Chapter II: Part 2

The curate of St. Sulpice said, that if he had been Pope, he would have canonized the Duke of Orleans, had he possessed no other virtue than having resisted the example of the royal palace. We well knew that the Regent’s house was not the model for christian virtues. The Cardinal du Bois, who ridiculed men, politics and religion, made it the residence of vice and debauchery.

But the Duke of Orleans, who is the subject of our present consideration, possessed none but those virtues which do honour in heaven, and not those which characterize great princes upon earth. His house, which he had divested of all regal magnificence, resembled a convent, of which he was the superior. He supported by charity an infinite number of people, who having no other care than that of receiving it, lived in idleness and effeminacy. His bigotry had made him retire from public affairs, and induced him to let the state take care of itself, at a time that it stood in the most need of assistance.

It is well known that the Princes of the blood who have a watchful eye over the government, keep the ministers in awe, and prevent their being guilty of malversation. Such is the fate of the French monarchy, that the great in France either give themselves up to debauchery, or turn hermits.

The death of Madame Henriette, which succeeded that of the Duke of Orleans, filled the court with mourning, and the King’s heart with sorrow. This Princess was endued with those qualities which endear the great: naturally gentle and affable, she was beloved by all that approached her. A good heart, and a compassionate sympathetic soul, formed her general character; the Parisians did not sufficiently lament her loss: they have no affection but for their Kings; they have none remaining for the royal family.

A foreigner, who was acquainted with the genius of our nation, said to me; “If France were deprived of the Dauphin, before he mounted the throne, no one would regret his loss; but that if he died six months after having wore the crown, all the world would weep for him. He added, that it was not the loss of the person, but the name of King that was regretted in France.”

By the death of Madame Henriette, I discovered in Lewis XV. the qualities of a good father. Tears streamed from his eyes, and his melancholy surpassed his usual hypocondriac disposition. I exerted all my abilities to asswage his grief: but he paid all the rights that nature could extort, before they took effect.

Literature once more disturbed the King and the court. The council was informed that a large work was printing at Paris, under the title of the Encyclopedia. This was a rhapsody compiled from all the dictionaries extant, to which was added, by the compilers, reflexions of a suspicious tendency on religion and politics. This heap of reasoning conveyed no instruction how to think, but only taught how to doubt. A man of letters said to me at that time, the Encyclopedia could only increase the number of ignoramus’s, and warp the minds of men of learning.

Such writings as tended to support materialism, made an impression at court, and this production was ranked in this predicament. The King commanded the two first volumes of this production to be suppressed. The same arret which prohibited them, condemned the publishers of them to pay a considerable fine.

This suppression gave birth to an anonymous memorial upon this subject, which appeared to me very sensible, and which was conceived in these terms.

“The government has established a tribunal to examine the productions of the mind. It consists of a minister and twenty-four royal censors, whose sole employment is to revise manuscripts destined for the press.

“A book that is submitted to the examination of this tribunal, is under the protection of the government. The author has done all that the laws required of him. He is not answerable for the effects that the publication of his book may produce. This literary minister should be its voucher, and liable to such penalties as the author would incur, if he had printed it in a clandestine manner. It nevertheless, daily happens, that a book meets with the approbation of this tribunal, and is often censured by the government. The writer is prosecuted--he is punished in such a manner, as if it had been concealed from this jurisdiction. The parliament takes cognizance of it, the book is burnt, and the author sent to the Bastile. What could be done more, if he had acted in defiance of the ordonnances made upon this subject?

“There is an error in literary jurisdiction, which will always occasion grievances and divisions in the republic of letters. The minister who presides at this tribunal, has neither the capacity nor leisure to peruse all the MSS. that are presented for the press: they are put into the hands of censors, who have neither more time nor more genius than himself.

“They are frequently upon abstracted subjects, and above the capacity of both--then the censors read them without comprehending them, and sign them without understanding them. Their approbation being thus obtained, the work is accordingly printed, the book appears, and the prosecution begins just where it should end.

