens, F. T., Les Marriages Espagnols sous le règne de Henri IV et la régence de Marie de Médicis, 1869, p. 349.Google Scholar