The parliament would have thought that they had given up their rights, if, upon this occasion, they had not opposed the will of their sovereign. They commanded by arret the curates, whom Louis XV. only wanted to engageto fulfil their duty. Without this decree the affair would have been immediately stifled, whereas many other priests were hereby disposed to refuse the administration of the sacraments.
I have often heard it said at Versailles, “that the body of the parliament, by reason of their desire to reform abuses, are the source of a great number of abuses.” A prince of the blood was of opinion, that the parliament should be abolished, if it were only to prevent that spirit of contention and obstinacy which they disperse in the kingdom. But those who are esteemed sagacious judges of things, pretend that this same spirit of opposition to the will of the court, is the bulwark of the state.
A councilor of the great chamber said one day in my hearing, to a courtier who was highly complaining of the reiterated remonstrances made to the King,Perhaps, Sir, we may be mistaken in theform; but we cannot err with respect to the object, as we constantly plead for the prerogatives of the nation, and the happiness of the people.
The president de Maupeou said to me one day, upon returning from an audience he had with the King, when he met with a very disagreeable reception, “You must allow, Madam, that there is a particular fatality annexed to our situation; we are always scolded without obtaining justice. Nevertheless, if things were thoroughly examined with care, it would appear that we have no interest in view by making continual representations to our Prince, and being compelled to say disagreeable things to him. If we did not interest ourselves so much as we do for the good of the people, we must substitute flattery for truth, and should be benefited by the smiles of the court; whereas we now meet with nothing but refusalsfrom it.” In another of these visits, when this same president did not meet with a more favourable reception, he added, in speaking of the counsellors of state, “It is surprising, that men of understanding do not see through the uprightness of our intentions; and that prejudice, which we thought only actuated the populace, falls to the lot of those who surround the throne.”
Be this as it may, these people displeased me, because they put the King into a bad humour, and every time they repaired to Versailles, to make representations to him, Lewis XV. was more serious than usual.
The affair of the bills of confession was attended with consequences. The members of parliament had hitherto spoke as orators; upon this occasion they spoke in the stile of preachers. Their remonstrance to the King resembled a sermon. The pope’s doctrine, dogmas, and faith,were called in question. When a body of people quit their proper sphere, they expose themselves to raillery. A pleasant courtier said to the King,—“Sire, we may now attend a homily in the great chamber; the members of your parliament know how to make sermons.”
These representations made to Lewis XV. having been printed, every one was desirous of being possessed of them: but there was not a sufficient number for every body. The discourses of these new missionaries were sold at a dearer rate than Bourdaloue’s sermons, and were more in vogue. I shall insert them here, lest this learned production should be lost to posterity.
Sire,“Never did so important an affair lead your parliament to the foot of your throne. The religion, the state, the rights of your crown are equally threatened.A fatal schism has burst forth, less to be dreaded from the blaze of division it kindles amongst your subjects, and the shock it gives to the fundamental laws of the monarchy, than from the prejudice it does to religion.“Your majesty, struck with the disorders occasioned by the disputes daily renewed on account of the bull Unigenitus, has at all times been sensible, and particularly in 1731, of the necessity of suppressing a division so dangerous, and so contrary to the common good of the state and of religion.“We shall make use of the same terms in which your majesty then expressed yourself, in declaring your will. You forbad, in the most express manner any of your subjects, of what state or condition soever, to do or write any thing tending to support the disputes that had arisen in regard to this constitution, or to create new ones. You forbad themto attack or provoke one another, by the injurious terms ofinnovators,heretics,schismatics,Jansenists,Semi-pelagians, or any other party names, as any such delinquents would be treated as rebels disobedient to your orders, and seditious perturbators of the public tranquility. In a word, you enjoined all the archbishops and bishops to watch each in his particular diocese, that peace and tranquility were charitably and inviolably observed, and that these disputes were no more renewed.“It were to have been wished, that such sagacious orders had been followed by the most rigorous execution; and that you had armed your avenging hand against such ecclesiastics as dared contemn your Majesty, and withdraw from the obedience that was due to you! But this they have dared, and the attempt has remained unpunished: their passionate zeal has no longerknown any bounds; they have declared those who were not of their opinion rebels to the church, and as such unworthy of partaking of its benefits, and they have inhumanly refused them the sacraments at the point of death. These abuses have been daily increased—and how much has not religion suffered by them?“Impiety has availed itself of disquisitions that prevailed amongst the ministers of religion, to attack religion itself.“The uncertainty that was introduced with regard to the foundation of the legitimacy of faith, hath been the means employed by impiety to insinuate into people’s minds its mortal poison. What advantage hath it not derived from the melancholy circumstances wherein we saw the holy fathers, who had passed their lives in exercising the laborious functions ofthe ministry to which they were consecrated? enlightened doctors, still more recommendable for their piety than their understanding: pious maidens, who, in their recluse retreat entirely engaged with God and their salvation, passed their time in the most austere works of repentance, treated like refractory members of the church, deprived with ignominy of the benefits it dispensed to its children, without its being known what truths decided by the church, these children refused to believe, or what errors prescribed by it, they refused to condemn!“The ostentatious philosopher, who foolishly jealous of the divinity itself, sees with regret the homage that is paid to him, judged this to be the favourable moment for producing his monstrous system of incredulities.“This system promulgated abroad, has unhappily made but too rapid aprogress. A torrent of writings, infected with these detestable errors, rushed forth; and to complete the misfortune, they have insensibly crept into those schools defined to form proper defenders of faith and religion. Strange calamity for a most christian King! Error gains ground, and is not removed; the principal ministers of religion are employed only in exacting the acceptance of a decree, which offering nothing certain, alarms timid consciences by the consequences that may be drawn from it against the salutary doctrine, and whilst they with the greatest rigour prosecute those, who, by at least a pardonable, if not a well grounded scruple, refuse subscribing to it; they neglect what is essential, and let religion be shaken to its very foundation.“The impious become more resolute, and audacity is carried to its greatestheight; and it was reserved for us to be eye-witnesses of a public thesis being maintained without opposition, in the first university of the christian world, whereby all the false principles of incredulity are systematically established[A].“Your parliament, Sire, who by the authority you have conferred upon them, should principally attend to whatever regards the religion of the state, are moved at the sight of so scandalous a proceeding. They have summoned the agents of the university. The attention of the magistrates has called the faculty back to their duty, has awakened the zeal of the pastors; and soon after appeared the censures of the Thesis, accompanied with the most dishonourable sentence, with which he,who had the audacity to maintain it, was branded[B].“Such are the wounds that the growing schism has from its birth given to religion. What may we not fear it has to suffer in the sequel; and can we view it without being penetrated with affliction? With some it will be totally destroyed, and if others preserve it, the spirit will be entirely lost.“Hatred, animosity, and persecution, seize upon their hearts; those divine characters of union and charity, which distinguish the catholic church, are no longer to be known; and religion will be almost universally destroyed, either in the mind, or in the heart.“But, Sire, if your parliament owe their first attention to the interest ofreligion, they are equally engaged by the fidelity they have sworn to you, to guard the preservation of those great maxims which constitute the essence of your sovereignty.“And how could they avoid opposing with all their might, the progress of a scheme framed by some ministers of the church, to erect the constitutionUnigenitus, as a rule of faith. This enterprize, inasmuch as it is prejudicial to religion, is contrary to the principles of public right, upon which the independency of your authority is founded. When this bull came into France, your parliament acquainted Lewis XIV. with all the danger of the condemnation which was therein pronounced against the proposition that relates to the matter of excommunication.“Hence will follow, we told him,that unjust excommunications, that even themenaces of an unjust censure, may suspend the accomplishment of the most essential and indispensible duties: and what might be the consequence? The liberties of the Gallican church, the maxims adopted by the kingdom upon the authority of kings, upon the independency of their crown, upon the fidelity that is due to them from their subjects, might be annihilated, or at least suspended in the minds of the people, solely by the impression made on them by a menace of excommunication, though unjust.“Lewis XIV. was sensible of the importance of these reflections. The bull was not received but with such modifications, as are not so much modifications as an absolute assertion of the condemned proposition.