_Admissibility to Public Functions; Hierarchy of Ranks; Honorary

Privileges of the Nobility._--It is more especially, or rather it is

solely, upon the points that concern the hierarchy of ranks and the

difference of social classes, that the nobility separates itself from

the general spirit of the reforms required, and that, though willing to

concede some few important points, it still clings to the principles

of the old system. It evidently is aware that it is now struggling for

its very existence. Its memorials, consequently, urgently demanded

the maintenance of the clergy and the nobility as distinct orders.

They even require that efforts should be made to maintain the order

of nobility in all its purity, and that to this intent it should be

rendered impossible to acquire the title of noble by payment of money;

that it should no longer be attached to certain places about Court,

and that it should only be obtained by merit, after long and useful

services rendered to the State. They express the desire that men

assuming false titles of nobility should be found out and prosecuted.

All these memorials, in fact, make urgent protestations in favour of

the maintenance of the noble in all his honours. Some even desire

that a distinctive mark should be given to the nobles to ensure their

exterior recognition. It is impossible to imagine anything more

characteristic than this demand, or more indicative of the perfect

similitude that must have already existed between the noble and the

plebeian in spite of the difference of their social conditions. In

general, in its memorials, the nobility, although it appears easily

disposed enough to concede many of its more profitable rights, clings

energetically to its honorary privileges. So greatly does it feel

itself already hurried on by the torrent of democracy, and fear to sink

in the stream, that it not only wants to preserve all the privileges it

already enjoys, but is desirous of inventing others it never possessed.

It is singular to remark how it has a presentiment of the impending

danger without the actual perception of it.

With regard to public employments, the nobles require that the venality

of offices should be done away with in all places connected with the

magistracy, and that, in appointments of this kind, the citizens in

general should be presented by the nation to the king, and nominated by

him without any distinction, except as regards conditions of age and

capacity. The majority also opines that the _Tiers-État_ should not

be excluded from military rank, and that every military man, who had

deserved well of his country, should have the right to rise to the very

highest grade. ‘The order of nobility does not approve of any law that

closes the portals of military rank to the order of the _Tiers-État_,’

is the expression used by some of the memorials. But the nobles

desire that the right of coming into a regiment as officer, without

having first gone through the inferior grades, should be reserved

to themselves alone. Almost all the Instructions, however, require

the establishment of fixed regulations, applicable alike to all, for

the bestowal of rank in the army, and demand that they should not be

entirely left to favour, but be conferred, with the exception of those

of superior officers, by right of seniority.

As regards the clerical functions, they require the re-establishment

of the elective system in the bestowal of benefices, or at least the

appointment by the King of a committee that may enlighten him in the

distribution of these benefices.

Lastly, they express the opinion that, for the future, pensions ought

to be given away with more discernment; that they ought no longer to

be exclusively lavished upon certain families; that no citizen ought

to have more than one pension, or receive the salary of more than one

place at a time, and that all reversions of such emoluments should be

abolished.

_The Church and the Clergy._--In matters which do not affect its

own interests and especial constitution, the nobility is far less

scrupulous. In all that regards the privileges and organisation of the

Church, its eyes are opened wide enough to existing abuses.

It desires that the clergy should have no privileges in matters of

taxation, and that it should pay its debts without putting the burden

of them on the nation: moreover, that the monastic orders should

undergo a complete reformation. The greater part of the Instructions

declare that these monastic establishments have wholly departed from

the original spirit of their institution.

The majority of the bailiwicks express their desire that the tithes

should be made less prejudicial to agriculture; many demand their

abolition altogether. ‘The greater part of the tithes,’ says one of the

memorials, ‘is collected by those incumbents who do the least towards

giving spiritual succour to the people.’ It is easy to perceive,

that the latter order has not much forbearance for the former in

its remarks. No greater respect was shown in its treatment of the

Church itself. Several bailiwicks formally admit the right of the

States-General to suppress certain religious orders, and apply their

revenues to some other use. Seventeen bailiwicks declare the competence

of the States-General to regulate their discipline. Several complain

that the holidays (_jours de fête_) are too frequent, are prejudicial

to agriculture, and are favourable to drunkenness, and suggest that,

in consequence, a great number of them ought to be suppressed and kept

only on the Sundays.

_Political Rights._--As regards political rights, the Instructions

establish the right of every Frenchman to take his part in the

government, either directly or indirectly; that is to say, the right

to elect or be elected, but without disturbing the gradation of social

ranks; so that no one may nominate or be nominated otherwise than in

his own Order. This principle once established, it is considered that

the representative system ought to be established in such wise, that

the power of taking a serious part in the direction of affairs may be

guaranteed to each Order of the nation.

With regard to the manner of voting in the Assembly of the

States-General the opinions differ. Most desire a separate vote for

each Order; others think that an exception ought to be made to this

rule in the votes upon taxation; whilst others again consider that it

should always be so. ‘The votes ought to be counted by individuals and

not by Orders,’ say the latter. ‘Such a manner of proceeding being

the only sensible one, and the only one tending to remove and destroy

that egotism of caste, which is the source of all our evils--to bring

men together and lead them to that result, which the nation has the

right to expect from an Assembly, whose patriotism and great moral

qualities should be strengthened by its united intelligence.’ As an

immediate adoption of this innovation, however, might prove dangerous

in the existing state of general feeling, many of the Instructions

provide that it should be only decided upon with caution, and that the

assembly had better decide whether it were not more prudent to put

off the system of individual voting to the following States-General.

The nobility demands that, in any case, each Order should be allowed

to preserve that dignity which is due to every Frenchman, and

consequently that the humiliating ceremonies, to which the _Tiers-État_

was subjected under the old system, should be abolished, as, for

instance, that of being obliged to kneel--‘inasmuch,’ says one of

these documents, ‘as the spectacle of one man kneeling before another

is offensive to the dignity of man, and emblematic of an inferiority

between creatures equal by nature, incompatible with their essential

rights.’

_The System to be established in the Form of Government, and the

Principles of the Constitution._--With regard to the form of

government, the nobility desired the maintenance of the monarchical

constitution, the preservation of the legislative, judicial, and

executive powers in the person of the King, but, at the same time, the

establishment of fundamental laws for the purpose of guaranteeing the

rights of the nation in the exercise of these powers.

All the Instructions, consequently, declare that the nation has the

right to assemble in States-General, composed of a sufficient number

of members to ensure the independence of the Assembly; and they

express the desire that, for the future, these States should assemble

at fixed periodical seasons, as well as upon every fresh succession

to the throne, without the issue of any writs of convocation. Many of

the bailiwicks even advise the permanence of this Assembly. If the

convocation of the States-General were not to take place within the

period prescribed by the law, they should have the right of refusing

the payment of taxes. Some few of the Instructions desire that, during

the intervals between the sittings of the States, an intermediary

commission should be appointed to watch over the administration of

the kingdom; but most of them formally oppose the appointment of any

such commission, as being unconstitutional. The reason given for this

objection is curious enough. They feared lest so small an Assembly,

left to itself in the presence of the Government, might be seduced by

it.

The nobility desires that the Ministers should not possess the right of

dissolving the Assembly, and should be punished by law for disturbing

it by their cabals; that no public functionary, no one dependent in

any way upon the Government, should be a deputy; that the person of

the deputies should be inviolable, and that they should not be able

(according to the terms of the memorials) to be prosecuted for any

opinions they may emit; finally, that the sittings of the Assembly

should be public, and that, in order that the nation might more

generally take part in them, they should be made known by printed

reports.

The nobility unanimously demands that the principles destined to

regulate the government of the State should be applied to the

administration of the different parts of the kingdom, and that,

consequently, Assemblies made up of members freely elected, and for

a limited period of time, should be formed in each district and each

parish.

Many of the Instructions recommend that the functions of _Intendants_

and _Receveurs-Généraux_ ought to be done away with; all are of opinion

that, in future, the Provincial Assemblies should alone take in hand

the assessment of the taxes, and see to the special interests of the

province. The same ought to be the case, they consider, with the

Assemblies of each _arrondissement_ and of each parish, which ought

only to be accountable for the future to the Provincial States.

_Distribution of the Powers of State.--Legislative Power._--As

regards the distribution of the powers of the State between the

assembled nation and the King, the nobility requires that no law

should be considered effective until it has been consented to by the

States-General and the King and entered upon the registers of the

courts empowered to maintain the execution of the laws; that the

States-General should have the exclusive attribute of determining and

fixing the amount of the taxes; that all subsidies agreed upon should

be only for the period that may elapse between one sitting of the

States and the next; that all which may be levied or ordained, without

the consent of the States, should be declared illegal, and that all

ministers and receivers of such subsidies, who may have ordered or

levied them, should be prosecuted as public defaulters; that, in the

same way, no loan should be contracted without the consent of the

States-General, but that a credit alone should be opened, fixed by the

States, of which the Government might make use in case of war or any

great calamity, taking care, however, that measures should be taken to

convoke the States-General in the shortest possible time; that all the

national treasuries should be placed under the superintendence of the

States; that the expenses of each department should be fixed by them;

and that the surest measures should be taken to see that the funds

voted were not exceeded.

The greater part of the Instructions recommend the suppression of

those vexatious taxes, known under the names of _insinuation_,

_entérinement_, and _centième denier_, coming under the denomination of

‘Administration (_Régie_) of the Royal domains,’ upon the subject of

which one of the memorials says: ‘The denomination of _Régie_ is alone

sufficient to wound the feelings of the nation, inasmuch as it puts

forward, as belonging to the King, matters which are in reality a part

of the property of the citizens;’ that all the domains, not alienated,

should be placed under the administration of the Provincial States, and

no ordinance, no edict upon financial matters, should be given without

the consent of the three Orders of the nation.

