Part 24 (1/2)
In addition to the courts of the counts and bailiffs established in certain of the large towns, aldermanic or magisterial courts existed, which rather resembled the Chatelet of Paris. Thus the _capiloulat_ of Toulouse, the senior alderman of Metz, and the burgomaster of Strasburg and Brussels, possessed in each of these towns a tribunal, which judged without appeal, and united the several functions of a civil, criminal, and simple police court. Several places in the north of France had provosts who held courts whose duties were various, but who were princ.i.p.ally charged with the maintenance of public order, and with suppressing disputes and conflicts arising from the privileges granted to the trade corporations, whose importance, especially in Flanders, had much increased since the twelfth century.
”On his return from abroad, Louis IX. took his seat upon the bench, and administered justice, by the side of the good provost of Paris.” This provost was no other than the learned Estienne Boileau, out of respect to whom the provosts.h.i.+p was declared a _charge de magistrature_. The increase of business which fell to the provost's office, especially after the boundaries of Paris were extended by Philip Augustus, caused him to be released from the duty of collecting the public taxes. He was authorised to furnish himself with competent a.s.sistants, who were employed with matters of minor detail, and he was allowed the a.s.sistance of _juges auditeurs_. ”We order that they shall be eight in number,” says an edict of Philippe le Bel, of February, 1324, ”four of them being ecclesiastics and four laymen, and that they shall a.s.semble at the Chatelet two days in the week, to take into consideration the suits and causes in concert with our provost....” In 1343, the provost's court was composed of one King's attorney, one civil commissioner, two King's counsel, eight councillors, and one criminal commissioner, whose sittings took place daily at the Chatelet.
From the year 1340 this tribunal had to adjudicate in reference to all the affairs of the university, and from the 6th of October, 1380, to all those of the salt-fish market, which were no less numerous, so that its importance increased considerably. Unfortunately, numerous abuses were introduced into this munic.i.p.al jurisdiction. In 1313 and 1320, the officers of the Chatelet were suspended, on account of the extortions which they were guilty of, and the King ordered an inquiry to be made into the matter. The provost and two councillors of the Parliament sat upon it, and Philip de Valois, adopting its decisions, prescribed fresh statutes, which were naturally framed in such a way as to show the distrust in which the Chatelet was then held. To these the officers of the Chatelet promised on oath to submit. The ignorance and immorality of the lay officers, who had been subst.i.tuted for the clerical, caused much disturbance. Parliament authorised two of its princ.i.p.al members to examine the officers of the Chatelet. Twenty years later, on the receipt of fresh complaints, Parliament decided that three qualified councillors, chosen from its own body, should proceed with the King's attorney to the Chatelet, so as to reform the abuses and informalities of that court.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 304.--The King's Court, or Grand Council.--Fac-simile of a Miniature in the ”Chroniques” of Froissart, Ma.n.u.script of the Fifteenth Century (formerly in the possession of Charles V), in the Library of the a.r.s.enal, Paris.]
In the time of Philippe le Bel there existed in reality but one Parliament, and that was the _King's Court_. Its action was at once political, administrative, financial, and judicial, and was necessarily, therefore, of a most complicated character. Philippe le Bel made it exclusively a judicial court, defined the territorial limit of its power, and gave it as a judicial body privileges tending to strengthen its independence and to raise its dignity. He a.s.signed political functions to the Great Council (_Conseil d'Etat_); financial matters to the chamber of accounts; and the hearing of cases of heresy, wills, legacies, and dowries to the prelates. But in opposition to the wise edict of 1295, he determined that Jews should be excluded from Parliament, and prelates from the palace of justice; by which latter proceeding he was depriving justice of the abilities of the most worthy representatives of the Gallican Church. But Philippe le Bel and his successors, while incessantly quarrelling either with the aristocracy or with the clergy, wanted the great judicial bodies which issued the edicts, and the urban or munic.i.p.al magistrates--which, being subject to re-election, were princ.i.p.ally recruited from among the bourgeois--to be a common centre of opposition to any attempt at usurpation of power, whether on the part of the Church, the n.o.bility, or the crown.
