at we shall be able to learn and discover that is
devised against his Majesty.... Moreover, we protest that we will not
leave the city, whatever necessity may arrive, but will join our hearts,
our wills, and our abilities with our fellow-citizens in defence of that
city, to which we will always entertain the devotion of true and faithful
citizens, whilst the Catholics will find in us sincere and fraternal
affection: awaiting the time when it may please God to put an end to all
troubles, to which we hope that this reconciliation will be a happy
prelude."[560]

The trap was not ill contrived, and its bars were strong enough to hold
anything that might venture within. Fortunately, however, the bait did not
conceal the cruel design lurking behind it. Why, it might be asked, this
new test? Was Conde, whom the king had only four or five months ago
recognized by solemn edict as his "dear cousin and faithful servant and
subject," a friend or a foe? Had peace been concluded with the Huguenots
only that they might anew be treated as rebels and enemies? What had
become of the prescribed amnesty? Was it at all likely that private
citizens would bury in oblivion their former dissensions and abstain from
mutual insults, when the monarch officially reminded them that there was
one class of his subjects whose past conduct made them objects of grave
suspicion? While, therefore, the Huguenots professed themselves ready to
give the king all possible assurances of their loyal devotion, they
declined to swear to a form that bore on its face the proof that it was
composed, not in accordance with Charles's own ideas, but by an enemy of
the crown and of public tranquillity. They requested that it might receive
such modifications as would permit them to sign it with due regard to
their own self-respect and to their religious convictions, and they
entreated Charles to confirm their liberty of conscience and of religious
observance; for, without these privileges, which they valued above their
own existence, they were ready to forsake, not only their cities, but
their very lives also.[561]

[Sidenote: The plot disclosed by an intercepted letter.]

At this critical moment the destiny of France was wavering in the balance,
and the decision depended upon the answer to be given to the question
whether Chancellor L'Hospital or Cardinal Lorraine should retain his place
in the council. The tolerant policy of the former is too well understood
to need an