Europe in the Sixteenth Century 1494-1598 Part 35

4. _Chambre de la Tournelle._--Tried less important criminal cases.

5. _Chambre de l'edit._--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 Seneschals; 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 elus 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--

Toulouse for Province of Languedoc, inst.i.tuted 1443.

Gren.o.ble Dauphine, 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 Bearn, 1620.

Metz 3 Bishoprics, 1633.

Douai Flanders, 1686.

Besancon Franche-Comte, 1676.

Nancy Lorraine, 1769.

Most of these Provinces had their separate Chambre des Comptes, and Cour des Aides.

2. _The Baillis or Seneschals_ (with Prevots under them).

(_a_) Collected the dues from the royal domains (while the elus collected the regular direct taxes).

(_b_) Tried petty cases.

(_c_) Administered affairs, civil and military, of their Bailliage or Senechaussee.

Their jurisdiction was subordinated to that of the Parlements, and their financial accounts were under the Cours des Comptes, while that of the elus 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 Seneschals were transferred. After that date the importance of the Baillis and Seneschals rapidly declined, especially after the final inst.i.tution of the Intendants by Richelieu.

Francis I. also appointed twelve _Lieutenants-General_ 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. inst.i.tuted _Tribunaux Presidiaux_ as intermediate Courts between the Parlements and those of the Baillis or Seneschals.

4. The n.o.bles still retained their Seignorial Courts; but these, jealously watched by the Baillis and Seneschals, were confined to questions between the Seigneur and his dependants.

5. The towns enjoyed munic.i.p.al government, which varied very much, but was usually composed of a General a.s.sembly which elected a Corps de Ville, which in its turn elected a munic.i.p.ality composed of the Mayor and echevins (sheriffs). In Paris the Prevot 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 _Chatelet,_ under the Prevot of Paris (to be distinguished from the Prevot des Marchands). The Prevot of Paris had no Baillis or Seneschal 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 _Chatelet_, such as dowries, rights of succession to property, etc.

The Estates-General (etats Generaux).

Composed of three Chambers, consisting of deputies from the three Orders of n.o.bles, Clergy, Tiers etat (Third Estate).

_Mode of Election._--On fixed day, n.o.bles, clergy, and townsmen met in chief town of Bailliage or Senechaussee.

_n.o.bles and Clergy by direct Election._--The n.o.bles and clergy drew up their cahiers (pet.i.tions), and elected their deputies separately.

_Tiers etat 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 Seance (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 Pet.i.tions 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 pet.i.tions 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 cla.s.s divisions, its absence of local government. Nor were the circ.u.mstances 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 n.o.bles prevented any unanimity between the upper and lower cla.s.ses, 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 cla.s.s divisions which were deep. The n.o.bility being a caste dependent on blood; while the upper offices of the Church were also filled by n.o.bles.

2. There was no cla.s.s 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 etat 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.