secured the Dukes of Savoy, ever ready to introduce German troops into
Italy, and to make incursions themselves into Dauphiny, upon the first
misunderstanding that takes place in Europe. Naples, Parma, and
Placentia, under the government of princes of the house of Bourbon,
would have enjoyed a lasting tranquility, but this negotiation produced
no effect.
Marshal Belleisle said to the King upon opening the conferences: “Sire,
we may enter upon the plan of giving a lasting peace to Italy; but I
apprise your Majesty, that the negociation will not terminate but at the
end of the world.”
The Prince of Conti said upon this occasion, “That if a king of France
were willing to prevent a war in Italy, the Italians would oppose him.
This country, which with regard to money, is of itself poor, stands in
need of foreign armies, whose military chests may supply their want of
cash.” The same thing has been said of Germany.
The King received a state of his naval force, according to which it
consisted of fifty ships of the line and twenty frigates. I remember
that a sensible man then said, that we had a navy, and wanted nothing
but sailors--that is to say, we had half the necessary ingredients for
forming a fleet. It was to procure this other half, which proved so
useless some time after to France, that M. Rouillé was so assiduous.
The Count of Maurepas said, in his distant exile, “I know my
successor--he will do so much, that he will at last destroy the French
marine.”
Those who decide at court the fate of the administrations of important
departments, imagine that the province of the marine does not depend
upon the minister who is at the head of it; that there are primary
causes which counteract its progress. They are of opinion that France is
formed to direct affairs by land; and England those that relate to the
sea.
A statesman told me, nevertheless, one day at Versailles, that it was
not impossible for France to have a marine; but to do this the system of
the state must be changed, and the monarchy entirely subverted.
The minister assured Lewis XV. that besides this fleet, there was
another upon the stocks, ready to be launched and put to sea.
The people, who ought always to be imposed upon by preparations, were
satisfied with what was doing in the marine; but politicians and those
who calculated the resources of England were dissatisfied.
At the time that we were endeavouring at the means of navigation, a
projector presented a scheme to the King, for rendering France
navigable. The object was the junction of two seas, by the means of two
rivers. This man at first applied to me, and I sent him to M. Belleisle,
who thought this project of great utility to the state. But several
politicians were of a different opinion. They said that this junction
would lessen the navigation, which should on the contrary be encreased.
The English were quoted, who might easily shorten the course of their
sea voyages, and who endeavoured to prolong them. But what may be
judicious in this respect for Great Britain, might be very impolitic for
France.
I mention these particular transactions, because they fell immediately
under my notice, and the King did me the honour to consult me upon them.
I shall pass over in silence such schemes as were offered to the
administration during my residence at court, and which did not take
place.
When the King acquainted me with the death of the duke of Orleans, who
died the fourth of July 1752, he seemed greatly affected at it. Sudden
deaths made a great impression upon Lewis XV. Philip of Orleans finished
his career at that age when most men begin theirs. This prince was a
striking example of the contrast there often is in the characters of a
father and a son.
This Prince had nothing of the Regent’s disposition. He had passed his
time in praying and bestowing alms. Each day of his life was
distinguished by some christian act. Brought up in the center of
pleasures, he shunned them at an age when the passions strongly plead
for gratification, and when it is very difficult to resist their
intreaties.
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.