in 1546, though Carro says that "Huguenots," "Calvinists," and "Protestants", were names indifferently used in 1563. (Histoire de Meaux, p. 224). No doubt the word "Huguenot" was employed by friends, and foes, to designate the party, before that time; and probably it was in popular use before anyone wrote it down."

Another very interesting nick-name was applied to that party. One sign of penitence, occasionally imposed by law on some, (and voluntarily adopted by others,) was to walk barefoot in a procession. (Cf. the Judgment, p. 52.) In 1561, the Meaux huguenots" made public processions into neighbouring villages with their preacher; and, though armed, many of them adopted the fancy of going barefoot. They then received the name "Pieds-Nus", which they long retained. (See Carro's "Histoire de Meaux," p. 218.) (As to the earlier term "Lutheran", see Note 61.)

"Auec plusieurs autres officiers et gens de justice dudit

Meaux ".

NOTE 101a:

There appears to be some discrepancy between this number and the details given in the judgment. [See pp: 51-53.]

NOTE 102:

Men, not women. [See the Judgment, pp. 51, 52.]

NOTE*:

"Carrefours." [Cf: also pp: 51, 52.]

NOTE 103:

As to the proper order in detail of the great processions at Meaux, see T. d. Plessis, Tome. I, pp. 336, 337.

'Et auquel lieu estoit vn tres somptueux reposoir". [Cf: Note 78.]

LEGAL PROCEDURE:-M. Weiss, in his book "La Chambre Ardente," (Paris, 1889), p. LXXI, &c., deals with the established legal procedure against alleged heretics. He dates the actual formation of the "Chambre particulière" at 1547-8; but this date need not concern us, as the appointment of that body was made merely to ease the pressure of religious cases before the "Parlement," involving probably no further amendment of procedure. This procedure itself doubtless fell within the Edict of Fontainebleau, 1540, and the Declaration of 23 July, 1543, together with the general law of France. The reader will bear in mind the supposed sovereign jurisdiction. of the "Parlement," which Court had curtailed the Bishops' powers to arrest those not in orders, who were suspected of heresy, but afterwards (with encouragement from Rome) granted enormous powers to a mixed commission. [Cf: Note 17. See also Haag, pp. V, etc., and pièces justificatives. And Baird, Vol. I, pp. 124, etc.] Against suspects not in orders some sort of proceedings were no doubt open to the Bishops, their Vicars, or the Inquisitor of the Faith; but were undertaken with fuller powers by the King's officials, namely Baillis, Seneschals, or their Lieutenants General and Particular. The several Royal Courts could, in these cases, try the defendants,

but not even themselves pronounce final sentence, nor (it seems) award torture; for such acts must be done by the Parlement. Below the Baillis and Seneschals again came the Provosts and other inferior judges, who could only proceed by enquiry, information, and apprehension; which done, they had to send the informations and charges, with the prisoners, for trial, before the Baillis, Seneschals, etc. It was thus easier for the secular officers of the King, than for the Bishops, to conduct proceedings against the unordained. So the royal officers were, as a rule, the authorities that sent laymen to the Parlement for judgment. In these cases it seems that final sentence, or even award of torture, was reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parlement; which could probably revise the facts upon enquiry. The Bishops were, however, responsible in some degree to the Parlement for the orthodoxy, even of laymen, within their dioceses. They had, in some cases at least, to bear the costs of sending the accused, with their "sommiers", or official papers, up to Paris, and other costs. Again the judgment in the Meaux case contains, towards the end, a very important reference to the Lateran Council (obviously the IVth of that name, see Note 113), which required Bishops to take certain proceedings with a view to prosecution.

[Compare generally :-Baird; Weiss; Hist: Eccl: Edition 1883; also the Edict of Fontainebleau, 1540, given in La France protestante, “pièces justificatives"; The judgment, translation, p. 51, (dealing with support of Loys Picquery); pp. 54, 56, (cost of the intended chapel); pp. 54, 55, (citation of Lateran Council)].

