LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
GIFT OF
0
Class
^)
A STUDY
OF TH,.
PARLIAMENT OF PARIS,
AND THE OTHER
PARLIAMENTS OF FRANCE.
A STUDY
OF THE
PARLIAMENT OF PARIS,
AND THE OTHER
PARLIAMENTS OF FRANCE.
A THESIS
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS
OF THE SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY,
FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY,
- BY -
JANE M. BANCROFT, 'Rakms
n
OF
THE NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, EVANSTON, ILL.
OF THE
UNJVERSITY
OF
f4\jjp*fa A. GUILDS, PKINTEK, EVANSTON.
tSS4.
X
.-; ,
'
Of THE
UNIVERSITY
OF
.&U.IF4
Introductory Note
The subject of the Parliaments of France, so far as I am aware, is
treated by no one English author. While frequent allusions are made
to the Parliaments in all histories of France, somewhat diligent search
has failed to find in any English work an adequate explanation of their
origin, their organization, and their political history. The collection of
materials for even so short a thesis, has therefore been attended with
considerable difficulty. The translations of the authorities quoted in the
notes, are, in all cases, those of the writer.
I desire to acknowledge obligation for valuable assistance rendered
in prosecuting my studies, to Miss Florence Gushing, of Boston ; to Mr.
John Savary, Assistant Librarian of the Library of Congress; to Mr.
Frederick Saunders, Superintendent of the Astor Library, and to Dr. W.
F. Poole, of the Library of Chicago.
JANE M. BANCROFT.
Woman's College of the
Northwestern University, Evanston, III.
June u, 1884.
207752
4
information and advice concerning matters of state; a council
which filled the function of both a political and feudal assembly.1
A brief re"sum6 of the reasons for the several theories will be
given.
I. If it could be proved that France had a judicial system
extending backward in an unbroken chain, so that the Parlia-
ments could be connected with the Champs de Mai, under the
Carlovingian rulers, and the Champs de Mars, under the
Merovingian faineants, then the right of the people to a voice in
government would receive historical corroboration, and the
Parliaments would be its still existing monuments. In the
troubled state of France preceding the Great Revolution
industrious researches were made to sustain this theory, and its
best presentation is found in the famous Encyclopaedia edited by
Diderot, and d' Alembert.8 The assemblies of the nation, to
which historians have v applied the name parlemens ge"neraux
were not of royal institution, but were^brought in by the Franks.
Under the first race they were called "Mallum,"8 from the
Teutonic mallen to talk; under the second race, they war&known
as Mallum, placiturn generale, consiliurn, or colloquium; under
the third race, curia regis, judicium Francorum, and subse-
quently parlement. At first all freemen were admitted to
these assemblies; as the nation became greater, each canton had
its own assembly, and only those who held rank or position in
the state were admitted. These general assemblies formed the
public council of the kings. Furthermore, the kings of the first
and second races had their special council or court, and toward
1 Beugnot, Comte de. Documents in^dits sur 1' Hist, de France. Les
Oliin, vol. i, preface, p. 29.
8 Encyclopedic Method ique, Jurisprudence, tome vi, Paris 1786.
8 Gibert, Recherch, histr, sur les Cours de Justice, tome 30, p. 592.
Le mot Parleinentum avait la meme signification que celui de mallum,
qui dans 1'ancienne langue, voulait dire, conference pour parler.
the close of the second race, the parlemens gen<§raux were
chosen from members of the king's court. The reunion of the
public and special council was consummated during the first
three centuries of the third race. The assembly of the king's
court was never identical with the old assemblies of the nation.
The latter were not of royal creation, and those who formed part
of it enjoyed this right, by virtue of being freemen. The king's
court of council was of his own creation. Its existence and
powers depended upon his will. Thus, the editors of the
Encyclopedia regard the Parliament as a transformed institution,
arising from the general assemblies of the first race, the council
and general assemblies of the second, and the council of the
third race, being in each case the institution, which, with the
king, considered the highest interests of the kingdom and
pronounced ultimate sentence of justice.
II. The claims of four several kings of the third race to
be considered as the founder of Parliament, need to be examined.
a. JM. de La Roche-Flavin, a celebrated parliamentarian,
holds that the Parliament of Paris had its origin in the Assembly
ordered by Pepin-le-Bref. Having resolved to go in person to
Italy to aid the Pope against the Lombards, and having invited
the majority of the princes and great lords to accompany him, he
ordered a council or Parliament, "composed of certain men of
fame and experience," in his name and by his authority to con-
sider important matters, and to render sovereign justice in his
absence. De La Roche-Flavin thinks that this body continued
an irregular existence, meeting when the king found most
convenient, and as public matters demanded.
b. Others accord this honor to Philippe Auguste. His
father, Louis-le-Gros, influenced by the popular legends of Arthur
1 Bernard de La Roche-Flavin, Les Parlements de France, treize livres.
Paris, 1G21.
6
and his knights,1 had created twelve peers, six secular, six
ecclesiastical. Philippe Auguste formed from these twelve great
lords what he called the Court of Peers," and their first case was
the trial of John of England for his failure in duty to his feudal
suzerain. When the English king refused to heed the summons
of herald and bailiff unless he could be assured of a safe return,
the Court of Peers condemned him by default, and all of his
possessions in France were forfeited to the crown. This exercise
of authority greatly struck the minds of the time, and increased
respect was accorded the shrewd lawyer-king who had skillfully
dictated the sentence to the court; but there are.no other instances
in which this body of peers in separate judicial existeuce'exercised
authority. After this one memorable act of policy rather than
justice, they re-entered the ordinary court of the king, which
continued to pronounce judgment as formerly.
c. Under St. Louis the enlargement of the Royal Domain
greatly extended the administration of justice, and this king
introduced many valuable judicial reforms. But the forms of
decrees do not vary from those that had been issued by the three
preceding kings, and while St. Louis seems to have more
definitely provided for the judicial functions exercised by his
court, a comparison of historical proof does not warrant the
conclusion that he is the creator of this court.8
d. Philippe le Bel, by an edict of May 23, 1302,4 made
the Parliament sedentary at Paris. From this fact, careless
historians have ascribed to him the creation of the parliament,
1 Sir James Stephen, Lect. on French Hist. ; Lect. viii, p. 20G.
2 Martin, H., Hist, de France, tome iii, p. 582.
8 Martin, H., Hist, de France, tome iii, p. 294. So good an authority as
Martin seems to i'avor this theory, "Un nom nouveau designa cette institu-
tion nouvelle, le norn de parlement, qui jusqu'alors s'etait appliqu6 vague-
uient a toute esp£ce de conference.
4 Maurice Block, Dictionnaire de le Politique, 1880, vol. ii, p. 503.
but this edict merely sanctioned the custom which the Parliament
for half a century had had of holding its sessions at Paris,
and extended its powers to some other judicial bodies.1
III. The present century has produced a number of valu-
able works on the Parliament of Paris and the Parliaments of
France, and a more scientific method of dealing with historical
questions has given better results. What has been called the
third theory, i. e., that the Parliament of Paris was an outgrowth
of the king's council as devoted to judicial functions, has received
the sanction of the late historians, and as Fayard says "rests upon
numerous and irrefragible documents."8 Before stating the
reasons for the acceptance of the third theory, it will be necessary
to make a digression and study the judicial system in France
during the third race to the opening of the 13th century.
Under feudalism, justice belonged to the lord in his domain.
The whole of France was divided into fiefs cr chartered
judicial municipalities. In every fief the lord exercised
hereditary jurisdiction. According to the language of
those times the justice of each Seigneur was either Haute,
Moyenne or Basse, according to the extent of the damages and
the nature of the penalties his court was competent to award.
Every enfranchised municipality also possessed a local tribunal,
which administered justice Haute, Moyenne or Basse according
to the terms of its charter, or its hereditary privileges. The m
Seigneur himself presided in the Seignorial Court, and his vassals
attended him as judicial assessors. They were called peers, or
the equals of those who were to come before them for judgment,
for the principle that no man could be tried save by his peers was
as ancient and as fully recognized in France as in England.8
1 Martin H., Hist, cle France, tome iv, p. 446.
2 Apercu historique sur le Parlement cle Paris, E. Fayard, 1876, vol. i,
p. 60.
3 Picot, Georges, Histoire ties Stats- Genera ux, vol. i, p. 15 ; Paris, 1872.
8
"The feudal court, the union of vassals around the suzerain, was
the sole vestige that remained of the great principle of delibera-
tion in common^ during the course of the tenth century." The
king himself was the Seigneur of the greatest fief of the realm, the
Royal Domain. The feudal court of the Royal Domain was the
exact counterpart of the other feudal or seignorial courts, except
that it was presided over, not by the king in person, but the Sen-
eschal, his representative.
' But there were .questions that did not fall within the range
of feudal law and jurisprudence, therefore, in the provinces
directly possessed by the descendants of Hugh Capet,
Prevots. judicial powers were intrusted to Pr6v6ts, who at the
same time had care of the administration of the domain. This
officer became the judge in all non-feudal cases and was charged
with punishing slight misdemeanors. He was obliged to hold
assizes in all the principal towns. The Prevots were chosen
from the simple bourgeois and were under the immediate
authority of the Seneschal. As the Royal Domain enlarged, the
courts of the Prevots and the Seneschal became inadequate for
the added duties.
Philip Augustus reverted to one of the Carlovingian institu-
tions. Charlemagne had sent officers called " missi dominici "
through every province of the empire to redress all
Dominici. grievances and annually to report to him the wants
and conditions of all classes of his people.1 So Philip Augustus
appointed migratory commissioners to perform circuits through-
out his domain, to listen to all complaints and to transmit them
to the king. They were called Baillis, their offices soon became
permanent, and their circuits well denned judicial districts and
were called Bailliages. The Baillis seem to have been inter-
1 Martin, H., tome iv, p 298. Capitularies, 810. "The missi dominici
were sent by the Emperor with very extended powers, to accomplish, to
inspect and even lo revise the work of justice."
mediate between the Prevots and Seneschal, for as soon as the
custom of appeals (unknown to feudalism) was established, they
exercised the right of judging appeals from the Prevots. As
agents of the royal power, to them belonged the duty of causing
the nobles to execute the ordinances of the king.
