She

motives of political expediency are unblushingly alleged as overriding every other consideration. As to Catherine herself, there is no attempt to deny her initiative in the matter. presides over the councils, and it is she who excludes the King for fear he should relent. It is Catherine who, while claiming immunity for the King of Navarre and his brother, gave her vote for the murder of the other chiefs. Her influence is joined to that of the ministers in overcoming any scruples which the King might have entertained. If her policy was an honest policy of conciliation between the two sects, why sanction the presence at Paris of the Huguenot leaders, amidst a population whose hostility must risk the objects she had in view? On a former occasion had she not, aware of a like danger for herself and her son, withdrawn to Fontainebleau? (p. 93.) Is there no room to suspect a secret understanding in Guise's offer to leave the Court, and his reception a few hours later at the council, where the royal consent was finally given? What evidence is there that the guard ostensibly placed for Coligny's protection served in any way to interfere with the catastrophe? And as to the alleged conspiracy, is it not clear, from M. Albèri's own admission, that it was a contemptible fiction?

Our limits preclude us from discussing the question as to the alleged circular of Charles ordering the provincial massacres. Probably the deeds at Paris were a sufficient mot d'ordre. We notice, however, with surprise, in some of the royal manifestoes then issued, a statement that, amongst other objects of the Coligny conspiracy, was the death of the King of Navarre,-a project which, as has been seen, was discussed in the council in the presence of Catherine. It is also difficult to repress a natural indignation, when, after reading Charles's promise to the Huguenots, de leur estre bon Prince et bening protecteur,' we read his instruction of the same date1 to Mondoucet, his minister in the Netherlands, in which he states: It is probable that the fire thus kindled will spread through all the cities of my kingdom, and that all those of the said religion will be made sure of.' 'Made sure of!' We wonder whether these were the words used by St. Goard, the French minister at Madrid, when, on receiving news of the massacre, he suggested to Philip the immediate execution of all the French prisoners made captive at Mons?

M. Albèri denies the charge of premeditation, and states that Catherine and her son 'used their utmost endeavours to moderate the atrocity' (p. 105). Such hypotheses are considered by him as singolari;' and the reasons given in support are 'besMotley, Dutch Repub. i. 336.

tiali' (p. 316), the mere notion is inconsistent with the elevato ingegno' of Catherine. Nay more, he even asserts that the documents in his hands 'go far to absolve Catherine from all guilt of participation in the massacre' (p. 140). If historical facts are taken into consideration, there is however a strong presumption to the contrary. In 1559 we know that an agreement had been entered into between Philip and Henry, Catherine's husband, for the destruction of the Huguenots. Of such an agreement the Queen could scarcely have been ignorant. Alva was the negotiator, and the scheme was indiscreetly revealed by Henry himself to no less a person than William of Orange. In 1564 took place the meeting at Bayonne between Catherine and her daughter, the Queen of Spain; and here again we have to recognise the hateful presence of Alva, specially charged to renew the project, though we learn from his despatches that his proposals were at that time declined by Catherine and her son. Lastly, in 1572, the relations between France and Spain were, it is true, unfriendly, and Spanish suggestion was not immediately forthcoming; the seed had, however, been sown, and the hour of harvest had arrived; and if it be to chance that it is to be ascribed, it is a most singular coincidence how fully the early scheme of Philip and Henry II. was then carried out.

When a man is known at a certain time to have placed in his pocket a pistol loaded, with hostile intent; when he is also known, on a subsequent occasion, to have taken it out, exa mined the priming, and again replaced it there; and when he is finally known to have discharged it with fatal effect, there will not be wanting grounds for a suspicion that a fixed purpose of a hostile nature had existed in his mind, and that action, however long suspended, was contemplated throughout; and taking into account the whole character of Catherine's proceedings, and giving her the full benefit of M. Albèri's apologies and explanations, we must leave the case with a painful feeling that the stigma which has attached to Catherine's name has by no means been removed.

The careful investigation of a matter like this cannot be considered an idle task. One of the most important duties of the historian is the apportionment between individuals and communities of the degree of responsibility attaching to them; and if the lapse of time may throw difficulties in his way, he has corresponding advantages. The contemporary writer, confused as he must often be by an over-abundance of materials, must also find it hard to preserve an unbiassed judgment. He stands Motley, Dutch Repub. i. 180, 208.

1

too near the canvas to pronounce on the picture. Take, for instance, our policy in China. Those who recollect Lord Grey's and Mr. Gladstone's early speeches will appreciate how little has as yet been realized in the shape of a moral from our proceedings. We may have thought that we were acting on Bacon's principle: Let nations that pretend to greatness have this, that they be sensible of wrongs either upon borderers, merchants, or politic ministers, and that they sit not too long upon a provocation.' But have we during this lapse of years considered how far, in carrying out our policy, we may have treated moral consequences as subordinate to material aims? Not less remarkable is the instance of the Crimean War, where, even with the aid of Mr. Kinglake's graphic pages, the majority of thinkers would pronounce very conflicting opinions, not only as regards the national policy, but even as to the motives on which it was supposed to be founded, and the results which it has secured. Such decisions are reserved for the labours of some future historian, who will promote the ends of public morality by fixing responsibilities, and thus putting an end to a latitude and uncertainty which will attach to the deeds of communities as well as of individuals, so long as they remain in the half-light or deceitful shadows of unwinnowed tradition.