“These wise precautions, the ramparts of our liberty, judged necessary by the late King, confirmed by your Majesty upon every occasion, carefully repeated in the declarations you made to establishthe authority of the bull, conformable to the sentiments of the bishops, who gave their explanations in 1744, and corroborated by the formal decision of the Sorbonne, as they solemnly declared it verbally, by their Syndic in 1732; how are these to be reconciled with the eminent character that is now wanted to be given this bull, in erecting it intoa rule of faith?“Dogmas of faith are not susceptible of modification; so that giving to the bull the qualifications or effects of arule of faith, and exacting its pure and simple acceptance upon this foundation, is by a necessary consequence destroying the modifications which have been opposed to it, subverting the great principle of your absolute independence of all other power whatever; it is endeavouring to obtain the acknowledgment of an authority, capableof annihilating or suspending the rights of your sovereign authority.“Your Majesty, convinced of this truth, however favourably you may have expressed yourself upon the bull, has never allowed it to be denominateda rule of faith. All those writings which have appeared, wherein it has been endeavoured to represent it in that light, have been proscribed by judgments which you yourself have given: and when your parliament represented to you in 1733, their uneasiness at the conduct of some ecclesiastics, in various dioceses, who appeared to give this character to the bull; your Majesty reproached them for having foreseen that it could happen, that the spiritual authority should desire to erect into a dogma of faith, propositions contrary to the inviolable maxims of France.“Your Majesty told us that such an undertaking would not revolt less against the church of your kingdom, than against the magistrates; and that we might have been in security by the precautions which the bishops took in 1714, for the preservation of maxims, with regard to the ninety-first condemned proposition.“But, Sire, of what signification are these precautions taken by some bishops of your kingdom, if the others do not adhere to them, if they exact the pure and simple acceptation of the bull, if they look upon those as out of the pale of the church who do not declare their submission to it, without any restriction or reserve, and if they pretend to exclude them upon this foundation from the participation of all sacraments?“There are few amongst them, it is true, who have openly declared themselves,by saying, that the constitution isa rule of faith; but by giving it the effects ofa rule of faith, is not that saying that it is arule of faith? In matters of doctrine, none but those who err in a point of faith, can be excluded the participation of the sacraments of the church; therefore a refusal of the sacraments to whosoever does not submit to the constitution, is making the constitution a rule of faith.“The condemnation that the constitution has pronounced against the ninety-first proposition, is manifestly contrary to the great maxims of the kingdom, and is absolutely incompatible with the observance of these maxims. Therefore, when we see the ministers of the church, when we see the bishops establish the constitution as a rule of faith, we see that by a fatality, which, Sire, your goodness could not presume, that they want to erect into dogmas the faith of opinions, contraryto the most inviolable maxims of France.“They in vain protest their attachment to our liberties. Their conduct belies the sincerity of their words: Or, if it is really nothing more than an extravagant zeal for the bull that actuates them, they teach us how dangerous it is for them to decide arbitrarily in causes that may exclude the participation of the sacraments. Their pretended zeal becomes a passion that blinds them; prejudice shuts their eyes to the consequences of their conduct. Add to this, that if this tyranny were once introduced, we should soon see it by a still greater abuse, if possible, extending itself over matters entirely foreign to the dogma, and purely temporal. The point would not then only be what might relate to conscience; they would make themselves arbiters of the state, and of theform of the citizens, and would render the admission of the sacraments just as conditional as they pleased.“These are not vain fears that agitate us. We know but too well, that even in this case, nothing could conquer the obstinacy of an unjust refusal; and that neither the most respectable birth, nor the most pure, constant, and exemplary virtue, would be sufficient titles to claim, at the point of death, these sacred benefits, the dispensation whereof cannot depend upon human motives, and which by right belong to the faithful[C].“Your parliament, Sire, strangely surprised at so many abuses, daily committed before their eyes, have been made still more strongly sensible of thedanger, when having sent a deputation to the archbishop of Paris, with regard to the fresh refusal of the sacraments, by the curate of St. Etiénne du Mont; this prelate, without making any reply, imperiously declared, that this was done by his orders. What reflections must the mind make at such a declaration! We shall now suppress them out of respect.“It will be sufficient to say, that your parliament have judged it to be their indispensable duty to act with rigour against this curate, in order to teach the inferior ministers of the church, that whatever orders they may have received from their superiors, they are answerable for putting them in execution, when these orders tend to disturb the public tranquility, and particularly when they are liable to foment a schism, the consequences of which cannot be considered without horror.“May we be permitted, Sire, to supplicate you to take into consideration the remonstrances which your parliament had the honour of presenting you last year. You will there find it demonstrated, that the error in the representation of a bill of confession, which the curate of St. Etiénne du Mont alledged for the reason of his refusal, cannot be a legal cause for refusing theholy viaticumto a dying person, and that the exaction of this bill is only a vague pretence for refusing the sacraments to those who are suspected of not accepting the constitution.“May we be allowed to recal to your memory, the principles established in the representations which your parliament made previously to you in 1731, and 1733, upon the first refusal of the sacraments that came to their knowledge. TheBull Unigenitusis not a rule of faith. The church alonecould give it this supreme character, and the church has not given it. This bull is even of such a nature that it cannot be a rule of faith. It offers nothing certain. The different qualifications it gives to the propositions which it condemns, and this indetermination, absolutely oppose its ever being a dogma of faith: These maxims of France, which form the basis of our liberties, would otherwise soon be destroyed.“Will you, then, Sire, permit the torch of schism to be lighted up in the heart of your kingdom, on account of the acceptance that is exacted of this bull. There is nothing more menacing to an empire, than divisions in religious matters: They become still more fatal when the cause is unjust. Let them not be introduced into your kingdom, stifle them in their birth, and to that end let your parliamentsact. They alone can restore a calm, by the vigilant exertion of their institution. A dying person may at every instant have recourse to the magistrate, to claim the benefits that may be inhumanly denied him.“If you reserve to yourself the care of making provision in this case, however favourable your intentions may be, the distance of places, the importance of your occupations, the difficulty of gaining access to the foot of your throne, will prevent their effect.“Severity will not so effectually suppress the designs that veil the schism, as dispatch. Its progress is to be dreaded. Preachers already arise, who endeavour to disturb the people’s minds, and make our churches echo with their seditious sermons. If the fire encreases, it is to be feared that the flames will spread to such a degree,that no authority will be sufficiently powerful to stop the conflagration.“Let us call to mind in the history of past ages, those bills of association; those extorted declarations in the tribunal of penance; those scandalous sermons which spread the alarm in timorous consciences; those bloody wars carried to such an excess, that shook even this throne.“Struck with dread at the sight of these great misfortunes, we shall not cease, Sire, to rise up against all such proceedings as tend to schism; and we shall not cease to lay before you their shocking consequences. To prevent our acting, to stifle our voices, we must be annihilated. And if by an event which we should consider ourselves as almost guilty to foresee, it should happen that our constancy to support the rights of your crown, those of the state and of religion, we shoulddraw upon ourselves your Majesty’s disgrace, we should lament without altering our conduct.“Incapable of betraying our duty, we should have nothing to offer you in homage but our tears, till time should convince you how advantageous it is for you, that your parliament at no period swerve from the inviolable fidelity they owe to religion, to their country, and to their King; and that in their archives may be found the uninterrupted tradition of conduct and maxims, which secure the tranquility of your kingdom, and the independance of your sovereignty.“Such, Sire, are the most humble and respectful remonstrances which the counsellors in parliament assembled, have the honour of presenting to your Majesty.“Done in parliament, this13th of April, 1752.“Signed,“De Maupeou.”
Sire,
“Never did so important an affair lead your parliament to the foot of your throne. The religion, the state, the rights of your crown are equally threatened.A fatal schism has burst forth, less to be dreaded from the blaze of division it kindles amongst your subjects, and the shock it gives to the fundamental laws of the monarchy, than from the prejudice it does to religion.
“Your majesty, struck with the disorders occasioned by the disputes daily renewed on account of the bull Unigenitus, has at all times been sensible, and particularly in 1731, of the necessity of suppressing a division so dangerous, and so contrary to the common good of the state and of religion.