The seigneurs, "hauts justiciars" in their own domains, were
jealous of these judicial encroachments, and were not long in
imitating the example of the king, by appointing in their fiefs
Seneschals, Pre*vots and Baillis. The resemblance was imperfect
as the seignorial Baillis could take cognisance of no question
beyond his lord's fief, while the King's Baillis could, at need,
indict the Seigneur himself. Still, it produced this fortunate
result, that as one great fief after another was absorbed into the
Royal Domain, the legal machinery adjusted itself to the change
of masters without a jar. Thus the absorption of fiefs, by which
France became one kingdom, was greatly facilitated. At the
summit of this irregular hierarchy was the king's council, charged
at all times with the political affairs of the kingdom, and now
recognized as the seat of the final judicial authority, the point
whence all appeals ended.
When the Crusaders returned from Constantinople, they
brought with them great reverence for Roman law. Many of the
traditions of the Code of Theodosious had lingered in
Roman law
the judicial life of France, especially in the southern
provinces,1 but when the Pandects of Justinian were found
at Arnalfi in 1137 a genuine revival of the study of Roman law
took place in the Universities of France and Italy. Bologna
became celebrated for her jurisconsults, and the University
of Paris numbered thousands of students. 2 Compilations of the
customs and local laws of the different provinces had previously
1 Vicornte de Bastard d' Estang, Les Parlemenls de France, vol. 1, p.43.
8 The Pope understood the danger to the Church and in 1274 forbade
the study of Roman law at Paris. Martin, H.} touie iv, p. 291.
10
been made, and these were now annotated in the spirit of the
Digests of Justinian. A certain design is apparent in the tone
of these comments, i. e., the elevation of kingly power, and
the abasement of the great nobles.1 St. Louis ordered a general
code to be arranged, and the body of feudal law, illustrated by
observations and explanations from the Roman law, was put forth
in the form known as the Etablissements of St. Louis.8 This
code was intended for the royal courts in the personal domain of
the king, but it gradually penetrated into the seignorial courts.
Up to this time the seigneur presiding over his assizes had
judged the cases that came before him with prompt and trenchant
decision. When issues were involved that were not clearly
defined by customary usage, recourse was had to various ordeals.
8The defendant must plunge his arm into boiling water, and
withdraw it uninjured; or must walk over a pan of coals, and yet
not be burned; or with his arms tied be thrown into water, and
then sink, which was not so difficult; in this way the suitor was
referred to the judgment of God, and the judge saved all pur-
plexing anxiety.
Were the suitor yet unsatisfied, a singular custom of feudal
law gave him a final resource. He could declare the judgment
judicial false, on condition of fighting a duel with each one of
the judges who had declared against him.4 St. Louis,
though a deeply religious, was not a superstitious man, and he
clearly perceived that this judicial combat was but to abandon
the weak and old to the strong and vigorous. In 1260, he
issued an ordinance forbidding the duel in all the jurisdictions of
1 Les Coustumes du Beauvoisis, de Beaumanoir.
Le Conseil a inon ami, par Fontaine. "Le livre de Fontaine, Le
Conseil a mon ami, est le r^sultat de 1' ancienne jurisprudence frangaise
etde la loi romaine," Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, liv. xxviii, chap. 38.
2 Fayard, E. Apergu historique sur le Parlement de Paris, vol. i, p. 61.
• Lacombe, Pet. Hist, du Peuple Frangais, p. 41.
4 Picot, Hist, des Etats-Gen. Organisations judiciaries, vol. i, p. 106.
11
his own domain, replacing it, in cases of appeal by a new exam-
ination of the matter before the king's court.1 This ordinance
had been issued only for his own courts, but, it will be remem-
bered, the Baillis had circuits throughout entire France, and in
this way were brought into relations with the Seigneurs. When
complaints were made of the failure of any lord to do his duty,
the Baillis, instead of permitting the judicial combat, insisted
that the king's ordinance of 1260 was the rule of judgment, and
required the accused to bring proofs and present arguments.
This was virtually receiving appeals. If the Baillis were
unable to decide the matter, they brought it to the king's
knowledge in the presence of his council. The courts
of the seigneurs soon became mere tribunals for unimportant
cases.
The lawyers, who had been studying the Pandects, were
finding other effective ways to increase royal authority. The
Roman law whole feudal law rested upon the possession of land,
favorable to
kingship, as the feudal maxim proves "sans terre sans seig-
neur;" the Roman law rested upon the relation of subject to
king, and king to God; the abstract right of the sovereign was
independent of all ownership.8
In the study of this law and the promulgation of its theories,
kingly authority found justification for all the power it chose to
exert. The legists observing that every imperial command had
been binding throughout the Roman Empire, maintained that
every sentence pronounced by the King's Courts should be
binding throughout France. This was not only to make the
laws of the king universal, but to make him a legislator; a
power which, in the hands of St. Louis, might not be disastrous
1 Martin H. Hist, cle France, tome iv, p. 301.
8 Fayard, Apergu Hist, sur le Parl cle Paris, vol. i, p. 87.
Sir Henry Maine, Early Hist, of Institutions, chapter i.
Freeman, E. A., Comparative Politics, Lect. iv, The King.
12
to a people, but which in the long results of many reigns was to
conduct to the absolutism of Louis XIV.
Again, as feudal ties weakened, it became a legal maxim that
a suitor might " declare his domicile," that is he could decide for
himself whether he would be judged as a vassal of the lord in
whose domains he lived, or as a vassal of the great suzerain, the
king. In the latter case, he was tried in the King's Courts.
There were many reasons why a vassal should prefer the impar-
tial judgment of the latter tribunal, to the partisan decision of
the seigneur whose interests were at stake. It is a cause of
wonder that the imperious barons acquiesced so quietly in these
usurpations, but the code of St. Louis was issued near the close
of his reign, when the nobles were absorbed in preparations for
the great Crusade. Then, although proud and haughty, these
men were ignorant and little disposed to see the drift of subtle
questions of law, while St. Louis had the art of interesting them
in the acceptance of these reforms, by assuring to them all fines
for misdemeanors committed on their lands; he harmon-
ized their prejudices while reforming institutions. Then, too,
the barons viewed St. Louis with love, almost with veneration;
they regarded him as wise and good, and they saw that his
measures were of a generous and national character. Although
of so intense a religious nature, he vigorously repelled papal
encroachment, and laid the foundation of the liberties of the
Gallican Church by the Pragmatic Sanction.1 Yet this very
measure was issued by him as a law resting on his kingly
authority, not on the people's sanction.
At his accession in 1226, there had already existed for some
time a division or section of the Royal Council known as the
chambre Chambre aux Plaids, which considered all appeals and
Plaids. judicial questions. Under St. Louis, this section
Martin, H., Hist, de France, tome iv, p. 310.
13
became sedentary, and formed the Parliament. Twenty-four
members of his royal council were assigned to it, and to aid
them he appointed twenty legists, or men versed in the study of
the law. These humble clerks had previously found entrance
there.1 "So long as disputed questions of law confined them-
selves to the rights in fishing and hunting, or the payment of
feudal dues, the active and warlike barons found no trouble in
legislation, but now law was becoming a science. The once
satisfactory ordeals were superseded by more delicate tests. The
exact truth must be found as to the language and acts alleged,
admitted, or denied; the points of law involved, determined; the
balance of conflicting testimony weighed.3 This was an un-
welcome change to the untutored nobles. Small stools
were brought in and placed below the stately benches of the
judges. Here sat the legists, base-born roturiers in mean black
gowns, but trained at Bologna or Paris in the study of the Roman
law, and curiously gifted with the art of untangling the web of
legal difficulties, and deducing the just conclusion. The lords,
knights, and prelates at first listened patiently to long-drawn
discussions about rules of law they could not comprehend, and
Latin quotations they did not understand; but the hunting-fray
and the tournament were calling them away, and the weary
hours became intolerable. Especially thankless did the task
appear, when at the close of every session it was found that the
humble clerks in the black gowns and caps, while affecting to
suggest the decisions of the court, had really dictated the answers
of the illiterate barons. From this moment the great vassals of
1 Beugnot, Comte de. Essai sur r organ judic. p. 3. On ne pent
determiner avec precision a quelle epoque commenga cette entree des
Itfgistes; mais il est certain que plusieursdes jugessont "qualifies clericos,,
dans un arret rendu en 1222.
* Desmaze, C. Le Parlement de Paris, avec une Notice sur les autres
Parl'ements de France, Paris, 1859. Chap, i, p. 9.
8 Martin, Hist, de France, tome iv, p. 810.
u
the crown began to abandon judicial functions to the men of law,
but as peers they always remained members of Parliament, and
appeared there when suits concerning their equals were involved,
or in grave cases when their opinion was necessary. For all
ordinary cases, the conseiller clercs, as they were called, were left
to themselves. They exchanged the low "marche-pieds" for the
vacant benches, and soon obtained titles recognizing the real
importance of their office. luThey constituted a formidable
judicial aristocracy opposite the feudal and sacerdotal aristocracies,
and more out of ambition than gratitude they confounded law
with the throne, and employed the royal scepter to break the
swords of the noblemen and the crosier of the prelates."2
Philippe le Bel thought of appropriating the organization of
Parliament to the reforms he purposed to accomplish. By an
ordinance of May 23, 1302, he ordained "for the convenience of his
subjects and the expedition of affairs, there should be held every
year two sittings of the Parliament of Paris." We have now
before us an outline of the judicial institutions extending to
the time when historical truth becomes easy to verify, and the
question of the origin of the Parliament of Paris is again
reached.