It is clear from the accounts of Crespin, and of Rochard, that the local officers of the Baillage of Meaux, as well as the town Provost, and the Provost Marshal, took part in the present apprehension. This would seem to give, at least, two jurisdictions within which proceedings might originate; one, the Baillage, which could also carry on the trial, though not itself award sentence, or torture. From this jurisdiction the prisoners would, after enquiry (or trial), be duly sent before the Parlement. The supreme tribunal in the present case was the Vacation Court of the Parlement de Paris. [Cf. the recital to the judgment, translation, p. 50, also Note 48.] I cannot say how far the extraordinary powers of appointing a small commission, under the Parlement's arrangement of 1525, were used at any stage of this process. [Cf. Notes 17, 33 to 36, 46, 48, 106.] M. Weiss informs me that the counter-signature "Dezasses," at the foot of the judgment, is that of a Counsellor

of this Court, who had been commissioned to go to Meaux for process against the heretics. [Cf. further his " Chambre ardente" p. LXXV.] The reader will have noticed the activity shown by the theologians Picard and Maillard after the judgment; and has, perhaps, formed a more distinct idea than myself, as to their exact legal position. [Cf. translations, pp. 40, 42, 45, 56; also Note 59.]

NOTE 106::

Here, as M. Weiss informs me, the names of the judges would be in place, but are not written out.

NOTE 107:

"Veu par la chambre ordonneé par le Roy au temps de vaccations."

NOTE 107a:—

Sixty prisoners are contained in this recital. One of them, Catherine Ricourt, is not distinctly named in the operative part later on. The error is however probably clerical. (See Note 109.) Again Claude Petitpain appears in the recital; but Pierre Petitpain in the operative part.

NOTE 107b:

Cas et crimes."

NOTE 107c:

* "référans espèce de ydolatrie":-Possibly: "directing a species of idolatry." Charges of impiety, profanity, heresy, one could understand a tribunal entertaining, in those days when dogma controlled justice. But idolatry was hardly a likely charge, in the case of those people, whose whole zeal was, satisfactorily or otherwise, employed in the search after more spiritual worship.

One can, however, hardly read this phrase as conveying anything else than an insinuation against the reformers. It would be far-fetched, and hardly grammatical, to see in it some assertion that one of the protestant "errors" was to charge the Roman worship with an appearance or species of idolatry. This, no doubt, many of them did. In this sense the passage would run "Schisms and errors imputing a species (or appearance) of idolatry" (to someone). Such a strained rendering would not well agree with the later use of the same phrase. (See translation p. 54.) Taking the words, then, to convey * In this and following quotations, accents are added where needful.

some insinuation of idolatry against the prisoners, one or two remarks become necessary, to reach a possible meaning for such a phrase.

În the first place it will be noticed that this improbable charge is not directly or distinctly made. (Cf. Note 49). Nay, it is only added rather tentatively or uncertainly at the end of this short list of general words. One might be disposed perhaps to consider it a mere epithet for heresy, on the assumption that anyone who does not think with you, is not only a heretic, but a pagan, and probably an idolater. Later on in the judgment, however, the same phrase is used in designating the celebration, by the prisoners, of the last Supper. And, though the Judges of the Parlement de Paris, in the reign of Francis I, were not beyond taint of bigotry, it is fair to ask what grounds they can have had for such an expression, and proper to look closely at what really did take place. M. Weiss tells me that the formula occurs in many other judgments, to mark an alleged schism from the only christian church.

The reader will find in Note 29 an account of the Lord's Supper, as celebrated by the reformers. It seems likely that no claim to apostolic succession was made by the minister so solemnly appointed by the congregation. Thus a charge may have been grounded on the use, by them, of the Lord's Supper, without a priest ordained according to custom. Crespin says that the reformers' boldness in that matter was the gravest charge against them. And the judges of the court, when satisfied that these people attributed some religious value to that observance, may have held them guilty of imitating even the Roman act of adoration, without the elements being effectually consecrated, or Transubstantiation effected. Though the "Reformed Church" repudiated Transubstantiation, yet it is quite conceivable that by some skilful advocacy, or by some confusion of theological metaphysics, or both, this vague but disparaging phrase might be, in this sense, inserted in the judgment. [Cf. Note 29. Also translation above, p. 38; and Note 46.]

It is just possible that the expression, (which is, among many harsher epithets, perhaps the most gravely offensive one in the judgment), may be an early scintillation of that fantastic charge of worshipping the Bible itself, which the populace of Angers insinuated against the Huguenots in 1562. (See Hist. d. Mart., Toulouse Edn., Vol. III, p.

A calm reader will very likely be, on the whole, disposed