The Duke of Richelieu, who was often of our parties in the little apartments, afforded us great amusement. He related every thing with that insinuating art that so happily pleases; but even his wit betrayed too much of the courtier. One might read in his very looks his desire of success; never did any mortal sacrifice more to fortune; he was for grasping all favour, and disposing of the state as an absolute matter. He publickly said, that he had done all for me, and I had done nothing for him. But if I did not do better for him, he should blame his genius for intrigue, and his ambitious desires, which he had not always the power to moderate. Complaints were frequently made against him, which I appeased. Several courtiers who had resolved to destroy him, had prejudiced Lewis XV. against him, and I restored him to favour. But I was not willing that he should see the King too often; for I knew his scheme was to gain his confidence, and afterwards to estrange from court all those who had too great an ascendant over him.
The bishops of France, who did not know in what to insult the parliament personally, whom they said pretended to regulate the Romish church, took occasion from the birth of the Duke of Aquitaine, to render them odious to the nation, by comparing them to the parliament of England in the reign of Charles I.
The bishop of Montauban, in visiting his diocesans, to thank heaven for having given a grandson to France, thus expressed himself in his mandate. “The spirit of party and faction was predominant in England; there was no stability in the laws, either divine or human; and in the midst of those clouds of darkness which gathered on every side, all things became uncertain or indifferent, except the sacrilegious dogma of attributing spiritual supremacy to secular authority.
“It was at this unfortunate period, that the enemies of episcopacy having prevailed, true religion was entirely abolished, and the regal dignity expired in the opprobrium. We saw for the first time, revolted subjects seizing sword in hand, and leading to a shocking prison, a King, whose only crime was, having too patiently borne their first sedition; the parliament throwing off the yoke of all superior authority, striking with one hand the bishops, and raising the other against the head of their sovereign; accusing him with indecency, and calumniating him without shame; condemning him without justice, leading him to the scaffold like butchers, and executing him with fury; and the people infatuated with this execrable parricide, became deeply intoxicated with fanaticism and independence; pursuing like ideots, a phantom of liberty, whilst like slaves, they paid to a tyrant that obedience which they owed to their lawful King. What a dreadful series of crimes! Here a king assassinated in his bed—there another hurled from his throne—all his family banished—the crown transferred upon the head of a foreigner—ever tottering, notwithstanding the blood spilt to secure it,” &c.
The Prince of Conti said upon this occasion, that the bishops should be forbid introducing the history of England into public prayers. This was a most poignant satire against the parliament, which foretold what the state had to fear from this body: but we had no Cromwell in France; and the commons of England act upon different principles from the parliament of Paris.
The English embassador made great complaints, that any one in France should dare to reproach his nation with having put their King to death. He spoke to the minister about it, and the bishop’s discourse was suppressed. The fate of this kind of writings is always determined by the times. If France had been at war with England, the mandate would not have been suppressed; but the peace which then subsisted between the two nations would not allow it to pass.
The parliament’s arret, nevertheless, left a vacuum in the administration of justice, and business languished. I was applied to by a great number of people to prevail upon the King to create new judges. Lewis XV. for a long time resisted these solicitations; but he at length resolved upon doing it. He established a chamber of vacations, who performed the functions of the parliament: but this new chamber was scarce established before the members of the Chatelet declared against it; for divisions now reigned between the bodies of judicature. There was no one in the kingdom that did not declare itself independent of any other; which made a man of wit say, that the Turkish constitution was preferable to ours, as the divan alone regulated the state; whereas every parliament in France created confusion in the kingdom.
Some bailiwicks and presidials in the jurisdiction of the parliament, wanted to share in the general disobedience, as well as disgrace. They refused to acknowledge the chamber of Vacations. Here was fresh subject for exile; which made a courtier say, that “every corporation was concerned, and the body of ushers would soon oppose the orders of the court.” The foreign embassadors who were eye-witnesses of this disorder, gave their sentiments with respect to the system of their governments. The minister from Venice said, that a senate should be called, wherein the supreme power should be lodged, and which no other body could oppose. The English embassador spoke of a house of commons. The Spanish embassador advised the establishment of the inquisition in France.
The parliament, removed to Soissons, obstinately refused resuming their functions; and the chamber of vacations rather increasing the disorder, than restoring public tranquility, it was necessary to form a royal chamber, to pursue the business of the parliament. M. de Belleisle said, “he wished that this chamber might continue till the end of time.”
All France was occupied with the parliament’s exile. Another tribunal was substituted in their place, for which it was necessary to create fresh edicts, containing a new form of judicature. The court and city were entirely taken up with these misunderstandings. Upon which occasion a prince of the blood said, that “the court was very good to trouble themselves with such trifles, whilst foreign affairs of importance should engage the attention of the cabinet.”