It cannot be doubted that the tradition of old Roman law
and the force of local customs lingered on through all changes,8
but it is not true that these customs and laws were
Reasons in
• theThinf administered unchanged. The mallums of the first
race were not a stable institution. They were too
much affected by the disorders of the times and the continual
changes of boundries. Under the second race Charlemagne
gave more complete forms to these assemblies, by combining
1Fayarcl, Apergu Hist, sur le Parlement de Paris, vol. i.
* Guizot Hist, of Civ. in France, vol. iii, p. 278.
8 Guizot, Hist, of Civ. in France, Lecture xi. Michelet, Orgines du
Droit Frangais. Bastard d' Estang, Les Parl de France, vol. i, p. 44.
15
under one authority, territories previously ruled by many princes.
If these essemblies were the proto-type of any great institution
it naturally was of the States-General as Boulle'e well says:1 "One
cannot prevent himself from thinking that the States-General
was inspired by the still recent recollections of the political
gatherings of Clovis and Charlemagne." When we consider
how the feudal system renewed all France; how it changed the
relation of man with man; how it affected the manners and ideas
of the people, no less than its laws and government, how can we
think that the Parliament of Paris should alone remain standing
in the midst of such an overthrow?2 Institutions exist in society
which belong to all times, and without which a people, however
little civilized, could not endure for a day. Such are judicial
institutions. The same forms do not always exist; one which
has lost its power is replaced by another filled with youth and
strength, but society can not do without justice. It is not
surprising that historians have considered the successors of
different institutions as simple transformations of the same
institutions. Voltaire says:3 " To represent a nation one must
be nominated by it, and removed at its pleasure," but the
magistrates of the Parliaments received their places from
the king, and held them at his will. Furthermore,- to prove
their long descent, the Parliaments should possess some
of the attributes belonging to the assemblies of the old
dynasties; but they were only called upon to deliberate, con-
1 Boullee, Hist, des Etats G6ne"raux et autres Assemblies Representa-
tives cle France, depuis 1302 jusqu'en 1629.
2 Beugnot, Comte de, Documents Im'dits sur 1' Hist, de Franc 1839.
Les Glim, vol. i, preface, p. 23. The last fifty years have been remarkably
fruitful in investigations and descoveries, shedding light upon the history
of France. The student of history has no more precious store-house of
new and valuable material than the magnificent " Collection de Documents
Incdits sur 1' Histoire de France" still in course of publication by the
Ministry of Public Instruction.
8 Essai sur les rnoeurs et 1'esprit des nations.
16
cerning peace and war, or money grants. The whole spirit of
their institution confined them to the administration of justice
and the registration of edicts. Not until after the meeting of the
Estates at Blois in 1576 do we find them asserting themselves to be
the delegates of the States-General, and as such called to discuss
great state interests, and this pretension rests upon a statement
casually introduced.1 The* members , of the Parliament them-
selves were divided upon this question as numerous references
prove.2 The burden of proof seems to favor the theory that
has become generally adopted by the jurists and historians of
the 19th century that the Parliament of Paris is not the repre-
sentation of the old national assemblies or mallums, not a special
creation of any one king, but the outgrowth of the king's
council. This charged at all times with the political affairs of
the kingdom, by the extension of royal power and the increase of
royal justice, was inevitably led to separate a section of the
council and to devolve upon it the administration of justice.
This section by the natural process of growth became the
Parliament of Paris whose functions were legally recognized by
the ordinance of Philippe le Bel.
1 Boullee's Hist, cles Etats Gdnmmx, p. 50. " II faut que tons edits
soient verifies et comme control^ us cours de Parl."
2 Fayard, Speech of Chancellor Oisie, vol. i, p. 1.
BoullCe Etats Gem'raux, vol. i, p. 5.
Guizot, Hist, de France, vol. v, p. 216.
17
Composition of the Parliament of Paris.
To describe the organization of the Parliament of Paris, is to
explain that of all others as they were modeled upon it. The
Parliament was divided originally into three chambers; the
Chambre des Requetes which tried all cases instituted directly
before the Parliament; the Chambre des Enquetes, which had
preliminary consideration of cases of appeal, and the Grand,
Chambre, (identical with the Chambre aux Plaids), where
appeals were finally heard and decided. Afterward was added
the criminal chamber, or La Tournelle.
The Chambre des Requetes, or Chamber of Petitions,
existed from very early times,1 and was organized to hear and
answer petitions. Finally it considered most suits of
Chambre des
Jeqr.etes. original jurisdiction brought before the court.
During the last two centuries, it was especially occu-
pied with " letters of committimus,"2 which drew causes
from all parts of France. The jury system had now entirely
disappeared, but the number of judges in this Chamber partly
atoned for the lack of the more popular element. Law
suits were heard partly on oral, partly on written testimony.
Decisions were not final, but could be appealed, either to the
Chamber of Inquiry, or the Great Chamber.
The Chambre des EnquOtes, or Chamber of Inquiry, heard
1 An edict of Nov. 1291, clearly refers to it.
8 Sir J. Stephens, Lect: on Hist, of France, 212.
3
18
appeals from the Baillis, Pre"vots, and other inferior tribunals. It
chunbredcs to°^ niore especial cognizance of cases which were
Enquetes. (Jecided on written proof. The result of their de-
liberations was reported to the Great Chamber, where the decision
was pronounced, sealed, and placed upon the registers. There
were five Chambers of Inquiry in the Parliament of Paris,
three in the Parliament of Toulouse, and two in the other parlia-
ments. Their successive creation was brought about less by the
multitude of law cases, than the necessity of procuring money,
and hence the sale of new offices. *
The highest branch of the Parliament was the Great
Chamber. Apart from the professional members of the court,
the peers of France and the princesses of the blood had
chambre. geatg in ^ j3O^y< ^ member of the Parliament
obtained admittance to the Great Chamber when he became the
oldest member of the body to which he had been assigned on
his entrance. All the plentitude of parliamentary authority
centered in the Great Chamber. The judgments reached by the
other sections were brought here for ratification. Matters of
State as well as the highest legal questions were here discussed.
The exceptional position of the Great Chamber of the Parlia-
ment of Paris at the capital of the kingdom, and its priority in age
led it to arrogate to itself many cases which never occupied the
provincial Parliaments.2 At its dissolution in 1789, it was com-
posed of forty-two active members; viz., the Premier President,
four senior Presidents-a-mortier, so styled from their caps, and
thirty-seven counselors. The three Chambers were the great
sections into which the Parliament of Paris was first divided.
As its jurisdiction increased other subdivisions took place.
1 Bastard d' Estang, Les Parl de France, vol. i, p. 204.
a Merilhou, M. F.^Les Parl. de France. Leur caractire politique
depuis Philippe le Bel, jusqu'en, 1789. Paris, 1863, p. 18.
19
In 1380, during the reign of Charles VI, the usage was
introduced of submitting certain civil and criminal matters of
LaTourndie. slight importance to the judgment of a chosen
number of counselors. An edict of Francis I, 1515, formed
these into a Chamber with enlarged jurisdiction, and later it
acquired the exclusive 'right of considering all criminal cases, l
except the trials of nobles or great public officers. The mem-
bers of the Tournelle varied from twenty to thirty and and were
furnished in rotation from the other Chambers in order, as it was
humanely stated, "that the habit of condemning men and
sentencing them to death should not alter the natural clemency
of the judges and render them inhuman." Some would derive
the name from this custom,1 others8 would obtain it from the
tower in which the criminal Chamber at Paris held its sittings.
The Grand Jours or Great Days were courts or commissions
of inquiry held at irregular intervals and for short periods of
time by the special order of the kingr. A certain
I-es Grand » * •
number of parliamentary counselors were deputed to
take charge of these at the great cities within a certain juris-
diction. They had authority to summon all magistrates, to hear
complaints, to pursue the guilty, and if need be to pronounce
sentences of death. The decrees of the Grand Jours were ex-
ecuted directly, without appeal to the Parliaments.8
In the early days of Parliament in the interval from one
Parliament to another, judgments were rendered by commission-
La chambre ers appointed by the king. A letter of Charles
tk-s
vacations. VII, of 1454, enjoins upon the Parliament a sufficient
number of sessions, notwithstanding the vacations, to examine
1 Desmaze, C., Le Pad. de Paris, vol. i.
2 Bastard, vol. i, p. 345.
8 Bastard, vol. i, p. 369.
Stephens, Lect. viii, p, 215.
20
the law suits that had accumulated. By degrees the Vacation
Chamber assumed the form it retained, and annually on the ninth
day of September it was opened by the Premier President, who
presided at its first session.1
The edict of May 1576, granting certain legal privileges to
Huguenots, gave rise to Chambers that, with the exception of
chambrede tne Parliament of Paris, were composed half of
Protestants, half of Catholics. This Parliament was
not so generous in its acknowledgment of " the religion," as but
one Protestant belonged to the section. These Chambers were
suppressed by Louis XIV in Jan. 1669. 2
The Marble Table decided all matters concerning rivers and
forests, fishing and hunting. The name, the same in all the
Table de Parliaments, perpetuates the memory of the great
marble table formed from 'a single slab in the Palais
de Justice at Paris.
The summary of the diverse jurisdictions of the Parliament
would be incomplete were not the magistrates mentioned who
Minister* formed the Ministere Publique in the old sovereign
Pubhque. courts. These law officers of the crown considered
collectively were called the Parquet. They represented the
king, then the very core of authority, and their duty was the
enforcement of the penal law arid the protection of the rights of
the crown, or society at large. At the head of the Parquet was
the Procureur General, who had the superior direction of justice
throughout all France. His functions were numerous. To him
belonged all cases involving the rights of the king, care of the
Royal Domain, titles of honor, punishment of oppression, and
pursuit of criminals. He also had the oversight of prisons and of
charitable and municipal organizations. Through him the king
1 Desmaze, vol. i.
8 Bastard, vol. i, p. 288.
Of TH* ^r
UNIVERSITY
df
AWS&8&S 21
rT7~~
communicated treatises, law projects and financial demands to
the Parliament, and through him the Parliament signified to the
king its willingness or unwillingness to act. When edicts were
registered the Procureur General gave his conclusion in writing;
if a registration was denied, then the First Advocate General
spoke in the king's presence to demand registration or order a
Bed of Justice, for the curious distinction was made that uthe
Advocate of the king shall present all resolutions publicly
proposed by speech, and all conclusions in writing shall be signed
by the Procureur."1 The " Gens du Roi " properly so called
were the four superior officers, the Procureur, the First, Second
and Third Advocate General, but the assistant officers of inferior
rank were often classed with the " Gens du« Roi." Any officer
in his quality as " Gens du Roi " was privileged to speak with
head covered and without interruption as he represented the
king.