“We shall make use of the same terms in which your majesty then expressed yourself, in declaring your will. You forbad, in the most express manner any of your subjects, of what state or condition soever, to do or write any thing tending to support the disputes that had arisen in regard to this constitution, or to create new ones. You forbad themto attack or provoke one another, by the injurious terms ofinnovators,heretics,schismatics,Jansenists,Semi-pelagians, or any other party names, as any such delinquents would be treated as rebels disobedient to your orders, and seditious perturbators of the public tranquility. In a word, you enjoined all the archbishops and bishops to watch each in his particular diocese, that peace and tranquility were charitably and inviolably observed, and that these disputes were no more renewed.
“It were to have been wished, that such sagacious orders had been followed by the most rigorous execution; and that you had armed your avenging hand against such ecclesiastics as dared contemn your Majesty, and withdraw from the obedience that was due to you! But this they have dared, and the attempt has remained unpunished: their passionate zeal has no longerknown any bounds; they have declared those who were not of their opinion rebels to the church, and as such unworthy of partaking of its benefits, and they have inhumanly refused them the sacraments at the point of death. These abuses have been daily increased—and how much has not religion suffered by them?
“Impiety has availed itself of disquisitions that prevailed amongst the ministers of religion, to attack religion itself.
“The uncertainty that was introduced with regard to the foundation of the legitimacy of faith, hath been the means employed by impiety to insinuate into people’s minds its mortal poison. What advantage hath it not derived from the melancholy circumstances wherein we saw the holy fathers, who had passed their lives in exercising the laborious functions ofthe ministry to which they were consecrated? enlightened doctors, still more recommendable for their piety than their understanding: pious maidens, who, in their recluse retreat entirely engaged with God and their salvation, passed their time in the most austere works of repentance, treated like refractory members of the church, deprived with ignominy of the benefits it dispensed to its children, without its being known what truths decided by the church, these children refused to believe, or what errors prescribed by it, they refused to condemn!
“The ostentatious philosopher, who foolishly jealous of the divinity itself, sees with regret the homage that is paid to him, judged this to be the favourable moment for producing his monstrous system of incredulities.
“This system promulgated abroad, has unhappily made but too rapid aprogress. A torrent of writings, infected with these detestable errors, rushed forth; and to complete the misfortune, they have insensibly crept into those schools defined to form proper defenders of faith and religion. Strange calamity for a most christian King! Error gains ground, and is not removed; the principal ministers of religion are employed only in exacting the acceptance of a decree, which offering nothing certain, alarms timid consciences by the consequences that may be drawn from it against the salutary doctrine, and whilst they with the greatest rigour prosecute those, who, by at least a pardonable, if not a well grounded scruple, refuse subscribing to it; they neglect what is essential, and let religion be shaken to its very foundation.
“The impious become more resolute, and audacity is carried to its greatestheight; and it was reserved for us to be eye-witnesses of a public thesis being maintained without opposition, in the first university of the christian world, whereby all the false principles of incredulity are systematically established[A].
“Your parliament, Sire, who by the authority you have conferred upon them, should principally attend to whatever regards the religion of the state, are moved at the sight of so scandalous a proceeding. They have summoned the agents of the university. The attention of the magistrates has called the faculty back to their duty, has awakened the zeal of the pastors; and soon after appeared the censures of the Thesis, accompanied with the most dishonourable sentence, with which he,who had the audacity to maintain it, was branded[B].
“Such are the wounds that the growing schism has from its birth given to religion. What may we not fear it has to suffer in the sequel; and can we view it without being penetrated with affliction? With some it will be totally destroyed, and if others preserve it, the spirit will be entirely lost.
“Hatred, animosity, and persecution, seize upon their hearts; those divine characters of union and charity, which distinguish the catholic church, are no longer to be known; and religion will be almost universally destroyed, either in the mind, or in the heart.
“But, Sire, if your parliament owe their first attention to the interest ofreligion, they are equally engaged by the fidelity they have sworn to you, to guard the preservation of those great maxims which constitute the essence of your sovereignty.
“And how could they avoid opposing with all their might, the progress of a scheme framed by some ministers of the church, to erect the constitutionUnigenitus, as a rule of faith. This enterprize, inasmuch as it is prejudicial to religion, is contrary to the principles of public right, upon which the independency of your authority is founded. When this bull came into France, your parliament acquainted Lewis XIV. with all the danger of the condemnation which was therein pronounced against the proposition that relates to the matter of excommunication.
“Hence will follow, we told him,that unjust excommunications, that even themenaces of an unjust censure, may suspend the accomplishment of the most essential and indispensible duties: and what might be the consequence? The liberties of the Gallican church, the maxims adopted by the kingdom upon the authority of kings, upon the independency of their crown, upon the fidelity that is due to them from their subjects, might be annihilated, or at least suspended in the minds of the people, solely by the impression made on them by a menace of excommunication, though unjust.
“Lewis XIV. was sensible of the importance of these reflections. The bull was not received but with such modifications, as are not so much modifications as an absolute assertion of the condemned proposition.
“These wise precautions, the ramparts of our liberty, judged necessary by the late King, confirmed by your Majesty upon every occasion, carefully repeated in the declarations you made to establishthe authority of the bull, conformable to the sentiments of the bishops, who gave their explanations in 1744, and corroborated by the formal decision of the Sorbonne, as they solemnly declared it verbally, by their Syndic in 1732; how are these to be reconciled with the eminent character that is now wanted to be given this bull, in erecting it intoa rule of faith?
“Dogmas of faith are not susceptible of modification; so that giving to the bull the qualifications or effects of arule of faith, and exacting its pure and simple acceptance upon this foundation, is by a necessary consequence destroying the modifications which have been opposed to it, subverting the great principle of your absolute independence of all other power whatever; it is endeavouring to obtain the acknowledgment of an authority, capableof annihilating or suspending the rights of your sovereign authority.
“Your Majesty, convinced of this truth, however favourably you may have expressed yourself upon the bull, has never allowed it to be denominateda rule of faith. All those writings which have appeared, wherein it has been endeavoured to represent it in that light, have been proscribed by judgments which you yourself have given: and when your parliament represented to you in 1733, their uneasiness at the conduct of some ecclesiastics, in various dioceses, who appeared to give this character to the bull; your Majesty reproached them for having foreseen that it could happen, that the spiritual authority should desire to erect into a dogma of faith, propositions contrary to the inviolable maxims of France.
“Your Majesty told us that such an undertaking would not revolt less against the church of your kingdom, than against the magistrates; and that we might have been in security by the precautions which the bishops took in 1714, for the preservation of maxims, with regard to the ninety-first condemned proposition.
“But, Sire, of what signification are these precautions taken by some bishops of your kingdom, if the others do not adhere to them, if they exact the pure and simple acceptation of the bull, if they look upon those as out of the pale of the church who do not declare their submission to it, without any restriction or reserve, and if they pretend to exclude them upon this foundation from the participation of all sacraments?
“There are few amongst them, it is true, who have openly declared themselves,by saying, that the constitution isa rule of faith; but by giving it the effects ofa rule of faith, is not that saying that it is arule of faith? In matters of doctrine, none but those who err in a point of faith, can be excluded the participation of the sacraments of the church; therefore a refusal of the sacraments to whosoever does not submit to the constitution, is making the constitution a rule of faith.
“The condemnation that the constitution has pronounced against the ninety-first proposition, is manifestly contrary to the great maxims of the kingdom, and is absolutely incompatible with the observance of these maxims. Therefore, when we see the ministers of the church, when we see the bishops establish the constitution as a rule of faith, we see that by a fatality, which, Sire, your goodness could not presume, that they want to erect into dogmas the faith of opinions, contraryto the most inviolable maxims of France.
“They in vain protest their attachment to our liberties. Their conduct belies the sincerity of their words: Or, if it is really nothing more than an extravagant zeal for the bull that actuates them, they teach us how dangerous it is for them to decide arbitrarily in causes that may exclude the participation of the sacraments. Their pretended zeal becomes a passion that blinds them; prejudice shuts their eyes to the consequences of their conduct. Add to this, that if this tyranny were once introduced, we should soon see it by a still greater abuse, if possible, extending itself over matters entirely foreign to the dogma, and purely temporal. The point would not then only be what might relate to conscience; they would make themselves arbiters of the state, and of theform of the citizens, and would render the admission of the sacraments just as conditional as they pleased.
