Note 128 — Book II. LETTERS TO RODOLPH.

The case of Salceda was one which greatly exercised the mind of de Thou, the historian, who ascribes the death of his father Christopher de Thou to vexation at finding his advice neglected when the ruffian was brought to trial. Salceda had been condemned to death by the Parliament of Rouen, for forging money. The Guises, who had need of his services, obtained his pardon, or to speak more correctly perhaps, a suspension of his sentence, for his pardon was not registered by the Parliament of Rouen, though granted by the King. His mission, according to Motley, was to poison Alençon and Orange, but according to Salceda’s own confession he was to join Alençon with some troops, gain his confidence, and get himself appointed to the command of Dunkirk or some other strong place, which he was to betray to the Guises. These last were then to rise and compel the King to place them at the head of his army which they intended to lead against Alençon and Orange. On being arrested Salceda made various confessions implicating the Guises and other leading men in France. Christopher de Thou, President of the Parliament of Paris, one of those before whom he was tried, was convinced that there was a great deal of truth in Salceda’s statements, and was most anxious that his life should be spared with a view to bringing others to justice, but too many great people were interested in stopping the mouth of their unfortunate tool, and he was therefore executed. It is probable that the story of an attempt to poison Alençon and Orange was a mere veil to cover the grounds on which he was executed. The fact that a distinguished Netherlander, Lamoral Egmont, cousin of the French Queen, and son of the famous general, was concerned in Salceda’s plot, seems to point to the accuracy of de Thou’s version. It is evident that Busbecq thought there was something more in the matter than appeared on the surface. Compare Thuanus, iii. 565-566, and especially the account in his life. De vita suâ, 27-31. Miss Freer gives a very full and interesting account of Salceda’s conspiracy; see Henry III. vol. ii. pp. 304-319.