Total ..................... 131,000 "

[Illustration: Settlement of Accounts by the Brothers of Cherité-Dieu of

the Recovery of Roles

A miniature from the "_Livre des Comptes_" of the Society (Fifteenth

Century).]

Thus, for the year, 131,000 francs in _écus d'or_ representing in

present money about 12,000,000 francs, were appropriated to the expenses

of the State, out of which the sum of 5,000 francs, equal to 275,000

francs of present money, was devoted to what we may call the _Civil List_.

On the death of Charles V., in 1380, his eldest son Charles, who was a

minor, was put under the guardianship of his uncles, and one of these, the

Duke d'Anjou, assumed the regency by force. He seized upon the royal

treasury, which was concealed in the Castle of Melun, and also upon all

the savings of the deceased king; and, instead of applying them to

alleviate the general burden of taxation, he levied a duty for the first

time on the common food of the people. Immediately there arose a general

outcry of indignation, and a formidable expression of resistance was made

in Paris and in the large towns. Mob orators loudly proclaimed the public

rights thus trampled upon by the regent and the King's uncles; the

expression of the feelings of the masses began to take the shape of open

revolt, when the council of the regency made an appearance of giving way,

and the new taxes were suppressed, or, at all events, partially abandoned.

The success of the insurrectionary movement, however, caused increased

concessions to be demanded by the people. The Jews and tax-collectors were

attacked. Some of the latter were hung or assassinated, and their

registers torn up; and many of the former were ill-treated and banished,

notwithstanding the price they had paid for living in the kingdom.

The assembly of the States, which was summoned by the King's uncles to

meet in Paris, sided with the people, and, in consequence, the regent and

his brother pretended to acknowledge the justice of the claims which were

made upon them in the name of the people, and, on their withdrawing the

taxes, order was for a time restored. No sooner, however, was this the

case than, in spite of the solemn promises made by the council of regency,

the taxes were suddenly reimposed, and the right of farming them was sold

to persons who exacted them in the most brutal manner. A sanguinary

revolt, called that of the _Maillotins_, burst forth in Paris; and the

capital remained for some time in the power of the people, or rather of

the bourgeois, who led the mob on to act for them (1381-1382). The towns

of Rouen, Rheims, Troyes, Orleans, and Blois, many places in Beauvoise, in

Champagne, and in Normandy, followed the example of the Parisians, and it

is impossible to say to what a length the revolt would have reached had it

not been for the victory over the Flemish at Rosebecque. This victory

enabled the King's uncles to re-enter Paris in 1383, and to re-establish

the royal authority, at the same time making the _Maillotins_ and their

accomplices pay dearly for their conduct. The excise duties, the hearth

tax, the salt tax, and various other imposts which had been abolished or

suspended, were re-established; the taxes on wine, beer, and other

fermented liquors was lowered; bread was taxed twelve deniers per pound,

and the duty on salt was fixed at the excessive rate of twenty francs in

gold--about 1,200 francs of present money--per hogshead of sixty

hundredweight. Certain concessions and compromises were made exceptionally

in favour of Artois, Dauphiné, Poitou, and Saintonge, in consideration of

the voluntary contributions which those provinces had made.

[Illustration: Fig. 283.--Assassination of the Duke of Burgundy, John the

Fearless, on the Bridge of Montereau, in 1419.--Fac-simile of a Miniature

in the "Chronicles" of Monstrelet, Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century, in

the Library of the Arsenal of Paris.]

Emboldened by the success of their exacting and arbitrary rule, the Dukes

of Anjou, Burgundy, and Berry, under pretext of requiring money for war

expenses, again increased the taxes from the year 1385 to 1388; and the

salt tax was raised to forty golden francs, about 24,000 francs of present

money, per hogshead. The ecclesiastics paid a half décime to the King, and

several décimes to the Pope, but these did not prevent a forced loan being

ordered. Happily, Charles VI. about this period attained his majority, and

assumed his position as king; and his uncle, the Duke of Bourbon, who was

called to the direction of affairs, re-established comparative order in

financial matters; but soon after the King's brother, the Duke of Orleans,

seized the reins of government, and, jointly with his sister-in-law,

Isabel of Bavaria, increased the taxation far beyond that imposed by the

Duke d'Anjou. The Duke of Burgundy, called John the Fearless, in order to

gratify his personal hatred to his cousin, Louis of Orleans, made himself

the instrument of the strong popular feeling by assassinating that prince

as he was returning from an entertainment. The tragical death of the Duke

of Orleans no more alleviated the ills of France than did that of the Duke

of Burgundy sixteen years later--for he in his turn was the victim of a

conspiracy, and was assassinated on the bridge of Montereau in the

presence of the Dauphin (Fig. 283). The marriage of Isabel of France with

the young king Richard of England, the ransom of the Christian prisoners

in the East, the money required by the Emperor of Constantinople to stop

the invasions of the Turks into Europe, the pay of the French army, which

was now permanent, each necessarily required fresh subsidies, and money

had to be raised in some way or other from the French people. Distress was

at its height, and though the people were groaning under oppression, they

continued to pay not only the increased taxes on provisions and

merchandise, and an additional general tax, but to submit to the most

outrageous confiscations and robbery of the public money from the public

treasuries. The State Assemblies held at Auxerre and Paris in 1412 and

1413, denounced the extravagance and maladministration of the treasurers,

the generals, the excisemen, the receivers of royal dues, and of all those

who took part in the direction of the finances; though they nevertheless

voted the taxes, and promulgated most severe regulations with respect to

their collection. To meet emergencies, which were now becoming chronic,

extraordinary taxes were established, the non-payment of which involved

the immediate imprisonment of the defaulter; and the debasement of the

coinage, and the alienation of certain parts of the kingdom, were

authorised in the name of the King, who had been insane for more than

fifteen years. The incessant revolts of the bourgeois, the reappearance of

the English on the soil of France, the ambitious rivalry of Queen Isabel

of Bavaria leagued with the Duke of Burgundy against the Dauphin, who had

been made regent, at last, in 1420, brought about the humiliating treaty

of Troyes, by which Henry V., king of England, was to become king of

France on the death of Charles VI.

This treaty of Troyes became the cause of, and the pretext for, a vast

amount of extortion being practised upon the unfortunate inhabitants of

the conquered country. Henry V., who had already made several exactions

from Normandy before he had obtained by force the throne of France, did

not spare the other provinces, and, whilst proclaiming his good intentions

towards his future subjects, he added a new general impost, in the shape

of a forced loan, to the taxes which already weighed so heavily on the

people. He also issued a new coinage, maintained many of the taxes,

especially those on salt and on liquors, even after he had announced his

intention of abolishing them.

At the same time the Dauphin Charles, surnamed _Roi de Bourges_, because

he had retired with his court and retinue into the centre of the kingdom

(1422), was sadly in want of money. He alienated the State revenues, he

levied excise duties and subsidies in the provinces which remained

faithful to his cause, and he borrowed largely from those members of the

Church and the nobility who manifested a generous pity for the sad destiny

of the King and the monarchy. Many persons, however, instead of

sacrificing themselves for their king and country, made conditions with

him, taking advantage of his position. The heir to the throne was obliged

in many points to give way, either to a noble whose services he bargained

for, or to a town or an abbey whose aid he sought. At times he bought over

influential bodies, such as universities and other corporation, by

granting exemptions from, or privileges in, matters of taxation, &c. So

much was this the case that it may be said that Charles VII. treated by

private contract for the recovery of the inheritances of his fathers. The

towns of Paris and Rouen, as well as the provinces of Brittany, Languedoc,

Normandy, and Guyenne, only returned to their allegiance to the King on

conditions more or less advantageous to themselves. Burgundy, Picardy, and

Flanders--which were removed from the kingdom of Charles VII. at the

treaty of peace of Arras in 1435--cordially adopted the financial system

inaugurated by the Duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good.

[Illustration: Fig. 284.--The House of Jacques Coeur at Bourges, now

converted into the Hôtel de Ville.]

Charles VII. reconquered his kingdom by a good and wise policy as much as

by arms. He, doubtless, had cause to be thankful for the valeur and

devotion of his officers, but he principally owed the success of his cause

to one man, namely, his treasurer, the famous Jacques Coeur, who possessed

the faculty of always supplying money to his master, and at the same time

of enriching himself (Fig. 284). Thus it was that Charles VII., whose

finances had been restored by the genius of Jacques Coeur, was at last

able to re-enter his capital triumphantly, to emancipate Guyenne,

Normandy, and the banks of the Loire from the English yoke, to reattach to

the crown a portion of its former possessions, or to open the way for

their early return, to remove bold usurpers from high places in the State,

and to bring about a real alleviation of those evils which his subjects

had so courageously borne. He suppressed the fraud and extortion carried

on under the name of justice, put a stop to the sale of offices, abolished

a number of rates illegally levied, required that the receivers' accounts

should be sent in biennially, and whilst regulating the taxation, he

devoted its proceeds entirely to the maintenance and pay of the army. From

that time taxation, once feudal and arbitrary, became a fixed royal due,

which was the surest means of preventing the pillage and the excesses of

the soldiery to which the country people had been subjected for many

years. Important triumphs of freedom were thus obtained over the

tyrannical supremacy of the great vassals; but in the midst of all this

improvement we cannot but regret that the assessors, who, from the time of

their creation by St. Louis, had been elected by the towns or the

corporations, now became the nominees of the crown.

[Illustration: Fig. 285.--_Amende honorable_ of Jacques Coeur before

Charles VII.--Fac-simile of a Miniature of the "Chroniques" of Monstrelet,

Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century, in the National Library of Paris.]

Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, taxed his subjects but little:

"Therefore," says Philippe de Commines, "they became very wealthy, and

lived in much comfort." But Louis XI did not imitate him. His first care

was to reinstate that great merchant, that clever financier, Jacques

Coeur, to whom, as much as to Joan of Arc, the kingdom owed its freedom,

and whom Charles VII., for the most contemptible reasons, had had the

weakness to allow to be judicially condemned Louis XI. would have been

very glad to entrust the care of his finances to another Jacques Coeur;

for being sadly in want of money, he ran through his father's earnings,

and, to refill his coffers, he increased taxation, imposed a duty on the

importation of wines, and levied a tax on those holding offices, &c. A

revolution broke out in consequence, which was only quenched in the blood

of the insurgents. In this manner he continued, by force of arms, to

increase and strengthen his own regal power at the expense of feudalism.

He soon found himself opposed by the _Ligue du Bien Public_, formed by the

great vassals ostensibly to get rid of the pecuniary burden which

oppressed the people, but really with the secret intention of restoring

feudalism and lessening the King's power. He was not powerful enough

openly to resist this, and appeared to give way by allowing the leagued

nobles immense privileges, and himself consenting to the control of a sort

of council of "thirty-six notables appointed to superintend matters of

finance." Far from acknowledging himself vanquished, however, he

immediately set to work to cause division among his enemies, so as to be

able to overcome them. He accordingly showed favour towards the bourgeois,

whom he had already flattered, by granting new privileges, and abolishing

or reducing certain vexatious taxes of which they complained. The

thirty-six notables appointed to control his financial management reformed

nothing. They were timid and docile under the cunning eye of the King, and

practically assisted him in his designs; for in a very few years the taxes

were increased from 1,800,000 écus--about 45,000,000 francs of present

money--to 3,600,000 écus--about 95,000,000 francs. Towards the end of the

reign they exceeded 4,700,000 écus--130,000,000 francs of present money.

Louis XI. wasted nothing on luxury and pleasure; he lived parsimoniously,

but he maintained 110,000 men under arms, and was ready to make the

greatest sacrifices whenever there was a necessity for augmenting the

territory of the kingdom, or for establishing national unity. At his

death, on the 25th of August, 1483, he left a kingdom considerably

increased in area, but financialty almost ruined.

When Anne de Beaujeu, eldest sister of the King, who was a minor, assumed

the reins of government as regent, an immediate demand was made for

reparation of the evils to which the finance ministers had subjected the

unfortunate people. The treasurer-general Olivier le Dain, and the

attorney-general Jean Doyat, were almost immediately sacrificed to popular

resentment, six thousand Swiss were subsidised, the pensions granted

during the previous reign were cancelled, and a fourth part of the taxes

was removed. Public opinion being thus satisfied, the States-General

assembled. The bourgeois here showed great practical good sense,

especially in matters of finance; they proved clearly that the assessment

was illegal, and that the accounts were fictitious, inasmuch as the latter

only showed 1,650,000 livres of subsidies, whereas they amounted to three

times as much. It was satisfactorily established that the excise, the salt

tax, and the revenues of the public lands amply sufficed for the wants of

the country and the crown. The young King Charles was only allowed

1,200,000 livres for his private purse for two years, and 300,000 livres

for the expenses of the festivities of his coronation. On the Assembly

being dissolved, the Queen Regent found ample means of pleasing the

bourgeois and the people generally by breaking through the engagements she

had entered into in the King's name, by remitting taxation, and finally by

force of arms destroying the power of the last remaining vassals of the

crown.

[Illustration: Fig. 286.--The Mint.--Fac-simile of a Woodcut in the

Translation of the Latin Work of Francis Patricius, "De l'Institution et

Administration de la Chose Politique:" folio, 1520.]

[Illustration: Fig. 287.--The receiver of Taxes.--Fac-simile of a Woodcut

in Damhoudere's "Praxis Rerum Civilium."]

Charles VIII., during a reign of fourteen years, continued to waste the

public money. His disastrous expedition for the conquest of the kingdom of

Naples forced him to borrow at the rate of forty-two per cent. A short

time previous to his death he acknowledged his errors, but continued to

spend money, without consideration or restraint, in all kinds of

extravagances, but especially in buildings. During his reign the annual

expenditure almost invariably doubled the revenue. In 1492 it reached

7,300,000 francs, about 244,000,000 francs of present money. The deficit

was made up each year by a general tax, "which was paid neither by the

nobles nor the Church, but was obtained entirely from the people" (letters

from the ambassadors of Venice).

When the Duke of Orleans ascended the throne as Louis XII., the people

were again treated with some consideration. Having chosen George d'Amboise

as premier and Florimond Robertet as first secretary of the treasury, he

resolutely pursued a course of strict economy; he refused to demand of his

subjects the usual tax for celebrating the joyous accession, the taxes

fell by successive reductions to the sum of 2,600,000 livres, about

76,000,000 francs of present money, the salt tax was entirely abolished,

and the question as to what should be the standard measure of this

important article was legislated upon. The tax-gatherers were forced to

reside in their respective districts, and to submit their registers to the

royal commissioners before beginning to collect the tax. By strict

discipline pillage by soldiers was put a stop to (Fig. 288).

Notwithstanding the resources obtained by the King through mortgaging a

part of the royal domains, and in spite of the excellent administration of

Robertet, who almost always managed to pay the public deficit without any

additional tax, it was necessary in 1513, after several disastrous

expeditions to Italy, to borrow, on the security of the royal domains,

400,000 livres, 10,000,000 francs of present money, and to raise from the

excise and from other dues and taxes the sum of 3,300,000 livres, about

80,000,000 francs of present money. This caused the nation some distress,

but it was only temporary, and was not much felt, for commerce, both

domestic and foreign, much extended at the same time, and the sale of

collectorships, of titles of nobility, of places in parliament, and of

nominations to numerous judicial offices, brought in considerable sums to

the treasury. The higher classes surnamed the king _Le Roitelet_, because

he was sickly and of small stature, parsimonious and economical. The

people called him their "father and master," and he has always been styled

the father of the people ever since.

[Illustration: Fig. 288.--A Village pillaged by Soldiers.--Fac-simile of a

Woodcut in Hamelmann's "Oldenburgisches Chronicon." in folio, 1599.]

In an administrative and financial point of view, the reign of Francis I.

was not at all a period of revival or of progress. The commencement of a

sounder System of finance is rather to be dated from that of Charles V.;

and good financial organization is associated with the names of Jacques

Coeur, Philip the Good, Charles XI., and Florimond Robertet. As an example

of this, it may be stated that financiers of that time established taxes

on registration of all kinds, also on stamps, and on sales, which did not

before exist in France, and which were borrowed from the Roman emperors.

We must also give them the credit of having first commenced a public debt,

under the name of _rentes perpetuelles_, which at that time realised

eight per cent. During this brilliant and yet disastrous reign the

additional taxes were enormous, and the sale of offices produced such a

large revenue that the post of parliamentary counsel realised the sum of

2,000 golden écus, or nearly a million francs of present currency. It was

necessary to obtain money at any price, and from any one who would lend

it. The ecclesiastics, the nobility, the bourgeois, all gave up their

plate and their jewels to furnish the mint, which continued to coin money

of every description, and, in consequence of the discovery of America, and

the working of the gold and silver mines in that country, the precious

metals poured into the hands of the money-changers. The country, however,

was none the more prosperous, and the people often were in want of even

the commonest necessaries of life. The King and the court swallowed up

everything, and consumed all the resources of the country on their luxury

and their wars. The towns, the monasteries, and the corporations, were

bound to furnish a certain number of troops, either infantry or cavalry.

By the establishment of a lottery and a bank of deposit, by the monopoly

of the mines and by the taxes on imports, exports, and manufactured

articles, enormous sums were realised to the treasury, which, as it was

being continually drained, required to be as continually replenished.

Francis I. exhausted every source of credit by his luxury, his caprices,

and his wars. Jean de Beaune, Baron de Semblançay, the old minister of

finance, died a victim to false accusations of having misappropriated the

public funds. Robertet, who was in office with him, and William Bochetel,

who succeeded him, were more fortunate: they so managed the treasury

business that, without meeting with any legal difficulty, they were

enabled to centralise the responsibility in themselves instead of having

it distributed over sixteen branches in all parts of the kingdom, a system

which has continued to our day. In those days the office of superintendent

of finance was usually only a short and rapid road to the gibbet of

Montfaucon.

[Illustrations: Gold and Silver Coins of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth

Centuries.

Fig. 289.--Royal d'Or. Charles VII

Fig. 290.--Écu d'Argent à la Couronne. Louis XI.

Fig. 291.--Écu d'Or à la Couronne. Charles VIII.

Fig. 292.--Écu d'Or au Porc-épic. Louis XII.

Fig. 293.--Teston d'Argent. Francis I.

Fig. 294.--Teston d'Argent au Croissant. Henry II.

]

[Illustration: Fig. 295.--Silver Franc. Henry IV.]

Law and the Administration of Justice.

The Family the Origin of Government.--Origin of Supreme Power amongst

the Franks.--The Legislation of Barbarism humanised by

Christianity.--Right of Justice inherent to the Bight of Property.--The

Laws under Charlemagne.--Judicial Forms.--Witnesses.--Duels, &c.--

Organization of Royal Justice under St. Louis.--The Châtelet and the

Provost of Paris.--Jurisdiction of Parliament, its Duties and its

Responsibilities.--The Bailiwicks. Struggles between Parliament and the

Châtelet.--Codification of the Customs and Usages.--Official

Cupidity.--Comparison between the Parliament and the Châtelet.