The Chancellor held the first position in the kingdom until
the Revolution, and in the Parliament he had a voice and a seat
The cirm after the princes of the blood. Although strictly not
belonging to the Parliament, he was considered a
member and his influence was great.
The head of the Parliament was the Premier President, and
with him were associated nine Presidents-;l-mortier, who were
Th-Presi- considered as representing him, and in his absence
presided over the assembled Chambers.
1 Bastard, vol. i, p. 596.
22
The Members.
The edict of 1302 divided the Parliament into three Cham-
bers; an edict of 1374 fixed the number of its members at seventy-
Division into ei£ht counselors, forty-four ecclesiastics, thirty-four
laymen and three presidents.1 This number varied
tionment of -,• rr
duties. greatly at different epochs.
The sale of offices caused the needs of the treasury to be
consulted more frequently than the necessities of justice. At
the suppression of the Parliaments in 1789, the Parliament of
Paris was divided into seven • Chambers, a Premier President,
nine Presidents-u-mortier, fifteen Presidents du Chambre, one
hundred and fifty Counselors, a Procureur General, three
Avocats-Generaux and nine substitutes. Furthermore, there
were two Greffiers-en-chef, or Registrars, twenty-five Commis-
Greffiers or Assistant Registrars, and four Secretaries. Such
was the great array of legal force which a single resolution on
that eventful night in November, 1789, swept to the four winds.
An ordinance of Philippe le Long required the members of
Parliament to reside at Paris. All the great church dignitaries were
continued at once excluded, save the Archbishop of Paris, and
Parish"0' 1 the Abbot of St. Denis, and all of the great lords who
could not afford to maintain an establishment at Paris separate
from their ancestral castles. Thus the lawyers were left in
undisputed possession of the supreme court of justice.
The king at first assigned persons to sit for a session or at
1 Dictionnaire de la Politique, Maurice Block, Paris, 1880, vol. ii, p. 503.
23
his pleasure, but by 1319 the practice obtained of appointing
f counselors for life. As late as 1467, however, there is
Tenure of
an edict of Louis XI, forbidding the removal of
judges, save for just cause. This makes it probable that there
was not entire freedom from arbitrary removal until after that
date.
A further concession was made to the power of the Parlia-
ment by permitting it to name a number of candidates to any
s-iic of vacancy, from which the king made his choice. When
such places became a matter of sale, the king's power
of appointment was exercised without restraint. The offices of
Parliament were a constant temptation to a needy monarch. The
members enjoyed high consideration and opportunities for profit
were not wanting. The sale of judicial dignities can readily be
traced to the days of Philippe le Bel, but it was reserved
for the Father ,of his Country, Louis XII, to systematize the
practice and to recognize the profits as an annual source of
revenue. Francis I created a new Chamber with two Presidents
and eighteen Counselors. In the reign of Louis XIV, the office
of President-a-mortier was sold for 500,000 francs, that of Coun-
selor for 150,000 francs, that of Procureur General for 700,000
francs.
The reign of the best of the Bourbons saw a further change.
M. Paulet,1 secretary of the Parliament, advised a tax on official
offices made incom^s- Sully, who was casting about for ways to
'ary' raise money, eagerly adopted the suggestion. This
tax, the Paulette, was an assessment of one-sixtieth on the con-
dition that the office should be made hereditary. Its owner
might sell it during his life time, or at his death it could be dis-
posed of with his houses and lands. Ordinarily one of the sons
1 Kitchin's Hist, of France, vol. ii, p. 459.
Mcrilhou, M. F., Les Parlde France, p. 307.
24
took the place and thus were founded those judicial families
which formed a new order of nobility. This was an important
constitutional step, for it made the magisterial nobility a class.
The influence of this change remains to be seen. So acute an
observer as Montesquieu1 defends the Paulette. It is certain
that a spirit of independence and of traditionary pride grew up in
these bodies, and tended to make them fearless administrators of
the powers entrusted to them. Count Bastard d'Estang, who
belonged to a parliamentary family that had had representatives
in the Parliament of Toulouse since the fourteenth cantury says :8
" The organization of the ancient French society, which, by the
incessant work of the individual elevated each generation beyond
the one that had preceded it, demanded the sacrifice of an entire
life time. Living in the certainty of the elevation of his
posterity the father prepared slowly and surely for the future of
his son, and France gained in stability." That there were evils
is certain. Judicial positions must often have been filled by
incompetent men, whose tastes and aptitudes were as unfitted to
the severe and monotonous labors of a counselor as were those
of Montaigue,3 while they may not have had so promptly as did
he the good sense to resign their privileges and emoluments.
La Bruyere complains that youths hardly out of school passed
from the birch to the ermine. Furthermore, the Parliamentary
counselors who had paid for their offices, or inherited them, wore
apt to consider themselves on the bench as the guardians of their
own interests and not as trustees of the rights of society. The
most serious evil came with the hereditary tenure of the office.
1 Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, liv. 5, chap, xix: " Cette venalite est
bonne daus les 6tats rnonarchiques, parce qu 'elle fait faire, comuie im
metier de famille, ce qu 'on ne voudrait pas entreprendre pour la vertu
qu 'elle distioe chacun a son devoir, et rend les ordres de 1' ctat plus
perinanents. "
2 Bastard, vol. i, p. 138.
3 Demogeot, Hist, de la Lit. Fran., p. 283.
25
Previously the members of Parliament had been the natural
leaders of the Third Estate, hence forward, they were but
another nobility whose sympathies were with the king that
created and maintained them, not with the people and their
constitutional privileges.
There must have been, however, strong influences toward
justice and uprightness to produce so illustrious a body of men
i ives of the as tne French magistracy. What country can point
Magistrates. ^Q & ju(jge more incorruptible and loyal than1 Achille
de Harlay, more courageous and unflinching than Matthieu Mole",2
more learned, wise and influential than d' Aguesseau?8 Beugnot
says:4 "The memorable services rendered the country, by the
Parliament of Paris, and the hereditary virtues of its members
were the sources of the authority which it exercised our minds as
well as over the affairs of State." Bastard declares:5 "If any-
thing can inspire veneration for our ancient magistracy, it is
intimate acquaintance with their daily life." Certain it is, that
in the early days of Parliament, the faults of the members were
1 Achille de Harlay, First President of Parliament of Paris in 1582.
lie was noted for his learning and integrity, and firmly opposed the de-
signs of the League Nouvelle Biographie Gonerale.
2 Mol'-, Matthieu, First President during the war of the Fronde;
conspicuous for his intrepidity in quelling the Insurrection. Memoires de
Cardinal de Retz. Portraits.
3 D' Aguesseau, "a man who did honor to France by his virtues, his
profound and varied learning, and his enlightened views on jurispru-
dence." La Harpe, Cours de Lit., tome xiv, chap. 1.
4 Beugnot, Document inedits, Les Olirn, preface p. iii.
5 Bastard's Pad. de France, vol. i, p. 199.
Sir Henry Maine, Ancient Law, p. 79. "The French jurists formed
the best instructed and nearly the most powerful class in the nation. In
all the qualities of the advocate, the judge and legislator, they far excelled
their compeers throughout Europe."
J)e Tocqueville. The Old Regime and the Revolution, chap. 11.
"No doubt the Parliaments thought more of themselves than of the
public good, but when it was necessary to defend I heir independence, and
ilicir honor, they were always intrepid, and gave heart to those who
surrounded them."
Also, cf. Merilhou, Les Pad. de France, p. 243, and Baird's Rise of
the Huguenots in France, vol. i, p. 334.
26
faithfully corrected. An ordinance of 1318 forbids the counselors
to eat or drink with those who had suits before them, and further
enjoins upon them to attend the sessions and to leave their seats
but once in the morning. It then adds, "It is a great disgrace
that while the court is in session, its members should be frolicing
and walking about the halls of the Palace." We may fear,
however, that the ordinance was not always effective, for the
witty President ^de Harlay, descendent of the great de Harlay,
once caustically remarked that " if the gentlemen of the court
who talked would make no more noise than those who slept, it
would be a great favor to those who listened " Louis XIV. him-
self did not disdain to inform Chancellor Le Tellier that he
had seen the judges on their way to the Palace with cravats,
gray clothes, and canes in their hands, and they must be admon-
ished that such a costume was unbecoming a magistrate.
This was indeed in contrast to the usual magnificence affect-
ed by the members. The richness of the costumes worn often
Costumes excited the ridicule of philosophers and satirists.1 At
Magistrates, the morning sessions from All Saints Day to the
Annunciation of the Virgin, the presidents sat in an ermine robe
and cap; the remainder of the year they were arrayed in a scarlet
robe. The counselors and advocates wore red robes with large
sleeves adorned with velvet. The clerks of the counselors wore
violet robes. In the afternoon meetings all were arrayed in
black gowns.
In the seignorial courts no fees were demanded, but when
lords and bishops were succeeded by legists, fixed compensation
Remuneration became needful. The oldest document concerning
Magistrates, the wages of the magistrates is an account of 1301,
preserved in the archives of Florence, which says that the seig-
neur presiding over the Parliament shall receive ten smm por
1 Bastard vol. i, p. 166.
27
day, while the court is in session. In 1400 the First President had
one thousand livres a year; l in the reign of Louis XIV, twelve
thousand livers. At each date the salary of a President-a-mortier
was one-half these respective sums. Gifts were naturally given
by the grateful or anxious suitor, which at length became an
established usage, and were known by the suggestive name of
" epices," or "sweetmeats." Finally, they became fixed in pro-
portion to the labor involved, and in the eyes of justice and
legislation were entirely legitimate fees, as the stated salaries
were small and often poorly paid. Society recompensed the
magistrates by consideration, and kings by honors and privileges;
at the opening of the great movement which closed their exist-
ence, they were in full possession of all the privileges and
exemptions of the nobility.
