Part 3

A new object drew the attention of the court. This was to secure the tranquility of Italy--a boisterous country, where the first clouds of war always gather. All the treaties which have been concluded between sovereigns since Charlemain, could never give it stability, because it is the most happy continent upon earth, and the most feeble country in Europe.

Marshal Saxe said before he died, that if France could give a permanent peace to Italy, her population would become more flourishing. This general had demonstrated, that for two centuries more Frenchmen had perished in Italy, than all the other wars had carried off in the rest of Europe.

I have since been told by another general, that the soldiers do not fall there by cannon. They perish there by heat and voluptuousness; enemies by far more dangerous than the indefatigable labours of the North.

Lewis XV. found an advantage in this plan of pacification. He thereby 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.