man himself, in his own vindication, would be worth little. The arrogant and unsupported pleading by which his son would render his memory less odious to Henry IV., and to the world, failed to satisfy either, and is worth nothing.

The third evidence against design is the "Discourse" * or confession attributed to Henry III., when king of Poland. The circumstances under which it professes to have been made are extraordinary. On his way to Poland, he was received with marks of disgust and execration for his share in the massacre. The recollection of this usage still haunted him after he had reached his destination. Finding one night at Cracow that it deprived him of sleep, he summoned a person of honour and quality" to his bedside, and unburdened himself of "the discourse upon the causes and motives of the St. Bartholomew." The first question, upon such a document, is that of authenticity. Its pretensions may be briefly stated. It is usually referred to as published in the memoirs of Villeroy. This is a misapprehension: it first appeared in a collection of state papers, forming a suite to (not of) the memoirs of the secretary of Charles IX. The credit of producing it is given to Menil-Bazire, an advocate, by whom Villeroy's memoirs were republished. But the name of Menil-Bazire appears only to the memoirs of Villeroy; while the dedication of the suite, or supplement, which contains" the discourse," is signed with the initials of the printer. Thus slender is the foundation upon which it rests. The account of the " causes and motives" is in substance as follows: Henry (Anjou) and his mother several times found Charles marvellously violent and refractory §, after conference with admiral Coligny. One day, shortly before

"Discours du roy Henry III. à un personnage d'honneur et de qualité estant près de sa majestè à Cracovie, des causes et motifs de la St. Barthélemy."

+ Editors of Coll. Univ. de Méin. Part.

"I have seen many copies of it in the king of France's library, but none that pretended to have been the original written at Cracow, or to have been copied from that original."-Allen's Reply to Lingard's Vindication.

"Merveilleusement fougueux et renfrogne."- Discours, &c.

the massacre, Henry entered the cabinet of Charles immediately after the admiral had left it, was received by him with fierce looks and an ominous gripe of the handle of his dagger; expected momentarily to be collared and poniarded; made his escape while Charles, who was pacing the room in silent fury, had his back turned, and immediately informed his mother of the scene. Upon this the mother and son resolved to have the admiral despatched, and concerted the means with madame de Nemours, who mortally hated Coligny.* The attempt on the life of the admiral having failed, Henry and his mother determined to do openly what could no longer be effected by contrivance and finesse. It was necessary that Charles should be brought to consent. They accordingly directed Nevers, Retz, Tavanes, and Birague to meet them in Charles's cabinet, for the purpose of consulting on the means of executing what Catherine and Henry had already resolved. Catherine opened the deliberations, saying that the huguenots were already taking measures to renew the war; that they had sent to raise troops in the Provinces, in Switzerland and in Germany; and that the catholics, if Charles refused their counsel, to have the admiral, the chief and author of the civil war, despatched, would appoint a captain-general. Charles was irritated to fury, but still "wished at first that they

She regarded Coligny as the assassin of her first husband, Francis duke of Guise. Sir J. Mackintosh (see page 189. antè) treats the imputations upon Coligny, by catholic writers, as groundless; and observes, that the assassin must have been a self-actuated fanatic, because escape was nearly impossible. The remark is thrown out by sir James in passing; but the reason is not tenable. Poltrot pretended to be a deserter; obtained Guise's confidence; chose his time when alone to strike him from behind; actually made his escape, for which he was provided; rode several leagues away, as he thought, during the night; lost his way; found himself, by a sort of fatality, at the very scene of his crime in the morning; and was taken up, on suspicion of his disordered looks. Put to the torture, he accused Theodore Beza of having preached, and Coligny of having bribed him into the commission of the act. His depositions were contradictory; and of what value are the agonies of a wretch on the rack? Coligny indignantly denied the charge, and demanded to be confronted with the accuser, and was refused. He should have stopped here: but he published a formal defence, in which he admitted sending Poltrot as a spy to Guise's camp, giving him money, hearing some one say he would kill Guise in his camp if he could, and not dissuading such person; because he had been duly informed that Guise and St. André had employed persons to assassinate him (Coligny), his brother D'Andelot, and the prince of Condé. This avowal is assuredly suspicious and unfortunate. Edit. CAB. CYC.

