wished the government to check the progress of inquiry;54 and the pope himself, in a formal remonstrance with Henry, urged him to remedy the evil, by prosecuting the heretics, from whom he thought all the mischief had originally proceeded.55 But this the king steadily refused. He saw the immense advantages that would arise, if he could weaken the ecclesiastical power by balancing the two sects against each other;56 and therefore, though he was a Catholic, his policy rather leaned in favour of the Protestants, as being the weaker party.57 He granted sums of money towards the support of their ministers and the repair of their churches ;58 he banished the Jesuits, who were their most dangerous enemies ;59 and he always

the Spanish ambassador to his own court, in 1615, in Capefigue's Richelieu, vol. i. p. 93; and for the rise in Paris, in 1592, of a politisch und kirchlich gemässigte Gesinnung," see Ranke, die Päpste, vol. ii. p. 243.

The Sorbonne went so far as to condemn Charron's great work, but could not succeed in having it prohibited. Compare Duvernet, Hist. de la Sorbonne, vol. ii. p. 139, with Bayle, article Charron, note F.

55 In the appendix to Ranke (Die Römischen Päpste, vol. iii. pp. 141, 142), there will be found the instructions which were given to the nuncio, in 1603, when he was sent to the French court; and which should be compared with a letter, written in 1604, in Sully, Economies Royales, vol. v. p. 122, edit. 1820.

56 Sein Sinn war im Allgemeinen, ohne Zweifel, das Gleichgewicht zwischen ihnen zu erhalten." Ranke, die Päpste, vol. ii. pp. 430, 431." Henri IV, l'expression de l'indifférentisme religieux, se posa comme une transaction entre ces deux systèmes." Capefique, Hist. de la Réforme, vol. vi. p. 358. "Henry IV. endeavoured to adjust the balance evenly." Smedley's Hist. of the Reformed Religion in France, vol. iii. p. 19. See also Benoist, Hist. de Edit de Nantes, vol. i. p. 136. Hence, of course, neither party was quite satisfied. Mably's Observations, vol. iii. p. 220; Mezeray, Histoire de France, vol. iii. p. 959.

57 Compare Capefigue, Hist. de la Réforme, vol. viii. p. 61, with Bazin, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. i. pp. 32, 33. See also, on his inclination towards the Protestants, Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil, vol. i. p. 91. Fontenay, p. 94, mentions, as a singular instance, that "il se vist de son temps des huguenots avoir des abbayes.'

58 Sully, Economies Royales, vol. iv. p. 134, vol. vi. p. 233; Duplessis Mornay, Mém. et Corresp. vol. xi. p. 242; Benoist, Hist de l'Edit de Nantes, vol. ii. pp. 68, 205. These grants were annual, and were apportioned by the Protestants themselves. See their own account, in Quick's Synodicon in Gallia, vol. i. pp. 198, 222, 246, 247, 249, 275-277.

59 Henry IV. banished the Jesuits in 1594; but they were allowed, later in his reign, to make fresh settlements in France. Flassan, Hist. de la Diplomatie, vol. vi. p. 485; Bazin, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. i. p. 106; Monteil, Divers Etats, vol. v. p. 192 note; De Thou, Hist. Univ. vol. xiv. p. 298. Compare the notices of them in Sully, Economies, vol. ii. p. 234, vol. iv. pp. 200, 235, 245. But there can be little doubt that they owed their recall to the

had with him two representatives of the reformed church, whose business it was to inform him of any infraction of those edicts which he had issued in favour of their religion.60

Thus it was, that in France, as well as in England, toleration was preceded by scepticism; and thus it was, that out of this scepticism there arose the humane and enlightened measures of Henry IV. The great prince, by whom these things were effected, unhappily fell a victim to that fanatical spirit which he had done much to curb ;61 but the circumstances which occurred after his death, showed how great an impetus had been given to the age.