“These are not vain fears that agitate us. We know but too well, that even in this case, nothing could conquer the obstinacy of an unjust refusal; and that neither the most respectable birth, nor the most pure, constant, and exemplary virtue, would be sufficient titles to claim, at the point of death, these sacred benefits, the dispensation whereof cannot depend upon human motives, and which by right belong to the faithful[C].
“Your parliament, Sire, strangely surprised at so many abuses, daily committed before their eyes, have been made still more strongly sensible of thedanger, when having sent a deputation to the archbishop of Paris, with regard to the fresh refusal of the sacraments, by the curate of St. Etiénne du Mont; this prelate, without making any reply, imperiously declared, that this was done by his orders. What reflections must the mind make at such a declaration! We shall now suppress them out of respect.
“It will be sufficient to say, that your parliament have judged it to be their indispensable duty to act with rigour against this curate, in order to teach the inferior ministers of the church, that whatever orders they may have received from their superiors, they are answerable for putting them in execution, when these orders tend to disturb the public tranquility, and particularly when they are liable to foment a schism, the consequences of which cannot be considered without horror.
“May we be permitted, Sire, to supplicate you to take into consideration the remonstrances which your parliament had the honour of presenting you last year. You will there find it demonstrated, that the error in the representation of a bill of confession, which the curate of St. Etiénne du Mont alledged for the reason of his refusal, cannot be a legal cause for refusing theholy viaticumto a dying person, and that the exaction of this bill is only a vague pretence for refusing the sacraments to those who are suspected of not accepting the constitution.
“May we be allowed to recal to your memory, the principles established in the representations which your parliament made previously to you in 1731, and 1733, upon the first refusal of the sacraments that came to their knowledge. TheBull Unigenitusis not a rule of faith. The church alonecould give it this supreme character, and the church has not given it. This bull is even of such a nature that it cannot be a rule of faith. It offers nothing certain. The different qualifications it gives to the propositions which it condemns, and this indetermination, absolutely oppose its ever being a dogma of faith: These maxims of France, which form the basis of our liberties, would otherwise soon be destroyed.
“Will you, then, Sire, permit the torch of schism to be lighted up in the heart of your kingdom, on account of the acceptance that is exacted of this bull. There is nothing more menacing to an empire, than divisions in religious matters: They become still more fatal when the cause is unjust. Let them not be introduced into your kingdom, stifle them in their birth, and to that end let your parliamentsact. They alone can restore a calm, by the vigilant exertion of their institution. A dying person may at every instant have recourse to the magistrate, to claim the benefits that may be inhumanly denied him.
“If you reserve to yourself the care of making provision in this case, however favourable your intentions may be, the distance of places, the importance of your occupations, the difficulty of gaining access to the foot of your throne, will prevent their effect.
“Severity will not so effectually suppress the designs that veil the schism, as dispatch. Its progress is to be dreaded. Preachers already arise, who endeavour to disturb the people’s minds, and make our churches echo with their seditious sermons. If the fire encreases, it is to be feared that the flames will spread to such a degree,that no authority will be sufficiently powerful to stop the conflagration.
“Let us call to mind in the history of past ages, those bills of association; those extorted declarations in the tribunal of penance; those scandalous sermons which spread the alarm in timorous consciences; those bloody wars carried to such an excess, that shook even this throne.
“Struck with dread at the sight of these great misfortunes, we shall not cease, Sire, to rise up against all such proceedings as tend to schism; and we shall not cease to lay before you their shocking consequences. To prevent our acting, to stifle our voices, we must be annihilated. And if by an event which we should consider ourselves as almost guilty to foresee, it should happen that our constancy to support the rights of your crown, those of the state and of religion, we shoulddraw upon ourselves your Majesty’s disgrace, we should lament without altering our conduct.
“Incapable of betraying our duty, we should have nothing to offer you in homage but our tears, till time should convince you how advantageous it is for you, that your parliament at no period swerve from the inviolable fidelity they owe to religion, to their country, and to their King; and that in their archives may be found the uninterrupted tradition of conduct and maxims, which secure the tranquility of your kingdom, and the independance of your sovereignty.
“Such, Sire, are the most humble and respectful remonstrances which the counsellors in parliament assembled, have the honour of presenting to your Majesty.
“Done in parliament, this13th of April, 1752.
“Signed,“De Maupeou.”
This fine discourse, written with energy, did not proclaim peace, but was, on the contrary, a declaration of war, founded in appearance upon the exigencies of the police, and the tranquility of the state; the spirit of party was, however, its only dictator: The parliament being composed almost entirely of Jansenists, wanted to destroy the Molinist cabal. Each pursued his private prejudices, and no one thought of the advantage of the state.
The King, in answer to these representations, declared, that he should take upon himself to punish such priests as gave offence to the state, by refusing the sacraments, and forbad the parliament interfering in the matter: but this court took care not to obey. So far from submitting, they published an arret, expresly ordering the priests to ask no bills of confession from the sick people, and to administer the sacraments to them, withoutinterrogating them in any shape upon the subject. As ordonnances are generally of greater latitude than they should be, this body, having become all at once Theologists, availed themselves of this opportunity to forbid the preachers using certain expressions, and they specified the terms in which their sermons should be conceived.
Idle people, who deride every thing, even the most serious affairs, turned this arret into ridicule. The wits of Paris said that the parliament had pared the preachers nails in such a manner, that they could not scratch the Jansenists any more.
Such sick people as wanted to commune, purchased an arret, which they presented instead of a bill of confession. The retailers of bon-mots said, “That the parliament of Paris were going to establish a communion office at Paris, where the Jansenists might furnishthemselves with each sacrament, at the rate of forty-two sols tournois, for an arret.”
The court issued another ordonnance in favour of theBull Unigenitus; but the parliament, without paying attention to it, sent forth decrees against the priests who refused to administer. The two parties became inveterate, by their reciprocal obstinacy.
The Dauphin’s illness, which happened at the height of this dispute, produced some short truce. This Prince found himself indisposed, as he retired to his apartment on the first of May, 1752, at night. His disorder was the smallpox, as was visible from the usual symptoms. He happily recovered from it; and the King, who was at first alarmed, testified great joy upon this Prince’s recovery.
Louis XV. is very fond of his children; and particularly the Dauphin: neverdid a father sympathise so much at the vicissitudes of his family. He pays remarkable attention to all those who belong to him. Whenever the Queen is the least indisposed, he flies to her apartment, and never leaves her till she is better.
All France congratulated him upon the recovery of the presumptive heir to the crown. Each body of the state demonstrated their joy by some particular rejoicings, and the people displayed theirs by general festivity.
I resolved in turn to testify my satisfaction at this happy event, by an analogous feast; but I would do nothing without consulting the King. I imparted to him my design, which he approved of, and my plan, which he applauded.
Every one that has heard my name mentioned, knows that I obtained BELLE-VUE, where I had exhausted the refinements of art to make an agreeablereceptacle for the King. These kinds of feasts must be allegorical, otherwise they do not express the subject of the rejoicing.
My decoration represented various dens surrounded with a piece of water, in the middle of which was seen a luminous dolphin. Several monsters attacked it, in vomiting flames; but Apollo, who was its protector, hurled his thunder at them from above, and a large quantity of fireworks compleated their destruction, as well as that of their residence. The scene then instantly changed, and became the brilliant palace of the sun, where the dolphin re-appeared, in all its splendor, by means of a magnificent illumination, which lasted all night.
Scarce had the Dauphin recovered from his disorder, before the parliament and the bishops engaged a-new the attention of the court and the city. It was the peace that gave sufficient leisure to attendto these disputes. In time of war, they would have had other objects to engage their attention than bills of confession. The court would have despised such an affair; and the parliament would not have allowed it to be mentioned.
The obstinacy of the parliament, and the stubbornness of the curates in refusing the sacraments, increased the King’s melancholy. I endeavoured to multiply the amusements of his private parties, in order to remove that state of languor which business had brought upon him. I detained him with me at night as late as I possibly could, and did not let him retire, till I had dissipated the clouds of his mind, by every method that I thought would produce the effect. Music was a great assistant to me; Rameaux was very useful to me in this respect. The King had a taste for light airs, and this musician excelled in this kind of composition, Jelliot executed still better thanRameaux composed. He was unrivalled in giving life to expression, and grace to sound. I may venture to say, that this performer, by the gaiety that he spread over the King’s mind, was often the mediator of the most important affairs of Europe.