Nearly all the Parliaments re-opened November 12th. The
day was announced at Toulouse by loud peals from the tower
Oieniny of cl°ck? which rang only on this occasion and at the ob-
sequies of one of its members. The day was observed
at Paris by elaborate ceremonies.
The counselors began their duties at early hours. At
Toulouse, the Palace was opened at five o'clock, but finally at
Hours of Toulouse and Paris the opening hour became six
opening. o'clock. Mondays, Thursdays and Fridays the Great
Chamber met and continued in session until 10 a. m. The order of
business was unvarying. From 6 a. m. until 7 a. m. reports were
heard; at 7 a. m. the arguments of cases began, and with a short in-
termission for breakfast, was continued until 10 a. m.; then reports
were made, consultations were given, and other miscellaneous busi-
ness transacted. Tuesdays and Saturdays, afternoon sessions were
held. Wednesdays and Saturdays were reserved for important
matters connected with State policy and registrations, when the
1 About $1,400 of our money, and far more in purchasing power.
88
Great Chamber sat with closed doors. In the eighteenth century
these early hours had not changed, and the notorious case of the
Diamond Necklace called together one hundred and eighty-seven
members, for nine months at the early morning hour, listening to
testimony and arguments to vindicate a queen.
Great interest always attaches to local surroundings, and the
pluoes where the great ceremonies of the ancient magistracy took
Paiiisde place deserve description. In several provinces the
justice. kings had given to the Parliament one of their palaces.
These assumed and retained the name "Palais de Justice." Two
of these palaces are of great antiquity and abound in historical
reminiscence. The Palais de Justice of Toulouse had been
inhabited by the ancient kings and counts of Toulouse, and
traditions said that Roman magistrates had pronounced decisions
on this site. 1 The Palais de Justice of Paris is an old kingly
residence on a little island formed by the Seine, in the heart of
old Paris. St. Louis gave it for the use of the Parliament, and
Philippe-le-Bel greatly enlarged it, so it was reputed in his
day one of the most beautiful works of architecture * in the
world. The general assemblies of all the Chambers was held in
the hall of St. Louis. No single hall in the world unless it be
the great oaken hall at Westminister, has witnessed such varied
and tragic scenes. On more than one occasion the Parliament
in this place maintained the rights and nationality of France
against the intrigues and disloyalty of great nobles.8 Here in
1589 President Le Maitre declared "that no treaty shall be made
for the transfer of the State and crown of France to foreign
princes." Here the little king Louis XIV. was taken when five
years old to assure the Parliament of his good will, and here a
1 Bastard, Parl. de France, vol. i, p. 184.
2 Antiquites de Paris, p. 135.
3 Guizot, Hist, de France, vol. v, p. 52.
89
dozen years later he treated it with a contumely that was never
forgotten. Here during the war of the Fronde a price was set
on Mazarin's head, and his fine library of four thousand volumes
was offered for sale to pay the reward.1 Here President de
Mesmes administered a well merited rebuke to the Prince of
Conti, who had introduced an envoy from Spain to treat against
the king of France. u What! is it possible that a prince of the
blood should propose to give a seat upon the fleurs-de-lis to the
most cruel enemy of the fleurs-de-lis?" What whirligig of time
could present a greater contrast than this same hall when the
stately Presidents and the gorgeously-robed advocates were
succeeded by the Sans-Culottes of the Revolutionary Tribunal.
The great hall was re-christened La Salle d' Egalite, and a court
of judges was formed, which to the grave and learned counselors
of other days would have seemed the veriest rabble. The
populace of Paris flowed in and out while Marie Antoniette was
sentenced to death Tor the crime of being a queen,8 and they
looked on in astonished silence as the twenty-two Girondists who
were to die on the morrow, marched forth singing the Marseil-
laise. * From here Camille Desmoulins, Mme. Roland, and
fit) ally Robespierre himself, the Terror incarnate, went forth in
turn to the same fatal doom. 4" The hall has been sadly changed.
The visitor who gazes at reputable appearing advocates in gowns
and caps, sharp-featured notaries, uneasy clients and wearied
judges, sees little to bring back the Parliament of Paris or the
Revolutionary Tribunal. The voice of Dan ton has ceased to
vibrate, the eloquence of Harlay no longer delights the ear. The
prose of the nineteenth century has replaced the pathos of the
eighteenth, the pride and dignity of the seventeenth."
1 Guizot, Hist, de France, vol. v, p. 859.
8 Thiers' Hist, of French Revolution, vol. iii, p. 11)0.
3 Martin H., Hist, de France, vol. vi, p. 612.
4 Am. Law Rev., Parl. in France, vol. xii, p. 262.
30
1 Jean de Montluc, a Counselor under St. Louis, had for his
own use made a record of the most ancient edicts and most
The Re isters ^mPortant decisions. In 1257 he was appointed
or oiim. "greffier-civil," or Registrar to the court. The oldest
"greffes," or registers, are called the " Olim," because the third
volume begins with the words "Olim Homines de Bayona."
From the great utility of these registers in giving access to
ancient law, the thought arose that nothing had the force of law
unless contained in them. Gradually it became a custom, then
an indispensable formality, to inscribe all edicts in the books of
Parliament. Philippe le Bel, who had a keen sense of financial
value, sold these volumes to "good and worthy people," and
many a monarch after him thought a favor well recompensed
by the gift of an important "greffe." Not until the time
of Colbert were these records collected at the Palais de Justice.
The sagacious minister knew well their importance and did what
he could to repurchase the volumes, which formed many a
valuable heirloom. Some that had been retained at the Palais de
Justice had been burned in the fire of 1618, and at the present
time the collection is quite incomplete.
The Parliaments.
The edict of Philippe le Bel, of 1302, had ordained that
" for the convenience of his subjects, and the expedition of law
cases there should be held each year, two sessions of the Parlia-
1 Bastard's Hist, ties Par!., vol. i, p. 326.
Voltaire, Parl. tie Paris, ed. 1760, p. 56.
Desinaze, C., Le Parl. de Paris, vol. 1.
31
ment of Paris, two Exchequers of Rouen, two Grand Jours
at Troves, and a session of the Parliament at Toulouse."1
The date of organization, and the founder of each Parliament,
so far as accurately known, are given in the following list: a
Paris, 1302 Philippe le Bel,
Toulouse, -j - Before Charles VII the history not well known,
Grenoble, 1453 Charles VII.
Bordeaux, 1462 Louis XI.
Dijon, 1476 Charles VII.
Rouen, 1499 Louis XII.
Aix, 1501 - Louis XII.
Pau, 1519 Francis I.
Rennes, 1553 Francis II.
Metz, 1633 Louis XIII.
Besangon, 1674 Louis XIV.
Douai, 1686 - Louis XIV.
Nancy, 1774 Louis XV.
The organization of the Parliament of Paris, its system of
administering justice and its judicial rights and privileges were
the model after which the others were formed. They differed
from it only in those variations which local and peculiar causes
required.
Although Parliaments were instituted by kings, they consid-
ered themselves the protectors of the rights of the province
Parliament as of provinces within the bounds of their authority.
Guardian of
theProTincc. The whole of the eighteenth century was marked by
struggles to maintain their independence. Furthermore, no prov-
ince was was considered as finally annexed to France until it had
been placed under the jurisdiction of one of these sovereign courts.
After several changes in custom and opinion, the position was
at length taken, that each Parliament was the sovereign court
1 " Propter coinmoduni subditorum nostrorum et expeditionem causa
rum, proponiinus ordinare quod duo Parlanienta Parisiis, duo Scat-aria
Rotomagi, dies Trecenses bis tenebuntur in anno, et quod Parlanientum
Tolosae tenebitur sicut solebat teneri temporibus retroactis."
8 Bastard, vol. ii, p. 103.
Desmaze, vol. i, table, p. 1.
32
AH Pariia- within its own precinct. No appeal could be made
Sovereign, even to the Parliament of Paris, and decisions made
by any Parliament were to be executed in all parts of the
kingdom.
Gradually the doctrine arose that the Parliaments, taken col-
lectively, formed one great judicial institution, all of whose mem-
p ,. bers had equal privileges and inter-community of
as classes. rights>i The parliament of Paris was the first Class,
and all together constituted a single body, which represented the
kingdom of France. If this pretension had been generally
admitted, the form of government would have been transferred
from an hereditary king to an assembly of hereditary magistrates.
The Legislative and Political Rights.
Having studied the Parliaments as judicial organizatiuns,
there remains the explanation of the legislative and political
power, with which time, custom and the tacit consent of both
nation and monarch had invested them. There are a number of
obvious reasons why this body of magistrates should at length
find themselves clothed with an authority to which the judicial
history of no other country can furnish a parallel.
To a certain extent legislative power had been conferred
upon it. Whenever a roval law was defective in any detail, the
Parliament could issue an arrest or decision supplying
cnsKtive
"cr" this dofrct 2 The arrot was provisional only until (he
1 Voltaire, Parl. de Paris, chap. Ixvi.
8 Mtfrilhou, M. F., Les Parl. de France, p. 452.
33
king himself should remedy the fault; still, the right of making
such amendments was a legislative privilege of high value, and
under more favorable circumstances might have served as the
entering wedge to secure for the Parliament of Paris the broader
privileges of its namesake across the Channel.
We have tried to prove that the Parliament of Paris was a
section of the king's council, set aside to consider judicial ques-
Heirs of tions. As the clerks and lawyers gradually replaced
King's
Council. the barons and prelates, they tenaciously held to all
the privileges of those who preceded them, one of the most
valuable of which was the consideration of questions of state.