It is evidently the intention of the nobility to confer upon the nation

the whole of the financial administration, as well in the regulation

of loans and taxes, as in the receipt of the same by the means of the

General and Provincial Assemblies.

_Judicial Power._--In the same way, in the judicial organisation, it

has a tendency towards rendering the power of the judges, at least in

a great measure, dependent upon the nation assembled. And thus many

of the memorials declare ‘that the magistrates should be responsible

for the fact of their appointments to the nation assembled;’ that they

should not be dismissed from their functions without the consent of the

States-General; that no court of justice, under any pretext whatever,

should be disturbed in the exercise of its functions without the

consent of these States; that the disputed matters in the Appeal Court,

as well as those before the Parliament, should be decided upon by the

States-General. The majority of the Instructions add that the judges

ought only to be nominated by the King, upon presentation to him by the

people.

_Executive Power._--The executive power is exclusively reserved to the

King; but necessary limits are proposed, in order to prevent its abuse.

For instance, in the administration, the Instructions require that the

state of the accounts of the different departments should be rendered

public by being printed; likewise, that before employing the troops in

the defence of the country from without, the King should make known his

precise intention to the States-General; that, in the country itself,

the troops should never be employed against the citizens, except upon

the requisition of the States-General; that the number of the troops

should be limited, and that two-thirds of them alone should remain, in

common times, upon the second effective list; and that the Government

ought to keep away all the foreign troops it may have in its pay from

the centre of the kingdom, and send them to the frontiers.

In perusing the Instructions of the nobility, the reader cannot fail

to be struck, more than all, with the conviction that the nobles are

so essentially of their own time. They have all the feelings of the

day, and employ its language with perfect fluency; they talk of ‘the

inalienable rights of man’ and ‘the principles inherent to the social

compact.’ In matters appertaining to the individual, they generally

look to his rights--in those appertaining to society, to its duties.

The principles of their political opinions appear to them _as absolute

as those of morality, both one and the other being based upon reason_.

In expressing their desire to abolish the last remnants of serfdom,

they talk of _effacing the last traces of the degradation of the

human race_. They sometimes denominate Louis XVI. the ‘Citizen-King,’

and frequently speak of that crime of _lèse-nation_ (treason to the

nation), which afterwards was so frequently imputed to themselves.

In their opinion, as in that of every one else, everything was to be

expected from the results of public education, which the States were to

direct. ‘_The States-General_,’ says one of the _Cahiers_, ‘_must take

care to inspire a national character by alterations in the education of

children_.’ Like the rest of their contemporaries, they show a lively

and constant desire for uniformity in the legislation, excepting,

however, in all that affected the existence of ranks. They are as

desirous as the _Tiers-État_ of administrative uniformity--uniformity

of measures, &c. They point out all kinds of reforms, and expect that

these reforms should be radical. According to their suggestions, all

the taxes, without exception, should be abolished or transferred, and

the whole judicial system changed, except in the case of the Seignorial

Courts of Justice, which they considered only to need improvement.

They, as well as all the other French, looked upon France as a field

for experiment--a sort of political model-farm, in which every portion

was to be turned up and every experiment tried, except in one special

little corner, where their own privileges blossomed. It must be said to

their honour, however, that even this was but little spared by them. In

short, as may be seen by reading their memorials, all the nobles wanted

in order to make the Revolution was that they should be plebeians.

Note (XLV.)--Page 97, line 2.

SPECIMEN OF THE RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT OF AN ECCLESIASTICAL PROVINCE IN

THE MIDDLE OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

1. The Archbishop.

2. Seven Vicars-General.

3. Two Ecclesiastical Courts, denominated _Officialités_. One, called

the Metropolitan _Officialité_, took cognisance of the judgments of the

suffragans. The other, called the _Officialité_ of the Diocess, took

cognisance (1) of personal affairs between clerical men; (2) of the

validity of marriages, as regarded the performance of the ceremony.

This latter court was composed of three judges, to whom were adjoined

notaries and attorneys.

4. Two Fiscal Courts. The one, called the office of the Diocess

(_Bureau Diocésain_), took cognisance, in the first instance, of all

matters having reference to the dues levied on the clergy of the

diocess. (As is well known, they were fixed by the clergy themselves.)

This court was presided over by the Archbishop, and made up of six

other priests. The other court gave judgment in appeals on causes,

which had been brought before the other _Bureaux Diocésains_, of the

ecclesiastical province.

All these courts admitted counsel and heard pleadings.

Note (XLVI.)--Page 97, line 10.

GENERAL FEELING OF THE CLERGY IN THE STATES AND PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLIES.

What has been said in the text respecting the States of Languedoc is

applicable just as well to the Provincial Assemblies that met in 1779

and 1787, for instance, in Haute-Guienne. The members of the clergy,

in this Provincial Assembly, were among the most enlightened, the most

active, and the most liberal. It was the Bishop of Rhodez who proposed

to publish the minutes of the Assembly.

Note (XLVII.)--Page 98, line 26.

This liberal disposition on the part of the priests in political

matters, which displayed itself in 1789, was not only produced by the

excitement of the moment, evidence of it had already appeared at a much

earlier period. It exhibited itself, for instance, in the province

of Berri as early as 1779, when the clergy offered to make voluntary

donations to the amount of 68,000 livres, upon the sole condition that

the provincial administration should be preserved.

Note (XLVIII.)--Page 100, line 11.

It must be carefully remarked that, if the political conditions of

society were without any ties, the civil state of society still had

many. Within the circle of the different classes men were bound to

each other; something even still remained of that close tie which had

once existed between the class of the _Seigneurs_ and the people; and

although all this only existed in civil society, its consequence was

indirectly felt in political society. The men, bound by these ties,

formed masses that were irregular and unorganised, but refractory

beneath the hand of authority. The Revolution, by breaking all social

ties, without establishing any political ties in their place, prepared

the way at the same time for equality and servitude.

Note (XLIX.)--Page 101, line 5.

EXAMPLE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE COURTS EXPRESSED THEMSELVES UPON THE

OCCASION OF CERTAIN ARBITRARY ACTS.

It appears, from a memorial laid before the _Contrôleur-Général_ in

1781, by the _Intendant_ of the _Généralité_ of Paris, that it was one

of the customs of that _Généralité_ that the parishes should have two

syndics--the one elected by the inhabitants in an Assembly presided

over by the _Subdélégué_, the other chosen by the _Intendant_, and

considered the overseer of the former. A quarrel took place between the

two syndics in the parish of Rueil, the elected syndic not choosing to

obey the chosen syndic. The _Intendant_, by means of M. de Breteuil,

had the elected syndic put into the prison of La Force for a fortnight;

he was arrested, then dismissed from his post, and another was put

in his place. Thereupon the Parliament, upon the requisition of the

imprisoned syndic, commenced proceedings at law, the issue of which

I have not been able to find, but during which it declared that the

imprisonment of the plaintiff and the nullification of his election

could only be considered as _arbitrary and despotic acts_. The judicial

authorities, it seems, were then sometimes rather hard in the mouth.

Note (L.)--Page 103, line 30.

So far from being the case that the enlightened and wealthy classes

were oppressed and enslaved under the _ancien régime_, it may be said,

on the contrary, that all, including the _bourgeoisie_, were frequently

far too free to do all they liked; since the Royal authority did not

dare to prevent members of these classes from constantly creating

themselves an exceptional position, to the detriment of the people; and

almost always considered it necessary to sacrifice the latter to them,

in order to obtain their good will, or put a stop to their ill humour.

It may be said that, in the eighteenth century, a Frenchman belonging

to these classes could more easily resist the Government, and force it

to use conciliatory measures with him, than an Englishman of the same

position in life could have done at that time. The authorities often

considered themselves obliged to use towards such a man a far more

temporising and timid policy than the English Government would ever

have thought itself bound to employ towards an English subject in the

same category--so wrong is it to confound independence with liberty.

Nothing is less independent than a free citizen.

Note (LI.)--Page 103, line 37.

REASON THAT FREQUENTLY OBLIGED THE ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT IN THE ANCIENT

STATE OF SOCIETY TO RESTRAIN ITSELF.

In ordinary times the augmentation of old taxes, and more especially

the imposition of new taxes, are the only subjects likely to cause

trouble to a Government, or excite a people. Under the old financial

constitution of Europe, when any Prince had expensive desires, or

plunged into an adventurous line of policy, or allowed his finances

to become disordered, or (to take another instance) needed money for

the purpose of sustaining himself by winning partisans by means of

enormous gains or heavy salaries that they had never earned, or by

keeping up numerous armies, by undertaking great public works, &c.

&c., he was obliged at once to have recourse to taxation; a proceeding

that immediately roused and excited every class, especially that

class which creates revolutions--the people. Nowadays, in similar

positions, loans are contracted, the immediate effect of which passes

almost unperceived, and the final result of which is only felt by the

succeeding generation.

Note (LII.)--Page 105, line 29.

As one example, among many others, the fact may be cited, that the

principal domains in the jurisdiction of Mayenne were farmed out to

_Fermiers-Généraux_, who took as _Sous-Fermiers_ little miserable

tillers of land, who had nothing of their own, and for whom they

were obliged to furnish the most necessary farming utensils. It may

be well conceived that _Fermiers-Généraux_ of this kind had no great

consideration for the farmers or due-paying tenants of the old feudal

_Seigneur_, who had put them in his place, and that the exercise of

feudalism in such hands as these was often more hard to bear than in

the Middle Ages.