“The inconvenience that resulted from it would be of no great importance, if the sentence pronounced against the author put an end to the dispute; but it almost constantly happens, that the public interest themselves in the contest. The erroneous maxims it contains are credited; the more they are condemned, the more the book comes into vogue. Its suppression is of no effect, the editions increase in proportion as they are prohibited: for it is only necessary to censure a book in order to raise its reputation. Many works that would have been despised had they passed unnoticed, have acquired importance from the government’s condemning them.

“Hence those various divisions that have immersed the state into greater misfortunes than have been produced by civil wars.

“Instead of chastising the author that has written a dangerous book, the minister who allowed it to be printed, should be punished. The first submitted his performance to the established police for preventing the publication of dangerous works, and the other published it. The first only injured himself, the other injured the state,” &c. &c.

The King had this memorial examined, the reasoning it contained was thought to be just; but it only met with approbation, like an infinite number of others upon the different branches of the administration, the utility of which is acknowledged, but they are, notwithstanding, never executed.

I have observed during my residence at Versailles, that the schemes which succeed are not those that are the most advantageous, but those which are the best recommended.

I have since learned from a man of great discernment, that “so much rigour on the part of the government with respect to literary productions, would be attended with many inconveniences; that printing in France is become a very extensive manufacture, which promotes an infinite number of others dependent on it, and which excite industry; that it comprehends a very important branch of trade, the suppression whereof would greatly cramp circulation; that by diminishing this profession, many others must be abolished, that tend to form the library: that France would be thereby a great sufferer, and neighbouring states reap advantages from it; that Holland, in particular, covetous of all industrious vocations, would seize upon this.

“He added, that Cardinal Fleury having suppressed the printing of romances in France, the United Provinces availed themselves of this prohibition, to encrease their workmen. The number of their presses was greatly augmented, and the kingdom overflowed with these very prohibited romances; so that by this suppression, the state lost its industry without abolishing romances.”

Though the King constantly visited me, he conversed with other women. But his visits to them were, as has been already said, merely casual. These women, who had neither taste nor delicacy, were gratified with those moments that he could bestow upon them, and thought themselves happy to pass a few hours by stealth with this Prince. They had no regular plan, except two or three, who formed the design of supplanting me, and seizing upon the King’s favour. The pleasure of having the King for a lover sufficed them. This idea, which occupied all the powers of their soul, left no room for ambition; so that they were not very dangerous rivals. I knew the King’s temper; enjoyment always disgusted him. The act of gratification was followed by contempt: this is what every woman must expect, who has no other attractions for men than mere personal possession.

The disputes of the clergy, which were renewed, notwithstanding the assiduity of the court to suppress them, kept the state in a constant ferment. All the prelates who disturbed the court, owed their fortune to the King; and this the more afflicted him. Lewis XV. has often said to me, that of all vices ingratitude the most shocked him.

It happened in this dispute, as it does in most others, that it was not confined to the first object. The original point in debate was, a sum demanded of the clergy, to supply the exigencies of the state: the minister carried his views farther; he reflected upon the disorders occasioned by this body to the finances of the state; a calculation was made that a very considerable sum went out of the kingdom every age for purchasing of bulls, and that this treasure of the political government, which was sent into Italy, never returned back to France: that Rome, to whom we paid large sums, granted nothing in return but indulgences. The means of withdrawing from this spiritual dominion, which ruined the temporal state, came next under consideration. But after every thing was thoroughly examined, supputed, and calculated, things were left just in the same situation as they were found.

The Chevalier de Belleisle formerly told me, “that the process between the court of Rome and that of Versailles had continued for several ages, and that it would not be terminated till such time as a King of France arose equally enterprising with Henry VIII. of England. He added, that the ministry had hit upon the wrong object of power to destroy; that we had wrested the sword of excommunication from Rome, but that we had left her in full power to fleece the state; and that we had better let ourselves be excommunicated than reduced to poverty.”