66

66

should not touch the admiral.” * Retz, to the great disappointment of Catherine and Henry †, spoke against the proposal; expatiating upon "honour," "duty,' humanity," and "the judgment of after-times," with such vehemence that Catherine and Henry were struck dumb." But, recovering the use of their tongues and faculties, they returned to the charge; and Charles, undergoing " a sudden and marvellous metamorphosis,' declared with an oath, that "since they thought it right to kill the admiral, he consented; but that they should also kill all the huguenots of France, so as not to leave one to reproach him— and do it promptly." The execution was ordered 66 promptly;" but the first pistol-shot terrified Catherine and Henry, while they stood at a window, 66 considering the consequences of so great an enterprise, which, to speak truth, they had scarcely thought of before." They countermanded the massacre; but it was too late. "Such, monsieur Such-a-one," concludes the discourse," is the true history of the St. Bartholomew, which has this night troubled my understanding.” §

Is it credible that Nevers, Retz, Tavanes, and Birague had not been consulted and prepared by Catherine before they met her in the presence of Charles? Is it credible that a measure so momentous in its consequences was adopted with such levity, in a court of which the counsels were as politic as they were inhuman? It will suffice to add, that the apocryphal document, published in 1623, has been disregarded by the best French writers who have treated the history of their country,by Mezeray, Péréfixe, Henaut, Mably, Millot, Voltaire. Retz is put forward so prominently and favourably, as perhaps to warrant the conjecture that this document was forged, to relieve his memory from the prevalent opinion that he was the person

"Ne voulant au commencement aucunement qu'on touchast à l'admiral."-Disconrs, &c.

+"Trompa bien notre espérance."— Ibid.

Nous osta les paroles et répliques de la bouche."— Ibid.

Voilà, M.Tel, la vraye histoire de la St. Barthélemy, qui m'a troublé cette nuit l'entendement."- Ibid.

who privately counselled Catherine to complete the massacre by the extinction of the Guises. The countryman and creature of the queen-mother, is it credible that he thus thwarted her designs? He accompanied Henry III. to Poland.

Thus stood the evidence of eye-witnesses against premeditation for two centuries, when M. de Châteaubriand brought to light the despatches of Salviati. The testi

In a

mony of the nuncio may be stated in few words. letter of the 22d, addressed to the cardinal secretary of state, he describes the attempt that day on the life of the admiral.* One particular only merits attention. The assassin, he says, was received in the house from which he fired at the admiral as the friend of M. de Chailli, the king's maître d'hôtel, but without the knowledge of Chailli; for he was still in the palace doing his duty as a servant of the king. On the 24th †, he writes that, at two o'clock that morning, all the huguenots were cut in pieces by command of the king; that the massacre was provoked by the arrogance of the huguenots upon the admiral's being wounded, and especially by the excessive insolence of Rochefoucault and Teligny, on the 23d, to the queen-mother; that, if the assassin had killed the admiral on the spot, he cannot bring himself to believe that so much would have been done at a blow. Writing on the 27th ‡, in cipher, he says, that the art with which the admiral insinuated himself into the king's confidence, and the imperiousness with which he used his influence at court, excited the discontent of Morvilliers, the count de Retz, and others, and provoked violent jealousy in the queen-mother; that it was secretly concerted with madame de Nemours "to get out of trouble" by having the admiral despatched with an arquebuse by a German § dependant of M. de Guise the elder; that the attempt was made with the knowledge of M. d'Anjou, but not of the king; that upon the ad+ See Appendix G.

See Appendix F.

See Appendix H.

The nuncio seems to confound Maurevel, who attempted, with the German, Beme, who took, the life of Coligny.

miral's not dying of his wounds, the queen-mother became alarmed by her dangerous position, her conscience, and the insolence of the "whole huguenotery," and, in consequence, persuaded the king to the general massacre which followed. Referring to the same subject, in a letter of the 22d of September *, and still addressing the cardinal secretary, he writes, "Who it was that caused the discharge of an arquebuse at the admiral, and from what cause, and to whom should be attributed the last resolution of killing so many, and who were the actors, with the names of the chief heads; all this I know from having it in writing, and I do not deceive myself a jot. And if I have failed to write some other particulars, the chief cause is the difficulty in this quarter of arriving at the truth." This passage is most material. It implies, that accounts at variance with his had been received at Rome; that he was told he deceived himself, and that (finding it thus difficult to discover the truth) he was not even yet in the confidence of the parties to the massacre. The implication is resistless, and strikes at the root of his testimony. He, however, reiterates his account with a defiance which proves nothing, writing in cipher under the same datet:-" Time will determine whether there be any truth in accounts differing from mine, respecting the discharge of the arquebuse and death of the admiral. Madame the regent having come to a misunderstanding with the admiral, after only a few days' determination, had him fired at, without the knowledge of the king, but with the participation of M. d'Anjou, madame de Nemours, and M. de Guise, her son. And if the admiral had died on the instant, no others would have been killed; and upon his not dying, and their apprehending some great evil, allying themselves closely with the king, they resolved to throw aside all restraint §, and have him slain with the rest, and that very night it was put in execution."

See Appendix I.

+ See Appendix K. The queen-mother, who was no longer regent, though she still ruled. "Buttare la vergogna di banda."