Chapter XXIX: Section IV: The Siege of Rochelle

[Sidenote: § 1. Stralsund and Rochelle.]

The tide was on the turn in Germany. But the tide was not on the turn in France. There, too, a maritime city, greater and wealthier than Stralsund, and supported by fleets and armies from beyond the sea, was defending the cause of Protestantism against the central government. Mainly because in France the central government represented something more than the rule of the priest and the soldier, the resistance which was successful in Germany was overpowered in France.

[Sidenote: 1625.

§ 2. England and France.]

During the year 1625 the coolness between England and France had been on the increase. The persecution of the English Catholics by Charles, in contravention of his promises, had greatly exasperated Lewis, and the seizure by the English cruisers of numerous French vessels charged with carrying on a contraband traffic with the Spanish Netherlands had not contributed to calm his indignation. Charles, on the other hand, regarded himself as the natural protector of the French Protestants, and made demands in their favour which only served to make Lewis more resolved to refuse every concession.

[Sidenote: § 3. Richelieu would have made peace with the Huguenots if he could.]

Richelieu had therefore a hard part to play. He knew perfectly well that the government had violated its engagements with the Huguenots, especially in keeping up the fortifications of Fort Louis, a work commanding the entrance to the harbour of Rochelle, which it had long ago promised to pull down. If Richelieu had had his way he would have pulled down the fort, and by generous concessions to the Huguenots would have carried them with him to the support of his foreign policy. But such a policy, in appearance so rash, in reality so wise, was not likely to be palatable to Lewis, and Richelieu had to steer his way between the danger of offending the king and the danger of lighting up still more vividly the flames of civil war. In the course of the winter all that could be done he did. Deputies of the Huguenot towns appeared to negotiate a peace, with the support of two English ambassadors. But they were instructed to demand the demolition of the fort, and to this the king steadily refused his consent.

[Sidenote: 1626.

§ 4. An agreement effected.]

The priests and the friends of the priests were delighted at the prospect of another civil war. The assembled clergy commissioned one of their number to offer to the king a considerable sum of money for the suppression of rebellion. The time was appointed for his audience, but Richelieu contrived to put it off for a few hours longer, and, by a representation of the dangers of the situation, induced the Huguenot deputies, with the support of the English ambassadors, to be satisfied with a loose verbal promise from the king. When the clerical train swept into the royal presence it was too late. The king had already promised the Huguenot deputies that if they behaved as good subjects he would do for them more than they could possibly expect. His ministers had already assured them that these words pointed to the demolition of the fort.

[Sidenote: § 5. Intervention of Charles I.]

If a peace thus made was to be enduring, it would be necessary to keep up for a long time the appearance of its being a submission and not a peace. Unhappily, the intervention of the King of England was not likely to help to keep up appearances. He urged Lewis to engage in the war in Germany in the exact way and to the exact extent that suited the English government, and he put himself ostentatiously forward as the protector of the Huguenots.

[Sidenote: § 6. Lewis indignant.]

Such conduct awoke once more the susceptibilities of Lewis. It was bad enough to be bearded by his own subjects. But it was worse to be bearded by a foreign sovereign. A group of Huguenot communities in the south of France supported in practical independence by England would be as insupportable to him as the resistance of the Hanse Towns was two years later to Wallenstein.

[Sidenote: 1627.

§ 7. War between France and England.]

Fort Louis, therefore, was not demolished. A peace was patched up between France and Spain. Charles grew more and more angry with Lewis for deserting the common cause. Fresh seizures of French ships by English cruisers came to exasperate the quarrel, and in the early months of 1627 war existed between the two nations, in reality if not in name. In July a great English fleet, with a land army on board, appeared off Rochelle, under the command of Charles' favourite, Buckingham. A landing was effected on the Isle of Rhé, and siege was laid to the principal fort of the island. At last the garrison was almost starved out, and the commander offered to come the next morning into the English quarters to treat for terms of surrender. That night a stiff easterly breeze sprung up, and a French flotilla, heavily laden with provisions, put off from the main land. Some of the boats were taken, but most of them made their way safely through the English guardships, and delivered their precious store under the guns of the fort. Buckingham lingered for some weeks longer. Every day the besiegers swept the horizon in vain with their glasses, looking for succour from England. But Charles, without parliamentary support, was too poor to send off succours hurriedly, and when they were at last ready a long continuance of westerly winds prevented them from leaving the Channel. Before they could put to sea, a French force was landed on the island, and Buckingham, to save himself from defeat, was forced to break up the siege and to return home discomfited.