Note (LIII.)--Page 105, line 29.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

The inhabitants of Mantbazon had put upon the _taille_ the Stewards of

the Duchy, which was in possession of the Price de Rohan, although

these Stewards only farmed in his name. This Prince (who must have been

extremely wealthy) not only caused this ‘abuse,’ as he termed it, to be

put a stop to, but obtained the reimbursement of 5344 livres 15 sous,

which he had been improperly made to pay, and which was charged upon

the inhabitants.

Note (LIV.)--Page 108, line 7.

EXAMPLE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PECUNIARY CLAIMS OF THE CLERGY

ALIENATED FROM THEM THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHOSE ISOLATED POSITION

OUGHT TO HAVE CONCILIATED THEM.

The Curé of Noisai asserted that the inhabitants were obliged to

undertake the repairs of his barn and wine-press, and asked for the

imposition of a local tax for that purpose. The _Intendant_ gave answer

that the inhabitants were only obliged to repair the parsonage-house,

and that the barn and wine-press were to be at the expense of this

pastor, who was evidently more busied about the affairs of his farm

than his spiritual flock (1767).

Note (LV.)--Page 110, line 4.

In one of the memorials sent up in 1788 by the peasants--a memorial

written with much clearness and in a moderate tone, in answer to an

inquiry instituted by a Provincial Assembly--the following passages

occur:--‘In addition to the abuses occasioned by the mode of levying

the _taille_, there exists that of the _garnissaires_. These men

generally arrive five times during the collection of the _taille_.

They are commonly _invalides_, or Swiss soldiers. They remain every

time four or five days in the parish, and are taxed at 36 sous a day

by the tax-receipt office. As to the assessment of the _taille_,

we will forbear to point out the too well-known abuses occasioned

by the arbitrary measures employed and the bad effects produced by

the officious parts played by officers who are frequently incapable

and almost always partial and vindictive. They have been the cause,

however, of many disturbances and quarrels, and have occasioned

proceedings at law, extremely expensive for the parties pleading, and

very advantageous to the courts.’

Note (LVI.)--Page 110, line 39.

THE SUPERIORITY OF THE METHODS ADOPTED IN THE PROVINCES POSSESSING

ASSEMBLIES (PAYS D’ÉTAT) RECOGNISED BY THE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONARIES

THEMSELVES.

A confidential letter, written by the Director of the Taxes to the

_Intendant_, on June 3rd, 1772, has the following:--‘In the _Pays

d’États_, the tax being a fixed _tantième_ (per-centage), every

taxpayer is subject to it, and really pays it. An augmentation

upon this _tantième_ is made in the assessment, in proportion to

the augmentation required by the King upon the total supplied--for

instance, a million instead of 900,000 livres. This is a simple

operation; whilst in the _Généralité_ the assessment is personal, and,

so to say, arbitrary; some pay their due, others only the half, others

the third, the quarter, or nothing at all. How, in this case, subject

the amount of taxation to the augmentation of one-ninth?’

Note (LVII.)--Page 112, line 37.

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PRIVILEGED CLASSES UNDERSTOOD AT FIRST THE

PROGRESS OF CIVILISATION IN ROAD-MAKING.

Count X., in a letter to the _Intendant_, complains of the very little

zeal shown in the establishment of a road in his neighbourhood. He says

it is the fault of the _Subdélégué_ who does not use sufficient energy

in the exercise of his functions, and will not compel the peasants to

do their forced labour (_corvées_).

Note (LVIII.)--Page 112, line 42.

ARBITRARY IMPRISONMENT FOR THE CORVÉE.

An example is given in a letter of a _Grand Prévôt_, in 1768:--‘I

ordered yesterday,’ it says, ‘the imprisonment of three men (at the

demand of M. C., Sub-Engineer), for not having done their _corvée_.

Upon which there was a considerable agitation among the women of the

village, who exclaimed, “The poor people are thought of quite enough

when the _corvée_ is to be done; but nobody takes care to see they have

enough to live upon.”’

Note (LIX.)--Page 113, line 20.

The resources for the making of roads were of two kinds. The greater

was the _corvée_, for all the great works that required only labour;

the smaller was derived from the general taxation, the amount of which

was placed at the disposition of the _Ponts et Chaussées_ for the

expenses of works requiring science. The privileged classes--that is

to say, the principal landowners--though more interested than all in

the construction of roads, contributed nothing to the _corvée_ and,

moreover, were still exempt otherwise, inasmuch as the taxation for the

_Ponts et Chaussées_ was annexed to the _taille_, and levied in the

same manner.

Note (LX.)--Page 113, line 29.

EXAMPLE OF FORCED LABOUR IN THE TRANSPORT OF CONVICTS.

It may be seen by a letter, addressed by a Commissary at the head of

the police department of convict-gangs, to the _Intendant_, in 1761,

that the peasants were compelled to cart the galley-slaves on their

way; that they executed this task with very ill will; and that they

were frequently maltreated by the convict-guards, ‘inasmuch,’ says

the Commissary, ‘as the guards are coarse and brutal fellows, and the

peasants who undertake this work by compulsion are often insolent.’

Note (LXI.)--Page 113, line 32.

Turgot has given descriptions of the inconvenience and hardship of

forced labour for the transport of military baggage, which, after a

perusal of the office papers, appear not to have been exaggerated.

Among other things, he says that its chief hardship consisted in the

unequal distribution of a very heavy burden, inasmuch as it fell

entirely upon a small number of parishes, which had the misfortune

of being placed on the high road. The distance to be done was often

one of five, six, or sometimes ten and fifteen leagues. In which case

three days were necessary for the journey out and home again. The

compensation given to the landowners only amounted to one-fifth of the

expense that fell upon them. The period when forced labour was required

was generally the summer, the time of harvest. The oxen were almost

always overdriven, and frequently fell ill after having been employed

at the work--so much so that a great number of landowners preferred

giving a sum of 15 to 20 livres rather than supply a waggon and four

oxen. The consequent confusion which took place was unavoidable. The

peasants were constantly exposed to violence of treatment from the

military. The officers almost always demanded more than was their

due; and sometimes they obliged the drivers, by force, to harness

saddle-horses to the vehicles at the risk of doing them a serious

injury. Sometimes the soldiers insisted upon riding upon carts already

overloaded; at other times, impatient at the slow progress of the oxen,

they goaded them with their swords, and when the peasants remonstrated

they were maltreated.

Note (LXII.)--Page 113, line 38.

EXAMPLE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH FORCED LABOUR WAS APPLIED TO EVERYTHING.

A correspondence arising, upon a complaint made by the Intendant of the

Naval department at Rochefort, concerning the difficulties made by the

peasants who were obliged by the _corvée_ to cart the wood purchased

by the navy contractors in the different provinces for the purposes

of shipbuilding, shows that the peasants were in truth still (1775)

obliged to do this forced labour, the price of which the Intendant

himself fixed. The Minister of the Navy transferred the complaint to

the Intendant of Tours, with the order that he must see to the supply

of the carriages required. The Intendant, M. Ducluzel, refused to

authorise this species of forced labour, whereupon the Minister wrote

him a threatening letter, telling him that he would have to answer

for his refusal to the King. The Intendant, to this, replied at once

(December 11th, 1775) with firmness, that, during the ten years he

had been Intendant at Tours, he never had chosen to authorise these

_corvées_, on account of the inevitable abuses resulting from them, for

which the price fixed for the use of the vehicles was no compensation.

‘For frequently,’ says his letter, ‘the animals are crippled by the

weight of the enormous masses they are obliged to drag through roads as

bad as the time of year when they are ordered out.’ What encouraged the

Intendant in his resistance seems to have been a letter of M. Turgot,

which is annexed to the papers on this matter. It is dated on July

30th, 1774, shortly after his becoming Minister; and it says that he

himself never authorised these _corvées_ at Limoges, and approves of M.

Ducluzel for not authorising them at Tours.

It is proved by some portions of this correspondence that the timber

contractors frequently exacted this forced labour even when they were

not authorised to do so by the contracts made between themselves and

the State, inasmuch as they thus profited at least one-third in the

economy of their transport expenses. An example of the profit thus

obtained is given by a _Subdélégué_ in the following computation:

‘Distance of the transport of the wood from the spot where it is cut

to the river, by almost impracticable cross-roads, six leagues; time

employed in going and coming back, two days; reckoning (as an indemnity

to the _corvéables_) the square foot at the rate of six liards a

league, the whole amounts to 13 francs 10 sous for the journey--a sum

scarcely sufficient to pay the actual expenses of the small landowner,

of his assistant, and of the oxen or horses harnessed to his cart.

His own time and trouble, and the work of his beasts, are dead losses

to him.’ On May 17th, 1776, the Intendant was served by the Minister

with a positive order from the King to have this _corvée_ executed. M.

Ducluzel being then dead, his successor, M. l’Escalopier, very readily

obeyed, and published an ordinance declaring that the _Subdélégué_

had to make the assessment of the amount of labour to be levied upon

each parish, in consequence of which the different persons obliged to

statute labour in the said parishes were constrained to go, according

to the time and place set forth by the syndics, to the spot where the

wood might happen to be, and cart it at the price regulated by the

_Subdélégué_.

Note (LXIII.)--Page 115, line 22.

EXAMPLE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PEASANTS WERE OFTEN TREATED.