We know that all our resolutions spring from the actual disposition of the soul. A monarch that refuses every thing when his mind is seized with a certain melancholy, grants every thing when this vapour is dissipated.
This disposition, the usual effect of secondary causes, and which derives its origin from an harmonious sound, a wink, and most frequently from the temperature of the air, does not always pursue the rule of justice. It is unhappy for the people to be governed by mortals subject to a machine susceptible of every kind of impression. It would be for the good of mankind if they were governedby angels. I often repeated, that Lewis XV. was extremely affected by these religious disputes. I often heard him say, he would prefer being at war with princes rather than with Theologians, because with those the treaty of peace terminates the quarrel; whereas with these even the spirit of reconciliation contributes to encrease it.
Marshal Saxe formerly said to me, that if he were to have gained an advantage over the Tartars, he would have given them quarter; but that if he had conquered an army of Theologians, he would have exterminated them without mercy.
A man of wit, and a great politician, was of opinion, that the universities should be shut up, and their theses forbidden upon pain of death. He shewed me a manuscript work, whereby he pretended to prove that all the wars, and all the crimes that had been committed inEurope since the establishment of christianity, derived their origin from religious disputes.
This is easy to believe, he added, if we consider that the spirit of contention, which springs from dogmas, spreads itself through every class, and that it is this general spirit that forms the genius of nations.
The war relating to theConstitutionstill continuing, plenipotentiaries were appointed: these were commissaries, who were to decide, whether the curates had a right to let the King’s subjects die without communing. The Bishops said, this was the business of a council; but the parliament were of opinion, that the Bull Unigenitus was in subordination to the police of the state. These commissaries assembled very regularly; but they took care to come to no determination.
The Prince of Conti, who was always in a passion when this affair wasmentioned before him, said, it should be decided by a court martial.
To this kind of tragedy some comic scenes were united. A curate who was compelled to administer to a sick person, said to him in a loud voice,I commune you by order of the parliament. Another expressed himself thus to a dying man:It is in consequence of an arret of the great chamber, that I bring you God Almighty.
The body of the clergy, who till now had appeared neuter in the affair, entered the lists. The bishops asked justice of the King, for the attempt of the parliament, who interfered in what did not relate to them; and the reason they assigned was, that only God, the Pope, the bishops, and the curates, had the right of administering. They pretended that the great chamber should make reparation to the archbishop of Paris, for having accused him of favouring a schism.
The King was very far from granting them what they required, as he could not obtain of the parliament what he asked of them. Here again it was necessary to issue arrets, to prevent licentious writings, and order certain books to be burnt by the hand of the hangman. These were so many fresh attacks upon the King’s constitution, and what spread an additional gloom over his temper, already too grave.
Of all the royal family, the King was the only one who took this matter to heart. The Queen had accustomed herself to lay all the vicissitudes of this world at the foot of the crucifix: the King’s daughters would not allow theBull Unigenitusto be mentioned: the Dauphin only said that he could not speak, but that if he were King, he should know what he had to do; the Princes of the blood despised these disputes; the courtiers wanted to be meddling, but theyknew nothing of the matter. It was happy for France that old Marshal Belleisle was no Theologian, for he would have embroiled matters still more. His highest ambition was to fathom these things; but his age and vocations did not allow him to signalize himself upon this occasion. He nevertheless, engaged in a dispute upon predestination, to seem as if he was acquainted with what he was entirely ignorant of.
Both parties were very solicitous for my declaring myself openly; but besides my discovering that they were both head-strong, my happiness prompted me to wish for the annihilation of the Constitution, as the King’s repose so much depended on it.
I proposed to Lewis XV. that he should forbid all his subjects, as well ecclesiastics as seculars, to pronounce the wordsBull,Jansenist, orMolinist, on pain of being severely punished; and to sentencesuch priests as should be convicted of having refused the administration of the sacraments, to perpetual imprisonment. But the goodness of his heart would not allow him to exercise any methods that had an air of violence or despotism. He wanted to be obeyed; but then, only by moderate and gentle means.
While it was debated what method to pursue, to terminate these disputes, a courtier said to the King, “Sire, there is but one resource, which is, to renew theVingtieme, and examine the ecclesiastical revenues; the bishops will forget theBull Unigenitus, when they are reminded that they must give money to the state.” In effect, this new object diverted their attention from the other.
The arrival of the Infanta of Parma completely dissipated that lowring disposition which theConstitutionhad spread at court. Nothing was thought of butentertaining the Princess. I advised the King to give a ball and an opera. In these diversions I strove rather to amuse the King, than to divert this sovereign Princess his daughter.
The ministers of state, whom I often saw, told me that they were very much occupied. The war had thrown them into arrears for ten years. The King had given M. d’Argenson a coadjutor in the war department. This was the Marquis de Paulini, a very able and intelligent man; but arts and literature engaged part of that time which might have been employed for the benefit of the state.
He knew more than a learned man need to have done, and he was unacquainted with more things than a minister should have been ignorant of. The King had sent him to examine the military state of France. He had just visited the southern parts to reconnoitre the fortresses, and the troops quarters.When he made his report to the King, he added, that he had seen the protestants of Languedoc, and that at a time they were suspected of taking up arms, they were assembled to offer up prayers to heaven for the recovery of the Dauphin. This intelligence greatly affected the King. It gives peculiar pleasure to sovereigns to find all their subjects attached to them. This, perhaps, is the most tender point of self-love in princes.
Though the King, by an effect of that goodness which is so natural to him, often laid aside his disposition to make our conversation agreeable, the progress of melancholy was very rapid upon my mind. At certain moments every thing was insipid to me. I was convinced of the propriety of what Madam de Maintenon once said, that in every state of life there is a dreadful vacuum. What increased my anxiety was, that I was obliged to put on a gay appearance, atthe very time that the most gnawing grief preyed upon me.
Here will I say, to the scandal of human greatness, that notwithstanding the favour I possessed, and the brilliant elevation of my fortune, I several times resolved upon quitting the court—Ambition alone doubtless with-held me, for we sacrifice all things to our predominant passion. It was this same ambition that, having raised me to the pinnacle of grandeur, made me pass more unhappy days than those which would have glided away, if I had remained in a less distinguished state. Every body envied my fate, and no one thought but that I was the happiest of women: but the state of my felicity was far from corresponding with the idea the world entertained of it.
Those who aspire to a more elevated sphere than that wherein virtue has placed them, fancy that riches, rank, grandeur and titles, contribute to happiness,and that in these imaginary advantages felicity centers. This is a fallacious opinion; when once we are accustomed to these things, they seldom afford us any gratification. The idea which we frame of them, pleases us more than possession itself. Neither magnificent palaces, superb furniture, nor the most valuable jewels in Europe, which I possessed, could make me happy.
The Count de Maurepas, who had compelled me to request the King to grant him an exile, signified to some persons about me, that he should like to obtain leave to reside in common at Pontchartrain. This castle is situated near Versailles, and he was expressly forbid, upon leaving court, to reside there. I voluntarily took upon myself to obtain this permission for him. I asked it of the King, who said to me, in granting it,—“Indeed, Madam, I admire your noble soul; the Count de Maurepashas grievously offended you, and you, nevertheless, interest yourself in his behalf.”
When the Count’s friends found that the King so easily granted what was requested in his favour, they spoke to me about his recall to court: But I refused to employ my credit to obtain this fresh indulgence. This was the only thing wherein Lewis XV. possessed unshakeable fortitude. I do not know, that notwithstanding all this Prince’s favour, with which I was honoured, I could in this have succeeded. The attempt might have been dangerous to myself: We should never expose ourselves to a refusal: it is the first step that leads to indifference.
It was then publicly said, that this minister was indebted for this favour to the Cardinal de la Rochefoucault and the Duke de Nivernois, his relations, who at that time had some interest at court:but the truth is, that neither the one or the other had any share in it.
