But the time for hollow truce and a desultory and irregular warfare was rapidly passing away. It was but little more than a month after the beginning of the new year before the conflagration again burst forth. The Protestants of all parts of the kingdom were at length of one mind; there was no room for doubt that any hopes offered them had as their sole object to sow discord among the adherents of the reformed faith. If anything had been wanting to prove this, it was made clear by the refusal of the court to extend the benefits of the Edict of Pacification of July, 1573, to the whole of France. The limitation of the liberty of worship by the provisions of that edict to La Rochelle, Montauban, and Nismes, was evidently intended to render the inhabitants of the three strongest Huguenot cities selfishly indifferent to the injustice done to their brethren in other parts of France. In fact, this result was partially effected in the first of the cities named. The Rochellois were at first very reluctant to resume hostilities, and began to plead conscientious scruples forbidding them to break the compact made with the king. Happily their hesitation was removed by François de la Noue, who, returning in a capacity entirely different from that in which he had last appeared, used all the arts of persuasion to induce the Huguenot stronghold by the sea to become again the rallying-point for the Protestants of the west. It was not difficult to show the citizens, when once they would listen to reason, that the starving of Sancerre and numberless murders of adherents of the reformed doctrine throughout France were violations of the peace quite sufficient to justify its formal abrogation by the injured party. The fears dictated by apparent weakness were dispelled by pointing to the signal success that had crowned the arms of Montbrun in Dauphiny,[1365] while the reluctance of loyal subjects to rise in arms against their lawful sovereign, even in order to redress great wrongs, unless authorized by the leadership of a prince of the blood, was answered by the assurance that they would have a head of much higher rank than any under whose protection the Huguenots had heretofore taken the field.[1366] It was clear that the personage thus hinted at could be no other than the king's brother. No wonder that the Rochellois yielded to La Noue's arguments, for almost every Roman Catholic whose hands were clean of the blood shed in the massacre applauded the justice of the new uprising.[1367]
Diplomacy tried in vain.
The city of La Rochelle began again to repair its shattered walls, and La Noue was unanimously appointed to the chief command of the Huguenots in Saintonge and the adjacent regions. In the effort next made to prevent the great Protestant leader from espousing the side of his brethren, and to persuade the city of La Rochelle to rest content with the guarantees offered by the edict of 1573, and remain neutral in the coming conflict, Catharine and her advisers signally failed. The royal envoys—Biron, Strozzi and Pinart—were, indeed, courteously treated by La Noue, Frontenay, and Mirambeau, who repeatedly came out to meet them at the village of Ernandes. But the Huguenots, in reply to their reiterated request, declined absolutely to abate a single important point in their demands. They would not hear the suggestion that by the Edict of Boulogne, in 1573, previous ordinances had been repealed, but persisted in assuming that Charles had always intended that the edict of 1570 should remain in force, and, in proof of this, they alleged one of the king's own declarations after the massacre. They insisted that the privileges accorded to the three privileged cities of La Rochelle, Montauban, and Nismes, should be extended to the Protestant nobility throughout the kingdom; and when Biron and his companions reluctantly consented that the right to have baptism and marriage celebrated in their houses be conceded to all Protestant noblemen who enjoyed the right of "haute justice," and who had always remained constant in their religious opinions, La Noue protested against the restriction to baptism and marriage. "We desire to worship God freely," he said, "and you give only a part of what we need for the exercise of our religion. What you offer is a snare to catch us again and expose us to greater peril than we were ever in before. But we would much rather die with arms in our hands than be involved again in such disasters."
