[421] C. S. P. For., No. 624, October 18, 1561. In K. 1,495, No. 66, is a résumé by the Spanish chancellery of Chantonnay’s dispatches dealing with the colloquy.
[422] C. S. P. For., No. 753, from Strasburg, December 30, 1561. Writing just a week earlier, on December 23, to his sovereign, Chantonnay strongly condemned the course of Catherine at Poissy because it had militated against the authority of Trent, and had given courage to the heretics to continue their synods.—K. 1,494, No. 104. Other references to the Colloquy of Poissy are De Thou, IV, 84 ff.; De Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret, 76 ff.; Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis, I, Introd., ci, 239. Chantonnay’s correspondence, covering both the colloquy and the meeting of the estates at Pontoise, is in K. 1,494, No. 89, August 5; No. 90, August 20; No. 101, September 12 (especially valuable for the financial settlement); No. 102, September 15.
[423] C. S. P. For., No. 659, §10, November 14, 1561. Of these the chancellor was the more aggressive, opposing the efforts of the clerical party to delay and obstruct action (D’Aubigné, I, 311).
[424] Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis, I, 248; C. S. P. For., Nos. 225 and 245, June 6-13, 1561; No. 273, June 23, 1561. The choice was a tactless one on the part of the Pope and one certain to antagonize Catherine de Medici as well as the political Huguenots, for the cardinal was a relative of the Guises by marriage. Don Luigo d’Este, the duke of Ferrara’s brother, was the son of Alphonso d’Este and Lucretia Borgia. He resigned his place in the church and married the duchess of Estouteville, a marriage indicating the Guise policy of aggrandisement (C. S. P. For., No. 904, March 27, 1560). The marriage made bitter feeling between the House of Ferrara and the Guises. “There is a breach between the Dukes of Ferrara and Guise touching the former’s mother, who, being very rich, and lately fallen out with her son, had secretly sent to the Duke of Guise, a gentleman with a message that she would come to France and end her life there and be as his mother. Word was sent her that she would be welcome; and if her son would not permit her to come with her substance, he would take into his hands the assignation made by the late king upon certain lands for the payment of 100,000 crowns yearly to the Duke till such time as 600,000 crowns, borrowed from him at the Duke of Guise’s last voyage to Rome, were paid off. The Duke keeps his mother with good watch for fear of her escaping to France.”—C. S. P. For., No. 446, August 22, 1561. The cardinal traveled with great pomp, having no less than four hundred horses in his train.
[425] C. S. P. For., No. 538, §1, September 26, 1561.
[426] D’Aubigné, I, 311; Rel. vén., II, 87; C. S. P. For., No. 602, October 12, 1561.
[427] Despatches of Suriano (Huguenot Society), September 23, 1561.
[428] Ibid., October 22, 1561. For further details of the negotiations, see ibid., November 3, 1561; C. S. P. For., No. 682, §9, November 26; Baschet, Journal du Concile de Trente, 89.
[429] Philip II to Catherine, September 29, 1561; to Charles, ibid., K. 1,495, No. 72. To Chantonnay he wrote three days later: “También hazed entender á la Reyna como por este camino perdera su hijo, esse reyno y la obediencia de sus vassalos.”—K. 1,495, No. 80. The words were not merely urgent advice—they implied a threat.
[430] Weiss, L’Espagne sous Phillippe II, I, 114, 115; cf. Forneron, Histoire de Philippe II, I, 253, n. 3. See also the remarkable “Rapport sur une conférence entre l’ambassadeur de France et le duc d’Albe, au sujet des affaires du roi de Navarre et des troubles pour cause de la religion” (French transcript, apparently of a report of the Spanish chancellery), in K. 1,496, No. 136, December 20, 1561. The Pope indorsed the proposition of Spanish intervention in France (Vargas to Philippe II, November 7, 1561, in Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle, VI, 398, 404).