of drawing
the Roman Catholic and the reformed churches together, it had only
widened the breach separating them. Instead of exhibiting in a clearer
light the common ground on which a union might be practicable, it had
rendered patent to all the antagonism which could not be cloaked by
ambiguous phrases and incomplete statements of doctrine. It is certainly
worth while to inquire into some of the causes of a result so unexpected
to a great number of intelligent men, who had framed their anticipations
upon no superficial view of the subject.

[Sidenote: Catharine's crude notion of a conference.]

The crude notions of the court respecting the character which such a
conference ought to assume must be regarded as one of these causes.
Catharine, while extending the most gracious invitations to foreign
Protestants, was herself apparently undecided how to treat the Huguenots
when they should make their appearance. Even if we grant that her
explanations of the object of the projected colloquy, referred to on a
preceding page,[1182] received their coloring from the fact that she was
supplying her ambassador in Germany with plausible representations
wherewith to appease such irritated bigots as feared that the French
queen intended to propose a grave discussion of the religious question
upon its own merits, yet the entire course of the conference exhibits
her inability to comprehend the nature of a fair debate of the matters
in dispute. The Huguenot ministers and delegates were obliged to
petition that the prelates should not be permitted to act as their
judges, and afterward to remind her of the promise she had given them to
this effect. Even after the point had been nominally accorded, the most
important questions respecting the conference were decided in the
council, where _five_ cardinals and _three_ bishops had seats.[1183]
Under these circumstances it is not astonishing that Lorraine assumed a
tone of superiority which his relation to the debate by no means
warranted.

[Sidenote: Character of the prelates.]

Besides this, the character of the assembly of prelates itself precluded
the possibility of an adjustment. With the exception of six or seven, so
insignificant were these ecclesiastical dignitaries individually, that,
as a modern historian has well remarked, not one distinguished himself
sufficiently to be named by any of the writers who treat of the
conference. They were, generally, the younger sons of the most
di