Amongst the ancient Celtic and German population, before any Greek or

Roman innovations had become engrafted on to their customs, everything,

even political power as well as the rightful possession of lands, appears

to have been dependent on families. Julius Cæsar, in his "Commentaries,"

tells us that "each year the magistrates and princes assigned portions of

land to families as well as to associations of individuals having a common

object whenever they thought proper, and to any extent they chose, though

in the following year the same authorities compelled them to go and

establish themselves elsewhere." We again find families (_familiæ_) and

associations of men (_cognationes hominum_) spoken of by Cæsar, in the

barbaric laws, and referred to in the histories of the Middle Ages under

the names of _genealogiæ, faramanni, faræ_, &c.; but the extent of the

relationship (_parentela_) included under the general appellation of

_families_ varied amongst the Franks, Lombards, Visigoths, and Bavarians.

Generally, amongst all the people of German origin, the relationship only

extended to the seventh degree; amongst the Celts it was determined merely

by a common ancestry, with endless subdivisions of the tribe into distinct

families. Amongst the Germans, from whom modern Europe has its origin, we

find only three primary groups; namely, first, the family proper,

comprising the father, mother, and children, and the collateral relatives

of all degrees; secondly, the vassals (_ministeriales_) or servants of the

free class; and, thirdly, the servants (_mansionarii, coloni, liti,

servi_) of the servile class attached to the family proper (Fig. 296).

Domestic authority was represented by the _mund_, or head of the family,

also called _rex_ (the king), who exercised a special power over the

persons and goods of his dependents, a guardianship, in fact, with certain

rights and prerogatives, and a sort of civil and political responsibility

attached to it. Thus the head of the family, who was responsible for his

wife and for those of his children who lived with him, was also

responsible for his slaves and domestic animals. To such a pitch did these

primitive people carry their desire that justice should be done in all

cases of infringement of the law, that the head was held legally

responsible for any injury which might be done by the bow or the sword of

any of his dependents, without it being necessary that he should himself

have handled either of these weapons.

Long before the commencement of the Merovingian era, the family, whose

sphere of action had at first been an isolated and individual one, became

incorporated into one great national association, which held official

meetings at stated periods on the _Malberg_ (Parliament hill). These

assemblies alone possessed supreme power in its full signification. The

titles given to certain chiefs of _rex_ (king), _dux_ (duke), _graff_

(count), _brenn_ (general of the army), only defined the subdivisions of

that power, and were applied, the last exclusively, to those engaged in

war, and the others to those possessing judicial and administrative

functions. The duty of dispensing justice was specially assigned to the

counts, who had to ascertain the cause of quarrels between parties and to

inflict penalties. There was a count in each district and in each

important town; there were, besides, several counts attached to the

sovereign, under the title of counts of the palace (_comites palatii_), an

honourable position, which was much sought after and much coveted on

account of its pecuniary and other contingent advantages. The counts of

the palace deliberated with the sovereign on all matters and all questions

of State, and at the same time they were his companions in hunting,

feasting, and religious exercises; they acted as arbitrators in questions

of inheritance of the crown; during the minority of princes they exercised

the same authority as that which the constitution gave to sovereigns who

were of full age; they confirmed the nominations of the principal

functionaries and even those of the bishops; they gave their advice on the

occasion of a proposed alliance between one nation and another, on matters

connected with treaties of peace or of commerce, on military expeditions,

or on exchanges of territory, as well as in reference to the marriage of a

prince, and they incurred no responsibility beyond that naturally attached

to persons in so distinguished a position among a semi-barbarous

community. At first the legates (_legati_), and afterwards the King's

ambassadors (_missi dominici_), the bishops and the dukes or commanders of

the army were usually selected from the higher court officials, such as

the counts of the palace, whereas the _ministeriales_, forming the second

class of the royal officials, filled inferior though very honourable and

lucrative posts of an administrative and magisterial character.

[Illustration: Fig. 296.--The Familles and the Barbarians.--Fac-simile of

a Woodcut in the "Cosmographie Universelle" of Munster: in folio, Basle,

1552.]

Under the Merovingians the legal principle of power was closely bound up

with the possession of landed property. The subdivision of that power,

however, closely followed this union, and the constant ruin of some of the

nobles rapidly increased the power of others, who absorbed to themselves

the lost authority of their more unfortunate brethren, so much so that the

Frank kings perceived that society would soon escape their rule unless

they speedily found a remedy for this state of things. It was then that

the _lois Salique_ and _Ripuaire_ appeared, which were subjected to

successive revisions and gradual or sudden modifications, necessitated by

political changes or by the increasing exigencies of the prelates and

nobles. But, far from lessening the supremacy of the King, the national

customs which were collected in a code extended the limits of the royal

authority and facilitated its exercise.

In 596, Childebert, in concert with his _leudes_, decided that in future

the crime of rape should be punished with death, and that the judge of the

district (_pagus_) in which it had been committed should kill the

ravisher, and leave his body on the public road. He also enacted that the

homicide should have the same fate. "It is just," to quote the words of

the law, "that he who knows how to kill should learn how to die." Robbery,

attested by seven witnesses, also involved capital punishment, and a judge

convicted of having let a noble escape, underwent the same punishment that

would have been inflicted on the criminal. The punishment, however,

differed according to the station of the delinquent. Thus, for the

non-observance of Sunday, a Salian paid a fine of fifteen sols, a Roman

seven and a half sols, a slave three sols, or "his back paid the penalty

for him." At this early period some important changes in the barbaric code

had been made: the sentence of death when once given had to be carried

out, and no arrangements between the interested parties could avert it. A

crime could no longer be condoned by the payment of money; robbery even,

which was still leniently regarded at that time, and beyond the Rhine even

honoured, was pitilessly punished by death. We therefore cannot have more

striking testimony than this of the abridgment of the privileges of the

Frankish aristocracy, and of the progress which the sovereign power was

making towards absolute and uncontrolled authority over cases of life and

death. By almost imperceptible steps Roman legislation became more humane

and perfect, Christianity engrafted itself into barbarism, licentiousness

was considered a crime, crime became an offence against the King and

society, and it was in one sense by the King's hand that the criminals

received punishment.

From the time of the baptism of Clovis, the Church had much to do with the

re-arrangement of the penal code; for instance, marriage with a

sister-in-law, a mother-in-law, an aunt, or a niece, was forbidden; the

travelling shows, nocturnal dances, public orgies, formerly permitted at

feasts, were forbidden as being profane. In the time of Clotaire, the

prelates sat as members of the supreme council, which was strictly

speaking the highest court of the land, having the power of reversing the

decisions of the judges of the lower courts. It pronounced sentence in

conjunction with the King, and from these decisions there was no appeal.

The nation had no longer a voice in the election of the magistrates, for

the assemblies of _Malberg_ did not meet except on extraordinary

occasions, and all government and judicial business was removed to the

supreme and often capricious arbitration of the King and his council.

As long as the mayors of the palace of Austrasia, and of that of Burgundy,

were only temporarily appointed, royal authority never wavered, and the

sovereign remained supreme judge over his subjects. Suddenly, however,

after the execution of Brunehaut, who was sacrificed to the hatred of the

feudal lords, the mayoralty of the palace became a life appointment, and,

in consequence, the person holding the office became possessed almost of

supreme power, and the rightful sovereigns from that time practically

became subject to the authority of the future usurpers of the crown. The

edict of 615, to which the ecclesiastical and State nobility were parties,

was in its laws and customs completely at variance with former edicts. In

resuming their places in the French constitution, the Merovingian kings,

who had been deprived both of influence and authority, were compelled by

the Germanic institutions to return to the passive position which their

predecessors had held in the forests of Germany, but they no longer had,

like the latter, the prestige of military authority to enable them to keep

the position of judges or arbitrators. The canons of the Council of Paris,

which were confirmed by an edict of the King bearing date the 15th of the

calends of November, 615, upset the political and legal system so firmly

established in Europe since the fifth century. The royal power was shorn

of some of its most valuable prerogatives, one of which was that of

selecting the bishops; lay judges were forbidden to bring an ecclesiastic

before the tribunals; and the treasury was prohibited from seizing

intestate estates, with a view to increasing the rates and taxes; and it

was decreed that Jews should not be employed in collecting the public

taxes. By these canons the judges and other officers of State were made

responsible, the benefices which had been withdrawn from the _leudes_ were

restored, the King was forbidden from granting written orders (_præcepta_)

for carrying off rich widows, young virgins, and nuns; and the penalty of

death was ordered to be enforced against those who disobeyed the canons of

the council. Thence sprung two new species of legislation, one

ecclesiastical, the other civil, between which royalty, more and more

curtailed of its authority, was compelled for many centuries to struggle.

Amongst the Germanic nations the right of justice was inherent to landed

property from the earliest times, and this right had reference to things

as well as to persons. It was the patronage (_patrocinium_) of the

proprietor, and this patronage eventually gave origin to feudal

jurisdictions and to lordly and customary rights in each domain. We may

infer from this that under the two first dynasties laws were made by

individuals, and that each lord, so to speak, made his own.

The right of jurisdiction seems to have been so inherent to the right of

property, that a landed proprietor could always put an end to feuds and

personal quarrels, could temporarily bring any lawsuit to a close, and, by

issuing his _ban_, stop the course of the law in his own immediate

neighbourhood--at least, within a given circumference of his residence.

