The great diversity in the ultimate result of the English struggles for a free, that is, a rational and stable mixed constitution, and those of the French barons and towns, might lead the careless observer to imagine that there was a greater contrast in the circumstances or in the character of the two nations, and of their popular bodies, than really existed. The cause of the diversity appears to have been this:-The sovereign in France obtained every accession of territory, both of his own domain and of the dominion at large. This enabled him, with the new power and influence thus acquired, to press upon his former subjects. Whatever he obtained beyond the force required to maintain his authority over the new dominions was available to him in extending his authority over the old. But this operation depended upon the circumstance of each province so added having previously been under some chief possessed of a certain power independent of his vassals, beside the right to obtain help from those vassals to a certain extent, that is, on certain occasions. If in France the whole fiefs had been thoroughly incorporated and become one community with a central government, and with one assembly acting for the whole, it would probably have happened there as in England, that the Crown could do everything but raise money, and that the necessity of applying to the body for supplies would have laid the foundation of a popular constitution, by giving the people a regular control over the sovereign's measures. It is quite certain that no assemblies in any part of France ever showed, in any period of French history, a more abject submission to the reigning sovereign, or flattered his caprices and crouched before his violence more slavishly and more shamefully, than the English Parliament in the fifteenth and the first half of the sixteenth centuries, with the single exception of money grants, in which alone the most cruel and profligate tyrants ever experienced the least difficulty. But had England, like France, continued divided into seven principalities, each having its Parliament as well as its domain, the Plantagenets and the Tudors would not have

found more difficulty in obtaining supplies from any one than they did in gaining the consent of the body which represented the whole seven, to their very worst acts, whether legislative or judicial, of pillage or of murder.-See Lord Brougham's Pol. Phil., Pt. I. Ch. XIII.

NOTE LXVI. p. 335. States- General before Henry's Invasion.

The constitutional history of France is involved in still greater obscurity than that of England. The assembling of the StatesGeneral being only occasional, and the more regular meetings of the Provincial States being occupied with matters of inferior importance, no details have been preserved by historians which can throw a steady light on their proceedings; often, indeed, the mention of their having been held at all is omitted. The records of the eleven Provincial Parliaments, and of the more important Parliament of Paris, are preserved, but they relate chiefly to judicial proceedings. The Ordinances are the only authority to which we can resort for information respecting the history of the legislature; but these are confined to occasions on which some law was made or other measures finally adopted, and take no notice of any other proceedings; and even where they are most full, they give the result only, without noting the steps by which it was arrived at. In the earlier periods, too, there were not many Ordinances made, at least not many that have reached us. Between the years 921 and 1051 none are to be found, and only two between the latter year and Louis IX. (St. Louis') time, the middle of the thirteenth century. The others are not properly Ordinances, but rather charters or grants to particular towns, or regulations touching the royal domains, than general laws. It may further be observed that the remonstrances of Provincial States, and the concessions made to them, were sometimes important, and had a bearing upon the general system by affecting the power of the Crown and the influence of the people; yet in very many instances the Ordinances contain

no traces of such proceedings, because, generally speaking, the business brought before those Provincial States was of subordinate and local interest. Edict differs from Ordinance in being usually confined to one matter; Ordinances are more general and extensive, but we shall use the latter term in all cases.

It appears that the opinion is unfounded which ascribes to the States and the Parliaments a different origin. Both arose out of the National Assemblies held at stated periods in the earliest times of the monarchy, and before the feudal system could be said to be established. There were originally two meetings held in the year, one after seed time, the other after harvest, but afterwards the only meeting was in spring. These meetings were called Champs de Mars, and subsequently Champs de Mai. They were attended by all warriors, that is, all the freemen, at first, afterwards by the chiefs and other leaders, and were military assemblages for mustering the forces and announcing the enterprises in preparation. By degrees the attendance was confined to the tenants in chief (in capite), the vassals of the Crown, and many of the prelates also attended. This restriction had been completed at the end of the Second race; but some judicial business had in the process of time become joined with the other subjects of deliberation, or perhaps we should rather say of announcement, of notification by the sovereign to the leading men of the community. He had another council selected by himself, and to which only those came whom he summoned. It assisted and advised him, particu- ́ larly in preparing the matters to be laid before the General Assembly. Although differing from that Assembly by being selected, it yet was taken from the same classes, the barons and prelates; and beside meeting as often as its aid was required by the King, it always met at the same time with the General Assembly. It thus happened that the two bodies became by degrees confounded together; and though we are wholly ignorant of the steps by which their consolidation was brought about, we know that it became complete during the first three centuries after the establishment of the Third race, probably before the