The Great Days of Troyes (_dies magni Trecenses_), the a.s.sizes of the ancient counts of Champagne, and the exchequer of Normandy, were also organized by Philipe le Bel; and, further, he authorised the maintenance of a Parliament at Toulouse, a court which he solemnly opened in person on the 10th of January, 1302. In times of war the Parliament of Paris sat once a year, in times of peace twice. There were, according to circ.u.mstances, during the year two, three, or four sittings of the exchequer of Normandy, and two of the Great Days of Troyes, tribunals which were annexed to the Parliament of Paris, and generally presided over by one of its delegates, and sometimes even by the supreme head of that high court. At the King's council (Fig. 304) it was decided whether a case should be reserved for the Parliament of Paris, or pa.s.sed on either to the exchequer or to the Great Days of Troyes.
As that advanced reformer, Philippe le Bel, died before the inst.i.tutions he had established had taken root, for many years, even down to the time of Louis XI., a continual conflict for supremacy was waged between the Parliament of Paris and the various courts of the kingdom--between the counts and the Parliament, and between the latter and the King, which, without lessening the dignity of the crown, gradually tended to increase the influence which the judges possessed. Immediately on the accession of Louis le Hutin, in 1314, a reaction commenced--the higher clergy re-entered Parliament; but Philippe le Long took care that the laity should be in a majority, and did not allow that in his council of State the t.i.tled councillors should be more numerous than the lawyers. The latter succeeded in completely carrying the day on account of the services they rendered, and the influence which their knowledge of the laws of the country gave them. As for centuries the sword had ruled the gown, so, since the emanc.i.p.ation of the bourgeois, the lawyers had become masters of the administrative and judicial world; and, notwithstanding the fact that they were still kept in a somewhat inferior position to the peers and barons, their opinion alone predominated, and their decision frequently at once settled the most important questions.
An edict issued at Val Notre-Dame on the 11th of March, 1344, increased the number of members of Parliament, which from that time consisted of three presidents, fifteen clerical councillors, fifteen lay councillors, twenty-four clergymen and sixteen laymen of the Court of Inquiry, and five clergymen and sixteen laymen of the Court of Pet.i.tions. The King filled up the vacant seats on the recommendation of the Chancellor and of the Parliament. The reporters were enjoined to write the decisions and sentences which were given by the court ”in large letters, and far apart, so that they might be more easily read.” The duties of police in the courts, the keeping of the doors, and the internal arrangements generally for those attending the courts and the Parliament, were entrusted to the ushers, ”who divided among themselves the gratuities which were given them by virtue of their office.” Before an advocate was admitted to plead he was required to take oath and to be inscribed on the register.
The Parliament as then established was somewhat similar in its character to that of the old national representative government under the Germans and Franks. For centuries it protected the King against the undue interference of the spiritual power, it defended the people against despotism, but it often lacked independence and political wisdom, and it was not always remarkable for its correct appreciation of men and things.
This tribunal, although supreme over all public affairs, sometimes wavered before the threats of a minister or of a court favourite, succ.u.mbed to the influence of intrigues, and adapted itself to the prejudices of the times.
We see it, in moments of error and of blindness, both condemning eminent statesmen and leading citizens, such as Jacques Coeur and Robertet, and handing over to the executioner distinguished men of learning and science in advance of the times in which they lived, because they were falsely accused of witchcraft, and also doing the same towards unfortunate maniacs who fancied they had dealings with the devil.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 305.--Trial of the Constable de Bourbon before the Peers of France (1523).--From an Engraving in ”La Monarchie Francoise” of Montfaucon.]
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries all the members of Parliament formed part of the council of State, which was divided into the Smaller Council and the Greater Council. The Greater Council only a.s.sembled in cases of urgency and for extraordinary and very important purposes, the Smaller Council a.s.sembled every month, and its decisions were registered.
