  THE FRENCH CONSTITUTION IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES. Cf. Gasquet, Institutions Politiques et Sociales de la France. ChÉruel, Dictionnaire Historique des Institutions de la France. I.Central Administration.—Conseil du Roi (King’s Council), or Conseil d’État (Council of State). The supreme Executive Council of the realm. It also exercised Legislative powers through its Ordinances, and high Judicial power until organisation of the Grand Conseil. 1.Sometimes heard ultimate appeals from the Sovereign Law Courts. 2.Evoked cases from other Courts in which public interests were involved. 3.Heard complaints against the royal officials. These Judicial Powers were subsequently transferred to— ?.The Grand Conseil.—Finally organised in 1497, to decide questions of disputed jurisdiction between the other sovereign Courts, but never very important. Composed of the Constable (the Chief Military Officer), the Chancellor (the Supreme Civil Officer), the Princes of the Blood, Officers of State. ?.The Conseil PrivÉ or des parties. A Judicial Committee of the Council erected in the seventeenth century. A number of clerks (MaÎtres de RequÊtes) under the Conseil du Roi, worked various Departmental Councils, such as those of War and Finance. II.Central Courts of Justice. A.The Parlement of Paris.—The Central Judicial Court of the Realm, sharing with the Grand Conseil the right of hearing appeals from all subordinate Courts.
The Parlement was divided into five Courts:— 1.The Grand Chambre.—This heard all appeals of great importance, and cases of first instance which concerned the Peers; cases of treason; and criminal charges against royal officials and members of the Parlement. 2.Chambre des RequÊtes.—Decided smaller cases of first instance. 3.Chambre des EnquÊtes.—Heard smaller cases of appeal, and prepared the more important appeals for the Grand Chambre. 4.Chambre de la Tournelle.—Tried less important criminal cases. 5.Chambre de l’Édit.—Established after the Edict of Nantes, 1598, to try cases between Catholics and Huguenots. One or two of the judges were to be Protestants. B.Chambre des Comptes.—Exercised jurisdiction in all financial matters dealing with the royal domain, and audited accounts of the Baillis and SÉnÉschals; registered edicts concerning the royal domain, and recorded the fealty and homage of tenants-in-chief. Jurisdiction civil—not criminal. C.Cour des Aides.—Exercised civil and criminal jurisdiction over cases dealing with Taxation, and audited accounts of the Élus who collected the direct taxes. III.Local Justice and Administration. 1.Provincial Parlements, exercising the same authority as the Parlement of Paris within their districts, existed in the fifteenth century at—
And the following were added during the sixteenth century at—
Five more were subsequently added—
Most of these Provinces had their separate Chambre des Comptes, and Cour des Aides. 2.The Baillis or SÉnÉschals (with PrÉvÔts under them). (a)Collected the dues from the royal domains (while the Élus collected the regular direct taxes). (b)Tried petty cases. (c)Administered affairs, civil and military, of their Bailliage or SÉnÉchaussÉe. Their jurisdiction was subordinated to that of the Parlements, and their financial accounts were under the Cours des Comptes, while that of the Élus were audited by the Cours des Aides. FrancisI., however, appointed new officers—the Lieutenants, Civil and Criminel—to whom, by the ordinance of 1560, the judicial functions of the Baillis FrancisI. also appointed twelve Lieutenants-GÉnÉral over the frontier Provinces. During the Civil War these were extended to most of the Provinces; and the Governors, as they now were called, made themselves so powerful as to be ‘very kings.’ HenryIV. did his best to buy off these Governors; but their power was not finally overthrown till the time of Richelieu. 3.In 1551 HenryII. instituted Tribunaux PrÉsidiaux as intermediate Courts between the Parlements and those of the Baillis or SÉnÉschals. 4.The nobles still retained their Seignorial Courts; but these, jealously watched by the Baillis and SÉnÉschals, were confined to questions between the Seigneur and his dependants. 5.The towns enjoyed municipal government, which varied very much, but was usually composed of a General Assembly which elected a Corps de Ville, which in its turn elected a municipality composed of the Mayor and Échevins (sheriffs). In Paris the PrÉvÔt des Marchands took the place of the Mayor. The rights of election, however, became day by day more and more visionary. The officials were usually nominated by the Crown, often in return for money. The towns also had their Courts, but the judicial powers, always limited, were finally withdrawn. In Paris, however, there was a peculiar Court, that of the ChÂtelet, under the PrÉvÔt of Paris (to be distinguished from the PrÉvÔt des Marchands). The PrÉvÔt of Paris had no Baillis or SÉnÉschal over him. He administered the police of the city, and heard cases on appeal from the Seignorial Courts of the town and district, as well as certain cases especially reserved to the ChÂtelet, such as dowries, rights of succession to property, etc. The Estates-General (États GÉnÉraux). Composed of three Chambers, consisting of deputies from the three Orders of Nobles, Clergy, Tiers État (Third Estate). Mode of Election.—On fixed day, nobles, clergy, and townsmen met in chief town of Bailliage or SÉnÉchaussÉe. Nobles and Clergy by direct Election.—The nobles and clergy drew up their cahiers (petitions), and elected their deputies separately. Tiers État by double Election.—The townsmen chose a body of electors, who drew up the cahier, and elected the deputy. After 1484 the peasants of the villages took part in the election of the Electoral Body. In some of the Provinces a different system prevailed. Thus in Languedoc and Champagne, the three orders elected their deputies in common; in Brittany, the deputies of one order were chosen by the other two orders. Procedure.