Siege of La Rochelle ends!

It was on October 28, 1628 that the Grand Siege of La Rochelle ended in defeat of the Protestant forces under the command of Benjamin Soubise.

This battle is visited briefly in Dumas' Three Musketeers, and in the 1973 film of the same name, where some of the portraits made there were also briefly seen.

The Siege of La Rochelle in French: Le Siège de La Rochelle, or sometimes Le Grand Siège de La Rochelle was a result of a war between the French royal forces of Louis XIII of France and the Huguenots of La Rochelle in 1627-1628. The siege marked the apex of the tensions between the Catholics and the Protestants in France, and ended with a complete victory for King Louis XIII and the Catholics.

In the Edict of Nantes, Henry IV of France had given the Huguenots extensive rights. La Rochelle had become the stronghold of the French Huguenots, under its own governance. It was the centre of Huguenot seapower, and the strongest centre of resistance against the central government. La Rochelle was, at this time, the second or third largest city in France with over 30,000 inhabitants.

The assassination of Henry IV in 1610, and the advent of Louis XIII under the regency of Marie de' Medici, marked a return to pro-Catholic politics and a weakening of the position of the Protestants. The Duke Henri de Rohan and his brother Soubise started to organize Protestant resistance from that time, ultimately exploding into a Huguenot rebellion. In 1621, Louis XIII besieged and captured Saint-Jean d'Angély, and a Blockade of La Rochelle was attempted in 1621-1622, ending with a stalemate and the Treaty of Montpellier.

Again, Rohan and Soubise would take arms in 1625, ending with the Capture of Ré island in 1625 by Louis XIII. After these events, Louis XIII wished to subdue the Huguenots, and Louis' Chief Minister Cardinal Richelieu declared the suppression of the Huguenot revolt the first priority of the kingdom.

The Anglo-French conflict followed the failure of the Anglo-French alliance of 1624, in which England had tried to find an ally in France against the power of the Habsburg. In 1626, France under Richelieu actually concluded a secret peace with Spain, and disputes arose around Henrietta Maria's household. Furthermore, France was building the power of its Navy, leading the English to be convinced that France must be opposed "for reasons of state".
In June 1626, Walter Montagu was sent to France to contact dissident noblemen, and from March 1627 attempted to organize a French rebellion. The plan was to send an English fleet to encourage rebellion, triggering a new Huguenot revolt by Duke Henri de Rohan and his brother Soubise.

The English king Charles I sent a fleet of 80 ships, under his favourite George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, to encourage a major rebellion in La Rochelle. In June 1627 Buckingham organised a landing on the nearby island of Île de Ré with 6,000 men in order to help the Huguenots, thus starting an Anglo-French War (1627-1629), with the objective of controlling the approaches to La Rochelle, and of encouraging the rebellion in the city.

The city of La Rochelle initially refused to declare itself an ally of Buckingham, in a state of war against the crown of France, and effectively denied access to its harbour to Buckingham's fleet. An open alliance would only be declared in September at the time of the first fights between La Rochelle and Royal troops.

Although a Protestant stronghold, Île de Ré had not directly joined the rebellion against the king. On Ile de Ré, the English under Buckingham tried to take the fortified city of Saint-Martin in the Siege of Saint-Martin-de-Ré (1627), but were repulsed after three months. Small French Royal boats managed to supply St Martin in spite of the English blockade. Buckingham ultimately ran out of money and support, and his army was weakened by diseases. After a last attack on Saint-Martin they were repulsed with heavy casualties, and left with their ships.

Meanwhile, in August 1627 Royal forces started to surround La Rochelle, with an army of 7,000 soldiers, 600 horses and 24 cannons, led by Charles of Angoulême. They started to reinforce fortifications at Bongraine (modern Les Minimes), and at the Fort Louis.

On September 10, the first cannons shots were by La Rochelle against Royal troops at Fort Louis, starting the third Huguenot rebellion. La Rochelle was the greatest stronghold among the Huguenot cities of France, and the centre of Huguenot resistance. Cardinal Richelieu acted as the commander of the besieging troops (during those times when the King was absent).

