By the Rev. M. KAUFMANN, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin Conflicting tendencies in the religious life of the latter half of the LIST OF BIBLIOGRAPHIES CHAPTER I THE GOVERNMENT OF LOUIS XIV (1661-1715) WHEN Mazarin's death left the government of France in the hands of the young King, the country seemed to be so happily situated, so free from dangerous rivals and pressing dangers, that it was capable of determining its own destiny. While France had triumphed over Europe, in France itself the monarchy had triumphed over all rival powers, classes and organisations. The futile struggle of the Fronde had discredited the Parlements, and had exhibited the egotism and the incapacity of the noblesse. France turned to her King with a loyal enthusiasm born of a sense that the monarchy alone could maintain order in the State and ensure its prosperity. 66 At the time of Mazarin's death Louis XIV was twenty-three years old. His character was as yet little known. If Mazarin had not kept the sovereign in ignorance, he had certainly kept him in the background; and hence it was that Louis XIV's declaration "that he intended to be his own first minister" and that "all ministers were to address themselves to him" was received with amusement and incredulity. His singular grace and dignity of manner were already apparent; his amorous temperament was familiar to those who had been brought into close contact with him; and these characteristics endured to the end. But the world had not yet suspected the persistent energy of the young King, or his fondness for the business, of reigning," or, again, the boundless pride and egotism which neutralised many of his best qualities. During the whole of his reign he maintained his habits of regularity and hard work. He was constant in attendance at the various councils by which the business of the State was transacted; and he was always attentive, eager to master the details of business, and confident in his own judgment whether in domestic or in foreign affairs. From the first he was the real ruler of the country, and his mastery increased as his reign advanced. The domestic and the foreign policy of France were at first largely controlled by his great Ministers- Colbert, Louvois, and Lionne though the approval of the King was always a necessary condition of their action, and at each point his judgment had to be C. M. H. V. 1 1 2 The character of Louis XIV [1661-1715 convinced. But, before the end of the reign, the relative importance of the Ministers had greatly declined; they were at last the almost servile executors of the King's will; and he had grown intolerant of opposition and protest. It is difficult to arrive at a judgment as to the abilities of Louis XIV. Lord Acton has called him "by far the ablest man who was born in modern times on the steps of a throne." Clearly, his was no commonplace character or intelligence. One who directed the policy of the first State in Europe for fifty-five years, who achieved many victories, and showed great tenacity and skill in the hour of defeat, must have had powers above the average. No historian has ever denied to him patience, industry, or method. "One must work hard to reign," he wrote, "and it is ingratitude and presumption towards God, injustice and tyranny towards man, to wish to reign without hard work." He laboured at the task of reigning his whole life through, undeterred by ennui, uninterrupted by pleasures or domestic affliction. Montesquieu's judgment, that his character was more striking than his intelligence (“il avait l'âme plus grande que l'esprit "), is perhaps the fairest summing-up of the Grand Monarque. In what concerned foreign affairs and the organisation of the central government he exhibited real skill. But he did not show the same intelligence or the same patience in relation to social or religious problems or the organisation of local government. The extension of monarchical authority and of his own personal power was the predominant impulse with him; and where these were not concerned his attention and energy were apt to flag. His theory of life was theocratic through and through: the King is God's vicegerent, and is possessed of a sort of divine infallibility. The history of his reign passes judgment on this theory as to its effects both on the kingdom and on the King. In his reign the monarchy ceased to be the one principle of unity in the State; it ceased to justify itself as the protector of the people against the nobility and as the successful leader of the nation in war. It became something apart from the people and the nation. The way was thus prepared for the Revolution of the next century. The authority of the Crown had triumphed over, without actually effacing, all rival authorities. Parlements and local Estates and municipalities still existed. The Church still held its assemblies; but, if they still exercised any power, it was by permission of the King. All power came from the King, and it was the fixed determination of Louis XIV that this fact should be recognised by all the officials of the State. When Voysin became Secretary of State, he apologised to the King for referring certain decisions to him, saying that he had not yet had sufficient experience of office to take on himself the responsibility of decision. Louis answered emphatically that it would never be his business to decide anything; that he must always take his orders from the King, and limit his activity to executing them. 1661-1715] The machinery of government 3 The machinery of government developed by Richelieu and Mazarin was used by Louis XIV; but it was developed still further. The essential characteristic of the constitution of France during his reign. consisted in its being a government through Councils, to which, with few exceptions, neither birth nor rank gave any right of admission. The nobility were excluded with jealous care; great ecclesiastics were no longer admitted; the Councils were filled chiefly with men of middleclass birth, usually lawyers (gens de la robe), who owed everything to the King and could not possibly regard themselves as independent of him. The exclusion of those above the accepted level was maintained even against members of the royal family. There were four chief Councils: the Conseil d'État, the Conseil des Dépêches, the Conseil des Finances, and the Conseil Privé, The Conseil d'Etat, unofficially known as the Conseil d'en haut, was a small body of. not more than four or five men, which met in the presence of the King. It assembled three times a week, and in it the great questions of State were considered and decided. All the members could take part in discussing these questions, but the decision rested with the King. This Council was the pivot of the State; but the King took care not to allow it to become apparent constitutionally. No minutes were taken of the proceedings of the Council, and no record was kept of its decisions. Its meetings were merely occasions on which the King chose to ask the advice of those whom he cared to consult. The Conseil des Dépêches was also held in his presence, and considered and decided on all questions relating to the internal condition of France. The Conseil des Finances had under its control all questions relating to taxation, and was also held in the royal presence. All these three Councils were held in the royal apartments. The fourth Council, the Conseil Privé or Conseil des parties, was a body quite different in kind. It was held in the palace, but not in the royal apartments, was not usually presided over by the King, and consisted of a large number of lawyers (maîtres de requêtes). It was not technically a supreme Court of appeal, for its functions were purposely left indefinite; but it was the highest judicial Court in the land, and represented the vague but supreme judicial authority belonging to the King. These were the chief Councils; but there were others, such for instance as those dealing with religion, with the Huguenots and with commerce. In any matter of importance the King was accustomed to seek the advice of persons whose opinion he valued and whom he had no reason to fear, and to decide after listening to their advice. Thus, at the centre, the royal authority triumphed completely, and thrust the Parlement and the sovereign Courts into the shade. His aim was the same in the provinces; but in these the royal authority had to struggle to supremacy through the ruins of a vast number of provincial institutions, customs, and rights. There were the provincial Estates, or |