The King was always surrounded with remonstrances from his parliaments. I complained to the gentlemen of the gown, of the disturbances which they themselves created in the state, by their obstinacy. They always answered me, that they laboured for the glory of the King, the welfare of the state, and the happiness of the people. It is, in my opinion, a great abuse of the administration in France, that private individuals, born in obscurity, and almost constantly without any other merit than that of having purchased an employment for two or three thousand louis d’ors, should consider themselves as part of the monarchy, and be continually struggling with the royal authority. Marshal Saxe, before he died, told the King, “Sire, I advise you to reimburse your parliaments; for it is from the value of theiremployment, that these people derive their consequence.”
These disputes brought religion into contempt. An author, who, supposing that theBull Unigenituswas entirely destroyed, as the parliament wanted to compel the curates to administer to sick people, suspected of Jansenism, published a performance under this title, “The funeral oration of that most high and powerful Princess, the Bull UNIGENITUS.”
It has been observed, that such books as these corrupt the morals more than heresy itself. The parliament, who would not submit to the King, said, that they opposed the schism. The Jansenists, who were refused the administration of the sacraments, maintained with all their might, that the gates of heaven were shut against them, in opposing the will of God; which was a schism in this doctrine, as they allowed of no flexibility in Providence:wherefore Mr. Maillebois, the father, said, that the Jansenists were guilty of heresy against their own sect; for they wanted to force predestination, after having taught that it was immutable.
This scene, which continued for several years, made France quite ridiculous. The protestants of the kingdom, who were forbidden to speak, said nothing: but those in foreign countries avenged their brethren’s taciturnity, by publishing the most poignant satires against those disputes, without considering that the same principles amongst them produce the same divisions.
Engraving was made a party in this affair; a plate was dedicated to me, wherein the hall of the parliament of Paris represented the school of the Sorbonne. All the presidents and counsellors were dressed like doctors, who instructed the King and the bishops ofFrance in points of religion, and these were depicted as scholars.
These sarcasms, which afflicted the King, embittered my days. I spoke upon this subject to the first president, complained to the bishops, and had some curates introduced to me, to talk with them about it; but these measures procured me no relief, this dispute having given importance to these people, in the opinion of the world, which they would not otherwise have obtained.
Whilst a proper medicine was sought to appease these troubles, the clergy came to ask justice of the King, for the attack the parliament had made. This body had issued arrets in regard to matters that were more connected with theology than policy.
The King appointed a commission to take cognizance of this affair. The deputies of the bishops required preliminaries to be settled, before they enteredupon a negociation. They demanded, 1. The annulling of a certain arret, as an attack upon the authority of the church. 2. The establishment of bills of confession. 3. A reparation of honour from the parliament to the archbishop, for having accused him of favouring a schism. The King granted the deputies partly what they asked, and refused them the other part. He annulled the arret, not only because it infringed the rights of the clergy, but because it attacked his own authority; “inasmuch, said the declarations, as the parliament have not a right to make regulations; and that in case they should have any to make, they should apply to the King, to ask him leave.”
In the same arret it was set forth, that no case could occur, wherein a priest was entitled to refuse the sacraments on account of theBull Unigenitus. It was therefore added, “that with respectto spiritual administration, the lay judges had no right to take any cognizance, unless a law-suit ensued.”
These distinctions did not restore peace, but war continued. They fought as before with the weapons of remonstrance. The parliament, who were desirous of interfering as a party in the affair relating to the administration of the sacraments, would not content themselves with being only judges. New satyrical writings made their appearance: they spared neither church nor state; and the King was greatly mortified by them. I often entreated him to pay no regard to these wretched pamphlets, whose low obscure authors were more deserving of contempt than chastisement. But I could never prevail upon him to take this revenge, which is the only one that should gratify sovereigns, with respect to these unfortunate scribblers.
To convince him what sort of animals these authors were, I sent for one into my apartment at Versailles, after having promised him pardon for the book he had wrote, and also my protection. The King saw him, and spoke to him for some time; after which he said to me, in raising his shoulders, “Indeed, Madam, you are right, those folks deserve more to be pitied than hated.”
Though Europe enjoyed a state of tranquility in 1753, this was a period of troubles and divisions in France.
The nobility of Brittany shewed themselves equally turbulent as the bishops, the clergy, and the parliament. They protested in a very high stile, against what had been determined by arret, during the assembly of the states. They had no such right. This assembly in a body represent the royal authority; so that their deliberations are above the protestations of any individuals that composeit. Louis XV. had several letters de cachet dispatched, which exiled the bishops in their dioceses, and the gentlemen in their estates.
Marshal Belleisle said, that “Letters de cachet in France were the only specific for curing the disorder of disobedience: but that they were so often used, that it was to be feared, they would at length produce no effect?” But this remedy is not always made use of by the King; ministers oftener apply it than the Prince: this is what renders the French administration so odious to foreigners. I have, nevertheless, heard a man of great sense applaud the use of them. He pretended thatorderwas produced by thisdisorder. “It is said, continued he, that the King of England has no authority to arrest the lowest of his subjects. This is very well in England, where a republican spirit keeps every one within the bounds prescribedto him by the constitution; but, in France, where nobody is acquainted with the laws, where the climate and society excite every man’s desire of speaking, all would be lost, if the administration had not the authority of stopping this natural impetuosity of Frenchmen, &c. &c.
“This authority lodged with the sovereign is, perhaps, necessary amongst us; without it the great bodies politic would infringe too much upon the rights of the crown. We have often seen in France, the clergy, the third estate, and parliaments, endeavouring to rule over the rights of the King. If the sovereign had not then the power of stopping the proceedings of these bodies, all government must have subsided; for it cannot be imagined, that those, who represent the church and the people, would rule with a spirit of moderation and patriotism. Inevery state of life, man is animated with ambition, and the most dangerous kind of ambition is that which has for its pretext the glory of God, and the happiness of the people.”
The same year gave us one example of this, with respect to the parliament of Paris, to whom the court paid too great deference, and who were so daring as to speak to the King in these words, in one of their remonstrances.
“If those persons, who abuse your Majesty’s confidence, pretend to reduce us to the alternative, either of failing in our duty, or incurring your disgrace, we declare to them, that we feel ourselves possessed of courage to become the victims of our fidelity.”
M. de Belleisle, who personally attended at this last representation, said to the King, that after thiscoup d’eclat(bold stroke) the parliament must either be dissolved, or the administration of thekingdom given up to them. Lewis XV. banished them to Pontoise; but this did not increase their docility: chastisement came too late; they had been accustomed to withstand the government. From the extremity of their exile they braved the authority of the King, who upon this occasion testified less fortitude than the parliament did weakness. They were exiled to punish them for having interfered with the bills of confession; and they were no sooner at Pontoise, than he decreed the seizing of a priest, for having refused the administration of the sacraments.
Two marriages took place, which in some measure diverted these parliamentary broils. That of the Prince de Conde with Madamoiselle Soubise. There were at first some difficulties raised, with respect to the titles of the house of Soubise; for this was a ticklish period, when obstacles were started on every hand;but the King found out a modification, by granting to both the houses of Bouillon and Soubise the quality of serene highnesses.
Mademoiselle de Soubise brought the Prince of Conde a portion of five millions of livres in land, without reckoning her jewels and other expectancies, at the death of her father. The Princess whom Lewis XIV. wedded, and the lady with whom Lewis XV. shared his throne, were not by far so rich.
The second marriage was that of the Duke of Gisors, son to Marshal Belleisle, with Mademoiselle de Nivernois. The court is the region of metamorphose: theprocureur-generalFouquet, condemned to death by nine judges, and banished France for his malversation in the finances, would never have imagined that his grandson would become the father-in-law to the daughter of the duke of Nivernois.
This duke was at that time embassador at Rome, and I frequently saw him upon his return. He was, in my opinion, one of the foremost in merit among the lords at court. The characters of the great are generally composed of good qualities and defects, whereby they are less distinguished by their virtues than their vices. This nobleman was exempt from those foibles which tarnish superior talents. He was an active, vigilant, indefatigable minister; a great statesman; a profound politician; uniting with the sublime qualities of a negociator all those which make a man amiable in society, being a good husband, a good father, and a good friend—in a word, an honest man. Interest, that passion which vilifies the great, found no refuge in his heart. I could willingly compare him to Prince Charles of Lorrain, for the virtues of his mind; and to one of the greatest geniuses that do honour to theage, for the qualities of his head:—he may not, perhaps, be so brilliant, but, then he has more solidity.