We have seen how the Parliament gradually laid claim to
bring the representative of the States-General,1 and whatrecogni-
iiepresenting tion was given this pretension by the assembly at
General. Tours. As such, during the long intervals which
separated the sessions of the States-general, it claimed the
character of guardian of the rights vested in those assemblies.
We have also seen that registration came to be considered
as an indispensable ceremony, giving validity to laws, until the
Registration principle was admitted without question that no.Par-
. liameiit was bound to execute any ordinance until it
had first been communicated to it, and entered upon its records.
When the ancient kings desired to make important modifications
in the general legislation of the kingdom, they had been wont to
ask the Parliament to examine the project and report their obser-
vations upon it. The first time that these observations took the
form of " remonstrances," was in the address sent by the Parlia-
ment to Louis XI, touching the Pragmatic Sanction. 8 This
right of observation and remonstrance was one of the most
essential portions of the political power of Parliament. If a
1 MC-rilhou, M. F., Les Parl. cle France, p. 454.
8 Voltaire, Le Parlement de Paris, chap. 11. "Remontrances toucliant
les Privileges de 1' E glise gallicane.
5
34
remonstrance was unheeded the next step was to request the
king1 to withdraw the ordinance. If this was refused, Parliament
formally declined to register it among the records. This refusal
was only overcome by "lettres «de jussion," or a compulsory de-
mand. If still registration was withheld a Bed of Justice1 was
called. Then the king appeared in all his majesty, and from the
summit of his throne of justice, commanded that the edict should
be inscribed in the records. When the court was thus obliged
to submit, the decree of registration was preceded by a preamble,
stating that the decree was registered " by the king's express
command," and this protest was entered upon the records. If
the right of resistance did not actually prevail it was asserted,
and every new assertion was supposed to add to its strength.
The constant opposition of the Parliaments of Paris to the
encroachments of the Court of Rome, was the greatest political
Registration service it ever rendered. By refusing registration,
of
Pope's Bull. an(j by remonstrating, Parliament succeeded in es-
tablishing a right to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs, and won
for itself the name of the bulwark of the liberties of the Galli-
can Church.2 Before the statute of Praernunire was passed in
England, forbidding appeals from the king's court to the Court
of Rome, 2 an advocate of the Parliament of Paris, Pierre do
Cunieres, had in 1329 proposed this remedy against the usurpa-
tions of the Church.
1 besmaze G, vol. i, p. 119. " Lit de Justice," signifies the throne
upon which the king was seated. It was formed of five cushions, one
serving as a seat, another as a back, two as arm supports, and one as a
foot-stool.
Bastard, Les Parl. de Fr., voi. i, p. 19.
It has been said that uLits de Justice" were so named, because then
justice slept; i. e., the king's person united both legislative and judicial
power. However, this designation also canie from the arrangement of
the throne.
2 Voltaire, Parl. de Paris, 1700, rhnp. 10.
8 Stubbs, Constitutional Hist, of England, vol. ii, p. 410. "The first
statute of Praeniunire was an ordinance of 1353."
35
The Parliament also established a right to a voice in
diplomatic questions. All treaties with foreign powers, before
Registration becoming effective, required registration, and so were
of
Treaties subject to the observations, remonstrances and refusals
of the court. However, this right figures on few occasions which
are historically important, and these few clearly prove the real
impotence of the proud tribunal, when met by the positive
wishes of a strong monarch. When Francis I. desired to be
freed from the humiliating engagement of the Treaty of Madrid,
he called a meeting of the Parliament of Paris, at which were
present deputations from the six other existing Parliaments. He
gravely laid before them the provisions of the treaty, which a
few days before he had sworn by his royal oath to fulfill. He
asked their consideration of it, and their opinion as to registra-
tion. They as gravely replied that " neither the treaty, nor the
royal oath were binding; the former not having been the act of
the king; the latter having been exacted from him when in
bondage; that therefore he should neither give up Burgundy,
nor return into Spain." * One simple-minded counselor, Bishop
Poncher, whodid not understand this little comedy, was so im-
prudent as to give it as his opinion, that Francis should go back
to Spain. He thereby brought upon himself, a prison afid death. *
The peculiar institution of the Ministere Publique and its
connection with the Parliament, enabled the latter to prefer
. pretensions to political power, which were sometimes
Pxjbiique successful. The Procureur general, the chief of the
Parquet, had so important and so diverse functions, that his
influence was felt in every branch of administration, and as one
of the most powerful members of the Parliament, the latter often
identified itself with his exercise of power. *
1 Kitchin's Hist, de France, vol. ii, page 201).
2 Tin* account most favorable to Francis I, concerning the treaty of
Madrid is found in Duruy, Hist, de France, vol. ii.
* Vicointe de Bastard d' Estang. Les Parl. de France, vol. i, p. 297.
Political History of the Parliaments.
When the Parliament of Paris was consolidated by Philippe
le Bel, he had no thought of making it a judge in great affairs of
State. The trial of the Knights Templars in 1309, which
assuredly would have come before it in later times was held by
the commissioners of Pope Cleme,nt V. The first time that the
Parliament uttered a formal remonstrance was during the reign
of Louis XI, concerning the famous Pragmatic Sanction of
Bourges.1 During the reign of his son, Charles VIII, great
weight was evidently attached to the attitude of Parliament on
political questions, for the Duke of Orleans, afterward Louis XII,
desiring to obtain the regency, and the government of the young
king laid his wishes before the assembled counselors and asked
them to declare in his favor. The First President responded:
" Parliament renders justice for the people; finances, wars, and
the care of kings are not within its province."8 Not always was
•this body governed by such modest and discreet sentiments.
The reign of Louis XII was not marked by the slightest
difference between the monarch and his high tribunal. Two
O
noteworthy ordinances held in esteemed repute, are inseparably
associated with his name. The first enacted that no Baillis or.
Prevot should be permitted to act as judge, unless he was able
to read and had studied law. Voltaire wittily says: " The high
officials, all of whom were nobles, preserved their dignity and
1 Voltaire, Le Parlement de Paris, 17G9, p. ir.5.
* Quoted by Voltaire in chap. 12.
37
ignorance, and lettered lieutenants of lesser birth judged in their
names."1
The second edict of 1499, goes far to explain the title grate-
fully given him, the Father of his Country. " Qu'on suive
toujours la loi malgre les ordres contraires a la loi, que 1'impor-
tunite pourrait arracher du monarque,"
During the reign of Francis I, the Parliament of Paris
became an important factor in political events.2 Its first variance
Francis i, with the king arose over the Concordat.8 Francis I,
and
Parliament. who had need of Leo X, abolished the Pragmatic
Sanction, which had so far secured to the Church in France,
greater liberties than were enjoyed in any country in Europe.
He substituted for it the Concordat, by which he gave the pope
certain portions of the Church revenue, and appropriated to him-
self the right to appoint to benefices; in other words, the king
presented the pope with the wealth of the Church, and the pope
handed over to the king its independance. "Each gave to the
other, what belonged to neither." 4The struggle over the
registration of the Concordat was hard and long. The king
indignantly insisted on registration, and at a Bed of Justice
protested that no Parliament should make him a Doge of Venice.
After twelve years of strife the infamous Du Prat removed
ecclesiastical matters from the cognizance of Parliament, and
handed them over to the king's council.5 The other acts of this
reign are not so creditable. It broke the treatv of Madrid,
attainted the king's enemy and kinsman, Charles of Bourbon,
T Voltaire, Le Parl de Paris, chap. 15.
8 M^rilhou, Les Parl. de France, et leur carac^re politique 'depuis
Philippe le Bel, jusqu'en, 1789. p p. 135, 224.
8 The text of the Concordat is given in full in the Recueil gen des ane.
lois. xii, 75-97.
4 Bastard d' Estang, vol. ii, p. 9.
Baird, The Rise of the Huguenots. Vol. i, p. 37.
5 Kitchin, vol. ii, p. 182.
sr
and sanctioned the persecutions of the Huguenots. The reigns
of Henry II, Charles IX, and Henry III, were marked by a
constant succession of conflicts between the king and the Parlia-
ment, with a monotonous sameness of result. 1These two powers
agreed on only one matter, and this was hatred of the Huguenots.
The horrors of St. Bartholomew drew forth from this high judicial
body an approving edict, ordering a yearly procession of thanks-
giving to celebrate the great victory of the faith. Fortunately
the change in public sentiment spared France this disgrace.
Henry IV, knew well how to manage this company of magis-
trates, and manage them he did, firmly and sensibly. When
Henry iv, they refused to register the Edict of Nantes, he
and
Parliament. summoned to the Louvre deputies from all the
Chambers.8 "What I have done," he said, "is for the good of
peace. I speak to you not in royal robe, or with sword and cape,
but as a father of his family conversing freely with his childron.
I ask you to register the edict I have granted the Protestants.
God has chosen to give me this kingdom, which is mine by birth
and conquest. You, gentlemen of Parliament, would not be in
your seats but for me. If obedience was due to my predecessors,
it is much more due to me." * When a father addresses his
children in such terms, he is generally obeyed. The edict was
speedily registered. With Richelieu and the minority of
Louis XIII, came again stormy times. In 1615 the Parliament
without the royal order, dared to summon princes, dukes, peers
Richelieu and high officials to deliberate upon the needs of the
and
Parliament. state, and the relief of the people. "We," it said,
" hold the place in council of the princes and barons, who, from
1 Baird, The Rise of the Huiruenols. Vol. i, p. 237.
" Guizot, Hist, de France, vol. v, p. 112.
« M^rilhou, M. F., Les Paul, de France, p. 303. "Cette manifestation
d' une autorit£ nouvelle clut faire unojjerfonde impression sur les magis-
trats."
39
time immemorial were near the person of the king."1 This
assumption Richelieu constantly fought against. He would not
allow the pretension of magistrates to meddle in affairs of State.
There was constant altercation between the king and Richelieu on
the one side, and Parliament on the other, whether about points
of jurisdiction or the registration of edicts respecting finances.
