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.
The King appointed a commission to take cognizance of this affair. The deputies of the bishops required preliminaries to be settled, before they entered upon a negociation. They demanded, 1. The annulling of a certain arret, as an attack upon the authority of the church. 2. The establishment of bills of confession. 3. A reparation of honour from the parliament to the archbishop, for having accused him of favouring a schism. The King granted the deputies partly what they asked, and refused them the other part. He annulled the arret, not only because it infringed the rights of the clergy, but because it attacked his own authority; “inasmuch, said the declarations, as the parliament have not a right to make regulations; and that in case they should have any to make, they should apply to the King, to ask him leave.”
In the same arret it was set forth, that no case could occur, wherein a priest was entitled to refuse the sacraments on account of the Bull Unigenitus. It was therefore added, “that with respect to spiritual administration, the lay judges had no right to take any cognizance, unless a law-suit ensued.”
These distinctions did not restore peace, but war continued. They fought as before with the weapons of remonstrance. The parliament, who were desirous of interfering as a party in the affair relating to the administration of the sacraments, would not content themselves with being only judges. New satyrical writings made their appearance: they spared neither church nor state; and the King was greatly mortified by them. I often entreated him to pay no regard to these wretched pamphlets, whose low obscure authors were more deserving of contempt than chastisement. But I could never prevail upon him to take this revenge, which is the only one that should gratify sovereigns, with respect to these unfortunate scribblers.
To convince him what sort of animals these authors were, I sent for one into my apartment at Versailles, after having promised him pardon for the book he had wrote, and also my protection. The King saw him, and spoke to him for some time; after which he said to me, in raising his shoulders, “Indeed, Madam, you are right, those folks deserve more to be pitied than hated.”
Though Europe enjoyed a state of tranquility in 1753, this was a period of troubles and divisions in France.
The nobility of Brittany shewed themselves equally turbulent as the bishops, the clergy, and the parliament. They protested in a very high stile, against what had been determined by arret, during the assembly of the states. They had no such right. This assembly in a body represent the royal authority; so that their deliberations are above the protestations of any individuals that compose it. Louis XV. had several letters de cachet dispatched, which exiled the bishops in their dioceses, and the gentlemen in their estates.
Marshal Belleisle said, that “Letters de cachet in France were the only specific for curing the disorder of disobedience: but that they were so often used, that it was to be feared, they would at length produce no effect?” But this remedy is not always made use of by the King; ministers oftener apply it than the Prince: this is what renders the French administration so odious to foreigners. I have, nevertheless, heard a man of great sense applaud the use of them. He pretended that order was produced by this disorder. “It is said, continued he, that the King of England has no authority to arrest the lowest of his subjects. This is very well in England, where a republican spirit keeps every one within the bounds prescribed to him by the constitution; but, in France, where nobody is acquainted with the laws, where the climate and society excite every man’s desire of speaking, all would be lost, if the administration had not the authority of stopping this natural impetuosity of Frenchmen, &c. &c.