the ancient assemblies of the French nation under the Kings of the first and second race. There is no point with respect to which the French antiquaries are more generally agreed, than in maintaining that the States General had no suffrage in the passing of laws, and possessed no proper legislative jurisdiction. The whole tenor of the French history confirms this opinion. The form of proceeding in the States General was this. The King addressed himself, at opening the meeting, to the whole body assembled in one place, and laid before them the affairs on account of which he had summoned them. Then the deputies of each of the three orders, of nobles, of clergy, and of the third estate, met apart, and prepared their cahier or memorial, containing their answer to the propositions which had been made to them, together with the representations which they thought proper to lay before the King. These answers and representations were considered by the King in his council, and generally gave rise to an ordonance. These ordonances were not addressed to the three estates in common. Sometimes the King addressed an ordonance to each of the estates in particular. Sometimes he mentioned the assembly of the three estates. Sometimes mention is made only of the assembly of that estate to which the ordonance is addressed. Sometimes no mention at all is made of the assembly of estates, which suggested the propriety of enacting the law, Preface au tom. iii. des Ordon. p. xx. Thus the States General had only the privilege of advising and remonstrating; the legislative authority resided in the King alone.

NOTE XL. SECT. III. p. 200. [RR].

IF the parliament of Paris be considered only as the supreme court of justice, every thing relative to its origin and jurisdiction is clear and obvious. It is the ancient court of the King's palace, new-modelled, rendered stationary, and invested with an extensive and ascertained jurisdiction. The power of this court, while employed in this part of its functions, is not the object of present consideration. The pretensions of the parliament to control the exercise of the legislative authority, and its claim of a right to interpose with respect to public affairs, and the political administration of the kingdom, lead to inquiries attended with great difficulty. As the officers and members of the parliament of Paris were anciently nominated by the King, were paid by him, and on several occasions were removed by him at pleasure (Chronic. Scandaleuse de Louis XI. chez les Mem. de Comines, tom. ii. p 51. Edit. de M. Lenglet de Fresnoy), they cannot be considered as representatives of the people, nor could they claim any share in the legislative power as acting in their name. We must therefore search for some other source of this high privilege. 1. The parliament was originally composed of the most eminent persons in the kingdom. The peers of France, ecclesiastics of the highest order, and noblemen of illustrious birth, were members of it, to whom were added some clerks and counsellors learned in the laws. Pasquier

Recherches, p. 44, &c. Encyclopedie, tom. xii, Art. Parlement. p. 3, 5. A court thus constituted was properly a committee of the States General of the kingdom, and was composed of those barons and fideles, whom the Kings of France were accustomed to consult with regard to every act of jurisdiction or legislative authority. It was natural, therefore, during the intervals between the meetings of the states general, or during those periods when that assembly was not called, to consult the parliament, to lay matters of public concern before it, and to obtain its approbation and concurrence, before any ordonance was published to which the people were required to conform. 2. Under the second race of Kings, every new law was reduced into proper form by the Chancellor of the kingdom, was proposed by him to the people, and when enacted, was committed to him to be kept among the public records, that he might give authentic copies of it to all who should demand them. Hincm. de Ord. Palat. c. 16. Capitul. Car. Calv. tit. xiv. § 11. tit. xxxiii. The Chancellor presided in the parliament of Paris at its first institution. Encyclopedie, tom. iii. art. Chancelier, p. 88. It was therefore natural for the King to continue to employ him in his ancient functions of framing, taking into his custody, and publishing the ordonances which were issued. To an ancient copy of the Capitularia of Charlemagne, the following words are subjoined: Anno tertio clementissimi domini nostri Caroli Augusti, sub ipso anno, hæc facra Capitula sunt, & consignatą Stephano comiti, ut hæc manifesta faceret Parisiig

mallo publico, & illa legere faceret coram Scabineis, quod ita & fecit, & omnes in uno consenserunt, quod ipsi voluissent observare usque in posterum, etiam omnes Scabinei, Episcopi, Abbates, Comites, manu propria subter signaverunt. Bouquet Recueil, tom. v. p. 663. Mallus signifies not only the public assembly of the nation, but the court of justice held by the Comes, or missus dominicus. Scabini were the judges, or the assessors of the judges in that court. Here then seems to be a very early instance, not only of laws being published in a court of justice, but of their being verified or confirmed by the subscription of the judges. If this was the common practice, it naturally introduced the verifying of edicts in the parliament of Paris. But this conjecture I propose with that diffidence, which I have felt in all my reasonings concerning the laws and institutions of foreign nations. 3. This supreme court of justice in France was dignified with the appellation of parliament, the name by which the general assembly of the nation was distinguished towards the close of the second race of Kings; and men, both in reasoning and in conduct, are wonderfully influenced by the similarity of names. The pre serving the ancient names of the magistrates established while the republican government subsisted in Rome, enabled Augustus and his successors to assume new powers with less observation and greater ease. The bestowing the same name in France upon two courts, which were extremely different, contributed not a little to confound their jurisdiction and functions.

ALL these circumstances concurred in leading the Kings of France to avail themselves of the parliament of Paris as the instrument of reconciling the people to the exercise of legislative authority by the Crown. The French accustomed to see all new laws examined and authorised before they were published, did not sufficiently distinguish between the effect of performing this in the national assembly, or in a court appointed by the King. But as that court was composed of respectable members, and who were well skilled in the laws of their country, when any new edict received its sanction, that was sufficient to dispose the people to submit to it.

WHEN the practice of verifying and registering the royal edicts in the parliament of Paris became common, the parliament contended that this was necessary in order to give them legal authority. It was established as a fundamental maxim in French jurisprudence, that no law could be published in any other manner; that without this formality no edict or ordonance could have any effect; that the people were not bound to obey it, and ought not to consider it as an edict or ordonance until it was verified in the supreme court, after free deliberation. Roche-flavin des Parlemens de France, 4to. Gen. 1621. p. 921. The parliament, at different times, hath, with great fortitude and integrity, opposed the will of their sovereigns; and, notwithstanding their repeated and peremptory requisitions and commands, hath refused to verify and publish such edicts as it conceived to be oppres