This was often done during any family festival, or any civil or religious

public ceremony. On these occasions, whoever infringed the _ban_ of the

master, was liable to be brought before his _court_, and to have to pay a

fine. The lord who was too poor to create a court of sufficient power and

importance obtained assistance from his lord paramount or relinquished the

right of justice to him; whence originated the saying, "The fief is one

thing, and justice another."

The law of the Visigoths speaks of nobles holding local courts, similar to

those of the official judge, count, or bishop. King Dagobert required the

public and the private judges to act together. In the law of Lombardy

landlords are mentioned who, in virtue of the double title of nobles and

judges, assumed the right of protecting fugitive slaves taking shelter in

their domains. By an article of the Salie law, the noble is made to answer

for his vassal before the court of the count. We must hence conclude that

the landlord's judgment was exercised indiscriminately on the serfs, the

colons, and the vassals, and a statute of 855 places under his authority

even the freemen who resided with other persons.

From these various sources we discover a curious fact, which has hitherto

remained unnoticed by historians--namely, that there existed an

intermediate legislation between the official court of the count and his

subordinates and the private courts, which was a kind of court of

arbitration exercised by the neighbours (_vicini_) without the assistance

of the judges of the county, and this was invested with a sort of

authority which rendered its decisions binding.

[Illustration: Fig. 297.--The Emperor Charlemagne holding in one hand the

Globe and in the other the Sword.--After a Miniature in the Registers of

the University of Paris (Archives of the Minister of Public Instruction of

the University). The Motto, _In scelus exurgo, sceleris discrimina purgo,

_ is written on a Scroll round the Sword.]

Private courts, however, were limited in their power. They were neither

absolutely independent, nor supreme and without appeal. All conducted

their business much in the same way as the high, middle, and lower courts

of the Middle Ages; and above all these authorities towered the King's

jurisdiction. The usurpation of ecclesiastical bishops and abbots--who,

having become temporal lords, assumed a domestic jurisdiction--was

curtailed by the authority of the counts, and they were even more obliged

to give way before that of the _missi dominici_, or the official delegates

of the monarch. Charles the Bald, notwithstanding his enormous concessions

to feudalism and to the Church, never gave up his right of final appeal.

During the whole of the Merovingian epoch, the _mahl_ (_mallus_), the

general and regular assembly of the nation, was held in the month of

March. Persons of every class met there clad in armour; political,

commercial, and judicial interests were discussed under the presidency of

the monarch; but this did not prevent other special assemblies of the

King's court (_curia regalis_) being held on urgent occasions. This court

formed a parliament (_parlamentum_), which at first was exclusively

military, but from the time of Clovis was composed of Franks, Burgundians,

Gallo-Romans, as well as of feudal lords and ecclesiastics. As, by

degrees, the feudal System became organized, the convocation of national

assemblies became more necessary, and the administration of justice more

complicated. Charlemagne decided that two _mahls_ should be held annually,

one in the month of May, the other in the autumn, and, in addition, that

in each county two annual _plaids_ should meet independently of any

special _mahls_ and _plaids_ which it should please him to convoke. In

788, the emperor found it necessary to call three general _plaids_, and,

besides these, he was pleased to summon his great vassals, both clerical

and lay, to the four principal feasts of the year. It may be asserted that

the idea of royalty being the central authority in matters of common law

dates from the reign of Charlemagne (Fig. 297).

The authority of royalty based on law took such deep root from that time

forth, that it maintained itself erect, notwithstanding the weakness of

the successors of the great Charles, and the repeated infractions of it by

the Church and the great vassals of the crown (Fig. 298).

[Illustration: Fig. 298.--Carlovingian King in his Palace personifying

Wisdom appealing to the whole Human Race.--After a Miniature in a

Manuscript of the Ninth Century in the Burgundian Library of Brussels,

from a Drawing by Count Horace de Vielcastel.]

The authoritative and responsible action of a tribunal which represented

society (Fig. 299) thus took the place of the unchecked animosity of

private feuds and family quarrels, which were often avenged by the use of

the gibbet, a monument to be found erected at almost every corner. Not

unfrequently, in those early times, the unchecked passions of a chief of a

party would be the only reason for inflicting a penalty; often such a

person would constitute himself sole judge, and, without the advice of any

one, he would pass sentence, and even, with his own sword or any other

available instrument, he would act as his own executioner. The tribunal

thus formed denounced duelling, the pitiless warfare between man and man,

and between family and family, and its first care was to protect, not each

individual man's life, which was impossible in those days of blind

barbarism, but at least his dwelling. Imperceptibly, the sanctuary of a

man's house extended, first to towns of refuge, and then to certain public

places, such as the church, the _mahlum_, or place of national assemblies,

the market, the tavern, &c. It was next required that the accused, whether

guilty or not, should remain unharmed from the time of the crime being

committed until the day on which judgment was passed.

[Illustration: Fig. 299.--The Court of the Nobles.--Fac-simile of a

Miniature in an old Poetical Romance of Chivalry, Manuscript of the

Thirteenth Century, in the Library of the Arsenal of Paris.]

This right of revenge, besides being thus circumscribed as to locality,

was also subject to certain rules as to time. Sunday and the principal

feasts of the year, such as Advent, Christmas week, and from that time to

the Epiphany, from the Ascension to the Day of Pentecost, certain vigils,

&c., were all occasions upon which the right of revenge could not be

exercised. "The power of the King," says a clever and learned writer,

"partook to a certain degree of that of God and of the Saints; it was his

province to calm human passions; by the moral power of his seal and his

hand he extended peace over all the great lines of communication, through

the forests, along the principal rivers, the highways and the byways, &c.

The _Trêve du Dieu_ in 1035, was the logical application of these humane

principles."

We must not suppose that justice in those days was dispensed without

formalities, and that there were no regular intervals between the various

steps to be gone through before final judgment was given, and in

consequence of which some guarantee was afforded that the decisions

arrived at were carefully considered. No one was tried without having been

previously summoned to appear before the tribunal. Under the

Carlovingians, as in previous times, the periods when judicial courts were

held were regulated by the moon. Preference was given to the day on which

it entered the first quarter, or during the full moon; the summonses were

returnable by moons or quarter moons--that is, every seventh day. The

summons was issued four times, after which, if the accused did not appear,

he lost the right of counterplea, or was nonsuited. The Salic law allowed

but two summonses before a count, which had to be issued at an interval of

forty nights the one from the other. The third, which summoned the accused

before the King, was issued fourteen nights later, and if he had not put

in an appearance before sunset on the fourteenth day, he was placed _hors

de sa parole_, his goods were confiscated, and he forfeited the privilege

of any kind of refuge.

Among the Visigoths justice was equally absolute from the count to the

tithe-gatherer. Each magistrate had his tribunal and his special

jurisdiction. These judges called to their assistance assessors or

colleagues, either _rachimbourgs_, who were selected from freemen; or

provosts, or _échevins_ (_scabini_), whose appointment was of an official

and permanent character. The scabins created by Charlemagne were the first

elected magistrates. They numbered seven for each bench. They alone

prepared the cases and arranged as to the sentence. The count or his

delegate alone presided at the tribunal, and pronounced the judgment.

Every vassal enjoyed the right of appeal to the sovereign, who, with his

court, alone decided the quarrels between ecclesiastics and nobles, and

between private individuals who were specially under the royal protection.

Criminal business was specially referred to the sovereign, the _missi_, or

the Count Palatine. Final appeal lay with the Count Palatine in all cases

in which the public peace was endangered, such as in revolts or in armed

encounters.

As early as the time of the invasion, the Franks, Bavarians, and

Visigoths, when investigating cases, began by an inquiry, and, previously

to having recourse to trials before a judge, they examined witnesses on

oath. Then, he who swore to the matter was believed, and acquitted

accordingly. This system was no doubt flattering to human veracity, but,

unfortunately, it gave rise to abuses; which it was thought would be

avoided by calling the family and friends of the accused to take an oath,

and it was then administered by requiring them to place their hands on the

crucifix, on some relics, or on the consecrated Host. These witnesses, who

were called _conjuratores_, came to attest before the judges not the fact

itself, but the veracity of the person who invoked their testimony.

[Illustration: Fig. 300.--The Judicial Duel. The Plaintiff opening his

Case before the Judge.--Fac-simile of a Miniature in the "Cérémonies des

Gages des Batailles," Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century in the National

Library of Paris.]

The number and respectability of the _conjuratores_ varied according to

the importance of the case in dispute. Gregory of Tours relates, that King

Gontran being suspicious as to the legitimacy of the child who afterwards

became Clotaire II., his mother, Frédégonde, called in the impartial

testimony of certain nobles. These, to the number of three hundred, with

three bishops at their head (_tribus episcopis et trecentis viris

optimis_), swore, or, as we say, made an affidavit, and the queen was

declared innocent.

The laws of the Burgundians and of the Anglians were more severe than

those of the Germanic race, for they granted to the disputants trial by

combat. After having employed the ordeal of red-hot iron, and of scalding

water, the Franks adopted the judicial duel (Fig. 300). This was imposed

first upon the disputing parties, then on the witnesses, and sometimes

even on the judges themselves. Dating from the reign of the Emperor Otho

the Great in 967, the judicial duel, which had been at first restricted to

the most serious cases, was had recourse to in almost all suits that were

brought before the courts. Neither women, old men, children, nor infirm

persons were exempted. When a person could not himself fight he had to

provide a champion, whose sole business was to take in hand the quarrels

of others.

[Illustration: Fig. 301.--Judicial Duel.--Combat of a Knight with a

Dog.--Fac-simile of a Miniature in the Romance of "Macaire," of the

Thirteenth Century (Library of the Arsenal of Paris).]