Once hostilities started, French engineers isolated the city with entrenchments 7 1/2 miles long, fortified by 11 forts and 18 redoubts. The surrounding fortifications were totally completed in April 1628, manned with an army of 30,000.

They also built with 4,000 workmen a 1,400 metres long seawall, to block the seaward access to the city. The initial idea for blocking the channel leading to the harbour of La Rochelle in order to stop all supplies to the city came from the Italian engineer Pompeo Targone, but his structure was broken by the winter weather, before the idea was taken up by the Royal architect Clément Metézeau (also Metzeau), in November 1627. The wall was built on top of a foundation made of sunken hulks, filled with rubble. French artillery was used against English ships that tried to supply the city.

Meanwhile, in southern France, Henri de Rohan attempted to raise a rebellion in order to relieve La Rochelle, but in vain. Until February, some ships were able to go through the seawall under construction, but after March this became impossible. The city was completely blocked, with the only hope coming from a possible intervention of an English fleet.

Altogether, the Roman Catholic government of France rented ships from the Protestant city of Amsterdam to conquer the Protestant city of La Rochelle. This resulted in a debate in the city council of Amsterdam as to whether the French soldiers should be allowed to have a Roman Catholic sermon on board of the Protestant Dutch ships. The result of the debate was that it was not allowed. In any event the ships did go. Dutch ships transported the French soldiers to La Rochelle. France was a Dutch ally in the war against the Habsburgs.

In the occasion of the Siege of La Rochelle, Spain manoeuvered towards the formation of a Franco-Spanish alliance against the common enemies that were the English, the Huguenots and the Dutch. Richelieu accepted Spanish help, and a Spanish fleet of 30 to 40 warships was sent from Cadiz to the Gulf of Morbihan as a affirmation of strategic support., arriving three weeks after the departure of Buckingham from Ile de Ré. At one point, the Spanish fleet anchored in front of La Rochelle, but did not engage in actual operations against the city.

The first one, led by William Feilding, Earl of Dengbigh, left on April 1628, but returned without a fight to Portsmouth, as Dengbigh "said that he had no commission to hazard the king's ships in a fight and returned shamefully to Portsmouth".

A second fleet was dispatched under the Admiral of the Fleet, the Earl of Lindsey in August 1628, consisting in 29 warships and 31 merchantmen. In September 1628, the English fleet tried to relieve the city. After bombarding French positions and trying to force the sea wall in vain, the English fleet had to withdraw. Following this last disappointment, the city surrendered on October 28, 1628.

Residents of La Rochelle had resisted for 14 months, under the leadership of the mayor Jean Guitton and with the gradually diminishing help from England. During the siege, the population of La Rochelle decreased from 27,000 to 5,000 due to casualties, famine and disease.

Surrender was unconditional. By the terms of the Peace of Alais, the Huguenots lost their territorial, political and military rights, but retained the religious freedom granted by the Edict of Nantes. However, they were left at the mercy of the monarchy, unable to resist when, Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes altogether and embarked on active persecution.

Aside from its religious aspect, the result of Siege of La Rochelle marks an important stage in the creation of a strong central government in France.

Dieu Sauvez Le Roy!

*When the surrender of La Rochelle became inevitable he fled to England, which he had previously visited in quest of succour. He died in 1642 in London. The Soubise title afterwards served as the chief second designation (not for heirs apparent, but for the chief collateral branch for the time being) of the house of Rohan-Chabot.

The Ursulines in Qubec

On this day in 1599 during the reign of Bon Roy Henri

The Ursulines of Quebec

The Ursuline monastery of Quebec is the oldest institution of learning for women in North America. Its history begins on 1 August, 1639, when its first members landed in Canada, thirty-one years after Champlain had founded Quebec (1608) and only four after his death. The monastery was established by Marie Huyard de l' Incarnation, declared Venerable by the Holy See (1874)(pictured left), and Madame de la Peltrie, a rich widow of Alenon in Normandy. The former, after ten years of widowhood, had joined the Ursulines at Tours. Her first biographer was her son, Dom Claude Martin, a Benedictine, who died in the odour of sanctity, in 1696. His "Life of the Venerable Mother of the Incarnation " was approved (1677), by the venerable Bishop Laval. Bossuet (Etats d'oraison, IX) calls Marie de l'Incarnation "the Theresa of her time and of the New World ." The letters royal sanctioning the foundation and signed by Louis XIII are dated 1639. After three years spent in the Lower Town, near Champlain's Habitation , the nuns entered (1642) the convent built on the ground they still occupy, ceded to them (1639) by the Company of New France . Their first pupils were Indians, with whom they succeeded better than the Jesuits with their native boys.