In 1768 the King allowed a remittance of 2000 francs to be made upon

the _taille_ in the parish of Chapelle-Blanche, near Saumur. The

_curé_ wanted to appropriate a part of this sum to the construction of

a belfry, in order to get rid of the sound of the bells that annoyed

him, as he said, in his parsonage-house. The inhabitants complained and

resisted. The _Subdélégué_ took part with the _curé_, and had three of

the principal inhabitants arrested during the night and put into prison.

Further examples may be found in a Royal order to imprison for

a fortnight a woman who had insulted two of the mounted rural

police; and another order for the imprisonment for a fortnight of a

stocking-weaver who had spoken ill of the same police. In this latter

case the Intendant replied to the Minister, that he had already put

the man in prison--a proceeding that met with the approval of the

Minister. This abuse of the _maréchaussée_ had arisen from the fact

of the violent arrest of several beggars, that seems to have greatly

shocked the population. The _Subdélégué_, it appears, in arresting the

weaver, made publicly known that all who should continue to insult the

_maréchaussée_ should be even still more severely punished.

It appears by the correspondence between the _Subdélégué_ and their

Intendant (1760-1770) that orders were given by him to them to have

all ill-doing persons arrested--not to be tried, but to be punished

forthwith by imprisonment. In one instance the _Subdélégué_ asks leave

of the Intendant to condemn to perpetual imprisonment two dangerous

beggars whom he had arrested; in another we find the protest of a

father against the arrest of his son as a vagabond, because he was

travelling without his passport. Again, a householder of X. demands

the arrest of a man, one of his neighbours, who had come to establish

himself in the parish, to whom he had been of service, but who had

behaved ill, and was disagreeable to him; and the Intendant of Paris

writes to request the Intendant of Rouen to be kind enough to render

this service to the householder, who is one of his friends.

In another case an Intendant replies to a person who wants to have

some beggars set at liberty, saying that the _Dépôt des Mendicants_ was

not to be considered as a prison, but only as a house intended for the

detention of beggars and vagabonds, as an ‘administrative correction.’

This idea has come down to the French Penal Code, so much have the

traditions of the old monarchy, in these matters, maintained themselves.

Note (LXIV.)--Page 121, line 7.

It has been said that the character of the philosophy of the eighteenth

century was a sort of adoration of human reason--a boundless confidence

in its almighty power to transform at its will laws, institutions, and

morals. But, upon examination, we shall see that, in truth, it was more

their own reason that some of these philosophers adored than human

reason. None ever showed less confidence in the wisdom of mankind than

these men. I could name many who had almost as much contempt for the

masses as for the Divinity. The latter they treated with the arrogance

of rivals, the former with the arrogance of upstarts. A real and

respectful submission to the will of the majority was as far from their

minds as submission to the Divine will. Almost all the revolutionists

of after days have displayed this double character. There is a wide

distance between their disposition and the respect shown by the English

and Americans to the opinion of the majority of their fellow-citizens.

Individual reason in those countries has its own pride and confidence

in itself, but is never insolent; it has thus led the way to freedom,

whilst in France it has done nothing but invent new forms of servitude.

Note (LXV.)--Page 132, line 15.

Frederick the Great, in his Memoirs, has said: ‘Your great men, such as

Fontenelle, Voltaire, Hobbes, Collins, Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke, have

struck a mortal blow at religion. Men began to look into that which

they had blindly adored; reason overthrew superstition; disgust for all

the fables they had believed succeeded. Deism acquired many followers.

As Epicureanism became fatal to the idolatrous worship of the heathen,

so did Deism in our days to the Judaical visions adopted by our

forefathers. The freedom of opinion prevalent in England contributed

greatly to the progress of philosophy.’

It may be seen by the above passage that Frederick the Great, at

the time he wrote those lines, that is to say, in the middle of the

eighteenth century, still at that time looked upon England as the

seat of irreligious doctrines. But a still more striking fact may

be gathered from it, namely, that one of the sovereigns, the most

experienced in the knowledge of man, and of affairs in general, does

not appear to have the slightest idea of the political utility of

religion. The errors of judgment in the mind of his instructors had

evidently disordered the natural qualities of his own.

Note (LXVI.)--Page 150, line 1.

The spirit of progress which showed itself in France at the end of

the eighteenth century appeared at the same time throughout all

Germany, and was everywhere accompanied by the same desire to change

the institutions of the time. A German historian gives the following

picture of what was then going on in his own country:--

‘In the second half of the eighteenth century the new spirit of the age

gradually introduced itself even into the ecclesiastical territories.

Reforms were begun in them; industry and tolerance made their way in

them on every side; and that enlightened absolutism, which had already

taken possession of the large states, penetrated even there. It must

be said at the same time, that at no period of the eighteenth century

had these ecclesiastical territories possessed such remarkable and

estimable Princes as during the last ten years preceding the French

Revolution.’

The resemblance of this picture to that which France then offered is

remarkable. In France, the movement in favour of amelioration and

progress began at the same epoch; and the men the most able to govern

appeared on the stage just at the time when the Revolution was about to

swallow up everything.

It must be observed also how much all that portion of Germany was

visibly hurried on by the movement of civilisation and political

progress in France.

Note (LXVII.)--Page 151, line 1.

THE LAWS OF ENGLAND PROVE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR INSTITUTIONS TO

BE FULL OF DEFECTS AND YET NOT PREVENT THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE

PRINCIPAL END AND AIM FOR WHICH THEY WERE ESTABLISHED.

The power, which nations possess, of prospering in spite of the

imperfections to be met with in secondary portions of their

institutions, as long as the general principles and the actual spirit

which animate those institutions are full of life and vigour, is a

phenomenon which manifests itself with peculiar distinctness when the

judicial constitution of England in the last century, as described by

Blackstone, is looked into.

The attention is immediately arrested by two great diversities, that

are very striking:--

First. The diversity of the laws.

Secondly. The diversity of the Courts that administer them.

I.--_Diversity of the Laws._--(1.) The laws are different for England

(properly so called), for Scotland, for Ireland, for the different

European dependencies of Great Britain, such as the Isle of Man, the

Channel Islands, &c., and, finally, for the British Colonies.

(2.) In England itself may be found four kinds of laws--the common law,

statute laws, canon law, and equity. The common law is itself divided

into general customs adopted throughout the whole kingdom, and customs

specially belonging to certain manors or certain towns, or sometimes

only to certain classes, such as the trades. These customs sometimes

differ greatly from each other; as those, for instance, which, in

opposition to the general tendency of the English laws require an equal

distribution of property among all the children (gavelkind), and, what

is still more singular, give a right of primogeniture to the youngest

child (borough-English).

II.--_Diversity of the Courts._--Blackstone informs us that the law has

instituted a prodigious variety of different courts. Some idea of this

may be obtained from the following extremely summary analysis:--

(1.) In the first place there were the Courts established without

the limits of England, properly so called; such as the Scotch and

Irish courts, which never were dependencies of the superior courts in

England, although an appeal lies from these several jurisdictions to

the House of Lords.

(2.) In England itself, if I am correct in my memory, among the

classifications of Blackstone are to be found the following:

1. Eleven kinds of Courts of Common Law, four of which, it is true,

seem to have already fallen into disuse.

2. Three kinds of courts, the jurisdiction of which extends to the

whole country, but which take cognisance only of certain matters.

3. Ten kinds of courts, having a special character of their own. One

of these kinds consists of Local Courts, established by different Acts

of Parliament, and existing by tradition, either in London itself or

in towns and boroughs in the counties. These Courts were so numerous,

and were so extremely various in their constitution and in their

regulations, that it would be out of the question to attempt to give a

detailed account of them.

Thus, in England (properly so called) alone, if Blackstone is to be

believed, there existed, at the period when he wrote, that is to

say, in the second half of the eighteenth century, twenty-four kinds

of Courts, several of which were subdivided into a great number of

individual courts, each of which had its special peculiarities. If we

set aside those kinds, which appear at that time to have almost fallen

into disuse, we shall then find eighteen or twenty.

If now the judicial system in itself be examined it will be found to

contain all sorts of imperfections.

In spite of the multiplicity of the courts there was frequently a

want of smaller courts, of primary instance, placed within the reach

of those concerned, and empowered to judge on the spot, and at little

expense, all minor matters. This want rendered such legal proceedings

perplexing and expensive. The same matters came under the jurisdiction

of several courts; and thus an embarrassing uncertainty hung over the

commencements of legal proceedings. Some of the Appeal Courts were also

Courts of original jurisdiction--sometimes the Courts of Common Law, at

other times the Courts of Equity. There was a great diversity of Appeal

Courts. The only central point was that of the House of Lords. The

administrative litigant was not separated from the ordinary litigant--a

fact which, in the eyes of most French legal men, would appear a

monstrous anomaly. All these courts, moreover, looked for the grounds

of their judgments in four different kinds of legislation; that of the

Courts of Equity was established upon practice and tradition, since its

very object was most frequently to go against custom and statute, and

to correct, by the rules of the system framed by the Judges in Equity,

all that was antiquated or too harsh in statute and custom.

These blemishes were very great; and if the enormous old machine of the

English judicial system be compared with the modern construction of

that of France, and the simplicity, consistence, and natural connexity

to be observed in the latter, with the remarkable complication and

incoherence of the former, the errors of the English jurisprudence

will appear greater still. Yet there is not a country in the world in

which, in the days of Blackstone, the great ends of justice are more

completely attained than in England; that is to say, no country in

which every man, whatever his condition of life--whether he appeared in

court as a common individual or a Prince--was more sure of being heard,

or found in the tribunals of his country better guarantees for the

defence of his property, his liberty, and his life.