In vain did the royalists assure them that the king was ready to grant the Protestants complete liberty of conscience and protection against their enemies, but could not give them what they demanded. In vain did they repeat in substance the famous exclamation of Catharine de' Medici, and say, among other arguments: "You could make no greater demands if the king had nothing ready, and you had a large and powerful army, with all the advantages you could desire; whereas, we know full well that you are feeble in every direction, and that the king has great forces, as you yourselves must be aware." The Huguenots had the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day on their tongues continually,[1368] and could not be fed with fair promises. They required securities. First, Charles must give them a city in each province of the kingdom, as a refuge in case they were assailed. Next, the maintenance of the promises made to them must be guaranteed by the signatures of the princes of the blood and all the chief nobles, by governors, by lieutenants-general, and by the gentry of the provinces, as well as by the chief inhabitants of the towns. Hostages must be interchanged. While the last and most remarkable proposal of all was, "that his Majesty, on his part, and the Huguenots, on theirs, should place a large sum of money in the hands of some German prince, who should promise to employ it in levying and paying a body of reiters to be used against that party which should violate the peace." All this was to be registered in the various parliaments and in the inferior courts of the bailiwicks and sénéchaussées. The king was further requested to call the States General within three months, to give the royal edict of pacification their formal sanction.[1369]
We need not be surprised that a conference to which the two parties brought views so diametrically opposed, should have proved utterly abortive.
The "Politiques" make an unsuccessful rising.
It scarcely falls within the province of this history to narrate in detail the unsuccessful attempt of the Malcontents, made some weeks before the negotiations just described, to overthrow the government, whose bad counsels were believed to be the cause of the misery under which France was groaning; for the alliance between the Malcontents and the Huguenots was only fortuitous and partial. A few words of explanation, however, seem to be necessary. The plan contemplated a simultaneous uprising on the tenth of March. The day had been selected by La Noue himself, who rightly judged that the license and uproar indulged in by the populace up to a late hour in the night of "Mardi Gras" (Shrove Tuesday) would greatly facilitate the military undertaking.[1370] Alençon and the King of Navarre, who, since the massacre immediately succeeding his nuptials, had found himself less a guest than a captive at court, were to flee secretly to Sedan, where they would find safety under the protection of the Duc de Bouillon. For the influence of this great nobleman, together with the still more powerful support of the Montmorency family, was given to the projected movement. But the timidity and vacillation of Alençon frustrated the well-conceived design. Ten days or a fortnight before the set time for the escape of the princes from court, Navarre, who, under pretext of hunting, had been allowed to leave the royal palace of Saint Germain, received a secret visit from M. de Guitry, a gentleman who had succeeded in bringing into the vicinity an armed body of the confederates. The meeting took place by night, in Navarre's bedchamber, in the little hamlet of St. Prix.[1371] On the morrow Guitry found means to confer with M. de Thoré, Turenne, and La Nocle, "all in despair by reason of Alençon's variable moods."[1372] This feeble prince, it would seem, was not even yet decided, and trembled at the peril he might run in attempting to reach Sedan. Under these circumstances the plan of flight was modified. Guitry was instructed to bring his force nearer to St. Germain, and wait for Alençon and Navarre, who, under his escort, were to gain Mantes, a little farther down the Seine, and perhaps ultimately join the confederates near La Rochelle. Guitry waited in vain: Alençon and Navarre never came.
Flight of the court from St. Germain.
Either Alençon himself, or La Mole, his favorite, in his name, betrayed the project to the queen mother. The discovery of a body of armed men in the vicinity, albeit they gave assurance that they meant no injury to the king, threw the entire court into consternation. Catharine, reminding Charles that her soothsayers had long since warned her of Saint Germain as a place that boded no good to her or hers, was among the first to flee, leaving the king, who was ill with quartan fever, to follow the next day.[1373] The court partook of Catharine's terror, and imitated her example. Layman and churchman vied in haste to gain Paris, whence in a few days they retreated in a more leisurely manner to the safer refuge of the castle of Vincennes. While some hurried by the main road, or picked their way along the banks of the Seine, others took to boats as a less dangerous means of conveyance. But, among those who joined in the disorderly flight, there were some who retained their composure sufficiently to note the ludicrous features of the scene. Long after they recalled with undisguised amusement the terror-stricken countenances of the new chancellor and of three French cardinals, as, mounted on fiery Italian or Spanish steeds, they clung with both hands to the saddle-bow, evidently fearing their horses even more than the dreaded Huguenot.[1374] It was a very pretty farce; but the tragedy was yet to come.