Marie de l'Incarnation mastered the difficult Indian languages thoroughly, composed dictionaries in Algonquin and Iroquois, also a sacred history in the former, and a catechism in the latter idiom. The first monastery was burned in 1650, but was soon rebuilt.

The Constitutions, written by Father Jérôme Lalemant, uncle of the Jesuit martyr, Gabriel Lalemant, combined the rules of the two Congregations of Paris and Bordeaux, and were observed until Bishop Laval decided (1681)in favor of the former, which binds its members by a fourth vow to teach girls.

The monastery shared at all times the country's fate. It was threatened by the Iroquois in 1661-2, when one of its chaplains, the Sulpician Vignal, was slain and devoured near Montreal by those savages. It underwent the siege and bombardment of Quebec by Phips (1690) and by Wolfe (1759). After the fateful battle of 13 Sept., 1759, the French hero, Montcalm, was buried by night in the convent chapel. The first English governor, Murray, used part of the monastery as his headquarters. On that occasion the rations served to the nuns for nursing the wounded and sick saved them from perishing of starvation. The governors and viceroys, both English and French, were always friendly to the institution. The foundress, who died in 1672, one year after Madame de la Peltrie , practised devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and had established it in the cloister years before the revelation to the blessed Margaret Mary. The first celebration of the feast in the New World took place in the monastery 18 June, 1700. Mandement of Bishop de St-Vallier, 30 March, 1700. The register of the Confraternity of the Sacred Heart begins in 1716. Clement XI (1718) enriched it with indulgences . The first superior elected (1760) after the conquest was Esther Wheelwright, a New England captive, rescued from the Abenakis by the Jesuit Bigot, and a protégée of the first governor, Vaudreuil. Besides the French, the Irish, Scots and American elements in Canada have given distinguished subjects to this cloister, prominent among whom was mother Cecilia O'Conway of the Incarnation, the first Philadelphia nun, one of Mother Seton's earliest associates.

The list of alumnae is not less remarkable. Conspicuous among its pupils were Jeanne Le Ber, the saintly "recluse of Montreal ", and Venerable Mother D'Youville, foundress of the Grey Sisters at Montreal. The Quebec monastery founded convents at Three Rivers (1697), Roberval (1882), Stanstead (1884), and Rimouski, with a normal school (1906), besides sending missionaries to New Orleans (1822), Charlestown (Boston) (1824), Galveston (1849), and Montana (1893). During the French Revolution several French refugees were chaplains to the monastery, the most notable being Abbé L.P. Desjardins, who died in France, Vicar-General of Paris. Through him were procured the valuable paintings by Philippe de Champaigne, Vegee-le Brun, Collin de Vermont, Peter of Cortona, and others, that adorn the chapel.


Dieu le Roy!
de Brantigny

In Hoc Signo Vinces

On this date in 312, after seeing the vision described below, Emperor Constantine I defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, paving the ground for his becoming undisputed emperor and ending the anarchy that had been engulfing the world for so long. Constantine became the first emperor to openly profess Christianity, and his reign could be considered the transition from the classical age to the age of Christendom. for more visit Et Lux in Tenebris Lucet!

Thanks Matthew...



Fanny Dubberly

Three sad conflicts occured right in the midst of the 19th century. These sanguine wars were the Crimean War, the Civil War, and the Franco-Prussian War. These were the first wars which photograhy brought the War right into the living rooms of the world. Today I report on one of the misconceptions of the Crimean War, that of Fanny Duberly.

In 1968 Americans were introduced to the Crimean war via the film "Charge of the Light Brigade". the part of "Fanny" was played by Jill Bennett who played a cheating Cardigan groupie in the film. In reality she was far, far different.

