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—
| Toulouse |
for Province of |
Languedoc, |
instituted |
1443. |
| Grenoble |
„ |
Dauphiné, |
„ |
1453. |
| Bordeaux |
„ |
Guienne, |
„ |
1462. |
| Dijon |
„ |
Burgundy, |
„ |
1477. |
And the following were added during the sixteenth
century at—
| Aix |
for Provence, 1501. |
| Rouen |
for Normandy, 1515. |
| Rennes |
for Brittany, 1553. |
Five more were subsequently
added—
| Pau | for | Béarn, 1620. |
| Metz | „ | 3 Bishoprics, 1633. |
| Douai | „ | Flanders, 1686. |
| Besançon | „ | Franche-Comté, 1676. |
| Nancy | „ | Lorraine, 1769. |
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.
Francis
I., however, appointed new officers—
the
Lieutenants, Civil and Criminel—to whom, by the
ordinance of 1560, the judicial functions of the Baillis
and Sénéschals were transferred. After that date the
importance of the Baillis and Sénéschals rapidly
declined, especially after the final institution of the
Intendants by Richelieu.
Francis I. 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.’ Henry IV. did his
best to buy off these Governors; but their power was
not finally overthrown till the time of Richelieu.
3. In 1551 Henry II. 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.
The revenue during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was
drawn from the following sources:—