On one of these occasions8 the entire Parliament was ordered to
the Louvre, and there with bare heads and on bended knees was
compelled to supplicate the king's forgiveness. This humiliating
experience was not sufficient to restrain their assertions of right
and authority and the struggles continued for ten years longer,
when in 1641 the king issued an edict prohibiting the Parliament
from any interference in affairs of State and administration, the
preamble of which is as formal a declaration of absolute power as
any ever promulgated by Louis XIV. The Cardinal had at last
gained the victory. The attempts of Parliament at independence
during the wars of the Fronde, only demonstrated how futile was
its authority, and how completely was it the tool of the upper-
most faction. Guizot gays:8 " The pretensions of the magistrates
were often foundation leas; the restless and meddlesome character
of their assemblies did harm to their remonstrances; but for a
long while they maintained in the teeth of more and more
absolute kingly power, the country's rights in the government,
and they had perceived the dangers of that sovereign monarchy
which certainly sometime raises States to the highest pinnacle of
their glory, but only to let them sink before long to a condition
of the most grievous abasement." Louis XIV never forgot the
part that Parliament played during the stormy scenes of the
Louis xiv, Fronde, in the early years of his boyhood. He had that
and
Parliament, instinctive apprehension of the existence of latent
1 Guizot, Mist, de France, vol. ii, p. 195.
2 Voltaire, Hist, du Parl. de Paris, vol. v, chap. 49, May 12, 1631.
8 Guizot, Hist, de France, vol. v, p. 220.
40
power that led him to give an effectual check to the aspirations
of this assembly at the very outset of his kindly career.
In the year 1615 the Parliament had refused to register cer-
tain financial edicts. The king (a boy not yet eighteen years of
age) presented himself before the assembly in hunting attire,
booted and spurred and, as is commonly added, with riding- whip
in his hand. He haughtily commanded the Parliament to address
no more remonstrances to him, but to confine themselves to the
strict discharge of their duties. In 1 j?3 he issued an ordinance
declaring that all royal edicts should be registered within eight
days from their date by the Parliament of Paris, and within six
weeks by the other Parliaments of France.1 We hear no more of
the political role of Parliament during this long reign. In the
period of struggle between Bousset and Louis XIV on one side,
and Rome and Innocent XI on the other, the Parliaments VUM!
emulously in the support of the king's policy. Louis, satisfied
with the apparent submission of the supreme court, placed his last
will and testament in their custody, where it was deposited in a
small room built expressly for its safe keeping. He seems to
have argued that a body so submissive during his life-time would
continue to be so after his death. But how quickly they took
their revenge for the contumely of long silence. While his
body was still lying in state at Versailles, the Parliament assem-
bled without having been convoked,8 and measures were at om;n
taken to break the will of the dead king. A few words from
Orleans to the Parliament sufficed. The Duke received from the
Parliament the regency during the king's minority, and the Par-
liament received from this imprudent depository of royal authori-
ty the political power of which it had been deprived for sixty
1 Sir J. Stephens, Lect. on Hist, of France, p. 225.
8 Guizot, Hist, tie France, vol. vi, p. 54.
Mi'inoires do Saint-Simon, Derniers mom nts de Louis XIV. llachette
edition.
41
The Missis years. The part which the Parliament took in resist-
sippi Com-
pany, ing the chimerical projects of the Scotchman Law
reflect great credit upon it. The opposition was probably due
more to the repugnance which this body ever showed to novel
ideas, than to its comprehension of the pernicious results of
Law's system. It had forbidden the introduction of printing
under Louis XT, it had condemned the philosophy of Descartes
in 1624, it had opposed the establishment of the French
Academy by Richelieu, *and from similar motives it now remon-
strated against the financial innovations of Law.
The two great questions with which the Parliaments are
identified during the 18th century, are the controversies concern-
ing the papal bull " Unigenitus" and the expulsion of the Jesuits.
The long quarrel between the Jansenists and the Jesuits
'was fanned into fresh flame by the final publication of the Pope's
The Bull Uni- bull, which quoted one hundred and one propositions
from the work of Pere Quesnel and condemned them
as heretical. The bull Unigenitus appeared Sept. 8, 1713, and
was registered by the express wish of Louis XIV, Feb. 14, 1714.
The dying king, troubled and alarmed by discussions he deemed
hurtful to true religion, desired to see the kingdom at peace
before his death; but for fifty years the bull Unigenitus was a
fruitful cause of dispute and resistance between Parliament and the
Church, while the court party veered from one side to another as
selfish interest dictated. During the first years of the regency the
Duke of Orleans abandoned the Jesuits to the indignation of
the people, and the bull was practically a dead letter, but in
1720 the unprincipled Dubois desired to become a cardinal, and
so offered his good services to the Papal court. Voltaire says,
with scornful disdain, both for the question at issue and the
conduct of the Archbishop: "The greater part of these proposi-
1 Voltarire, Hist, du Parl. De Paris, chap. 51.
6
42
tions condemned by the bull Unigenitus concerned metaphysical
questions about free-will, which the Jansenists no more under-
stood than the Jesuits. The Archbishop had more contempt for
the bull than all the Parliaments of the kingdom, but he would
have tried to force the Koran upon the Church if the Koran
could have advanced his interests."1 Therefore, Dec. 4, 1720,
after stormy resistance on the part of the Parliament, and a threat
from the Regent to replace it by another tribunal, the bull was
again registered.
The controversy was by no means extinguished. The middle
classes throughout the country sided strongly with the Jansen-
The Contest ^sts> anc* eargerly seized every opportunity to testify
Continued. their opinion> Jn 1?30 Louis Xy heM ft Bed Qf j ug_
tice, and enforced a third registration of the papal edict. The
next day the Parliament met and drew up protests and petitions,
and for two vears the judicial business was neglected, while the
counselors passed their time in agitating and framing new
remonstrances. The people became excited to a degree of
extravagant fanaticism. Miracles were produced in abundance
to witness to the truths of Jansenius. The tomb of one of the
Jansenist saints in the cemetery of St. Medard became noted as
the seat of miraculous cures, and so disturbing were the scenes
enacted there that government was compelled to interfere and
shut out the public. Then it was some profane wit wrote over
the gate:
" De pur le Roi, defense A Dieu,
De faire miracle en ce lieu."
A final struggle was brought about by the order of the
Archbishop of Paris in 1749, in which he commanded his priests
to require each dying person to affirm belief in the bull Unigen-
itus, before receiving the last sacraments of the Church; other-
wise Christian burial was denied.
1 Voltaire, Hist, du Parl. de Paris, chap. 61.
43
Now, indeed, all orders and parties were embroiled, and the
very foundations of society were shaken. The Bishops through-
out the country issued pastoral letters against the Parliaments,
and the Parliaments ordered the letters to be publicly burned.
These were dangerous times for the Parliaments and the Church
to be indulging in open and bitter controversy. The attention of
the people was called as never before to the rights of government
and the relations of Church and State, and the writings of Rous-
seau1 just now appearing, were awakening passionate^ enthusiasm.
In 1753, the members of the Parliament of Paris were ban-
ished, and a Provisional Court was formed, but such determined
opposition was awakened that the king recalled them. Again,
the magistracy were exiled, and again recalled, but in the
sympathy aroused by the attack of an assassin upon the king,
the Parliament only returned by giving a pledge to desist from
further attacks upon the bull. Outward hostility ceased, but
discontent and anger smouldered beneath the surface.
They finally found expression in the blow aimed against the
Order of Jesuits. The accumulated hatred of the magistracy and
Expulsion the popular party throughout the country, aided by
of the
Jesuits. the attacks of the sceptical Encyclopaedists led by
Voltaire and Diderot, brought about the measures, which termi-
nated in the ordinance of August 2, 1762. This decree abolished
the Society of Jesus in France, secularized its members, and
confiscated its property.
1 Rousseau "that remarkable man who, without learning, with few
virtues, and no strength of character, has nevertheless stamped himself
ineffaceably on history by the force of a vivid imagination, and by the
help of a genuine and burning love for his fellowuien, Tor which much
will always have to be forgiven him."
For the effect of the writings of Rousseau on the history of his time,
see Sir Henry Maine, Ancient Law, p. 83.
De Tocqueville, The Ancient Regime, chap. 13.
Demogeot, Hist, de La Lit. Fran., p. 506.
Van Laun, H., Hist, of French Lit., vol. iii, pp. 90-111.
Saintsbury, G., Hist, of French Lit., Clarendon Press, 1882, p. 484.
44
Fruitless altercation had too familiarized the magistracy to a
system of obstruction. More than forty years * of the reign of
Louis XV. had passed in a ceaseless struggle between the
judicial power and the crown. l The needs of the Treasury,
increased by war, constantly compelled new financial edicts,
and refusals of registration were met by frequent Beds of Justice.
This anarchy could not endure; either the crown must resume its
authority, or the Parliament would control the State.
Louis aroused himself from his lethargy, and for once acted
vigorously and expeditiously. Further compromise was no
Suppression longer considered. By the advice of ' Chancellor
of the
Parliaments Maupeou, the king took the extreme step of sup-
pressing altogether the ancient Parliaments of the realm, both in
the capital and the provinces. To take their place six new
tribunals were instituted Feb. 23, 1771, under the name of con-
seils-superieurs, in the towns of Arras, Blois, Chfilons-sur-Marne,
Clermont, Lyons, and Poitiers, the central court of justice being
still maintained at Paris! This great organic change was not
accomplished without obstinate resistance on the part of the
Parliaments and expostulations even from the princes of the
blood; but the great mass of the people looked on indifferently.
The privileges and immunities of the Parliaments had lost them
their hold upon the third estate, and their later contentions with
the crown were regarded as so many selfish struggles for their
own aggrandizement.
To recommend the new courts to public fa'vor, Maupeou an-
nounced that justice would now be administered free of expense,
and the sale of offices was forbidden.