On the murder of Henry IV., in 1610, the government fell into the hands of the queen, who administered it during the minority of her son, Louis XIII. And it is a remarkable evidence of the direction which the mind was now taking, that she, though a weak and bigoted woman,62 refrained from those persecutions which, only one generation before, had been considered a necessary proof of religious sincerity. That, indeed, must have been a movement of no common energy, which could force toleration, early in the seventeenth century, upon a princess of the house of Medici, an ignorant and superstitious Catholic, who had been educated in the midst of her priests, and had been accustomed to look for their applause as the highest object of earthly ambition.

dread entertained of their intrigues (Grégoire, Hist. des Confesseurs, p. 316); and Henry evidently disliked, as well as feared them. See two letters from him in Duplessis, Mém. et Corresp. vol. vi. pp. 129, 151. It would appear, from the Mém. de Richelieu, vol. v. p. 350, Paris, 1823, that the king never restored to them their former authority in regard to education.

60

Bazin, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. i. pp. 142, 143; Le Vassor, vol. i. p. 156; Sismondi, vol. xxii. p. 116; Duplessis Mornay, vol. i. p. 389; Sully, Economies, vol. vii. pp. 105, 432, 442.

61 When Ravaillac was examined, he said, "qu'il y avait été excité par l'intérêt de la religion, et par une impulsion irrésistible." Bazin, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. i. p. 38. This work contains the fullest account I have met with of Ravaillac; of whom there is, moreover, a description in Les Historiettes de Tallemant des Réaux, vol. i. p. 85, Paris, 1840, a very curious book.

62 Le Vassor (Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. i. p. 279) calls her "superstitieuse au dernier point ;" and, in vol. v. p. 481, "femme crédule et superstitieuse." See also vol. iii. p. 250, vol. vi. p. 628; and Grégoire, Hist. des Confesseurs, p. 65.

Yet this was what actually occurred. The queen continued the ministers of Henry IV., and announced, that in every thing she would follow his example.63 Her first public act was, a declaration, that the Edict of Nantes should be inviolably preserved; for, she says, "experience has taught our predecessors, that violence, so far from inducing men to return to the Catholic church, prevents them from doing so."64 Indeed, so anxious was she upon this point, that when Louis, in 1614, attained his nominal majority, the first act of his government was another confirmation of the Edict of Nantes.65 And, in 1615, she caused the king, who still remained under her tutelage," to issue a declaration, by which all preceding measures in favour of the Protestants were publicly confirmed.67 In the same spirit, she, in 1611, wished to raise to the presidency of parliament the celebrated De Thou; and it was only by making a formal announcement of his heresy, that the pope succeeded in frustrating what he considered an impious design.

66

63 "Elle annonça qu'elle vouloit suivre en tout l'exemple du feu roi. Le ministère de Henri IV, que la reine continuoit." Sismondi, Hist. des Français, vol. xxii. pp. 206, 210; and see two letters from her, in Duplessis Mornay, Mém. et Corresp. vol. xi. p. 282, vol. xii. p. 428. Sully had feared that the death of Henry IV. would cause a change of policy; 66 que l'on s'alloit jetter dans des desseins tous contraires aux règles, ordres et maximes du feu roy." Economies Royales, vol. viii. p. 401.

64

See the declaration in Bazin, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. i. pp. 74, 75; and notices of it in Mém. de Richelieu, vol. i. p. 58; Capefigue's Richelieu, vol. i. p. 27; Benoist, Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes, vol. ii. p. 7; Le Vassor, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. i. p. 58. But none of these writers, nor Sismondi (vol. xxii. p. 221), appear to be aware that the issuing of this declaration was determined on, in council, as early as the 17th of May; that is, only three days after the death of Henry IV. This is mentioned by Pontchartrain, who was then one of the ministers. See Mém. de Pontchartrain, edit. Petitot, 1822, vol. i. p. 409; a book little known, but well worthy of being read.

65 Bazin, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. i. p. 262; Benoist, Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes, vol. ii. p. 140; Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil, vol. i. p. 257; Le Vassor, vol. i. p. 604.

66 Laissant néanmoins l'administration du royaume à la reine sa mère." Mém. de Bassompierre, vol. ii. p. 52. Compare Sully, Economies, vol. ix. p. 177. She possessed complete authority over the king till 1617. See Mémoires de Montglat, vol. i. p. 24: "avoit été tenu fort bas par la reine sa mère." See also Le Vassor, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. ii. pp. 640, 677, 716, 764. 67 Bazin, Hist. de Louis XIII, vol. i. pp. 381, 382.

