signs entertained by the
Huguenots. Under date of Sept. 4, 1561, the following entry
appears:

"Ledit jour, M. Geraut Faure, official de Perigueux, a dit: qu'il y
a deux ans que le feu _Sieur de La Renaudie_ fust a la maison dudit
official, a Nontron, lui dire _que c'estoit grande folie qu'un tel
royaume fust gouverne par un roi seul_, et que si l'official
vouloit l'entendre, qu'il lui feroit un grand avantage; car _on
deliberoit de faire un canton a Perigueux, et un autre a Bordeaux_
dont il esperoit avoir la superintendance. Et lors luy tenant de
tels propos, retira a part ledit official sans qu'autre
l'entendist. Ainsi signe: Faure."

The late M. Boscheron des Portes, giving full credit to the
assertion of the "official" of Perigueux, believed that the party
of which La Renaudie was a prominent leader contemplated, in
1559-1560, the formation of "a federative republic broken up into
cantons, the number and situation of which were already, it would
appear, determined upon by the authors of the project." And he
deplores the blind sectarian spirit which could induce Frenchmen to
acquiesce in a plan designed to destroy the unity and consequent
power of a realm whose consolidation every successive king since
the origin of the monarchy had unceasingly pursued.

I imagine that few unbiassed minds will follow this usually
judicious historian in his singularly precipitate acceptance of the
"official's" statement. It is in patent contradiction with
well-known facts respecting the constitution of the Huguenot party.
The noblemen who gave this party their support had everything to
lose, and nothing to gain, by the change from a monarchical to a
republican form of government. Conde, the "chef muet," was a prince
of the blood, not so far removed from the throne as to regard it
altogether impossible that he or his children might yet succeed to
the crown. The main body of the party had had no reason to
entertain hostility to regal authority. The prevailing discontent
was not directed against the young king, but against the persons
surrounding him who had illegally usurped his name and the real
functions of royalty. If persecution for religion's sake had long
raged, the victims had never uttered a syllable smacking of
disloyalty, and continued to ho