From this arose the custom of making a similar registration in Parliament, confirming the decisions after they had been formally arrived at. The most ancient edict placed on the register of the Parliament of Paris dates from the year 1334, and is of a very important character. It concerns a question of royal authority, and decides that in spiritual matters the right of supremacy does not belong more to the Pope than to the King.
Consequently Philippe de Valois ordered ”his friends and va.s.sals who shall attend the next Parliament and the keepers of the accounts, that for the perpetual record of so memorable a decision, it shall be registered in the Chambers of Parliament and kept for reference in the Treasury of the Charters.” From that time ”cases of complaint and other matters relating to benefices have no longer been discussed before the ecclesiastical judges, but before Parliament or some other secular court.”
During the captivity of King John in England, royal authority having considerably declined, the powers of Parliament and other bodies of the magistracy so increased, that under Charles VI. the Parliament of Paris was bold enough to a.s.sert that a royal edict should not become law until it had been registered in Parliament. This bold and certainly novel proceeding the kings nevertheless did not altogether oppose, as they foresaw that the time would come when it might afford them the means of repudiating a treaty extorted from them under difficult circ.u.mstances (Fig. 306).
The close connection which existed between the various Parliaments and their political functions--for they had occasion incessantly to interfere between the acts of the government and the respective pretensions of the provinces or of the three orders--naturally increased the importance of this supreme magistracy. More than once the kings had cause to repent having rendered it so powerful, and this was the case especially with the Parliament of Paris. In this difficulty it is interesting to note how the kings acted. They imperceptibly curtailed the various powers of the other courts of justice, they circ.u.mscribed the power of the Parliament of Paris, and proportionately enlarged the jurisdiction of the great bailiwicks, as also that of the Chatelet. The provost of Paris was an auxiliary as well as a support to the royal power, which nevertheless held him in its grasp. The Chatelet was also a centre of action and of strength, which counteracted in certain cases parliamentary opposition.
Thence arose the most implacable rivalries and dissensions between these various parties.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 306.--Promulgation of an Edict.--Fac-simile of a Miniature in ”Anciennetes des Juifs,” (French Translation from Josephus), Ma.n.u.script of the Fifteenth Century, executed for the Duke of Burgundy (Library of the a.r.s.enal of Paris.)]
It is curious to notice with what ingenuity and how readily Parliament took advantage of the most trifling circ.u.mstances or of charges based upon the very slightest grounds to summon the officers of the Chatelet before its bar on suspicion of prevarication or of outrages against religion, morals, or the laws. Often were these officers and the provost himself summoned to appear and make _amende honourable_ before the a.s.sembly, notwithstanding which they retained their offices. More than once an officer of the Chatelet was condemned to death and executed, but the King always annulled that part of the sentence which had reference to the confiscation of the goods of the condemned, thus proving that in reality the condemnation had been unjust, although for grave reasons the royal authority had been unable to save the victim from the avenging power of Parliament. Hugues Aubriot, the provost, was thus condemned to imprisonment for life on the most trivial grounds, and he would have undergone capital punishment if Charles V. had abandoned him at the time of his trial. During the English occupation, in the disastrous reign of Charles VI., the Chatelet of Paris, which took part with the people, gave proof of extraordinary energy and of great force of character. The blood of many of its members was shed on the scaffold, and this circ.u.mstance must ever remain a reproach to the judges and to those who executed their cruel sentences, and a lasting crown of glory to the martyrs themselves.
An edict of King John, issued after his return from London in 1363, a short time before his death, clearly defined the duties of Parliament.
