The Huguenots and French Opinion, 1685-1787: The Enlightenment Debate on Toleration

Epilogue

Epilogue Given the prolonged resistance of the ecclesiastical establishment to any form of Protestant emancipation, and given the major institutional crisis France was experiencing in the late 1780s, the Edict of 1787 was less than a full and explicit bill of rights. One can only speculate whether or not this half-measure would have served as an appropriate basis for the long-term reconciliation of the four groups most directly concerned—the administration, the courts, the clergy, and the Reformed. The fact that in the immediate circumstances, all four accepted the new legislation, however conditionally, is a tribute to the ingenuity with which the text of the law had been drawn up and to the forbearance of those who found the rights accorded the Protestants either too meagre or too generous. The King in whose name the edict was promulgated was perhaps the most 'Fenelonian' of the Bourbons. His conversion to the cause of civil toleration for the Reformed had been a slow and subtle process during which Malesherbes, Rulhiere, and Breteuil had helped him accommodate his conscience to his obligation as ruler of what was clearly no longer an allCatholic nation. Although cynics might argue otherwise, the reference which Louis XVI makes to the Edict of 1787 in his Appel a la Nation (published as he was on trial before the Convention and written in part by Malesherbes) rings true: "I suffered at the injustice which had been exercised for so many years against the Protestants and thought that it was my duty to make reparation for the edict of 1685 by giving them a civil status."1 Two of the men most closely associated with the campaign on behalf of the Huguenots, Malesherbes and Lafayette, regarded the Edict of 1787 not as a definitive settlement but as a first step on the road to full toleration for the Reformed.2 The parlement of Paris, as we have seen, registered the new law by an overwhelming margin. The provincial parlements reacted variously, some resisting or delaying the registration in order to emphasize their autonomy, others because their constituencies were still influenced by Counter-Reformation attitudes; but none was effectively able to block the implementation of the law.3 Some resistance to the edict was to be expected, of course, within the ranks of the Catholic clergy. Bishop F.-J.-E. de Crussol d'Uzes at La Rochelle urged his diocesan clergy not to comply with the new legislation but this intended spiritual subversion was quickly put down following an intervention by Breteuil. A number of ecclesiastical pamphlets appeared in which a Calvinist plot to undermine the nation's social and economic structure was alleged. In its official response to the edict, however, the First Estate adopted a fundamentally positive approach. In the Remontrances which they addressed to Louis XVI, delegates to the Assembly of the Clergy held during the summer of 1788 accepted the general thrust of the new law, 307 308 The Huguenots and French Opinion: 1685-1787 agreeing with the provision that the civil magistrate was the appropriate person to solemnize Calvinist marriages but indicating that the baptism of Huguenot children was still the proper responsibility of the local priest.4 For their part, the leading voices of the Protestant community adopted a realistic, if somewhat cynical, attitude towards the new law. If the administration had granted them a measure of relief, they reasoned, it was not out of affection for the Reformed nor from any sense of remorse at what they had endured since 1685; the edict granted the Calvinists no more and no less than what was politically feasible.5 Given these assumptions, compliance with the terms of the law offered the best hope of gaining further concessions. A few briefs were forwarded to Versailles urging the administration to make clear whether Protestant access to public office and the opening of Huguenot cemeteries were authorized under the edict.6 Rabaut Saint-Etienne was particularly concerned about the reaction to the new law on the part of the simple folk for whom the regularization of marital status was less important than the permission for open-air worship.7 The idea of convoking a national synod to review the overall situation was briefly considered, then abandoned when the summoning of an EstatesGeneral was announced. The Revolution would bring with it a series of spiritual shocks, some liberating, some devastating. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen established the general principle of religious liberty...