[Sidenote: § 8. Siege of Rochelle.]

Richelieu and the king were now thoroughly of one mind. The French city which could enter into an understanding with the foreigner must be reduced to submission. An army of thirty thousand men gathered round the walls, and on the land side the town was as hopelessly blocked up as Stralsund. The only question was whether it would be possible to cut off the entrance of English supplies by sea. By the end of November a commencement was made of the mole which was to shut off Rochelle from all external help. Piles were driven in with stones between them. Heavily laden vessels were scuttled and sunk. Richelieu himself directed the operations, this time with the full support of the clergy, who poured their money lavishly into the royal treasury. In May, 1628, the work, in spite of the storms of winter, was almost completed. An English fleet, which came up to the succour of the town, retired without accomplishing anything.

[Sidenote: § 9. Increasing despondency in the town.]

Inside the town distress was rapidly growing unendurable. The mayor, Jean Guiton, was still the soul of the resistance. But he had to struggle against an increasing number who counselled surrender. He did not venture to appear in the streets without a pistol in his hand and half-a-dozen stout guardians around him.

[Sidenote: § 10. Failure of the English attempt to succour it.]

The only hope for Rochelle lay in the great armament which was known to be prepared in England, and which was to be conducted by Buckingham in person. The House of Commons had purchased the Petition of Right with large subsidies, and Charles, for the first time in his reign, was enabled to make an effort worthy of his dignity. But the popular hatred found a representative in the murderer Felton, and a knife struck home to the favourite's heart put an end to his projects for ever. The dissatisfaction which arrayed the English people against its government had found its way into the naval service. When the fleet arrived in September, under a new commander, all was disorganization and confusion. It returned to England without accomplishing a single object for which it had been sent forth.

[Sidenote: § 11. Surrender of Rochelle.]

The surrender of Rochelle followed as a matter of necessity. On November 1 the king entered the conquered town in triumph. The independence of French cities was at an end.

[Sidenote: § 12. Cause of Richelieu's success.]

The different success of the two great sieges of the year may partly be accounted for by the difference of vigour in the powers to which the threatened towns looked for succour. Charles was very far from being a Christian IV., much less a Gustavus Adolphus; and if England at unity with itself was stronger than Sweden, England distracted by civil broils was weaker than Sweden. But there were more serious reasons than these for Richelieu's victory and Wallenstein's failure. Richelieu represented what Wallenstein did not--the authority of the state. His armies were under the control of discipline; and, even if the taxation needed to support them pressed hardly upon the poor, the pressure of the hardest taxation was easy to be borne in comparison with a far lighter contribution exacted at random by a hungry and rapacious soldiery. If Richelieu had thus an advantage over Wallenstein, he had a still greater advantage over Ferdinand and Maximilian. He had been able to isolate the Rochellese by making it clear to their fellow Huguenots in the rest of France that no question of religion was at stake. The Stralsunders fought with the knowledge that their cause was the cause of the whole of Protestant Germany. The Rochellese knew that their resistance had been tacitly repudiated by the whole of Protestant France.

[Sidenote: §13. Religious liberty of the Huguenots.]

When Lewis appeared within the walls of Rochelle he cancelled the privileges of the town, ordered its walls to be pulled down and its churches to be given over to the Catholic worship. But under Richelieu's guidance he announced his resolution to assure the Protestants a continuance of the religious liberties granted by his father. No towns in France should be garrisoned by troops other than the king's. No authorities in France should give orders independently of the king. But wherever a religion which was not that of the king had succeeded in establishing its power over men's minds no attempt should be made to effect a change by force. Armed with such a principle as this, France would soon be far stronger than her neighbours. If Catholic and Huguenot could come to regard one another as Frenchmen and nothing else, what chance had foreign powers of resisting her? She had already beaten back the attack of a divided England. Would she not soon acquire a preponderance over a divided Germany? It is time for us now to ask what steps were being taken in Germany to meet or to increase the danger.