It is not meant by this that the defects of the English judicial

system were of any service to what I have here called the great ends

of justice: it proves only that in every judicial organisation there

are secondary defects that are only partially injurious to these ends

of justice; and other principal ones, that not only prove injurious to

them, but destroy them altogether, although joined to many secondary

perfections. The first mentioned are the most easily perceived;

they are the defects that generally first strike common minds: they

stare one in the face, as the saying goes. The others are often more

concealed; and it is not always the men the most learned in the law,

and other men in the profession, who discover them and point them out.

It must be observed, moreover, that the same qualities may be either

secondary or principal, according to the period of history or the

political organisation of a country. In periods of aristocratic

predominance and inequality everything that tends to lessen any

privilege of any individual before the face of justice, to afford

guarantees to the weak against the strong, and to give a predominance

to the action of the state--which is naturally impartial in differences

only occurring between subjects--becomes a principal quality; whereas

it diminishes in importance in proportion to the inclination of the

social state and political constitution towards democracy.

In studying the English judicial system upon these principles it will

be found that, although it permitted the existence of every defect that

could contribute to render justice in that country obscure, hampered,

slow, expensive, and inconvenient, it had taken infinite precautions

to prevent the strong from ever being favoured at the expense of the

weak, or the State at the expense of the private individual. The more

the observer penetrates into the details of the English legislation

the more he will see that every citizen was provided with all sorts

of weapons for his defence, and that matters were so arranged as to

afford to every one the greatest number of guarantees possible against

partiality, actual venality, and that sort of venality which is more

common, and especially more dangerous in democratic times--the venality

consisting of the servility of the courts towards the Government.

In this point of view the English judicial system, in spite of the

numerous secondary errors that may still be found in it, appears to me

superior to the French, which, although almost entirely untainted, it

is true, by any one of these defects, does not at the same time offer

in like degree the principal qualities that are to be found in it,

which, although excellent in the guarantees it affords to every citizen

in all disputes between individuals, fails precisely in that point that

ought always to be strengthened in a democratic state of society like

the French, namely, in the guarantees afforded to individuals against

the State.

Note (LXVIII.)--Page 151, line 19.

ADVANTAGES ENJOYED BY THE GÉNÉRALITÉ OF PARIS.

This _Généralité_ was as much favoured in charities bestowed by the

Government as it was in the levying of taxes. An example may be found

in a letter of the _Contrôleur-Général_ to the _Intendant_ of the

_Généralité_ of the Île-de-France (dated May 22nd, 1787), in which he

informs the latter that the King had fixed the sum, which was to be

employed upon works of charity during the year, in the _Généralité_ of

Paris, at 172,800 livres; and 100,000 livres, moreover, were destined

for the purchase of cows, to be given to different husbandmen. It

may be seen by this letter that the sum of 172,000 livres was to be

distributed by the _Intendant_ alone, with the proviso that he was to

conform himself to the general rules already made known to him by the

Government, and that he was to lay the account of the distribution

before the _Contrôleur-Général_ for approval.

Note (LXIX.)--Page 152, line 27.

The administration of the old monarchy was made up of a multitude

of different powers, which had been established at different times,

but generally for the purposes of the Treasury, and not of the

Administration, properly so called, and which frequently had the

same field of action. It was thus impossible to avoid confusion

and contention otherwise than by each party acting but little, or

even doing nothing at all. As soon as they made any efforts to rise

above this sort of languor, they hampered and entangled each other’s

movements; and thus it happened that the complaints made against the

complication of the administrative machinery, and the confusion as to

its different attributions, were very much more grievous during the

years that immediately preceded the Revolution than thirty or forty

years before. The political institutions of the country had not become

worse--on the contrary, they had been greatly ameliorated; but the

general political movement had become much more active.

Note (LXX.)--Page 157, line 30.

ARBITRARY AUGMENTATION OF THE TAXES.

What was here said by the King respecting the _taille_ might have

been said by him, with as much reason, concerning the _vingtièmes_,

as may be seen by the following correspondence:--In 1772 the

_Contrôleur-Général_ Terray had decided upon a considerable

augmentation (as much as 100,000 livres) upon the _vingtièmes_ of

the _Généralité_ of Tours. It is evident that this measure caused M.

Ducluzel, an able administrator and an honourable man, both sorrow and

embarrassment; for, in a confidential letter, he says: ‘It is probably

the facility with which the 200,000 livres’ (a previous augmentation)

‘have been given, that has encouraged the cruel interpretation and the

letter of the month of June.’

In a private and confidential letter, which the Director of

Contributions wrote thereupon to the _Intendant_, he says: ‘If the

augmentations which have been demanded appear to you, on account of the

general distress, to be as aggravating and as revolting as you give me

to understand, it would be better for the province, which can have no

other defence or protection than in your generous good-feeling, that

you should spare it, at least, the _rôles de supplément_, a retroactive

tax, that is always odious.’

It may be seen by this correspondence what a complete absence there was

of any solid basis, and what arbitrary measures were exercised, each

with honest intentions. Both Minister and Intendant laid the weight of

the increased taxation sometimes upon the agricultural rather than the

manufacturing interests, sometimes upon one kind of agriculture more

than another (as the growth of vines, for instance), according as they

fancied that the manufacturing or any one branch of the agricultural

interest ought to be more tenderly handled.

Note (LXXI.)--Page 159, line 13.

EXPRESSIONS USED BY TURGOT RESPECTING THE COUNTRY PEOPLE IN THE

PREAMBLE OF A ROYAL DECLARATION.

‘The rural communities consist, throughout the greater part of the

kingdom, of poor peasants, who are ignorant and brutal, and incapable

of self-administration.’

Note (LXXII.)--Page 163, line 24.

HOW IT WAS THAT REVOLUTIONARY IDEAS NATURALLY SPRANG UP IN MEN’S MINDS,

EVEN UNDER THE OLD MONARCHY.

In 1779 an _avocat_ addressed a petition to the Council for a decree to

establish a maximum of the price of straw throughout the whole kingdom.

Note (LXXIII.)--Page 163, line 32.

The Head Engineer, in a letter written to the _Intendant_, in 1781,

relative to a demand for an increase of indemnification, thus expresses

himself: ‘The claimant does not pay heed to the fact that the

indemnifications granted are an especial favour to the _Généralité_

of Tours, and that people ought to consider themselves very fortunate

in recovering only a part of their loss. If such compensations as the

claimant requires were to be given, four millions would not suffice.’

Note (LXXIV.)--Page 167, line 39.

The Revolution did not break out on account of this prosperity, but

that active, uneasy, intelligent, innovating, ambitious spirit, that

was destined to produce the Revolution--the democratic spirit of

new states of society--began to stir up everything, and, before it

overthrew for a period the social state of France, was already strong

enough to agitate and develop it.

Note (LXXV.)--Page 169, line 13.

COLLISION OF THE DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS IN 1787.

The following may be taken as an example:--The intermediate commission

of the Provincial Assembly of the Île-de-France claimed the

administration of the _Dépôt de Mendicité_. The _Intendant_ insisted

upon its remaining in his own hands, ‘inasmuch,’ said he, ‘as this

establishment is not kept up by the funds of the province.’ During

the discussion, the intermediate commission communicated with the

intermediate commissions of other provinces, in order to learn their

opinions. Among other answers given to its questions, exists one

from the intermediate commission of Champagne, informing that of the

Île-de-France that it had met with the very same difficulties, and had

offered the same resistance.

Note (LXXVI.)--Page 172, line 2.

In the minutes of the first Provincial Assembly of the Île-de-France,

the following declaration may be found, proceeding from the mouth of

the reporter of the committee:--‘Up to the present time the functions

of syndic, which are far more onerous than honourable, are such as

to indispose from accepting them all those who unite a sufficient

competency to the intelligence to be expected from their position in

life.’

Note (LXXVII.)--Page 173, line 9.

FEUDAL RIGHTS, WHICH STILL EXISTED AT THE PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION,

ACCORDING TO THE FEUDAL LAWYERS.

It is not the intention of the author here to write a treatise upon

feudal rights, and, least of all, to attempt any research into their

possible origin. It is simply his desire to point out those which were

still exercised in the eighteenth century. These rights played so

important a part at that time, and have since retained so large a space

in the imagination of the very persons who have no longer anything

to suffer from them, that it was a most interesting task to find out

precisely what they were when the Revolution destroyed them all. For

this purpose a great number of _terriers_, or rolls of feudal manors,

were studied,--those of the most recent date being selected. But this

manner of proceeding led to nothing; for the feudal rights, although

regulated by a legal code, which was the same throughout the whole

of feudal Europe, were infinitely various in their kinds, according

to the province, or even the districts, where they existed. The only

system, then, which appeared likely to lead, in an approximate manner,

to the required result, was the following:--These feudal rights were

continually giving rise to all sorts of disputes and litigation. In

these cases it was necessary to know how these rights were acquired,

how they were lost, in what they consisted exactly, which were the

dues that could only be collected by virtue of a Royal patent, which

those that could only be established by private title, which those on

the contrary that had no need of formal titles, and might be collected

upon the strength of local custom, or even in virtue of long usage.