These two marriages were necessary to free us from that languid state, in which those mournful disputes had immersed us. It was in vain for me to attempt giving the King a gay turn of mind; those unhappy affairs constantly brought him back to his melancholy state. Besides, I did not now, as I have already said, possess myself that gaiety and chearfulness which, before my residence at Versailles, so greatly characterized me; and it is difficult to transmit to others what we no longer enjoy ourselves.
Lewis XV. who, in his lively moments, took a good deal of pleasure in reproaching me with this change of disposition, said to me one day, “Methinks, Madam, that you throw a great share of gravity into your behaviour. If this continues, I must play my part to make you laugh;I must sing little couplets to divert you.” This was precisely the means I had used to dispel that gloom which overwhelmed him: upon my arrival at Versailles I understood his meaning, and I endeavoured to get the better of my pensive disposition.
The parliament still continued in disgrace: the Prince of Conti endeavoured to restore them to favour. He exerted himself greatly to compass this design. This prince, who had retired from Versailles, troubled himself very little with the perplexities of the court. When the King was informed of the task he had undertaken, his Majesty said,It is surprising that the Prince of Conti who has hitherto never meddled with any thing, should give himself the trouble to bring such head-strong people back to their duty.
His efforts were fruitless; they would not submit to this Prince’s reasons, and he said upon his return to the isle of Adam, “If the King had sent me plenipotentiaryto some prince at enmity with France, I should have terminated the war; but I cannot negociate between him and his parliament.”
The King set out for Compiegne, where the Court was very brilliant. All the Princes of the blood and the nobility of the kingdom repaired thither. It is by custom established, that the subjects eat with the King at Compiegne; in consequence of which several lords regaled the monarch. Among those who gave feasts to his Majesty, one Marquis Regnier de Guerchy, lieutenant general, and colonel of the King’s regiment, distinguished himself the most. Methought he had taste and judgment; for both are necessary to treat a King of France with splendour and delicacy. This colonel’s table at Compiegne usually consisted of two hundred covers, and it happened more than once in this journey, that he had upwards of three hundred guests.It was said of this lieutenant-general, that he had served his country very well, which, according to me, is the greatest elogium that can be given to a military man.
When the King was at Compiegne, he was less taken up with the disputes about religion and the parliament. Hunting and encampments entirely engaged his attention, which gave him an air of contentment, that he lost when he came to Versailles.
The year 1753 was the epocha of remonstrances. The comedians turned their representations into state affairs. The opera of Paris, who saw with regret the success of the other theatres, finding that the French comedians had constantly full houses, thought proper to forbid their performing ballets. The comedians made application to the government, to obtain an edict of council to permit them to have dances. There was somethingwhimsical in their remonstrances to the King; for it is difficult for a set of people, who by their profession are destined to excite laughter, to acquire sufficient gravity to preserve such a serious stile as is requisite in a piece dedicated to a supreme tribunal. One of the deputies said to me, “Madam, the modern productions are so very bad, that the greater part of them cannot be supported without ballets. Capering is a great auxiliary to declamation, I foretel you, Madam, that if we are not allowed to dance, words will be of no signification.” The King laughed when I related to him this slight.
Nevertheless these same French comedians shut up their theatre, and haughtily declared that they could not act, unless they were allowed to dance. This theatrical vacation, which appeared trifling, was really an affair of state. Dramaticperformances prevent an infinite number of vices which idleness creates.
The parliament, who were always in part exiled, no longer officiating, it occasioned great detriment to public affairs. The King ordered them to resume their vocations; they did not obey. The great chamber sent a deputation to Versailles; they made fresh remonstrances, and here things remained.
Happily for France, the Dauphiness was brought to bed, and those disputes, which had spread such a general gloom at court and in the city, were immediately forgot. Public rejoicings inspired such gaiety as dispelled this universal cloud. Frenchmen are seldom long bereft of their chearfulness. A marriage, or recovery, restores to them their natural sprightliness. I do not know whether this continual transition from grief to joy, is not preferable to that pensive disposition of the English, which inspiresthem with a melancholy, from which no secondary cause can retrieve them. A Spanish Ambassador said to me,that the French have some moments of existence, but that the English are in a continual state of mortality.
The new-born Prince was named Duke of Aquitaine. The King forsook business to give an entire loose to pleasure, for which this happy event gave him a relish. It made a sensible change in my disposition, as it inspired our conversation with gaiety, and renewed our satisfaction. Versailles was now the scene of festivity; when all the nobility belonging to court signalized themselves, and the courtiers upon this occasion seemed transported with joy at an event, which in reality must have been a matter of indifference to them.
Such resources as these were necessary to rescue us from that languid state, wherein the sameness of amusement immersedus. I had employed the greatest refinements of art to dissipate the King’s melancholy; but every thing is at length exhausted. Custom destroys even that novelty, which alone can make impression on our senses.
The Duke of Richelieu, who was often of our parties in the little apartments, afforded us great amusement. He related every thing with that insinuating art that so happily pleases; but even his wit betrayed too much of the courtier. One might read in his very looks his desire of success; never did any mortal sacrifice more to fortune; he was for grasping all favour, and disposing of the state as an absolute matter. He publickly said, that he had done all for me, and I had done nothing for him. But if I did not do better for him, he should blame his genius for intrigue, and his ambitious desires, which he had not always the power to moderate. Complaints werefrequently made against him, which I appeased. Several courtiers who had resolved to destroy him, had prejudiced Lewis XV. against him, and I restored him to favour. But I was not willing that he should see the King too often; for I knew his scheme was to gain his confidence, and afterwards to estrange from court all those who had too great an ascendant over him.
The bishops of France, who did not know in what to insult the parliament personally, whom they said pretended to regulate the Romish church, took occasion from the birth of the Duke of Aquitaine, to render them odious to the nation, by comparing them to the parliament of England in the reign of Charles I.
The bishop of Montauban, in visiting his diocesans, to thank heaven for having given a grandson to France, thus expressed himself in his mandate. “The spirit of party and faction was predominant inEngland; there was no stability in the laws, either divine or human; and in the midst of those clouds of darkness which gathered on every side, all things became uncertain or indifferent, except the sacrilegious dogma of attributing spiritual supremacy to secular authority.
“It was at this unfortunate period, that the enemies of episcopacy having prevailed, true religion was entirely abolished, and the regal dignity expired in the opprobrium. We saw for the first time, revolted subjects seizing sword in hand, and leading to a shocking prison, a King, whose only crime was, having too patiently borne their first sedition; the parliament throwing off the yoke of all superior authority, striking with one hand the bishops, and raising the other against the head of their sovereign; accusing him with indecency, and calumniating him withoutshame; condemning him without justice, leading him to the scaffold like butchers, and executing him with fury; and the people infatuated with this execrable parricide, became deeply intoxicated with fanaticism and independence; pursuing like ideots, a phantom of liberty, whilst like slaves, they paid to a tyrant that obedience which they owed to their lawful King. What a dreadful series of crimes! Here a king assassinated in his bed—there another hurled from his throne—all his family banished—the crown transferred upon the head of a foreigner—ever tottering, notwithstanding the blood spilt to secure it,” &c.
The Prince of Conti said upon this occasion, that the bishops should be forbid introducing the history of England into public prayers. This was a most poignant satire against the parliament, which foretold what the state had tofear from this body: but we had no Cromwell in France; and the commons of England act upon different principles from the parliament of Paris.
The English embassador made great complaints, that any one in France should dare to reproach his nation with having put their King to death. He spoke to the minister about it, and the bishop’s discourse was suppressed. The fate of this kind of writings is always determined by the times. If France had been at war with England, the mandate would not have been suppressed; but the peace which then subsisted between the two nations would not allow it to pass.
The parliament’s arret, nevertheless, left a vacuum in the administration of justice, and business languished. I was applied to by a great number of people to prevail upon the King to create new judges. Lewis XV. for a long time resisted these solicitations; but he at lengthresolved upon doing it. He established a chamber ofvacations, who performed the functions of the parliament: but this new chamber was scarce established before the members of the Chatelet declared against it; for divisions now reigned between the bodies of judicature. There was no one in the kingdom that did not declare itself independent of any other; which made a man of wit say, that the Turkish constitution was preferable to ours, as the divan alone regulated the state; whereas every parliament in France created confusion in the kingdom.
