1560 Assembly of Notables

Some combination of these figures then resolved that it would be necessary to summon together an enlarged version of the king's council to devise a solution to the kingdoms troubles, and achieve a number of other objectives.

He endorsed the petitions he had presented the prior day that sought temples (churches) for Protestant worship, putting him in a more radical position than that of Valence and Vienne.

The assembly failed to reunify the elite of the kingdom, with the absentee prince de Condé and king of Navarre engaging in rebellious acts during August and September.

In the wake of the conjuration, the cardinal de Lorraine was subject to virulent abuse in the pamphlet 'Le Tigre' (The Tiger) by the Protestant Hotman which denounced him as a 'viper' who 'abused the youth of our king'.

[5] In reaction to the violence of the suppression of the conjuration d'Amboise, the queen mother Catherine began to distance herself from the Lorraine led government.

[11] According to Le Roux, Lorraine took on a policy of conciliation, instituting the Edict of Romorantin in May 1560 while effectively abolished the death penalty for Protestantism, and differentiated the crime of 'heresy' from that of sedition, while maintaining the illegality of Protestant worship.

"[17] The disorders culminated in a failed Protestant attempt to seize Lyon on 4 September shortly after the Assembly, led by a captain who had been involved in the conjuration d'Amboise.

[15] According to Constant, Cloulas and Mariéjol, it was Coligny who advocated for the summoning of the Assembly, and the duc de Guise supported him in this.

[19] L'Hôpital hoped that the great nobles, including the Bourbon princes might be sated through the opportunity to participate in the government of the kingdom.

[25] The Assembly would have the effect of gaining the appropriate buy-in for the new quasi-tolerant policy of religious concord the crown was pursuing prior to any church council.

[26][27] Another advantage of the Assembly would be that it would disprove the assertion levelled by opponents of the present regime that François was a child in the clutches of his wife's uncles (Lorraine and Guise).

[12][26][29][32] Unlike the estates general the large majority of the participants were not elected, and thus the body had the character of an enlarged and more serious version of the king's conseil.

[22][16] Proceedings were then opened by the chancellor L'Hôpital who delivered a speech explaining the purpose of the gathering, he analogised the situation to that of a doctor and his patient.

[40] Guise discussed matters in his capacity as lieutenant-général du royaume (lieutenant-general of the kingdom), laying out papers that demonstrated the state of the French army.

They argued that in some places in Christendom, for the sake of good order and harmony the Jews had been permitted temples in which to conduct their worship, despite how 'abominable' this was in the eyes of god.

[53] They asked for freedom of worship and temples (the term they used for churches) with buildings allocated to them according to their population in the cities across France.

He differentiated two types of Protestants, the first who were disreputable 'impious libertines' were those who took on the new faith as a means of escaping the practices of the church, and were always quick to resort to arms.

In his estimation the Pope was too hostile to such a project, and the German princes, the Emperor and the foreign kings would have their own opinions on, timetables and desires for such a meeting which was unsuitable in the present moment when the need for a solution was a pressing one.

[48] On the Lorraine government he stated that the Estates General would afford them the ability to confront the slanders against them and cleanse themselves of the poor regard in which they were being held.

He further stated that the king had at his disposal the princes du sang the church and the nobility all of whom wished to protect his authority to the last drop of their blood.

[48] He retorted to the first point Coligny had raised, arguing that after the recent troubles where arms had been assumed against the king, it was a necessary precaution for his person to be guarded.

[70] He and his brother had inherited a difficult position from the government of Henri II, with massive debts, thus they had little choice but to disband useless troops and defer salaries.

[40][64] The duc explained that for his part, he did not have to question matters of faith (which he stated that he left to the theologians as he was only a 'simple soldier') and that all the councils in the world would not separate him from his devotion to the holy sacrament.

[73] He argued at the Assembly, that it was his position that those, unarmed French that went to Protestant services, sung psalms and avoided attendance of mass should not be pursued by the state.

[74] Despite this, open toleration of Protestantism (either embodied by the granting of churches of the right of assembly) was not acceptable to Lorraine, as this would be to indicate François' approval of heresy, which would surely see him damned.

It would be the duty of the bishops and priests to win the Protestants back over to the Catholic faith, meanwhile the baillis and sénéchaux would be responsible for punishing those who took up arms.

[74] He voiced his approval for a meeting of the Estates General, more clearly so than did the duc de Guise but showed hesitancy on the prospect of a national church council.

[23] The Protestants argument against the crown that it refused to take the proper measure required by the youth (or as they considered it minority) of the king to call an Estates General was undermined by the Assembly having taken this step.

[54] Indeed, the very day of the closing of the Assembly, a messenger in Condé's employ named La Sague was arrested, and found to have incriminating papers in his possession.

[86] The parlements frustrated at not having received invites for any of their members issued a secret remonstrance to François by which they argued the Assembly of Notables could not replace the Estates General.