Ecclesiastics were obliged, in the same maimer, to fight by deputy. The

champion or substitute required, of course, to be paid beforehand. If the

legend of the Dog of Montargis is to be believed, the judicial duel seems

to have been resorted to even against an animal (Fig. 301).

In the twelfth century Europe was divided, so to speak, into two vast

judicial zones: the one, Southern, Gallo-Roman, and Visigoth; the other,

Northern and Western, half Germanic and half Scandinavian, Anglian, or

Saxon. Christianity established common ties between these different

legislations, and imperceptibly softened their native coarseness, although

they retained the elements of their pagan and barbaric origin. Sentences

were not as yet given in writing: they were entrusted to the memory of the

judges who had issued them; and when a question or dispute arose between

the interested parties as to the terms of the decision which had been

pronounced, an inquiry was held, and the court issued a second decision,

called a _recordatum_.

As long as the King's court was a movable one, the King carried about with

him the original text of the law in rolls (_rotuli_). It was in

consequence of the seizure of a number of these by the English, during the

reign of Philip Augustus in 1194, that the idea was suggested of

preserving the text of all the laws as state archives, and of opening

authentic registers of decisions in civil and criminal cases. As early as

the time of Charles the Bald, the inconvenience was felt of the high court

of the count being movable from place to place, and having no special

locality where instructions might be given as to modes of procedure, for

the hearing of witnesses, and for keeping the accused in custody, &c. A

former statute provided for this probable difficulty, but there seems to

be no proof that previous to the twelfth century any fixed courts of

justice had been established. The Kings, and likewise the counts, held

courts in the open air at the entrance to the palace (Fig. 302), or in

some other public place--under a large tree, for instance, as St. Louis

did in the wood of Vincennes.

M. Desmaze, in his valuable researches on the history of the Parliament of

Paris, says--"In 1191, Philip Augustus, before starting for Palestine,

established bailiwicks, which held their assizes once a month; during

their sitting they heard all those who had complaints to make, and gave

summary judgment. The bailiff's assize was held at stated periods from

time to time, and at a fixed place; it was composed of five judges, the

King deciding the number and quality of the persons who were to take part

in the deliberations of the court for each session. The royal court only

sat when it pleased the King to order it; it accompanied the King wherever

he went, so that it had no settled place of residence."

Louis IX. ordered that the courts of the nobles should be consolidated

with the King's court, and succeeded in carrying out this reform. The

bailiffs who were the direct delegates of the sovereign power, assumed an

authority before which even the feudal lord was obliged to bend, because

this authority was supported by the people, who were at that time

organized in corporations, and these corporations were again bound

together in communes. Under the bailiffs a system was developed, the

principles of which more nearly resembled the Roman legislation than the

right of custom, which it nevertheless respected, and the judicial trial

by duel completely disappeared. Inquiries and appeals were much resorted

to in all kinds of proceedings, and Louis IX. succeeded in controlling the

power of ecclesiastical courts, which had been much abused in reference to

excommunication. He also suppressed the arbitrary and ruinous

confiscations which the nobles had unjustly made on their vassals.

[Illustration: Fig. 302.--The Palace as it was in the Sixteenth

Century.--After an Engraving of that Period, National Library of Paris

(Cabinet des Estampes).]

The edict of 1276 very clearly established the jurisdiction of parliaments

and bailiwicks; it defined the important duties of the bailiffs, and at

the same time specified the mode in which proceedings should be taken; it

also regulated the duties of counsel, _maîtres des requêtes_, auditors,

and advocates.

To the bailiwicks already in existence Louis IX. added the four great

assizes of Vermandois, of Sens, of Saint-Pierre-le-Moustier, and of Mâcon,

"to act as courts of final appeal from the judgment of the nobles."

Philippe le Bel went still further, for, in 1287, he invited "all those

who possess temporal authority in the kingdom of France to appoint, for

the purpose of exercising civil jurisdiction, a bailiff, a provost, and

some serjeants, who were to be laymen, and not ecclesiastics, and if there

should be ecclesiastics in the said offices, to remove them." He ordered,

besides, that all those who had cases pending before the court of the King

and the secular judges of the kingdom should be furnished with lay

attorneys; though the chapters, as well as the abbeys and convents, were

allowed to be represented by canons. M. Desmaze adds, "This really

amounted to excluding ecclesiastics from judicial offices, not only from

the courts of the King, but also from those of the nobles, and from every

place in which any temporal jurisdiction existed."

At the time of his accession, Hugh Capet was Count of Paris, and as such

was invested with judicial powers, which he resigned in 987, on the

understanding that his county of Paris, after the decease of the male

heirs of his brother Eudes, should return to the crown. In 1032, a new

magistrate was created, called the Provost of Paris, whose duty it was to

give assistance to the bourgeois in arresting persons for debt. This

functionary combined in his own person the financial and political chief

of the capital, he was also the head of the nobility of the county, he was

independent of the governor, and was placed above the bailiffs and

seneschals. He was the senior of the urban magistracy and police, leader

of the municipal troops, and, in a word, the prefect (_præfectus urbis_),

as he was called under the Emperor Aurelian, or the first magistrate of

Lutetia, as he was still called under Clotaire in 663. Assessors were

associated with the provost, and together they formed a tribunal, which

was afterwards known as the Châtelet (Fig. 303), because they assembled in

that fortress, the building of which is attributed to Julius Caesar. The

functions of this tribunal did not differ much from those of the royal

_châtellenies:_ its jurisdiction embraced quarrels between individuals,

assaults, revolts, disputes between the universities and the students, and

improper conduct generally (_ribaudailles_), in consequence of which the

provost acquired the popular surname of _Roi des Ribauds_. At first his

judgment was final, but very soon those under his jurisdiction were

allowed to appeal to Parliament, and that court was obliged to have

certain cases sent back for judgment from the Châtelet. This was, however,

done only in a few very important instances, notwithstanding frequent

appeals being made to its supreme arbitration.

[Illustration: Fig. 303.--The Great Châtelet of Paris.--Principal Front

opposite the Pont-au-Change.--Fac-simile of an Engraving on Copper by

Mérian, in the "Topographia Galliae" of Zeller.]

In addition to the courts of the counts and bailiffs established in

certain of the large towns, aldermanic or magisterial courts existed,

which rather resembled the Châtelet of Paris. Thus the _capiloulat_ of

Toulouse, the senior alderman of Metz, and the burgomaster of Strasburg

and Brussels, possessed in each of these towns a tribunal, which judged

without appeal, and united the several functions of a civil, criminal, and

simple police court. Several places in the north of France had provosts

who held courts whose duties were various, but who were principally

charged with the maintenance of public order, and with suppressing

disputes and conflicts arising from the privileges granted to the trade

corporations, whose importance, especially in Flanders, had much increased

since the twelfth century.

"On his return from abroad, Louis IX. took his seat upon the bench, and

administered justice, by the side of the good provost of Paris." This

provost was no other than the learned Estienne Boileau, out of respect to

whom the provostship was declared a _charge de magistrature_. The increase

of business which fell to the provost's office, especially after the

boundaries of Paris were extended by Philip Augustus, caused him to be

released from the duty of collecting the public taxes. He was authorised

to furnish himself with competent assistants, who were employed with

matters of minor detail, and he was allowed the assistance of _juges

auditeurs_. "We order that they shall be eight in number," says an edict

of Philippe le Bel, of February, 1324, "four of them being ecclesiastics

and four laymen, and that they shall assemble at the Châtelet two days in

the week, to take into consideration the suits and causes in concert with

our provost...." In 1343, the provost's court was composed of one King's

attorney, one civil commissioner, two King's counsel, eight councillors,

and one criminal commissioner, whose sittings took place daily at the

Châtelet.

From the year 1340 this tribunal had to adjudicate in reference to all the

affairs of the university, and from the 6th of October, 1380, to all those

of the salt-fish market, which were no less numerous, so that its

importance increased considerably. Unfortunately, numerous abuses were

introduced into this municipal jurisdiction. In 1313 and 1320, the

officers of the Châtelet were suspended, on account of the extortions

which they were guilty of, and the King ordered an inquiry to be made into

the matter. The provost and two councillors of the Parliament sat upon it,

and Philip de Valois, adopting its decisions, prescribed fresh statutes,

which were naturally framed in such a way as to show the distrust in which

the Châtelet was then held. To these the officers of the Châtelet promised

on oath to submit. The ignorance and immorality of the lay officers, who

had been substituted for the clerical, caused much disturbance. Parliament

authorised two of its principal members to examine the officers of the

Châtelet. Twenty years later, on the receipt of fresh complaints,

Parliament decided that three qualified councillors, chosen from its own

body, should proceed with the King's attorney to the Châtelet, so as to

reform the abuses and informalities of that court.

[Illustration: Fig. 304.--The King's Court, or Grand Council.--Fac-simile

of a Miniature in the "Chroniques" of Froissart, Manuscript of the

Fifteenth Century (formerly in the possession of Charles V), in the

Library of the Arsenal, Paris.]