Some bailiwicks and presidials in the jurisdiction of the parliament, wanted to share in the general disobedience, as well as disgrace. They refused to acknowledge the chamber of Vacations. Here was fresh subject for exile; which made a courtier say, that “every corporation was concerned, and the body of ushers would soon oppose the orders of thecourt.” The foreign embassadors who were eye-witnesses of this disorder, gave their sentiments with respect to the system of their governments. The minister from Venice said, that a senate should be called, wherein the supreme power should be lodged, and which no other body could oppose. The English embassador spoke of a house of commons. The Spanish embassador advised the establishment of the inquisition in France.
The parliament, removed to Soissons, obstinately refused resuming their functions; and the chamber ofvacationsrather increasing the disorder, than restoring public tranquility, it was necessary to form a royal chamber, to pursue the business of the parliament. M. de Belleisle said, “he wished that this chamber might continue till the end of time.”
All France was occupied with the parliament’s exile. Another tribunal was substituted in their place, for which itwas necessary to create fresh edicts, containing a new form of judicature. The court and city were entirely taken up with these misunderstandings. Upon which occasion a prince of the blood said, that “the court was very good to trouble themselves with such trifles, whilst foreign affairs of importance should engage the attention of the cabinet.”
The ministry was in fact greatly weakened during these quarrels. Several members of the great chamber were related to those who filled the first employments in the kingdom. The parliament were by alliance connected with the finances; and many brave officers were either relations or friends of the exiles: Courtiers and those who had their fortunes to make at court, were for the King. I say nothing of the populace, for their opinion is of no weight in France, all divisions of this nature takingplace in a region that is quite foreign to them.
These different parties animated the disputes with so much heat, that they were often carried to extremities. Many duels have been fought in Paris, in defence of the great chamber.
A lieutenant-general walking in the Elysian fields, seeing an officer fighting with a counsellor’s brother, said to the military man, in parting them, “Sir, keep your courage for the service of the state, we shall soon have occasion for it, for we are assured that the English are going to declare war against France.”
Marshal Belleisle, who wanted to be every where, but who could not enter into the disquisitions, because they had began upon theological disputes, which he did not understand, endeavoured to put an end to them. He said to me one day; “In God’s name, Madam, bid theKing abolish the parliament, that they may be no more spoken of at court.”Marshal, I replied,speak to him yourself, I give you the preference.
The members of the Chatelet, who would not acknowledge the royal chamber, had also their partizans, who excited murmurs in Paris; which made a courtier say, that “the Chatelet should be sent to the Bastile.”
Most of the provincial tribunals refused in turn to submit to this chamber. Lyons set the example, and this was sufficient to create general disobedience. Lewis XV. saw with indignation, that his subjects, under pretence of fidelity and submission, should rebel against his orders. If this Prince had been as absolute as Lewis XIV. a civil war would have desolated France; but the goodness of his soul, and that gentleness which characterizes him, made him prefer the general peace of his kingdom to the gratificationof his own particular revenge. Had he but spoke, those who opposed him would have been exterminated.
The kings of France had formerly but very little power; but since they have had three hundred thousand men at their command, who only wait for orders to obey their will, they can do every thing. A mandate from Lewis XV. to two or three regiments, would have been sufficient to have made the parliament return to their duty. But this Prince was an enemy to every thing that carried with it the appearance of violence. He would be obeyed; but then only by gentleness and moderation. Ministers, who are usually as jealous of the royal authority as the King himself, pretended that this very moderation was the source of all the disorders that disturbed the state.
These ministers exhorted me to induce the King to have fortitude. They represented to me the dangerous consequencesthat would result to the state, by leaving the disobedience of the parliament unpunished. Those who were in the interest of this body remonstrated to me on their part, the danger of keeping in exile the depository tribunal of justice, and who alone could administer it: a tribunal that were meritorious for their very resistance, as it was the strongest conviction of their zeal for the glory of the King, and the happiness of the people, &c.
If I had followed my inclination, I should have insisted upon the royal chamber’s being sustained, to the exclusion of the parliament; but I knew the King’s heart. I knew that his natural goodness would prevail over his resolution.
The Duke of Richelieu was ever intriguing with the King, and had gained an ascendant over him. This courtier always fought for opportunities of conversing with the Prince in private, andof obtaining his good graces. I had frequently opposed his designs, and this had determined him to make one great effort for ingrossing the King’s favour. This conduct displeased me, and as he always renewed the attack,My Lord, said I to him one day in the presence of the King,I have received letters from Languedoc, by which I am informed, that your presence is there required. I advise you to fit out for Montpellier, which is in your department; for his Majesty will not have any bishops or governor of that province at Paris. The courtier understood my meaning. He set out a few days after for Bourdeaux, and I seldom saw him upon his return.
The Duchess de Talard, governess to the children of France, being lately dead; the King said to me,Who shall we entrust with the Dauphins young family?“Sire, I replied, Madam Talard was possessed of great merit, which makesit difficult to supply her place. I have thought upon all the women of France, and I do not know of any but the Countess de Marsan, who is capable of succeeding her.”
She was appointed, and this lady, who was acquainted with my interposition in her favour, made me her acknowledgments. This preference I had given her, created me many enemies. All the ladies that were excluded, considered me as the cause of their exclusion: thus is a King’s favourite loaded with public hatred. When there is a vacancy, she can ask it only for one person, and most frequently all those who laid claim to it, become the enemies of her that disposed of it.
The birth of the Duke of Aquitaine had diffused universal joy at court; and his death immersed the royal family again in melancholy—tears succeeded joy—but the subject was soon forgot.Had it not been for the funeral pomp, which lasted several days, he probably would have been no more thought of after the first. The spectacle of his death made tears to flow; without these obsequies, his loss would scarce have been mentioned. The court was still engaged in curbing the strides of the parliament and the Chatelet. This affair filled the state with edicts. A politician said, “that if the government had given the same attention to the other branches of the administration, France would have been the best regulated kingdom in Europe.”
This attention did not, however, restore order; no one of the parties would yield to the other.
At length this great affair, by which France had been so much disturbed, and given foreign nations so much scope for satire, was terminated just as it should have been terminated; that is to say, by the obstinacy of the parliament, and theweariness of the King. Lewis XV. (I cannot too often repeat it in these Memoirs) is a good Prince; his tender and sympathising soul is not of the number of those that are irritated by resistance.
The self-love of kings who will be absolute, creates disorders, which usually swallows up both states and politics. The Prince, who was desirous of maintaining the peace of his kingdom, and advancing the happiness of his people, yielded, the very instant he saw that, by opposing his parliament, a general revolution might be dreaded.
The King’s conduct in this respect, was by many greatly censured; he was accused of weakness. Perhaps he was animated only by respect. The shafts of ridicule began to fly; for kings of France, as absolute as they may be, are not exempted from their attacks. A prince of the blood thus expressed himself before several courtiers. “I alwayssaid, gentlemen, that the mountain in labour would bring forth nothing but a mouse.”
M. de Maupeou had a private audience of the King at Compiegne, where all the preliminary articles of peace were signed. The monarch declared to him, that he should recal the letters de cachet, and that the parliament might return to Paris, where the general treaty of reconciliation was to be framed.
The triumph was too great not to be accompanied with glory. The president immediately proclaimed his victory. He dispatched a courier to every court in the kingdom, and gave intelligence to his brethren, who arrived at Paris in triumph. Although this peace restored tranquility at Versailles, which influenced the happiness of my life; yet I acknowledge, my indignation was kindled to see the lawyers thus get the better of the King’s first resolutions. I was acquaintedwith their obstinacy, and this alone set me against them.
Reports were spread that I was the instrument of this reconciliation, and that the King yielded only at my intercession; but this was rumoured like an infinite number of other things, which had no more foundation. I acknowledge, that I ardently wished that these parliamentary disputes were at an end; but if I considered my own tranquility, I did not forget the glory of the King. I several times scolded M. de Maupeou, in the minister’s presence, for the little deference he paid to his master’s orders, and of the formal disobedience of his body. He constantly replied, with that gravity which is common to those who are at the head of an assembly, that he and his brethren were the most submissive subjects of the state; and this answer irritated me still more.