They were to try cases which concerned peers of France, and such prelates, chapters, barons, corporations, and councils as had the privilege of appealing to the supreme court; and to hear cases relating to estates, and appeals from the provost of Paris, the bailiffs, seneschals, and other judges (Fig. 307). It disregarded minor matters, but took cognizance of all judicial debates which concerned religion, the King, or the State. We must remark here that advocates were only allowed to speak twice in the same cause, and that they were subjected to fine, or at least to remonstrance, if they were tedious or indulged in needless repet.i.tion in their replies, and especially if they did not keep carefully to the facts of the case. After pleading they were permitted to give a summary in writing of ”the princ.i.p.al points of importance as well as their clients'
grounds of defence.” Charles V. confirmed these orders and regulations with respect to advocates, and added others which were no less important, among which we find a provision for giving ”legal a.s.sistance to poor and dest.i.tute persons who go to law.” These regulations of Charles also limited the time in which officers of justice were to get through their business under a certain penalty; they also proclaimed that the King should no longer hear minor causes, and that, whatever might be the rules of the court, they forbad the presidents from deferring their judgment or from r.e.t.a.r.ding the regular course of justice. Charles VI., before he became insane, contributed no less than his father to the establishment on a better footing of the supreme court of the kingdom, as well as that of the Chatelet and the bailiwicks.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 307.--Bailiwick.--Fac-simile of a Woodcut in the ”Cosmographie Universelle” of Munster: in folio, Basle, 1552.]
In the fifteenth century, the Parliament of Paris was so organized as not to require material change till 1789. There were n.o.ble, clerical, and lay councillors, honorary members, and _maitres de requete_, only four of whom sat; a first president, who was supreme head of the Parliament, a master of the great chamber of pleas, and three presidents of the chamber, all of whom were nominated for life. There were fifteen masters (_maistres_) or clerical councillors, and fifteen who were laymen, and these were annually approved by the King on the opening of the session. An attorney-general, several advocates-general, and deputies, who formed a committee or college, const.i.tuted the active part of this court, round which were grouped consulting advocates (_consiliarii_), pleading advocates (_proponentes_), advocates who were mere listeners (_audientes_), ushers and serjeants, whose chief, on his appointment, became a member of the n.o.bility.
The official costume of the first president resembled that of the ancient barons and knights. He wore a scarlet gown lined with ermine, and a black silk cap ornamented with ta.s.sels. In winter he wore a scarlet mantle lined with ermine over his gown, on which his crest was worked on a s.h.i.+eld. This mantle was fastened to the left shoulder by three gold cords, in order to leave the sword-side free, because the ancient knights and barons always sat in court wearing their swords. Amongst the archives of the mayoralty of London, we find in the ”account of the entry of Henry V., King of England, into Paris” (on the 1st of December, 1420), that ”the first president was in royal dress (_estoit en habit roial_), the first usher preceding him, and wearing a fur cap; the church dignitaries wore blue robes and hoods, and all the others in the procession scarlet robes and hoods.” This imposing dress, in perfect harmony with the dignity of the office of those who wore them, degenerated towards the fifteenth century.
So much was this the case, that an order of Francis I. forbad the judges from wearing pink ”slashed hose” or other ”rakish garments.”
In the early times of monarchy, the judicial functions were performed gratuitously; but it was the custom to give presents to the judges, consisting of sweetmeats, spices, sugar-plums, and preserves, until at a subsequent period, 1498, when, as the judges ”preferred money to sweetmeats,” says the Chancellor Etienne Pasquier, the money value of the spices, &c., was fixed by law and made compulsory. In the bills of expenses preserved among the national archives, we find that the first president of the Parliament of Paris received a thousand _livres parisis_ annually, representing upwards of one hundred thousand francs at the present rate of money; the three presidents of the chamber five hundred livres, equal to fifty thousand francs; and the other n.o.bles of the said Parliament five _sols parisis_, or six sols three deniers--about twenty-five francs--per day for the days only on which they sat. They received, besides, two mantles annually. The prelates, princes, and barons who were chosen by the King received no salaries--_ils ne prennent nuls guaiges_ (law of 27th January, 1367). The seneschals and high bailiffs, like the presidents of the chambers, received five hundred livres--fifty thousand francs. They and the bailiffs of inferior rank were expressly forbidden from receiving money or fees from the parties in any suit, but they were allowed to accept on one day refreshment and bottles of wine.
The salaries were paid monthly; but this was not always done regularly; sometimes the King was to blame for this, and sometimes it was owing to the ill-nature of the chiefs of finance, or of the receivers and payers.