—On the meeting of Estates-General the three orders were summoned to a Royal SÉance (Session), in which the reasons for the summons were given. The orders then separated, and each order proceeded to draw up their general cahier apart. The three cahiers having then been presented to the King, the States-General was dismissed. Powers.—The States-General were originally summoned not to discuss, but to hear the will of the King, and to present grievances. These Petitions were of considerable value, for, although the States-General was dismissed without having received the answer of the King, the cahiers often furnished the basis for royal ordinances. At various dates the Estates-General attempted to gain the same powers as those finally secured by the English Parliament: 1.Frequent and regular Sessions. 2.That their petitions should be answered. 3.Control of taxation and of policy. 4.Appointment, or at least responsibility, of ministers. But in spite of notable attempts, especially those of 1355–1358, 1484, 1561 (p. 398), 1576–7 (p. 423), 1588 (p. 431), the States-General failed in obtaining its object, and after 1614, ceased to be summoned until 1789. Reasons for failure of the States-General.—It is sometimes said that the States-General did not represent France; it is more correct to say that it represented France too well—in its want of cohesion, its class divisions, its absence of local government. Nor were the circumstances of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries propitious. During that period, the hundred years’ war, and the religious wars, led the people of France to lean on the King; the privileges of the feudal nobles prevented any unanimity between the upper and lower classes, and allowed the bureaucracy to gain such strength that it was impossible subsequently to overthrow it. Thus the causes of failure may be tabulated as follows:— 1.The existence of three Houses prevented unanimity, more especially because they represented class divisions which were deep. The nobility being a caste dependent on blood; while the upper offices of the Church were also filled by nobles. 2.There was no class of country gentry as in England, from whom the knights of the shire were elected, and who united with the burgesses in the House of Commons. 3.The number of royal officials elected as deputies of Tiers État was generally very large. 4.The Estates-General of Orleans (1439), in establishing a permanent army by the Ordonnance sur la Gendarmerie, was held to have granted to the King a permanent tax, the Taille; and this, in spite of several protests, was subsequently increased at the royal will. 5.Since the nobles and clergy were exempt from the Taille—the first because they served in the feudal array; the latter because of their clerical privileges—the deputies of these two orders did not support the Tiers État in their attempt to control the purse. Thus the States-General lost the control of the purse. 6.There was no efficient local government like that of the English shire. The real power being in the hands of the royal officials, the Baillis and the SÉnÉschals, and later, of the Intendants. Provincial Estates.—It is true that all the Provinces of France originally had their Provincial Estates composed of three orders. (1)But in many Provinces they were artificial creations. (2)They were weakened by the same class divisions as the States-General. Accordingly after the fifteenth century many Provinces lost their Estates, and finally only some four survived the reign of LouisXIV., and even those had but little power beyond that of assessing the Taille. The Church.—The Church had its (1)Ecclesiastical Courts, which as elsewhere in Europe had attempted to extend their jurisdiction very widely, not only over clergy but over laity. By the end of the fifteenth century, however, their jurisdiction was confined to offences of clerics or laics against morals, the law or doctrine of the Church, and to cases concerning the marriage and death-bed—e.g. divorce, wills, etc.; any attempt on the part of the Ecclesiastical Courts to encroach on the domain of secular jurisdiction being met by the Appels comme d’abus (abuse), which were presented to the Parlement of Paris. (2)Its Assemblies, in which, in and after the sixteenth century, the clergy voted ‘dons gratuits’ (voluntary offerings) to the Crown. The relations of the Church to the Crown and to the Pope were further defined by the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, and the Concordat of Bologna (cf. p. 81). TAXATION.The revenue during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was drawn from the following sources:— I.The Royal Domain. (a)Feudal incidents. (b)Profits of Justice. (c)Rights appertaining to the King as Sovereign—e.g. of succeeding to property of aliens dying without heirs, and of all bastards; fines on land granted in mortmain. II.Direct Taxes. (1)The Taille, which was of two kinds— (a)In the Pays d’États it was generally a tax on the value of land, assessed by regular assessments, under orders of the Provincial Assembly. (b)In the other parts of France (the Pays d’Élection), it was a tax levied on presumed income derived from whatever source, and assessed in a very arbitrary fashion by Élus, who were responsible to the Cour des Aides. Exempt from the Taille were Nobles following arms, Clergy, Students at the Universities, Royal Officials, Municipal Authorities. Thus the tax fell practically on the lower classes. (2)Dons Gratuits.—Taxes on clergy voted by ecclesiastical assemblies. III.Indirect Taxes. (1)Aides.—Dues levied on the sale of food-stuffs, wine, and other articles. (2)Gabelles.—Salt was a royal monopoly; and every household had to buy so much salt for every member above the age of eight. The price was very high, but varied, as well as the amount to be bought, in different Provinces. (3)Customs at the frontiers of every Province. These in later days were so heavy that a cask of wine would pay its value before it reached Paris. (4)Sale of Offices.—By the end of the sixteenth century there was scarcely any royal office which was not sold. The Aides, Gabelles, and Customs were in the hands of farmers of the taxes, who exercised great extortion. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