A new version of Fanny Duberly's Journal about the horrors of the Crimean war will ensure she gets the place in history she deserves, says Cassandra Jardine

The boots sent out to the soldiers are "little better than paper"; the wounded are "bundled" off to hospitals where they lie in their own excrement, while pay and conditions are inadequate for the soldiers forced to endure months of bombardment in "blistering" heat.

It is a distressing catalogue of mismanagement that could well apply to current conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, these criticisms were made more than 150 years ago by a young British woman during the Crimean war.

Were she living today, Fanny Duberly would be a Kate Adie or an Orla Guerin, filing vivid accounts "from our own correspondent" for the BBC. She had passion, bite, an eye for detail and fearless determination to see events for herself.

Her report on the Charge of the Light Brigade inspired Tennyson's thundering poem: "...Into the valley of Death/ Rode the six hundred."

Until now, William Howard Russell, who arrived later in the Crimea to report for the Times, has taken the credit for being the first modern war reporter and whistle-blower on the grisly conditions. However, a new edition of Mrs Duberly's Journal should correct that. First published in 1855, it alerted the British public to the realities of conflict and caused a sensation.
continued here.

Mrs Duberly's War: Journal and Letters from the Crimea, 1854-6

It was "Fanny" who Inspired Tennyson in his poem Charge of the Light Brigade, that students in my era had to recite in school. ...But that was a different time too.

The Charge Of The Light Brigade

by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Memorializing Events in the Battle of Balaclava, October 25, 1854
Written 1854

Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd & thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack & Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke,
Shatter'd & sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse & hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!


"Tolerant" San Francisco

Court Allows San Fran City Resolution Condemning Catholicism as 'Insulting,' 'Hateful'

By Kathleen Gilbert

SAN FRANCISCO, October 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has shakily allowed to stand a resolution by the city government of San Francisco that lambasted the Vatican as "meddl[ing]" and "insult[ing]" for reaffirming its teaching against homosexual adoption, and which urged Church officials to disobey the Magisterium.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2006 had issued a statement clarifying that Catholic Church agencies, in line with the Church's moral teaching on sexuality, should not hand over children to homosexual couples seeking to adopt. The statement was prompted by Catholic Charities branches in Boston and San Francisco choosing to cooperate with homosexual couples seeking adoption.

As a result, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors later that year issued a nonbinding resolution that personally attacked Cardinal William Levada, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and former archbishop of San Francisco, and his directive as "discriminatory and defamatory."

The board urged San Francisco archbishop George Niederauer and the local Catholic Charities "to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada," whom they dubbed "a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city." The resolution also lashed out at the Vatican's teaching role in the Catholic faith as an instance of "meddling" by a foreign country.

"It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city's existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need," wrote the supervisors.

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two San Francisco Catholic citizens, represented by Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, filed suit against the city, claiming that the resolution violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge in December 2006 dismissed the case, stating that the Vatican had "provoked this debate" by issuing the statement.

The decision was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit before it was decided that an 11-judge panel should hear the case.

On Friday, the Ninth Circuit court was split on the case both in terms of its merits and the standing of the plaintiffs to bring the case forward. Only six judges examined the merits of the case, and were split 3-3; however, the court ultimately rejected the suit 8-3.

In an opinion joined by Judges Barry Silverman, Sidney Thomas and Richard Clifton, it was decided that the Supervisors "have the right to speak out in their official capacities on matters of secular concern to their constituents, even if their statements might offend the religious feelings of some of their other constituents," according to the Courthouse News Service.

However, in the minority opinioin, Justices Andrew Kleinfeld, Sandra Ikuta and Jay Bybee said that, "For the government to resolve officially that 'Catholic doctrine is wrong,' is as plainly violative of the Establishment Clause as for the government to resolve that 'Catholic doctrine is right."

The Thomas More Law Center has vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Incidently Nancy Pelosi represents San Francisco in the US House of representatives.


A new Thomas

After the dismissal of Thomas Wolsey as Chancellor on October 25th, Henry did something new: he named a lay Chancellor. Sir Thomas More, Knight and Member of the Privy Council succeeded the Archbishop of York on October 26, 1529, while Henry re-evaluated his efforts to replace Katherine of Aragon with Anne Boleyn as his wife. more...