Again, when they were for sale, it was necessary to know in what manner

they were to be valued, and what capital each of them represented,

according to its importance. All these points, so immediately affecting

a thousand pecuniary interests, were subject to litigation; and thus

was constituted a distinct class of legal men, whose only occupation

it was to elucidate them. Many of these men wrote during the second

half of the eighteenth century; some even just upon the threshold

of the Revolution. They were not lawyers, properly speaking, but

practitioners, whose only task it was to point out to professional

men the rules to be followed in this special and little attractive

portion of legal science. By an attentive study of these _feudistes_, a

tolerably minute and distinct idea of a subject, the size and confusion

of which is at first bewildering, may be at last come at. The author

gives below the most succinct summary he was able to make of his

work. These notes are principally derived from the work of Edmé de

Fréminville, who wrote about the year 1750, and from that of Renauldon,

written in 1765, and entitled ‘_Traité historique et pratique des

Droits Seigneuriaux_.’

The _cens_ (that is to say, the perpetual quit-rent, in kind and in

money, which, by the feudal laws, was affixed to the possession of

certain lands) still, in the eighteenth century, affected most deeply

the position of a great number of landed proprietors. This _cens_

continued to be indivisible, that is to say, the entire _cens_ might

be claimed of any one of the possessors of the property, subject to

the _cens_ at will. It was always irredeemable. No proprietor of any

lands, subject to the _cens_, could sell them without being exposed to

the _retrait censuel_, that is to say, without being obliged to let the

property be taken back at the price of the sale; but this only took

place in certain _coutumes_. The _coutume_ of Paris, which was the most

general, did not recognise this right.

_Lods et Ventes._--It was a general rule that, in every part of the

country where the _coutume_ prevailed, the sale of every estate

subject to the _cens_ should produce what were called _lods et

ventes_; in other words, the fines paid to the lords of the manor,

upon the alienation of this kind of property. These dues were more or

less considerable, according to the customs of the manor, but were

everywhere considerable enough; they existed just as well in parts

where the _droit écrit_ (written law) was established. They generally

consisted of one-sixth of the price, and were then named _lods_. But in

these parts the lord of the manor had to establish his rights. In what

was called _pays écrit_, as well as in _pays coutumier_, the _cens_

gave the lord of the manor a privilege which took precedence of all

other debts on the estate.

_Terrage or Champart.--Agrier.--Tasque._--These dues consisted of a

certain portion of the produce, which the lord of the manor levied

upon lands subject to the _cens_. The amount varied according to the

contracts or the customs of the place. This right is frequently to be

met with in the eighteenth century. I believe that the _terrage_, even

in _pays coutumier_, could only be claimed under express deed. The

_terrage_ was either _seigneurial_ or _foncier_. It is not necessary

to explain here the distinctions which existed between these two

different kinds. Suffice it to say that the _terrage foncier_ was fixed

for thirty years, like the _rentes foncières_, whilst the _terrage

seigneurial_ was irredeemable. Lands subject to _terrage_ could not be

mortgaged without the consent of the lord of the manor.

_Bordelage._--A right which only existed in the Nivernais and

Bourbonnais countries, and which consisted in an annual quit-rent,

paid in money, corn, and fowls, upon lands subject to the _cens_. This

right entailed very rigorous consequences: non-payment of the dues

during three years gave cause for the exercise of the _commise_ or

entry to the advantage of the lord of the manor. A tenant owing the

_bordelage_ was more open than any other to a variety of annoyances

on his property. Sometimes the lord of the manor possessed the right

of claiming his inheritance, even when he died having heirs who had

legal rights to the succession. This was the most rigorous of any of

the feudal rights; and the law had finally restricted it only to rural

inheritances. ‘For,’ as our author says, ‘the peasant is always the

mule ready to bear every burden.’

_Marciage_ was the name of peculiar dues levied upon the possessors

of land, subject to the _cens_, in very few places, and consisting in

certain payments due only upon the natural death of the lord of the

manor.

_Dîmes Inféodées._--There still existed in the eighteenth century

a great number of tithes in fief. They were generally established

by separate contract, and did not result from the mere fact of the

lordship of the manor.

_Parcière._--The _parcières_ were dues levied upon the crops of fruit

gathered on the manor-lands. They bore resemblance to the _champart_

and the _dîme inféodée_, and were principally in usage in the

Bourbonnais and Auvergne countries.

_Carpot._--This was observed in the Bourbonnais country, and was a due

levied upon the vineyards, as the _champart_ was upon arable lands,

that is to say, it was levied upon a portion of the crops. It amounted

to a quarter of the vintage.

_Servage._--The customs that still possessed traces of serfdom were

called _coutumes serves_; they were very few in number. In the

provinces where they were still observed there were no estates, or at

least very few, where some traces of ancient serfdom were not visible.

[This remark is derived from a work written in 1765.] The _Servage_

(or, as the author terms it, the _Servitude_) was either personal or

real.

The personal servitude was attached to the person, and followed him

everywhere. Wherever the serf might go, to whatever place he might

transport his substance, he might be reclaimed by the lord by right of

_suite_. Our authors cite several legal verdicts that establish this

right--among others, a verdict given on the 17th June, 1760, in which

the court decides against a _Seigneur_ of the Nivernais in respect to

his right of claiming the succession of Pierre Truchet, who was the

son of a serf subject to _poursuite_, according to the custom of the

Nivernais, who had married a Parisian woman, and who had died in Paris,

as well as his son. But this verdict seems to have been founded on the

fact that Paris was a ‘place of refuge’ (_lieu d’asile_) in which the

_suite_ could not take place. If the right of _asile_ alone prevented

the _Seigneur_ from seizing upon property possessed by his serfs in the

_lieu d’asile_, it formed no opposition against his claiming to succeed

to property left in his own manor.

The ‘real’ servitude resulted from the occupation of land, and might

cease upon the land being given up or residence in a certain place

changed.

_Corvées._--The right possessed by the lord of the manor over his

subjects, by means of which he could employ for his own profit a

certain number of their days of labour, or of their oxen and horses.

The _corvée à volonté_, that is to say, at the arbitrary will of the

_Seigneur_, had been completely abolished: forced labour had been for

some time past confined to a certain number of days a year.

The _corvée_ might be either personal or real. The personal

_corvées_ were paid by labourers and workmen, whose residence was

established upon the manor, each according to his occupation. The real

_corvées_ were attached to the possession of certain lands. Nobles,

ecclesiastics, clerical personages, officers of justice, advocates,

physicians, notaries, and bankers, and men in that position of life,

were exempt from the _corvée_. A verdict, given on the 13th August,

1735, is cited by one of our authors, exempting a notary whom his

_Seigneur_ wanted to force to come for nothing, during three days, and

draw up certain law papers concerning the _seigneurie_ on which the

notary resided. Another verdict, of the date of 1750, decides that,

when the _corvée_ is personal, it may be paid either in person or by

money, the choice to be left to the person by whom it is due. Every

_corvée_ had to be established by written title-deeds. The _corvée

seigneuriale_ had become extremely rare in the eighteenth century.

_Banalités._ (Rights possessed by the lords of certain manors to oblige

those residing on them to make use of his baking-office, mill, &c.,

upon payment.)--The provinces of Flanders, Artois, and Hainault were

alone exempt from _banalités_. The Custom of Paris rigorously requires

that this should not be exercised without written title. Every person

domiciled within the circuit of the _banalité_ was subject to it, and,

most generally, even the nobles and priests also.

Besides the _banalité_ of the wine-press and baking-office there

existed several others:--

(1.) _Banalités_ of industrial establishments, such as for cloth,

tanning, or hemp. This _banalité_ is established by many _coutumes_, as

for instance, by those of Anjou, the Maine, and Brittany.

(2.) _Banalités_ of the wine-press. Few _coutumes_ mention this. But

that of Lorraine, as well as that of the Maine, establish it.

(3.) _Banalité_ of the manor bull. No _coutumes_ mention this; but

there were title-deeds that established the right. The same may be said

of the right of _banalité_ for butchers’ shambles.

In general these latter _banalités_ of which we have just spoken were

more uncommon, and looked upon with a still less favourable eye than

the others. They could only be exercised by the clearest declaration

of the _coutumes_, or, where that was wanting, by the most precise

title.

_Ban des Vendanges._--This was still practised throughout the whole of

the kingdom in the eighteenth century. It was a simple right of police

attached to the right of _haute justice_. In order to exercise it,

the _Seigneur_, who was _Haut Justicier_, did not need to possess any

other title. The _ban des vendanges_ was obligatory upon everybody. The

_coutumes_ of Burgundy give the _Seigneur_ the right of gathering in

his vintage a day before any other vine proprietor.

_Droit de Banvin._--This was a right still possessed by a quantity

of _Seigneurs_ (as our authors have it), either by custom or special

title, to sell the wine grown upon their manors for a certain period

of time, in general a month or forty days, before any one else. Among

the _grandes coutumes_ those of Tours, Anjou, the Maine, and La Marche

alone established it, and had regulations for it. A verdict of the

_Cour des Aides_, dated 28th August, 1751, authorises publicans (as

an exception to the common rule) to sell wine during the _banvin_;

but this must have referred only to the wine of the _Seigneur_, made

from that year’s growth. The _coutumes_ that establish and regulate

the right of _banvin_ generally require that it should be founded upon

legal title.

_Droit de Blairie_ was a right belonging to the _Seigneur_, who was

_Haut Justicier_, to grant permission to the inhabitants to have their

cattle graze upon lands situated throughout his jurisdiction, or upon

waste lands. This right did not exist in any parts regulated by _droit

écrit_; but it was common enough in those where the _droit coutumier_

was in force. It was to be found under different denominations, more

particularly in the Bourbonnais, the Nivernais, Auvergne, and Burgundy.

