ned
the malcontents, promised that the deputies who had been imprisoned or
exiled by Mazarin should be restored. Mazarin, hoping for some striking
success on the frontier, determined to temporize, and on June 30, 1648,
in open defiance of the orders of the government, the chamber of St.
Louis was constituted as a permanent political body to carry out
reforms. With its establishment the First or Parliamentary Fronde began
its stormy career.

In appearance the Parliament of Paris was like the English Parliament,
bent on securing valuable constitutional rights. Its members demanded
proper control of the taxes, liberty for the individual, the abolition
of _lettres de cachet_. But in doing so they were encroaching on the
rights of the States-General, which was the only representative assembly
of the French nation. And, moreover, it was soon evident that the
Parliament aimed primarily at securing its own privileges. Each step in
the struggle between the Parliament and the Crown brings out more
conclusively the selfishness of the lawyers and their lack of
statesmanship. In the New or Second Fronde the nobles made no pretence
of securing for the nation constitutional rights. They openly demanded
provincial governments, pensions, and gifts of money.

Thus the principal cause of the failure of the Fronde movement was
apparent from the first. The Parliament had no constitutional basis; its
opposition to Mazarin, which was in many respects justified, was tainted
by the egoism and selfishness of its members. It had in reality no great
aims; it had no hold on the people. As time went on the movement was
rapidly wrecked by the intervention of the nobles and court ladies. De
Retz was under the influence of the Duchess of Chevreuse; the Duke of
Beaufort was governed by the Duchess of Montbazon; Conde revealed all
his plans to the Duchess of Chatillon, who conveyed them to Mazarin;
Turenne was encouraged in disloyalty by the Duchess of Longueville.
There was no lack of ability on the side of the opposition; Mole and De
Retz represented talents of different qualities, and the latter remained
the most brilliant pamphleteer of the period. Rochefoucauld, who at one
time was under the sway of the Duchess of Longueville, gives ample
evidence in his _Maximes_ of consummate ability and of a profound
knowledge of human nature; while Turenne and Conde, who at the period
were united against the crown, were the two ablest generals of the day.

Am