One word more as to the massacre. The difficulties experienced even in these days in arriving at the truth should suggest that some allowance should be made for the attitude taken up by the Pope. Te Deums, medals, and frescoes in celebration of the massacre are not in themselves things well fitted to soften Protestant prejudices. But we must bear in mind that upon this, as upon many other momentous occasions, the see of Rome was imperatively called upon for immediate action, before the true facts of the case could by any possibility have been really known, if indeed they were not designedly concealed. Take, for instance, the letter1 of Philip II. to Pius V., announcing the measures he had adopted against Don Carlos: could any statements have been more misleading and disingenuous? And shall we blame the Pontiff for praising Philip's decision? If due allowances were made on this principle, we are confident that a great step would be gained in the cause of historic truth.

We have endeavoured thus far to give our readers a notion of the relazioni of the sixteenth century; for those of the following century we must refer them to the interesting collection of Messrs. Barozzi and Berchet; but before concluding, we

1 Gachard, Don Carlos et Philip II., vol. ii. p. 557, 650.

would wish to allude to a few particulars which they contain regarding Queen Elizabeth and Mary Stuart. As to the latter, we do not collect those details as to delicate health so frequently poured into Elizabeth's ears by her envoys at Paris. We do not meet with wishes such as Mason expressed to Cecil,1 that 'God may take her to Him as soon as may please Him;' nor do we learn, as from Throckmorton, the particulars of the 'greenness' of her complexion, and her faintings, only relieved by wine from the altar. But the Venetian reports fully confirm an opinion on Mary Stuart, which, in justice to Throckmorton, we will quote: For my part, I see her behaviour to be such, and her wisdom and kingly modesty so great, in that she thinketh herself not to be too wise, . . . but is content to be ruled by good counsel and wise men. . . I cannot but fear her proceedings with the time.' The time, however, was soon to involve Mary in sad consequences. Correr describes the

manner in which she was neglected by Catherine from the day she became a widow; but, wrote he, 'so long as she feared God and preserved her honour, she exercised her authority to the admiration of all.' Then came her failing fortunes and imprisonment in England, which the same writer anticipated would involve Elizabeth in a difficulty, only to be resolved by a'siroppo resolutivo,' and thus, wrote he, this life, hitherto a comedy or tragi-comedy, may end in a tragedy.'

As to Elizabeth herself, there are many allusions to the various matrimonial schemes; amongst others, some curious details as to the D'Alençon courtship. Lippomano's secretary describes Elizabeth as presenting him every morning with a bouillon, and states that, in order to prove to Elizabeth the falsehood of some alleged personal deformity, the prince presented himself to her in a giuppone d'ermesino incarnato,' which we take to have been some tight-fitting silk costume. However intimate the relations, the match was, however, not to be; its unpopularity in England was great, and the secretary alludes to a popular tract against it, which we conclude was the 'lewde seditious boke,' entitled the Gaping Gulfe, against which Elizabeth fulminated a proclamation in 1579.3 The Queen certainly appears to have entertained, at all events, very friendly feelings towards this prince, short in stature, marked with small pock, and unpleasing in manner,' as he is described by the Venetians. M. Baschet gives us a very curious letter which she wrote to him on sending him some presents, in respect to one of which she expressed herself, 'Veuillez voir dans l'autre,

1 Stevenson, Cal. State Papers, i. 179.

2 Ibid. iii. 473.

VOL. XLIV.-NO. LXXXVIII.

3 Lemon, Cal. i. 633.

Y

qui est un tour de toque l'image de la couronne de ce royaume que je voudrais d'autant plus vous mettre de ma propre main sur la tête, si j'en avais absolûment le pouvoir,' and equally friendly is the tone of her letter to the Netherland States,1 in which she recommended him as 'un Prince qui lui est si cher qu'Elle fait autant de lui comme d'un autre soi-même.'

In conclusion: the readers of history may be divided into two classes, those who are content to follow the lead of some writer of established reputation, and those who desire to examine authorities for themselves. It will be no slight advantage for both, that, forsaking for a time their accustomed form of study, they should endeavour to observe the continuous flow of events from the vantage-ground of some independent position. Though the aspect may thus seem to be ex parte, still, if the point of vision is well ascertained, the moral which will be drawn from the facts which pass before the eyes can be corrected by an appreciation of any bias attaching to the position of the observer, whilst he will secure all the advantages which attach to a fresh point of view, and one which commands the scene in its general aspects. If this be true, we can point out, so far as the times to which they relate are concerned, no better guides than the reports of the diplomatic servants of

Venice.

1 Motley, Dutch Repub. iii. 399.