This right rested upon the supposition that the whole territory

originally belonged to the _Seigneur_, in such wise that, after the

distribution of the greater part into _fiefs_, _cencites_, and other

concessions of lands upon quit-rents, there still remained portions

which could only be used for waste pasture-ground, and of which he

might grant the temporary use to others. The _blairie_ was established

in several _coutumes_; but it could only be claimed by a _Seigneur_ who

was _Haut Justicier_, and was maintained only by some special title, or

at least by old claims supported by long possession.

_Péages._--According to our authors, there originally existed a

prodigious number of manorial tolls upon bridges, rivers, and roads.

Louis XIV. did away with a great number of them. In 1724 a commission,

nominated to examine into the titles by which the tolls were claimed,

suppressed twelve hundred of them; and, in 1765, they were still being

constantly suppressed. ‘The principle observed in this respect,’ says

Renauldon, ‘was that, inasmuch as the toll was a tax, it was necessary

to be founded not only upon legal title, but upon one emanating from

the sovereign.’ The toll was levied ‘_De par le Roi_.’ One of the

conditions of the toll was that it should be established by _tarif_

regulating the dues, which each kind of merchandise had to pay. It

was necessary that this _tarif_ should be approved by a decree of

the Council. ‘The title of concession,’ says one author, ‘had to be

followed by uninterrupted possession.’ In spite of these precautions

legally taken, it appears that the value of the tolls had greatly

increased in later times. ‘I know one toll,’ says the same author,

‘that was farmed out, a century ago, at 100 livres, and now brings in

1400; and another, farmed at 39,000 livres, that brings in 90,000.’ The

principal ordinances or principal decrees that regulated the right of

toll, were paragraph 29 of the Ordinance of 1669, and the Decrees of

1683, 1693, 1724, 1775.

The authors I have quoted, although in general favourable enough to

feudal rights, acknowledge that great abuses were committed in the

levying of the tolls.

_Bacs._--The right of ferries differed materially from the right of

toll. The latter was only levied upon merchandise; the former upon

individuals, animals, and carriages. It was necessary that this right,

in order to be exercised, should likewise be authorised by the King;

and the dues, to be levied, had to be fixed by the same decree of

Council that established and authorised it.

_Droit de Leyde_ (to which many other names have been given in

different places) was a tax levied upon merchandise brought to fairs

and markets. Many lords of the manor (as appears by our _feudistes_)

considered this right as one attached to the right of _haute justice_,

and wholly manorial, but quite mistakenly, inasmuch as it could only

be authorised by the King. At all events, this right only belonged to

the _Seigneur_, who was _Haut Justicier_: he levied the police fines,

to which the exercise of the right gave occasion. It appears, however,

that, although by theory the _droit de leyde_ could only emanate from

the King, it was frequently set up solely upon the basis of feudal

title or long possession.

It is very certain that fairs could not be established otherwise than

by Royal authorisation.

The lords of the manor, however, had no need of any precise title, or

any concession on the part of the King, for the exercise of the right

of regulating the weights and measures to be used by their vassals

in all fairs and markets held upon the manor. It was enough for the

right to be founded upon custom and constant possession. Our authors

say that all the Kings, who, one after the other, were desirous of

re-establishing uniformity in the weights and measures, failed in the

attempt. Matters had been allowed to remain at the same point where

they were when the old _coutumes_ were drawn up.

_Chemins._ (Rights exercised by the lords of the manor upon

roads.)--The high roads, called ‘_Chemins du Roi_’ (King’s highway),

belonged, in fact, to the sovereigns alone; their formation, their

reparation, and the offences committed upon them, were beyond the

cognisance of the _Seigneurs_ or their judges. The by-roads, to be

met with on any portion of a _Seigneurie_, doubtless belonged to such

_Seigneurs_ as were _Hauts Justiciers_. They had all the rights of

_voirie_ and police upon them, and their judges took cognisance of all

the offences committed upon them, except in Royal cases. At an earlier

period the _Seigneurs_ had been obliged to keep up the high roads

passing through their _seigneurie_, and, as a compensation for the

expenses incurred in these repairs, they were allowed the dues arising

from tolls, settlement of boundaries, and barriers; but, at this epoch,

the King had resumed the general direction of the high roads.

_Eaux._--All the rivers, both navigable and floatable (admitting the

passage of rafts), belonged to the King, although they flowed through

the property of lords of the manor, and in spite of any title to the

contrary. (See Ordinance of 1669.) If the lords of the manor levied

any dues upon these rivers, it was those arising from the rights of

fishing, the mills, ferry-boats, and bridge-tolls, &c., in virtue of

concessions emanating only from the King. There were some lords of the

manor who still arrogated to themselves the rights of jurisdiction

and police upon these rivers; but this manifestly only arose from

usurpation, or from concessions improperly acquired.

The smaller rivers unquestionably belonged to the _Seigneurs_ through

whose property they flowed. They possessed in them the same rights of

property, of jurisdiction, and police, which the King possessed upon

the navigable rivers. All _Seigneurs Hauts Justiciers_ were universally

the lords of the non-navigable rivers running through their territory.

They wanted no other legal title for the exercise of their claims

than that which conferred the right of _haute justice_. There were

some customs, such as the _Coutume du Berri_, that authorised private

individuals to erect a mill upon the seignorial river passing through

the lands they occupied, without the permission of the _Seigneur_. The

_Coutume de Bretagne_ only granted this right to private personages

who were noble. As a matter of general right, it is very certain

that the _Seigneur Haut Justicier_ had alone the right of erecting

mills throughout every part of his jurisdiction. No one was entitled

to erect barriers for the protection of his property without the

permission of the judges of the _Seigneur_.

_Fontaines.--Puits.--Routoirs.--Étangs._--The rain-water that fell

upon the high roads belonged exclusively to the _Seigneurs Hauts

Justiciers_; they alone were enabled to dispose of it. The _Seigneur

Haut Justicier_ possessed the right of constructing ponds in any part

throughout his jurisdiction, and even upon lands in the possession of

those who resided under it, upon the condition of paying them the price

of the ground put under water. Private individuals were only able to

make ponds upon their own soil; and, even for this, many _coutumes_

require that permission should be obtained of the _Seigneur_. The

_coutumes_, however, thus requiring the acquiescence of the _Seigneur_,

establish that it is to be given gratuitously.

_La Pêche._--The right of fishing on navigable or floatable rivers

belonged only to the King, and he alone could make grants of this

right. The Royal Judges alone had the right of judging offences

against the right of fishery. There were many _Seigneurs_, however,

who exercised the right of fishing in these streams; but they either

possessed by concession made by the King, or had usurped it. No

person could fish, even with the rod, in non-navigable rivers without

permission from the _Seigneur Haut Justicier_ within whose limits they

flowed. A judgment (dated April 30th, 1749) condemns a fisherman in a

similar case. Even the _Seigneurs_ themselves, however, were obliged,

in fishing, to observe the general regulations respecting fisheries.

The _Seigneur Haut Justicier_ was enabled to give the right of fishing

in his river to tenants in fief, or _à cens_.

_La Chasse._--The right of the chase was not allowed to be farmed

out like that of fishing. It was a personal right, arising from the

consideration that it belonged to the King, and that the nobles

themselves could not exercise it, in the interior of their own

jurisdiction, without the permission of the King. This doctrine was

established in an Ordinance of 1669 (par. 30). The judges of the

_Seigneur_ had the power of taking cognisance of all offences against

the rights of the chase, except in cases appertaining to _bêtes

rousses_ (signifying, it would appear, what were generally called

‘_grosses bêtes_’--stags, does, &c.), which were considered Royal.

The right of shooting and hunting was more interdicted to the non-noble

than any other. The fee fief of the non-noble did not even bestow it.

The King never granted it in his own hunt. So closely observed was

this principle, and so rigorous was the right considered, that the

_Seigneur_ was not allowed to give any permission to hunt. But still

it did constantly occur that _Seigneurs_ granted such permissions

not only to nobles but to non-nobles. The _Seigneur Haut Justicier_

possessed the faculty of hunting and shooting on any part of his

own jurisdiction, but alone. He was allowed to make regulations

and establish prohibitions upon matters appertaining to the chase

throughout its extent. Every _Seigneur de Fief_, although not having

the feudal power of judicial courts, was allowed to hunt and shoot

in any part of his fief. Nobles who possessed neither fief nor

jurisdiction were allowed to do so upon the lands belonging to them in

the immediate neighbourhood of their dwelling-houses. It was decided

that the non-noble possessing a park upon the territory of a _Seigneur

Haut Justicier_ was obliged to leave it open for the diversion of the

lord. But this judgment was given as long ago as 1668.

_Garennes._--Rabbit-warrens could not be established without

title-right. Non-nobles, as well as nobles, were allowed to have

rabbit-warrens; but the nobles alone were allowed to keep ferrets.

_Colombiers._--Certain _coutumes_ only give the right of _colombiers à

pied_ (dovecots standing apart from a building) to the _Seigneurs Hauts

Justiciers_; others grant it to all holders of fiefs. In Dauphiny,

Brittany, and Normandy, no non-noble was allowed to possess dovecot,

pigeon-house, or aviary; the nobles alone were allowed to keep pigeons.

The penalties pronounced against those who killed the pigeons were

extremely severe: the most afflictive punishments were sometimes

bestowed.