beginning of the thirteenth century. Certainly in the earliest part of that century there existed no longer two bodies, but only one, which had then acquired the name of Parliament. The stated meetings under the First race were called by the name of Mallum or Mallus, sometimes Placitum, sometimes Synod. Under the Second race they were called Colloquium also. The translation of this term (and it is said also of Mallum) into Parliament occurs not before the time of Louis VI. (le Gros); but in that of Louis VIII., at the beginning of the thirteenth century, it became the usual appellation. There were then eleven Parliaments, beside that of Paris, and all those bodies had become merely judicial, that of Paris exercising a superintending power over the other tribunals. Although all these Parliaments met from time to time, yet the regularity of their assembling was enforced by the great changes which Louis IX. (St. Louis) introduced into legal proceedings. Philip IV. (the Fair), in 1302, fixed the ordinary meetings of the Parliament of Paris to be held twice a year. It is sometimes said that he also fixed Paris as the place of the meeting, but this is erroneous: his Ordinance rather assumes Paris to be the place than appoints it. We know that of sixty-nine Parliaments held between 1254 and 1302, all but two had been held at Paris; and then it is equally certain that after the date of the Ordinance (1302) the Parliament was sometimes, though rarely, held elsewhere. The name Parliament of Paris was always given to it since 1291. In 1284 Philip III. (le Hardi) assembled a meeting of prelates and barons to consult them on the Pope's pretensions to dispose of crowns. This meeting, by some considered as one of the States, ordained him to submit to the claim.

Although it had become in process of time a merely judicial body, and rarely consulted upon state affairs, yet at all times the National Assembly, both in France and England, had exercised certain judicial functions, together with its more general attributes. Most of the Ordinances before 1334 purport to be by the advice and consent of the Parliament; and even where this is not stated, the coincidence of their date with the known

date of the Parliament's meeting, shows plainly enough that they continued to be the result of a deliberation with the body. After that time the Parliament was only called upon to register the Ordinances. This gave a considerable influence to the Parliament of Paris, which had the right of remonstrance before registry; the Provincial Parliaments only could remonstrate after registry. But the influence of the former was always considerable upon the conduct of affairs, not merely from the right of remonstrance, but from their regularly meeting at stated times, and from the importance of the members, magistrates and other lawyers, persons of weight with the community at large. The Parliament of Paris, beside remonstrating, might refuse to register; and though compellable by the King holding a Bed of Justice, which was a more solemn meeting of the Parliament attended by the King's court in great state, yet it cannot be doubted that many Ordinances were prevented and many modified in consequence of this power of refusal. A compromise was made, as always happens when two conflicting powers exist in any state not under despotic government.

The States-General, on the other hand, never had an appointed period of meeting; they were only called by the crown occasionally, when assistance was wanted. The Provincial States, which were the remains of the old Mallum, Placitum, Colloquium, or Parliament of the province when it had been a separate and independent principality, continued to meet with some regularity after it was united with other principalities; but the influence of such a body necessarily became very inconsiderable after the union, and it was only when the States-General, or those for all the principalities, were convoked, that they could have any great weight in the management of the general concerns. Thus the Provincial States from the union of the principalities, although their meeting was more regular, and the States-General from their having no regular meeting, alike became of less importance than the Parliament.

There prevails great uncertainty both as to the manner in which the States were substituted for the Parliament in so far