Pope's Statment on Immigration

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI says all countries have the right to regulate immigration flows and protect their borders, and immigrants must respect the laws and national identity of their host nations.

The pontiff said in a message that every person has a right to migrate in search of better living conditions.

The Vatican on Tuesday issued the pope's message for the church's World Day for Migrants and Refugees, which is celebrated Jan. 16.

Benedict said that, as the word's societies become more multiethnic and intercultural, people should seek dialogue and respect each other's differences. States must respect the dignity of all migrants and share their resources, while immigrants "have the duty to integrate into the host country."



Sire, Marly?

In 1679 The Sun King, Louis XIV, Jules Mansart in conjunction with his architect began to construct Marly. Marly would be his small place of refuge to get away from the riotous noise of Versailles and take a few friends.

The chateau would be just big enough for his family. Incorporated into Marly were twelve pavilions, eleven of which were for married couples, and one for bathrooms. These were connected to each other and the main building by arbors of sweet smelling shrubs.

The etiquette of Versailles was relaxed at Marly, whereas the formal setting of Versailles was open to the public and therefore strict, at Marly the atmosphere was as close and as congenial as the King would ever get (or allow). For example at Versailles no one ate at the same table with the King except Monsieur (the King's brother), but at Marly the Dauphin and his three sons, and Monsieur and his son Chartres could do so. Normally, however, the King had all the women eat at his table. The Dauphin presided at a second table and the rest of the men sat together at a third.

An invitation to Marly was much sought after. To be so intimate with the King was to reach the pinnacle of society at Versailles. The King secretly loved for people to ask for an invitation. If it became known that the King would be paying a visit to Marly, as he travelled through the halls of Versailles, the sound of "Sire, Marly? could heard from many voices.

Unfortunately as with many other things this national treasure was destroyed by the mob in the revolution. Today little remains except some of the most exquisite gardens in all of France.

Find a site on Marly's Gardens.

Dieu le Roy,

Revocation of the edict of Nantes

It was on the 22d of October 1685 that Louis XIV King of France, issued the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes

Louis, by the grace of God king of France and Navarre, to all present and to come, greeting:

King Henry the Great, our grandfather of glorious memory, being desirous that the peace which he had procured for his subjects after the grievous losses they had sustained in the course of domestic and foreign wars, should not be troubled on account of the R.P.R., as had happened in the reigns of the kings, his predecessors, by his edict, granted at Nantes in the month of April, 1598, regulated the procedure to be adopted with regard to those of the said religion, and the places in which they might meet for public worship, established extraordinary judges to administer justice to them, and, in fine, provided in particular articles for whatever could be thought necessary for maintaining the tranquillity of his kingdom and for diminishing mutual aversion between the members of the two religions, so as to put himself in a better position to labor, as he had resolved to do, for the reunion to the Church of those who had so lightly withdrawn from it.

As the intention of the king, our grandfather, was frustrated by his sudden death, and as the execution of the said edict was interrupted during the minority of the late king, our most honored lord and father of glorious memory, by new encroachments on the part of the adherents of the said R.P.R., which gave occasion for their being deprived of divers advantages accorded to them by the said edict; nevertheless the king, our late lord and father, in the exercise of his usual clemency, granted them yet another edict at Nimes, in July, 1629, by means of which, tranquillity being established anew, the said late king, animated by the same spirit and the same zeal for religion as the king, our said grandfather, had resolved to take advantage of this repose to attempt to put his said pious design into execution. But foreign wars having supervened soon after, so that the kingdom was seldom tranquil from 1635 to the truce concluded in 1684 with the powers of Europe, nothing more could be done for the advantage of religion beyond diminishing the number of places for the public exercise of the R.P.R., interdicting such places as were found established to the prejudice of the dispositions made by the edicts, and suppressing of the bi-partisan courts, these having been appointed provisionally only.

God having at last permitted that our people should enjoy perfect peace, we, no longer absorbed in protecting them from our enemies, are able to profit by this truce (which we have ourselves facilitated), and devote our whole attention to the means of accomplishing the designs of our said grandfather and father, which we have consistently kept before us since our succession to the crown.