In the time of Philippe le Bel there existed in reality but one

Parliament, and that was the _King's Court_. Its action was at once

political, administrative, financial, and judicial, and was necessarily,

therefore, of a most complicated character. Philippe le Bel made it

exclusively a judicial court, defined the territorial limit of its power,

and gave it as a judicial body privileges tending to strengthen its

independence and to raise its dignity. He assigned political functions to

the Great Council (_Conseil d'Etat_); financial matters to the chamber of

accounts; and the hearing of cases of heresy, wills, legacies, and dowries

to the prelates. But in opposition to the wise edict of 1295, he

determined that Jews should be excluded from Parliament, and prelates from

the palace of justice; by which latter proceeding he was depriving justice

of the abilities of the most worthy representatives of the Gallican

Church. But Philippe le Bel and his successors, while incessantly

quarrelling either with the aristocracy or with the clergy, wanted the

great judicial bodies which issued the edicts, and the urban or municipal

magistrates--which, being subject to re-election, were principally

recruited from among the bourgeois--to be a common centre of opposition to

any attempt at usurpation of power, whether on the part of the Church, the

nobility, or the crown.

The Great Days of Troyes (_dies magni Trecenses_), the assizes of the

ancient counts of Champagne, and the exchequer of Normandy, were also

organized by Philipe le Bel; and, further, he authorised the maintenance

of a Parliament at Toulouse, a court which he solemnly opened in person on

the 10th of January, 1302. In times of war the Parliament of Paris sat

once a year, in times of peace twice. There were, according to

circumstances, during the year two, three, or four sittings of the

exchequer of Normandy, and two of the Great Days of Troyes, tribunals

which were annexed to the Parliament of Paris, and generally presided over

by one of its delegates, and sometimes even by the supreme head of that

high court. At the King's council (Fig. 304) it was decided whether a case

should be reserved for the Parliament of Paris, or passed on either to the

exchequer or to the Great Days of Troyes.

As that advanced reformer, Philippe le Bel, died before the institutions

he had established had taken root, for many years, even down to the time

of Louis XI., a continual conflict for supremacy was waged between the

Parliament of Paris and the various courts of the kingdom--between the

counts and the Parliament, and between the latter and the King, which,

without lessening the dignity of the crown, gradually tended to increase

the influence which the judges possessed. Immediately on the accession of

Louis le Hutin, in 1314, a reaction commenced--the higher clergy

re-entered Parliament; but Philippe le Long took care that the laity

should be in a majority, and did not allow that in his council of State

the titled councillors should be more numerous than the lawyers. The

latter succeeded in completely carrying the day on account of the services

they rendered, and the influence which their knowledge of the laws of the

country gave them. As for centuries the sword had ruled the gown, so,

since the emancipation of the bourgeois, the lawyers had become masters of

the administrative and judicial world; and, notwithstanding the fact that

they were still kept in a somewhat inferior position to the peers and

barons, their opinion alone predominated, and their decision frequently at

once settled the most important questions.

An edict issued at Val Notre-Dame on the 11th of March, 1344, increased

the number of members of Parliament, which from that time consisted of

three presidents, fifteen clerical councillors, fifteen lay councillors,

twenty-four clergymen and sixteen laymen of the Court of Inquiry, and five

clergymen and sixteen laymen of the Court of Petitions. The King filled up

the vacant seats on the recommendation of the Chancellor and of the

Parliament. The reporters were enjoined to write the decisions and

sentences which were given by the court "in large letters, and far apart,

so that they might be more easily read." The duties of police in the

courts, the keeping of the doors, and the internal arrangements generally

for those attending the courts and the Parliament, were entrusted to the

ushers, "who divided among themselves the gratuities which were given them

by virtue of their office." Before an advocate was admitted to plead he

was required to take oath and to be inscribed on the register.

The Parliament as then established was somewhat similar in its character

to that of the old national representative government under the Germans

and Franks. For centuries it protected the King against the undue

interference of the spiritual power, it defended the people against

despotism, but it often lacked independence and political wisdom, and it

was not always remarkable for its correct appreciation of men and things.

This tribunal, although supreme over all public affairs, sometimes wavered

before the threats of a minister or of a court favourite, succumbed to the

influence of intrigues, and adapted itself to the prejudices of the times.

We see it, in moments of error and of blindness, both condemning eminent

statesmen and leading citizens, such as Jacques Coeur and Robertet, and

handing over to the executioner distinguished men of learning and science

in advance of the times in which they lived, because they were falsely

accused of witchcraft, and also doing the same towards unfortunate

maniacs who fancied they had dealings with the devil.

[Illustration: Fig. 305.--Trial of the Constable de Bourbon before the

Peers of France (1523).--From an Engraving in "La Monarchie Françoise" of

Montfauçon.]

In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries all the members of Parliament

formed part of the council of State, which was divided into the Smaller

Council and the Greater Council. The Greater Council only assembled in

cases of urgency and for extraordinary and very important purposes, the

Smaller Council assembled every month, and its decisions were registered.

From this arose the custom of making a similar registration in Parliament,

confirming the decisions after they had been formally arrived at. The most

ancient edict placed on the register of the Parliament of Paris dates from

the year 1334, and is of a very important character. It concerns a

question of royal authority, and decides that in spiritual matters the

right of supremacy does not belong more to the Pope than to the King.

Consequently Philippe de Valois ordered "his friends and vassals who shall

attend the next Parliament and the keepers of the accounts, that for the

perpetual record of so memorable a decision, it shall be registered in the

Chambers of Parliament and kept for reference in the Treasury of the

Charters." From that time "cases of complaint and other matters relating

to benefices have no longer been discussed before the ecclesiastical

judges, but before Parliament or some other secular court."

During the captivity of King John in England, royal authority having

considerably declined, the powers of Parliament and other bodies of the

magistracy so increased, that under Charles VI. the Parliament of Paris

was bold enough to assert that a royal edict should not become law until

it had been registered in Parliament. This bold and certainly novel

proceeding the kings nevertheless did not altogether oppose, as they

foresaw that the time would come when it might afford them the means of

repudiating a treaty extorted from them under difficult circumstances

(Fig. 306).

The close connection which existed between the various Parliaments and

their political functions--for they had occasion incessantly to interfere

between the acts of the government and the respective pretensions of the

provinces or of the three orders--naturally increased the importance of

this supreme magistracy. More than once the kings had cause to repent

having rendered it so powerful, and this was the case especially with the

Parliament of Paris. In this difficulty it is interesting to note how the

kings acted. They imperceptibly curtailed the various powers of the other

courts of justice, they circumscribed the power of the Parliament of

Paris, and proportionately enlarged the jurisdiction of the great

bailiwicks, as also that of the Châtelet. The provost of Paris was an

auxiliary as well as a support to the royal power, which nevertheless held

him in its grasp. The Châtelet was also a centre of action and of

strength, which counteracted in certain cases parliamentary opposition.

Thence arose the most implacable rivalries and dissensions between these

various parties.

[Illustration: Fig. 306.--Promulgation of an Edict.--Fac-simile of a

Miniature in "Anciennetés des Juifs," (French Translation from Josephus),

Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century, executed for the Duke of Burgundy

(Library of the Arsenal of Paris.)]

It is curious to notice with what ingenuity and how readily Parliament

took advantage of the most trifling circumstances or of charges based upon

the very slightest grounds to summon the officers of the Châtelet before

its bar on suspicion of prevarication or of outrages against religion,

morals, or the laws. Often were these officers and the provost himself

summoned to appear and make _amende honourable_ before the assembly,

notwithstanding which they retained their offices. More than once an

officer of the Châtelet was condemned to death and executed, but the King

always annulled that part of the sentence which had reference to the

confiscation of the goods of the condemned, thus proving that in reality

the condemnation had been unjust, although for grave reasons the royal

authority had been unable to save the victim from the avenging power of

Parliament. Hugues Aubriot, the provost, was thus condemned to

imprisonment for life on the most trivial grounds, and he would have

undergone capital punishment if Charles V. had abandoned him at the time

of his trial. During the English occupation, in the disastrous reign of

Charles VI., the Châtelet of Paris, which took part with the people, gave

proof of extraordinary energy and of great force of character. The blood

of many of its members was shed on the scaffold, and this circumstance

must ever remain a reproach to the judges and to those who executed their

cruel sentences, and a lasting crown of glory to the martyrs themselves.

An edict of King John, issued after his return from London in 1363, a

short time before his death, clearly defined the duties of Parliament.

They were to try cases which concerned peers of France, and such prelates,

chapters, barons, corporations, and councils as had the privilege of

appealing to the supreme court; and to hear cases relating to estates, and

appeals from the provost of Paris, the bailiffs, seneschals, and other

judges (Fig. 307). It disregarded minor matters, but took cognizance of

all judicial debates which concerned religion, the King, or the State. We

must remark here that advocates were only allowed to speak twice in the

same cause, and that they were subjected to fine, or at least to

remonstrance, if they were tedious or indulged in needless repetition in

their replies, and especially if they did not keep carefully to the facts

of the case. After pleading they were permitted to give a summary in

writing of "the principal points of importance as well as their clients'

grounds of defence." Charles V. confirmed these orders and regulations

with respect to advocates, and added others which were no less important,

among which we find a provision for giving "legal assistance to poor and

destitute persons who go to law." These regulations of Charles also

limited the time in which officers of justice were to get through their

business under a certain penalty; they also proclaimed that the King

should no longer hear minor causes, and that, whatever might be the rules

of the court, they forbad the presidents from deferring their judgment or

from retarding the regular course of justice. Charles VI., before he

became insane, contributed no less than his father to the establishment on

a better footing of the supreme court of the kingdom, as well as that of

the Châtelet and the bailiwicks.

[Illustration: Fig. 307.--Bailiwick.--Fac-simile of a Woodcut in the

"Cosmographie Universelle" of Munster: in folio, Basle, 1552.]