Such, according to the authors above cited, were the principal feudal

rights still exercised and dues still levied in the second half of the

eighteenth century. ‘The rights here mentioned,’ they add, ‘are those

generally established at the present time. But there are still very

many others, less known and less widely practised, which only occur

in certain _coutumes_, or only in certain _seigneuries_, in virtue of

peculiar titles.’ These rarer and more restricted feudal rights, of

which our authors thus make mention, and which they enumerate, amount

to the number of ninety-nine; and the greater part of them are directly

prejudicial to agriculture, inasmuch as they give the _Seigneurs_

certain rights over the harvests, or tolls upon the sale or transport

of grain, fruit, provisions, &c. Our authors say that most of these

feudal rights were out of use in their day; I have reason to believe,

however, that a great number of these dues were still levied, in some

places, in 1789.

After having studied, among the writers on feudal rights in the

eighteenth century, the principal feudal rights still exercised, I was

desirous of finding out what was their importance in the eyes of their

contemporaries, at least as regarded the fortunes of those who levied

them and those who had to pay them.

Renauldon, one of the authors I have mentioned, gives us an insight

into this matter, by laying before us the rules that legal men had

to follow in their valuation of the different feudal rights which

still existed in 1765, that is to say, twenty-four years before the

Revolution. According to this law writer, the rules to be observed on

these matters were as follow:--

_Droits de Justice._--‘Some of our _coutumes_,’ he says, ‘estimate

the value of _justice haute_, _basse_, or _moyenne_ at a tenth of the

revenues of the land. At that time the seignorial jurisdiction was

considered of great importance. Edmé de Fréminville opines that, at

the present day, the right of jurisdiction ought not to be valued at

more than a twentieth of the revenues of the land; and I consider this

valuation still too large.’

_Droits Honorifiques._--‘However inestimable these rights may be

considered,’ declares our author, a man of a practical turn of mind,

and not easily led away by appearances, ‘it would be prudent on the

part of those who make valuations to fix them at a very moderate price.’

_Corvées Seigneuriales._--Our author, in giving the rules for the

estimation of the value of forced labour, proves that the right of

enforcing it was still to be met with sometimes. He values the day’s

work of an ox at 20 sous, and that of the labourer at 5 sous, with his

food. A tolerably good indication of the price of wages paid in 1765

may be gathered from this.

_Péages._--Respecting the valuation of the tolls our author says,

‘There is not one of the Seignorial rights that ought to be estimated

lower than the tolls. They are very precarious. The repairs of

the roads and bridges--the most useful to the commerce of the

country--being now maintained by the King and the provinces, many of

the tolls become useless nowadays, and they are suppressed more and

more every day.

_Droit de Pêche et de Chasse._--The right of fishing may be farmed

out, and may thus give occasion for valuation. The right of the chase

is purely personal, and cannot be farmed out; it may consequently be

reckoned among the honorary rights but not among the profitable rights,

and cannot, therefore, be comprehended in any valuation.

Our author then mentions more particularly the rights of _banalité_,

_banvin_, _leyde_, and _blairie_, and thus proves that these rights

were those most frequently exercised at that time, and that they

maintained the greatest importance. He adds, ‘There is a quantity of

other seignorial rights, which may still be met with from time to time,

but which it would be too long and indeed impossible to make mention

of here. But intelligent appraisers will find sufficient rules, in the

examples we have already given, for the estimation of those rights of

which we do not speak.’

_Estimation du Cens._--The greater number of the _coutumes_ place the

estimation of the _cens_, _au denier_ 30 (3-1/3 per cent.). The high

valuation of the _cens_ arises from the fact that it represents at the

same time all such remunerative casualties as the _lods et ventes_, for

instance.

_Dîmes inféodées.--Terrage._--The tithes in fief cannot be estimated at

less than 4 per cent.; this sort of property calling neither for care,

culture, nor expense. When the _terrage_ or _champart_ includes _lods

et ventes_, that is to say, when the land subject to these dues cannot

be sold without paying for the right of exchange to the _Seigneur_, who

has the right of tenure _in capite_, the valuation must be raised to

3-1/3 per cent.; if not it must be estimated like the tithes.

_Les Rentes foncières_, which produced no _lods et ventes_ or _droit de

retenu_ (that is to say, which are not seignorial revenue), ought to be

estimated at 5 per cent.

ESTIMATE OF THE DIFFERENT HEREDITARY ESTATES EXISTING IN FRANCE BEFORE

THE REVOLUTION.

We recognise in France, says this writer, only three kinds of estates:--

(1.) The _Franc Alleu_.--This was a freehold estate, exempt from every

kind of burden, and subject neither to seignorial duties nor dues,

either profitable or honorary.

There were both noble and non-noble _francs alleux_. The noble _franc

alleu_ had its right of jurisdiction or fiefs dependent on it, or lands

paying quit-rents: it followed all the observances of feudal law in

subdivision. The non-noble _franc alleu_ had neither jurisdiction, nor

fief, nor _censive_, and was heritable according to the laws affecting

non-nobles. The author looks upon the holders of _francs alleux_ as

alone possessing complete property in the land.

_Valuation of Estates in Franc Alleu._--They were valued the highest of

all. The _coutumes_ of Auvergne and Burgundy put the valuation of them

as high as 40 years’ purchase. Our author opines that their valuation

at 30 years’ purchase would be exact. It must be observed that all

non-noble _francs alleux_ placed within the limits of a seignorial

jurisdiction were subject to this jurisdiction. They were not in any

dependence of vassalage to the _Seigneur_, but owed submission to a

jurisdiction which had the position of that of the Courts of the State.

(2.) The second kind was that of estates held in fief.

(3.) The third was that of estates held on quit-rents, or, in the law

language of the time, _Rotures_.

_Valuation of an Estate held in Fief._--The valuation was less,

according as the feudal burdens on it were greater.

(1.) In the parts of the country where written law was observed, and in

many of the _coutumes_, the fiefs lay only under the obligation of what

was called ‘_la bouche et les mains_,’ that is to say, that of doing

homage.

(2.) In other _coutumes_ the fiefs, besides the obligation of ‘_la

bouche et les mains_,’ were what was called ‘_de danger_,’ as in

Burgundy, and were subject to the _commise_, or feudal resumption, in

case the holder of the property should take possession without having

rendered submission or homage.

(3.) Other _coutumes_, again, as in that of Paris and many others,

subject the _fiefs_ not only to the obligation of doing homage, but to

the _rachat_, the _quint_, and the _requint_.

(4.) By other _coutumes_, also, such as that of Poitou and a few

others, they were subjected to _chambellage_ dues, the _cheval de

service_, &c.

Of these four all estates of the first category were valued more highly

than the others.

The _coutume_ of Paris laid their valuation at 20 years’ purchase,

which is looked upon by our author as tolerably correct.

_Valuation of Estates ‘en roture’ and ‘en censive.’_--In order to

come to a proper valuation, these lands have to be divided into three

classes:--

(1.) Estates held simply on quit-rents.

(2.) Those which, beside the quit-rent, are subject to other kinds of

feudal servitude.

(3.) Those held in mortmain, _à taille réelle, en bordelage_.

Only the first and second of these three forms of non-noble property

were common in the eighteenth century; the third was extremely rare.

The valuations to be made of them, according to our author, were less

on coming down to the second class, and still less on coming down to

the third. Men in possession of estates of the third class were not

even, strictly speaking, their owners, inasmuch as they were not able

to alienate them without permission from the _Seigneur_.

_Le Terrier._--The _feudistes_, whom we have cited above, point out

the following rules observed in the compilation or renewal of the

seignorial registers, called ‘_Terriers_,’ mention of which has been

made in many parts of the work. The _Terrier_ was a single register, in

which were recorded all the titles proving the rights appertaining to

the _seigneurie_, whether in property or in honorary, real, personal,

or mixed rights. All the declarations of the payers of the _cens_, the

usages of the _seigneurie_, the leases _à cens_, &c., were inserted

in it. We learn by our authors that, in the _coutume_ of Paris, the

_Seigneurs_ were permitted to renew their registers every thirty years

at the expense of their _censitaires_: they add, however, ‘It may be

considered a very fortunate circumstance, nevertheless, when a new

one may be found once a century.’ The _Terrier_ could not be renewed

(it was a vexatious business for all the persons dependent on the

_seigneurie_) without obtaining, either from the _Grande Chancellerie_

(if in cases of _seigneuries_ situated within the jurisdiction of

different Parliaments), or of the Parliaments (in the contrary case),

an authorisation which was denominated ‘_Lettres à Terrier_.’ The

notary who drew them up was nominated by the judicial authorities. All

the vassals, noble or non-noble, the payers of the _cens_, holders of

long leases (_emphytéotes_), and personages subject to the jurisdiction

of the _seigneurie_ were bound to appear before this notary. A plan of

the _seigneurie_ had to be annexed to the _Terrier_.

Besides the _Terrier_, the _seigneurie_ was provided with other

registers, called ‘_lièves_,’ in which the _Seigneurs_ or their farmers

inscribed the sums received in payment of the _cens_, with the names of

those who paid and the dates of the receipts.

PRINTED BY

SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE

LONDON

FOOTNOTES:

[139] These Notes and Illustrations were translated by the late Lady

Duff Gordon.

[140] See last note.

[141] _I.e._ not corporations for trading purposes, but bodies like our

livery companies.

* * * * *

Transcriber’s note:

Original spellings and variations in hyphenation have been retained.

The following apparent typographical errors were corrected:

Page 38, “sate” changed to “sat.” (some of whom sat there in virtue)

Page 74, “commmunity” changed to “community.” ( The other classes of

the community)

Page 169, “not” changed to “no.” (could no longer give orders)

Page 300, “uresses” changed to “rousses.” (appertaining to _bêtes

rousses_)