The general body of the clergy incessantly engaged the attention of the court: one of their members disturbed a-new the King’s repose, and troubled the state. The archbishop of Paris forbad the administration of the sacraments to a certain abbé, who was ill and desired it. The sick abbé was required to name his confessor, and as he was known to be a Jansenist, he was asked to accept of the constitution. I have already mentioned this constitution, and the disputes it occasioned in the government. The abbé obstinately refused accepting of it, and the archbishop resolved that the sacraments should not be administered to him.

Lewis XV. was informed of this debate, the example whereof might be productive of a schism in the kingdom. I was witness to his grief; his uneasiness arose from his affection. He loved his subjects, and he was chagrined to see that the disputes of schools should deprive them of the only remaining consolation upon their death-beds. The Princes of the house of Bourbon have always acted more reasonably in religious than in political matters.

The bull Unigenitus put Lewis XIV. to death; some old courtiers have, at least, assured me, that father Le Tellier shortened his days by dint of talking to him of the constitution. The refusal of the sacraments was cognizable by the general police; so that this schism in the spiritual government was attended with a double inconvenience, as it might produce one in the political state.

The parliament of Paris, who seize upon every occasion to reform abuses, and let none escape that may extend their prerogatives; summoned the curate, who had been guilty of no other crime than that of obeying his bishop. A penalty was inflicted on him which the prelate should have been mulcted, and he was forbid relapsing on pain of losing his temporalities. The chief point was to know whether the curate should obey the parliament or his bishop. The case would not have been difficult to determine, if the clergy had been appointed judges, or if the government had been to decide: but the question was who was the competent judge in this case? If the church were permitted to decide the affair, this would be infringing upon temporal rights; and by allowing the parliament this prerogative, spiritual privileges would thereby be usurped. There was a third inconvenience still greater, which was, that the King himself, according to the opinion of the clergy, was incapable of appointing judges.

In this sort of disputes, a national council should be convened; this council is never held, and the disorder always continues. The King commanded the parliament not to interfere in the matter, and the parliament determined that they ought to interfere therein. Louis XV. had displayed sufficient resolution in the last misunderstanding about the administration of the hospital; but this body always forget that they yielded, that they may remember to be stedfast. The King undertook to have the sacraments administered to the sick man; but this method had its inconveniences, for it was necessary to command priests, and they obeyed none but their bishops.

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 engage to 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 the form; 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 refusals from 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 them to attack or provoke one another, by the
injurious terms of _innovators_, _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 longer known 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 of the 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
a progress. 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
greatest height; 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 of religion, 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 constitution _Unigenitus, 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 the menaces 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
establish the 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 into _a rule of
faith_?

“Dogmas of faith are not susceptible of modification; so that
giving to the bull the qualifications or effects of a _rule 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, capable of 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
denominated _a 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 is _a rule of faith_;
but by giving it the effects of _a rule of faith_, is not that
saying that it is a _rule 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, contrary to 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 the form 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 the danger, 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 the
_holy viaticum_ to 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. The _Bull Unigenitus_ is
not a rule of faith. The church alone could 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
parliaments act. 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 should draw 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, this 13th 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, without interrogating 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 furnish themselves with each sacrament, at the rate of forty-two sols tournois, for an arret.”

The court issued another ordonnance in favour of the _Bull 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: never did 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 agreeable receptacle 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 attend to 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 than Rameaux 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 governed by 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 in Europe 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 the _Constitution_ still 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 was mentioned 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 the _Bull Unigenitus_ to 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 they knew 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 words _Bull_, _Jansenist_, or _Molinist_, on pain of being severely punished; and to sentence such 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 the _Vingtieme_, and examine the ecclesiastical revenues; the bishops will forget the _Bull 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 the _Constitution_ had spread at court. Nothing was thought of but entertaining 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, at the 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 Maurepas has 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 their employment, that these people derive their consequence.”

These disputes brought religion into contempt. An author, who, supposing that the _Bull Unigenitus_ was 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 of France 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.