In the fifteenth century, the Parliament of Paris was so organized as not

to require material change till 1789. There were noble, clerical, and lay

councillors, honorary members, and _maîtres de requête_, only four of whom

sat; a first president, who was supreme head of the Parliament, a master

of the great chamber of pleas, and three presidents of the chamber, all of

whom were nominated for life. There were fifteen masters (_maistres_) or

clerical councillors, and fifteen who were laymen, and these were annually

approved by the King on the opening of the session. An attorney-general,

several advocates-general, and deputies, who formed a committee or

college, constituted the active part of this court, round which were

grouped consulting advocates (_consiliarii_), pleading advocates

(_proponentes_), advocates who were mere listeners (_audientes_), ushers

and serjeants, whose chief, on his appointment, became a member of the

nobility.

The official costume of the first president resembled that of the ancient

barons and knights. He wore a scarlet gown lined with ermine, and a black

silk cap ornamented with tassels. In winter he wore a scarlet mantle lined

with ermine over his gown, on which his crest was worked on a shield. This

mantle was fastened to the left shoulder by three gold cords, in order to

leave the sword-side free, because the ancient knights and barons always

sat in court wearing their swords. Amongst the archives of the mayoralty

of London, we find in the "account of the entry of Henry V., King of

England, into Paris" (on the 1st of December, 1420), that "the first

president was in royal dress (_estoit en habit roial_), the first usher

preceding him, and wearing a fur cap; the church dignitaries wore blue

robes and hoods, and all the others in the procession scarlet robes and

hoods." This imposing dress, in perfect harmony with the dignity of the

office of those who wore them, degenerated towards the fifteenth century.

So much was this the case, that an order of Francis I. forbad the judges

from wearing pink "slashed hose" or other "rakish garments."

In the early times of monarchy, the judicial functions were performed

gratuitously; but it was the custom to give presents to the judges,

consisting of sweetmeats, spices, sugar-plums, and preserves, until at a

subsequent period, 1498, when, as the judges "preferred money to

sweetmeats," says the Chancellor Etienne Pasquier, the money value of the

spices, &c., was fixed by law and made compulsory. In the bills of

expenses preserved among the national archives, we find that the first

president of the Parliament of Paris received a thousand _livres parisis_

annually, representing upwards of one hundred thousand francs at the

present rate of money; the three presidents of the chamber five hundred

livres, equal to fifty thousand francs; and the other nobles of the said

Parliament five _sols parisis_, or six sols three deniers--about

twenty-five francs--per day for the days only on which they sat. They

received, besides, two mantles annually. The prelates, princes, and barons

who were chosen by the King received no salaries--_ils ne prennent nuls

guaiges_ (law of 27th January, 1367). The seneschals and high bailiffs,

like the presidents of the chambers, received five hundred livres--fifty

thousand francs. They and the bailiffs of inferior rank were expressly

forbidden from receiving money or fees from the parties in any suit, but

they were allowed to accept on one day refreshment and bottles of wine.

The salaries were paid monthly; but this was not always done regularly;

sometimes the King was to blame for this, and sometimes it was owing to

the ill-nature of the chiefs of finance, or of the receivers and payers.

When the blame rested with the King, the Parliament humbly remonstrated or

closed the court. When, on the contrary, an officer of finance did not pay

the salaries, Parliament sent him the bailiff's usher, and put him under

certain penalties until he had done so. The question of salaries was

frequently arising. On the 9th of February, 1369, "the court having been

requested to serve without any remuneration for one Parliament, on the

understanding that the King would make up for it another time, the nobles

of the court replied, after private deliberation, that they were ready to

do the King's pleasure, but could not do so properly without receiving

their salaries" (Register of the Parliament of Paris).

At the commencement of the fifteenth century, the scale of remuneration

was not increased. In 1411 it was raised for the whole Parliament to

twenty-five thousand livres, which, calculated according to the present

rate, amounted to nearly a million francs. In consequence of financial

difficulties and the general distress, the unpleasant question in

reference to claims for payment of salaries was renewed, with threats that

the course of justice would be interrupted if they were not paid or not

promised. On the 2nd of October, 1419, two councillors and one usher were

sent to the house of one of the chiefs of finance, with orders to demand

payment of the salaries of the court. In October, 1430, the government

owed the magistrates two years of arrears. After useless appeals to the

Regent, and to the Bishop of Thérouanne, the then Chancellor of France,

the Parliament sent two of its members to the King at Rouen, who obtained,

after much difficulty, "one month's pay, on the understanding that the

Parliament should hold its sittings in the month of April." In the month

of July, 1431, there was another deputation to the King, "in order to lay

before him the necessities of the court, and that it had for some time

been prorogued, and was still prorogued, on account of the non-payment of

salaries." After two months of repeated remonstrance, the deputies only

bringing back promises, the court assumed a menacing aspect; and on the

11th of January, 1437, it pointed out to the chancellor the evil which

would arise if Parliament ceased to hold its sittings; and this time the

chancellor announced that the salaries would be paid, though six months

passed without any resuit or any practical step being taken in the matter.

This state of affairs grew worse until the year 1443, when the King was

obliged to plead with the Parliament in the character of an insolvent

debtor, and, in order to obtain remission of part of his debt to the

members, to guarantee to them a part of the salt duties.

Charles VII, after having reconquered his states, hastened to restore

order. He first occupied himself with the System of justice, the

Parliament, the Châtelet, and the bailiwicks; and in April, 1453, in

concert with the princes, the prelates, the council of State, the judges,

and others in authority, he framed a general law, in one hundred and

twenty-five articles, which was considered as the great charter of

Parliament (Fig. 308). According to the terms of these articles, "the

councillors are to sit after dinner, to get through the minor causes.

Prisoners are to be examined without delay, and to hold no communication

with any one, unless by special permission. The cases are to be carefully

gone through in their proper order; for courts are instructed to do

justice as promptly for the poor as for the rich, as it is a greater

hardship for the poor to be kept waiting than the rich." The fees of

attorneys were taxed and reduced in amount. Those of advocates were

reduced "to such moderation and fairness, that there should be no cause

for complaint." The judgments by commissary were forbidden. The bailiffs

and seneschals were directed to reside within their districts. The

councillors were ordered to abstain from all communication with the

parties in private, and consultations between themselves were to be held

in secret. The judgments given in lawsuits were inscribed in a register,

and submitted every two months to the presidents, who, if necessary,

called the reporters to account for any neglect of duty. The reporter was

ordered to draw attention to any point of difficulty arising in a suit,

and the execution of sentences or judgments was entrusted to the ushers of

the court.

In 1454 the King, in consequence of a difficulty in paying the regular

instalments of the usual salaries of the Parliament, created "after-dinner

fees" (_des gages d'après dînées_) of five sols parisis--more than ten

francs of our money--per day, payable to those councillors who should hold

a second hearing. Matters did not improve much, however; nothing seemed to

proceed satisfactorily, and members of Parliament, deprived of their

salaries, were compelled to contract a loan, in order to commence

proceedings against the treasury for the non-payment of the amount due to

them. In 1493, the annual salaries of Parliament were raised to the sum of

40,630 livres, equal to about 1,100,000 francs.

[Illustration: Fig. 308.--Supreme Court, presided over by the King, who is

in the act of issuing a Decree which is being registered by the

Usher.--Fac-simile of a Miniature in Camareu of the "Information des

Rois," Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century, in the Library of the Arsenal

of Paris.]

The first president received 4 livres, 22 solis parisis--about 140

francs--per day; a clerical councillor 25 sols parisis--about 40

francs--and a lay councillor 20 sols--about 32 francs. This was an

increase of a fifth on the preceding year. Charles VIII., in thus

improving the remuneration of the members of the first court of the

kingdom, reminded them of their duties, which had been too long neglected;

he told them "that of all the cardinal virtues justice was the most noble

and most important;" and he pointed out to them the line of conduct they

were to pursue. The councillors were to be present daily in their

respective chambers, from St. Martin's day to Easter, before seven o'clock

in the morning; and from Easter to the closing of Parliament, immediately

after six o'clock, without intermission, under penalty of punishment.

Strict silence was enforced upon them during the debates; and they were

forbidden to occupy themselves with anything which did not concern the

case under discussion. Amidst a mass of other points upon which directions

are given, we notice the following: the necessity of keeping secret the

matters in course of deliberation; the prohibition to councillors from

receiving, either directly or indirectly, anything in the shape of a

douceur from the parties in any suit; and the forbidding all attorneys

from receiving any bribe or claiming more than the actual expenses of a

journey and other just charges.

The great charter of the Parliament, promulgated in April, 1453, was thus

amended, confirmed, and completed, by this code of Charles VIII., with a

wisdom which cannot be too highly extolled.

The magistrature of the supreme courts had been less favoured during the

preceding reign. Louis XI., that cautious and crafty reformer, after

having forbidden ecclesiastical judges to examine cases referring to the

revenues of vacant benefices, remodelled the secular courts, but he

ruthlessly destroyed anything which offended him personally. For this

reason, as he himself said, he limited the power of the Parliaments of

Paris and Toulouse, by establishing, to their prejudice, several other

courts of justice, and by favouring the Châtelet, where he was sure always

to find those who would act with him against the aristocracy. The

Parliament would not give way willingly, nor without the most determined

opposition. It was obliged, however, at last to succumb, and to pass

certain edicts which were most repugnant to it. On the death of Louis XI.,

however, it took its revenge, and called those who had been his favourites

and principal agents to answer a criminal charge, for no other reason than

that they had exposed themselves to the resentment of the supreme court.