When the new king ascended the throne he re-established
the Parliaments; but they had learned no wisdom from their
exile. After fourteen years, Louis XVI found himself in the
1 Bastard, Les Parl. de France, vol. ii, p. 406.
45
same situation as the king, his grandsire, facing refractory coun-
selors.
They continued to make angry remonstrances about register-
ing money loans, and the king was obliged to use the despotic
measure of a Bed of Justice. The Parliament doubtless thought
it was conciliating public opinion, which was averse to new
taxes, but the needs of the Treasury were urgent and its de-
mands continued. Finally the Parliament of Paris declared
that according to the ancient constitution of France, the establish-
ment of new imposts belonged only to the States- General. It
little anticipated that this cry meant its own destruction.
The States-General, transformed into the Constituent
Assembly, had scarcely existed four months when the great
Dissolution tribunals ceased to be. 1 Nov. 3, 1789, Alexander
Parliaments Lameth moved the abolition of the Parliaments.
" They are now in vacation," objected some one. " So much the
better," shouted Mirabeau, "Let them remain there; they will
pass from sleep to death, and there will be no return." The de-
cree, voted with cries of joy by the majority, declared that the
Parliaments should be in perpetual vacation. Temporary courts
were at once organized, and iu September, 1791, new judicial
organizations were framed.
Thus the Parliaments of France passed out. of history.
1 Bastard, Les Parl. de France, vol. ii, p. 642.
Martin, H., Hist, de France, vol. vi, chap. 4.
46
Parliamentary Development in Franco and England.
A final question now remains: Why did the Curia Regis of
France, the King's Council of Philippe Auguste, eventuate solely
in a judicial body, dependant for its existence upon the king's
favor, and hampered by its lack of legal inundation, while the
Curia Regis of England of the1 same century, the King's Council
of Henry II advanced steadily toward the parliamentary system
of the fifteenth,8 the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries?
The answer rests partly upon racial characteristics that are
real elements in historical development. Freeman says:8 "The
institutions of a people are the natural growth of the
Difference
m Race. circumstances under which it finds itself." Surely, the
distinguishing attribute of race is a potential circumstance. These
qualities, which each generation receives from its predecessors,
and transmits to the generation following, form the most s table
portion of our physical, mental and moral being and.beneath every
political variation, they must be sought for and will be found.
For over fifteen centuries4 Great Britain was peopled and
governed exclusively by members of the great Teutonic family;
there was an undisturbed development of German habits of
thought and mind. In France throughout the same period, there
1 Stubbs, Const. Hist, of England, vol. i, p. 388.
* Stubbs, Const. Hist, of England, vol. ii, p. 161.
8 Freeman, E. A., Comparative Politics, p. 30. This is Montesquieu's
theory, although he underrates the strength of inherited qualities. Cf.
Chapters 14, 15, 23 and 29, of "Esprit des Lois."
* Greene's Making of England. Introduction, note 15. "The first
recorded appearance of the Saxons off the coast of Gaul, and in the Chan-
nel was in A. D. 287."
47
was a vast preponderance of the Gallic, or Roman-Gallic over
the Teutonic element of society. After the German invasion of
the fifth century, the country remained divided among half
savage tribes that took on no distinctive aspect of nationality,
until the strong hand of Chariemague held them in his grasp.
Then followed the slow and imperfect fusion of different races
that were not welded into one nation of Frenchmen, until the
Hundred Year's War was completed.1 Sir James Stephen says:
* England has so long successfully maintained her free institu-
tions, because she is still as she has always been, German; because
her national franchises are the spontaneous and legitimate fruit of
her national character; of that character dutiful, serious, persever-
ing, reverential and hopeful, which has been transmitted to us
from our Anglo-Saxon ancestors."
England has ever been governed by English law, " a body
of opinions, maxims, and moral sentiments, which it would be
Difference difficult to define," and that has largely grown out
f Law. of juc]iciai decisions, and early German and English
customs.2 Roman law has affected English law8 in so far as it has
stimulated a judicial and legal spirit, produced activity in legisla-
tion and incited an orderly and systematic arrangement of laws,
and of methods of legal procedure; but the body of English
legislation has remained essentially the same from the ninth to
the nineteenth century. Never has the law been wrested by
any one class to be used as a tool to manipulate its own interest;
1 Sir J. Stephens, Lectures on the Hist, of France. Lect. xxiv, p. 710.
8 Prof. E. Robertson, Art. on Law, Enc. Brit. ed. 1882, "Sir Henry
Maine has associated its rise with the activity of modern legislatures,
which is, of course, a characteristic of the societies in which English laws
prevail."
3 Sir Henry Maine, Early Hist, of Institutions, p. 21. "The Roman
Law introduced or immensely stimulated the habit of legislation, and
this is one of the ways in which it has influenced the stubborn body
of Germanic customs prevailing in Great Baitain."
48
the commons, the lords and the king have all had limits set to
their authority by the common law.
France has had no one law acting as the interpreter of a
national spirit. "It has been smitten with the curse of an anom-
alous and dissonant jurisprudence beyond every other country
in Europe." * Before 1789 it was divided into two great di
visions; the provinces in which the Droit E crit^ or Written Law
prevailed, and those in which the D>roit Coutunwer or Customary
Law, pravailed. The former, as the basis of their jurisprudence,
accepted the written Roman law; the latter only admitted it in
so far as it was conformable to their local usages, and then it
mainly supplied judicial expressions and forms of legal reason-
ing. There was still further division. Where the Customary
Law was in force, each commune, city,8 and province3 had its
own customs, and where the Written Law was observed, the feu-
dal usages that formed a part of it were of a miscellaneous and
arbitrary nature.4 The different customs and usages tended to
a disintegration of national thought; each man had more interest
in his village or province than in the nation. The arbitrary
maxims of Rome made the law itself subservient to the absolute
power of the crown. It needed the French Revolution to wipe
out this anonalous mass of jurisprudence, and to furnish one law
1 Sir Henry Maine, Ancient Law, p. 80.
8 Ain. Law Rev. vol. xii, p. 262, Parliaments in France. "A man's
rights, his responsibilities, and his mode of enforcing them, might vary
as he passed from one village to another. He could breakfast at Nismes
without fear of the terrors of the law, only to find himself when he reached
Aries subject to its direct penalties.
8 Kitchin's Hist, of France, vol. ii, p. 457. "In the reign of Henry
IV, Dauphiny struggled hard to get the tax shifted from personal to real
property, a boon so needful for a poor and hilly country. Languedoc, her
wealthy neighbor, was actually under the other system, and had her tax-
ation based on real property."'
4 De Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the Revolution; Appendix,
note on Feudal Rights.
Hallam, H., The Middle Ages, vol. i, chap. 2, part ii.
49
for every Frenchman and every locality. Certainly, the law ad-
ministered in the courts of France before 1789 was not fitted to
make the great chartered corporations of justice, so much the
guardians of the liberties of a nation, as the protectors of the
privileges of a province, and of the prerogatives of a king.
Another consequence follows from the difference in law.
Guizot lays down as a primary truth, that1 " the true principle
Division of °^ rePresen^ve government is the radical illegitimacy
of all absolute powor, whatever may be its name or
place; that absolute power as a right inheres in none of the
powers, which concur to form the government." Therefore, the
first great external characteristic of representative government is
division of powers
In England for more than a thousand years the law has
always interposed to prevent the encroachment of one order of
the State upon another, and to vindicate the rights of all.
Although the king has at times asserted, he has never established
the claim to inscribe among the laws of the land, edicts issued
upon the sole authority of his prerogative, and no king, since the
time of earliest king-making, has sat upon the throne, without
the recognition of his title, either by his Council of Barons, or
later, his Parliament. The sovereignty of the king has always
been limited,2 and the power of the government has been shared
among the different orders of the State, in other words, the law
has defined with a degree of clearness the functions and the
limits of the legislative, judicial and executive division of
government.
In France we find no such division resulting from the feudal
and Roman law. The feudal lord combined in himself the
legislative, judicial and executive government of his domain.
Public opinion exercised slight control over him, and his vassal
1 Guizot, Essays upon Representative Gov. in England. Lect. 1.
8 llallam, H., Constitutional Hist, of England, vol. i, chap. 1.
50
had no right, which it was dangerous for him to disrespect.
These two sentences sum up the three contraries to the charac-
teristics of representative government, as Guizot defines them.1
The Roman law held that every ordinance pronounced in the
King's Court was binding throughout his kingdom, thus making
the king a legislator; and it furnished the doctrine familiar to
every student of modern history, that, " the sovereign is the
fountain of all justice," thus making him a judge.
These were the features of the law with which the Parlia-
ment of Paris was profoundly familiar, to whose study and
practice the counselors had devoted their lives, and by which
their habits of thought were determined. No evolution from
such an institution could produce the deliberative body of a
representative government.
There were certain minor features, peculiar to the French
judicial system, that furnish a further answer to the question of
Certain minor Parliam^ntary development. The sale and hereditary
tenure of judicial offices; the privileges of the
magistrates, and their exemptions from taxation; the multiplica-
tion and dispersion of the Parliaments, which prevented them
from acting with the unity of a single body; these facts were real
agencies that removed the Parliaments from the sympathies of
the people, and did away with the idea of representative
connection between them.
In truth, the Old Regime and the Parliaments were in-
dissolubly bound together; the weakness and the strength of
both inhered in the common foundation of kingly absolutism.
The opening of the States-General, May 5, 17b9, that was the
portent of the destruction of old-time royalty, was likewise the
presage of the dissolution of the Parliaments of France.
1 Guizot, Essays upon Representative Government in England. Lect,
1. " The three external characteristics of the principle of representative
government, are: 1. division of powers; 2. election of officers; :}. publicity
of discussion.
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW
AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS
WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN
THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY
WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON TH-E FOURTH
DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY
OVERDUE.
NOV 6 1940
}? ° /L
' 1 ~~~ /
FF'^ gn> ro4L
2 T- c:
LD 21-100m-7,'40( 6936s)
Rot
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11