And now we perceive, with thankful acknowledgment of God's aid, that our endeavors have attained their proposed end, inasmuch as the better and the greater part of our subjects of the said R.P.R. have embraced the Catholic faith. And since by this fact the execution of the Edict of Nantes and of all that has ever been ordained in favor of the said R.P.R. has been rendered nugatory, we have determined that we can do nothing better, in order wholly to obliterate the memory of the troubles, the confusion, and the evils which the progress of this false religion has caused in this kingdom, and which furnished occasion for the said edict and for so many previous and subsequent edicts and declarations, than entirely to revoke the said Edict of Nantes, with the special articles granted as a sequel to it, as well as all that has since been done in favor of the said religion.

I. Be it known that for these causes and others us hereunto moving, and of our certain knowledge, full power, and royal authority, we have, by this present perpetual and irrevocable edict, suppressed and revoked, and do suppress and revoke, the edict of our said grandfather, given at Nantes in April, 1598, in its whole extent, together with the particular articles agreed upon in the month of May following, and the letters patent issued upon the same date; and also the edict given at Nimes in July, 1629; we declare them null and void, together with all concessions, of whatever nature they may be, made by them as well as by other edicts, declarations, and orders, in favor of the said persons of the R.P.R., the which shall remain in like manner as if they had never been granted; and in consequence we desire, and it is our pleasure, that all the temples of those of the said R.P.R. situate in our kingdom, countries, territories, and the lordships under our crown, shall be demolished without delay.

II. We forbid our subjects of the R.P.R. to meet any more for the exercise of the said religion in any place or private house, under any pretext whatever, . . .

III. We likewise forbid all noblemen, of what condition soever, to hold such religious exercises in their houses or fiefs, under penalty to be inflicted upon all our said subjects who shall engage in the said exercises, of imprisonment and confiscation.

IV. We enjoin all ministers of the said R.P.R., who do not choose to become converts and to embrace the Catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion, to leave our kingdom and the territories subject to us within a fortnight of the publication of our present edict, without leave to reside therein beyond that period, or, during the said fortnight, to engage in any preaching, exhortation, or any other function, on pain of being sent to the galleys. . . .

VII. We forbid private schools for the instruction of children of the said R.P.R., and in general all things whatever which can be regarded as a concession of any kind in favor of the said religion.

VIII. As for children who may be born of persons of the said R.P.R., we desire that from henceforth they be baptized by the parish priests. We enjoin parents to send them to the churches for that purpose, under penalty of five hundred livres fine, to be increased as circumstances may demand; and thereafter the children shall be brought up in the Catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion, which we expressly enjoin the local magistrates to see done.

IX. And in the exercise of our clemency towards our subjects of the said R.P.R. who have emigrated from our kingdom, lands, and territories subject to us, previous to the publication of our present edict, it is our will and pleasure that in case of their returning within the period of four months from the day of the said publication, they may, and it shall be lawful for them to, again take possession of their property, and to enjoy the same as if they had all along remained there: on the contrary, the property abandoned by those who, during the specified period of four months, shall not have returned into our kingdom, lands, and territories subject to us, shall remain and be confiscated in consequence of our declaration of the 20th of August last.

X. We repeat our most express prohibition to all our subjects of the said R.P.R., together with their wives and children, against leaving our kingdom, lands, and territories subject to us, or transporting their goods and effects therefrom under penalty, as respects the men, of being sent to the galleys, and as respects the women, of imprisonment and confiscation.

XI. It is our will and intention that the declarations rendered against the relapsed shall be executed according to their form and tenor.

XII. As for the rest, liberty is granted to the said persons of the R.P.R., pending the time when it shall please God to enlighten them as well as others, to remain in the cities and places of our kingdom, lands, and territories subject to us, and there to continue their commerce, and to enjoy their possessions, without being subjected to molestation or hindrance on account of the said R.P.R., on condition of not engaging in the exercise of the said religion, or of meeting under pretext of prayers or religious services, of whatever nature these may be, under the penalties above mentioned of imprisonment and confiscation. This do we give in charge to our trusty and well-beloved counselors, etc.

Given at Fontainebleau in the month of October, in the year of grace 1685, and of our reign the forty-third. Louis

Dieu Suave le Roy!