The Châtelet, in its judicial functions, was inferior to the Parliament,

nevertheless it acquired, through its provost, who represented the

bourgeois of Paris, considerable importance in the eyes of the supreme

court. In fact, for two centuries the provost held the privilege of ruling

the capital, both politically and financially, of commanding the citizen

militia, and of being chief magistrate of the city. In the court of

audiences, a canopy was erected, under which he sat, a distinction which

no other magistrate enjoyed, and which appears to have been exclusively

granted to him because he sat in the place of _Monsieur Saint Loys_ (Saint

Louis), _dispensing justice to the good people of the City of Paris_. When

the provost was installed, he was solemnly escorted, wearing his cap, to

the great chamber of Parliament, accompanied by four councillors.

[Illustration: Fig. 309.--The Court of a Baron.--Fac-simile of a Woodcut

in the "Cosmographie Universelle" of Munster: in folio, Basle, 1552.]

After the ceremony of installation he gave his horse to the president, who

had come to receive him. His dress consisted of a short robe, with mantle,

collar turned down, sword, and hat with feathers; he also carried a staff

of office, profusely ornamented with silver. Thus attired he attended

Parliament, and assisted at the levees of the sovereign, where he took up

his position on the lowest step of the throne, below the great

Chamberlain. Every day, excepting at the vintage time, he was required to

be present at the Châtelet, either personally or by deputy, punctually at

nine in the morning. There he received the list of the prisoners who had

been arrested the day before; after that he visited the prisons, settled

business of various kinds, and then inspected the town. His jurisdiction

extended to several courts, which were presided over by eight deputies or

judges appointed by him, and who were created officers of the Châtelet by

Louis XII. in 1498. Subsequently, these received their appointments direct

from the King. Two auditing judges, one king's attorney, one registrar,

and some bailiffs, completed the provost's staff.

[Illustration: Fig. 310.--Sergeants-at-Arms of the Fourteenth Century,

carved in Stone.--From the Church of St. Catherine du Val des Ecoliers, in

Paris.]

The bailiffs at the Châtelet were divided into five classes: the _king's

sergeant-at-arms,_ the _sergeants de la douzaine_, the _sergeants of the

mace_, or _foot sergeants,_ the _sergeants fieffés_, and the _mounted

sergeants_. The establishment of these officers dated from the beginning

of the fourteenth century, and they were originally appointed by the

provost, but afterwards by the King himself. The King's sergeants-at-arms

(Fig. 310) formed his body-guard; they were not under the jurisdiction of

the high constable, but of the ordinary judges, which proves that they

were in civil employ. The sergeants _de la douzaine_ were twelve in

number, as their name implies, all of whom were in the service of the

provost; the foot sergeants, who were civilians, were gradually increased

to the number of two hundred and twenty as early as the middle of the

fifteenth century. They acted only in the interior of the capital, and

guarded the city, the suburbs, and the surrounding districts, whereas the

mounted sergeants had "to watch over the safety of the rural parishes, and

to act throughout the whole extent of the provost's jurisdiction, and of

that of the viscount of Paris."

In the midst of the changes of the Middle Ages, especially after the

communes became free, all those kings who felt the importance of a strict

system of justice, particularly St. Louis, Philippe le Bel, and Charles

VIII., had seen the necessity of compiling a record of local customs. An

edict of 1453 orders that "the custom shall be registered in writing, so

as to be examined by the members of the great council of the Parliament."

Nevertheless, this important work was never properly carried out, and to

Louis XII. is due the honour of introducing a customary or usage law, and

at the same time of correcting the various modes of procedure, upon which

customs and usages had been based, and which had become singularly

antiquated since the edict of 1302.

No monarch showed more favour to Parliament than Louis XII. During his

reign of seventeen years we never find complaints from the magistracy for

not having been paid punctually. But in contrast with this, on the

accession of Francis I., the court complained of not having been paid its

first quarter's salary. From that moment claims were perpetually being

made; there were continually delays, or absolute refusals; the members

were expecting "remuneration for their services, in order absolutely to

enable them to support their families and households." We can thus judge

of the state of the various minor courts, which, being less powerful than

the supreme tribunals, and especially than that of Paris, were quite

unable to get their murmurings even listened to by the proper authorities.

This sad state of things continued, and, in fact, grew worse, until the

assembly of the League, when Mayenne, the chief of the leaguers, in order

to gratify the Parliament, promised to double the salaries, although he

was unable to fulfil his promise.

[Illustration: Fig. 311.--Inferior Court in the Great Bailiwick. Adoption

of Orphan Children.--Fac-simile of a Woodcut in J. Damhoudère's "Refuge et

Garand des Pupilles, Orphelins:" Antwerp, J. Bellère, 1557.]

Towards the end of the sixteenth century the highest French tribunal was

represented by nine superior courts--namely, the Parliament of Bordeaux,

created on the 9th of June, 1642; the Parliament of Brittany, which

replaced the ancient _Grands-Jours,_ in March, 1553, and sat alternately

at Nantes and at Rennes; the Parliament of the Dauphiné, established at

Grenoble in 1451 to replace the Delphinal Council; the Parliament of

Burgundy, established at Dijon in 1477, which took the place of the

_Grands-Jours_ at Beaune; the movable Parliament of Dombes, created in

1528, and consisting at the same time of a court of excise and a chamber

of accounts; the Parliament of Normandy, established by Louis XII. in

April, 1504, intended to replace the Exchequer of Rouen, and the ancient

ducal council of the province; the Parliament of Provence, founded at Aix

in July, 1501; the Parliament of Toulouse, created in 1301; and the

Parliament of Paris, which took precedence of all the others, both on

account of its origin, its antiquity, the extent of its jurisdiction, the

number of its prerogatives, and the importance of its decrees. In 1551,

Henry II. created, besides these, an inferior court in each bailiwick, the

duties of which were to hear, on appeal, all matters in which sums of less

than two hundred livres were involved (Fig. 311). There existed, besides,

a branch of the _Grands-Jours,_ occasionally sitting at Poitiers, Bayeux,

and at some other central towns, in order to suppress the excesses which

at times arose from religious dissensions and political controversy.

The Parliament of Paris--or _Great French Parliament_, as it was called by

Philip V. and Charles V., in edicts of the 17th of November, 1318, and of

the 8th of October, 1371--was divided into four principal chambers: the

Grand Chamber, the Chamber of Inquiry, the Criminal Chamber, and the

Chamber of Appeal. It was composed of ordinary councillors, both clerical

and lay; of honorary councillors, some of whom were ecclesiastics, and

others members of the nobility; of masters of inquiry; and of a

considerable number of officers of all ranks (Figs. 312 to 314). It had at

times as many as twenty-four presidents, one hundred and eighty-two

councillors, four knights of honour, four masters of records; a public

prosecutor's office was also attached, consisting of the king's counsel,

an attorney-general and deputies, thus forming an assembly of from fifteen

to twenty persons, called a _college_. Amongst the inferior officers we

may mention twenty-six ushers, four receivers-general of trust money,

three commissioners for the receipt of goods which had been seized under

distress, one treasurer and paymaster, three controllers, one physician,

two surgeons, two apothecaries, one matron, one receiver of fines, one

inspector of estates, several keepers of refreshment establishments, who

resided within the precincts of the palace, sixty or eighty notaries, four

or five hundred advocates, two hundred attorneys, besides registers and

deputy registers. Down to the reign of Charles VI. (1380--1422) members of

Parliament held their appointment by commissions granted by the King, and

renewed eaeh session. From Charles VI. to Francis I. these appointments

became royal charges; but from that time, owing to the office being so

often prostituted for reward, it got more and more into disrepute.

[Illustration: Fig. 312.--Judge.--From a Drawing in "Proverbes, Adages,

&c.," Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century, in the Imperial Library of

Paris.]

Louis XI. made the office of member of the Parliament of Paris a

permanent one, and Francis I. continued this privilege. In 1580 the

supreme magistracy poured 140,000,000 francs, which now would be worth

fifteen or twenty times as much, into the State treasury, so as to enable

members to sit permanently _sur les fleurs de lis_, and to obtain

hereditary privileges. The hereditary transmission of office from father

to son dealt a heavy blow at the popularity of the parliamentary body,

which had already deeply suffered through shameful abuses, the enormity of

the fees, the ignorance of some of the members, and the dissolute habits

of many others.

[Illustration: Fig. 313.--Lawyer.--From the "Danse des Morts" of Basle,

engraved by Mérian: in 4to, Frankfort, 1596.]

[Illustration: Fig. 314.--Barrister.--From a Woodout in the "Danse

Macabre:" Guyot's edition, 1490.]

[Illustration: Fig. 315.--Assembly of the Provostship of the Merchants of

Paris.--Fac-simile of a Woodcut in "Ordonnances Royaux de la Jurisdiction

de la Prevoté des Marchands et Eschevinage de la Ville de Paris:" in small

folio, goth. edition of Paris, Jacques Nyverd, 1528.]

The Châtelet, on the contrary, was less involved in intrigue, less

occupied with politics, and was daily engaged in adjudicating in cases of

litigation, and thus it rendered innumerable services in promoting the

public welfare, and maintained, and even increased, the respect which it

had enjoyed from the commencement of its existence. In 1498, Louis XII.

required that the provost should possess the title of doctor _in utroque

jure_, and that his officers, whom he made to hold their appointments for

life, should be chosen from amongst the most distinguished counsellors at

law. This excellent arrangement bore its fruits. As early as 1510, the

"Usages of the City, Provosty, and Viscounty of Paris," were published _in

extenso_, and were then received with much ceremony at a solemn audience

held on the 8th of March in the episcopal palace, and were deposited among

the archives of the Châtelet (Fig. 315).