In 1611, "le pape le rejeta formellement comme hérétique." Bazin, vol. i. p. 174. This is glossed over by Pontchartrain (Mémoires, vol. i. p. 450);

The turn which things were now taking, caused no little alarm to the friends of the hierarchy. The most zealous churchmen loudly censured the policy of the queen; and a great historian has observed, that when, during the reign of Louis XIII., such alarm was caused in Europe by the active encroachments of the ecclesiastical power, France was the first country that ventured to oppose them.69 The nuncio openly complained to the queen of her conduct in favouring heretics; and he anxiously desired that those Protestant works should be suppressed, by which the consciences of true believers were greatly scandalized.70 But these, and similar representations, were no longer listened to with the respect they would formerly have received; and the affairs of the country continued to be administered with those purely temporal views, on which the measures of Henry IV. had been avowedly based.71

Such was now the policy of the government of France; a government which, not many years before, had considered it the great duty of a sovereign to punish heretics and extirpate heresy. That this continued improvement was merely the result of the general intellectual development, is evident, not only from its success, but also from the character of the queen-regent and the king. No one who has read the contemporary memoirs, can deny that Mary de Medici and Louis XIII. were as superstitious as any of their predecessors; and it is, therefore, evident, that this disregard of theological prejudices was due, not to their own personal merits, but to the advancing knowledge of the country, and to the pressure of an age

but the statement of M. Bazin is confirmed in the preface to De Thou, Histoire Universelle, vol. i. p. xvi.

69"Der erste Einhalt den die kirchliche Restauration erfuhr, geschah in Frankreich." Ranke, die Römischen Päpste, vol. iii. p. 160.

70 This desire was expressed several times, but in vain: "Gern hätten die Nuntien Werke wie von Thou und Richer verboten, aber es war ihnen nicht möglich." Ranke, die Päpste, vol. iii. p. 181, Anhang. Compare Mém. de Richelieu, vol. ii. p. 68; Mém. de Pontchartrain, vol. i. p. 428.

"This decline of the ecclesiastical power is noticed by many writers of the time; but it is sufficient to refer to the very curious remonstrance of the French clergy, in 1605, in De Thou, Hist. Univ. vol. xiv. pp. 446, 447.

which, in the rapidity of its progress, hurried along those who believed themselves to be its rulers.

But these considerations, weighty as they are, will only slightly diminish the merit of that remarkable man, who now appeared on the stage of public affairs. During the last eighteen years of the reign of Louis XIII., France was entirely governed by Richelieu,72 one of that extremely small class of statesmen to whom it is given to impress their own character on the destiny of their country. This great ruler has, in his knowledge of the political art, probably never been surpassed, except by that prodigy of genius who, in our time, troubled the fortunes of Europe. But, in one important point of view, Richelieu was superior to Napoleon. The life of Napoleon' was a constant effort to oppress the liberties of mankind; and his unrivalled capacity exhausted its resources in struggling against the tendencies of a great age. Richelieu, too, was a despot; but his despotism took a nobler turn. He displayed, what Napoleon never possessed, a just appreciation of the spirit of his own time. In one great point, indeed, he failed. His attempts to destroy the power of the French nobility were altogether futile;73 for, owing to a long course of events, the authority of that insolent class was so deeply rooted in the popular mind, that the labours of another century were required to efface its ancient influence. But, though Richelieu could not diminish the social and moral weight of the French nobles, he curtailed

72 As M. Monteil says (Hist. des Français des divers Etats, vol. vii. p. 114), "Richelieu tint le sceptre; Louis XIII porta la couronne. And Campion (Mémoires, p. 37) calls him "plutôt le maître que le ministre ;" and adds, pp. 218, 219, that he "avoit gouverné dix-huit ans la France avec un pouvoir absolu et une gloire sans pareille." Compare Mém. du Cardinal de Retz, vol. i. p. 63.

The common opinion, put forth in Alison's Hist. of Europe, vol. i. pp. 101-104, and in many other books, is, that Richelieu did destroy their influence; but this error arises from confusing political influence with social influence. What is termed the political power of a class, is merely the symptom and manifestation of its real power; and it is no use to attack the first, unless you can also weaken the second. The real power of the nobles was social, and that neither Richelieu nor Louis XIV. could impair; and it remained intact until the middle of the eighteenth century, when the intellect of France rebelled against it, overthrew it, and finally effected the French Revolution.