HISTORY OF

FIFTEENTH LECTURE.

State of royalty after the reign of Saint Louis-In right it was neither absolute nor limited-In fact, incessantly combated, and yet far supe rior to every other power- Its tendency to absolute power-This tendency appeared under Philip le Bel-Influence of the personal character of Philip le Bel-Various kinds of despotism-Progress of absolute power in the legislation-Examination of the ordinances of Philip le Bel-True characters of the composition and of the influence of national assemblies under his reign-Progress of absolute power in judicial matters-Struggle between the legists and the feudal aristocracyExtraordinary commissions-Progress of absolute power with regard to taxes-Reaction of the feudal aristocracy against absolute power under the three sons of Philip le Bel-Associations of resistance-Embarrassment in the order of succession to the throne-Enfeeblement of royalty at the end of the feudal epoch.

We have already been present at the progressive development of royalty during about three hundred years, from the accession of Hugh Capet, in 987, to the death of Saint Louis, in 1270. Let us recapitulate in a few words what it was at this period.

In right, it was not absolute; it was neither imperial royalty, founded, as you know, upon the personification of the state, nor Christian royalty, founded tion of the Divinity. Neither one nor the other of the prinupon the representaciples predominated in French royalty at the end of the thirteenth century; neither one nor the other gave it abso

iutism.

Still, if it was not absolute in right, neither was it limited. In the social order there was no institution which balanced it; no regular counterpoise, either by any great aristocratical body, or by any popular assembly. In the

moral order, there was no principle, no powerful idea generally admitted, and which assigned limits to the royal power. Men did not believe that it had a right to do everything, to extend to all things; but they knew not, they did not even seek to know where it ought to stop.

In fact, royalty was limited and incessantly combated by independent, and to a certain point, rival powers-by the power of the clergy, and especially by that of the great proprietors of fiefs, direct or indirect vassals of the crown. Still, it possessed a force infinitely superior to any other—a force which, as you have seen, was formed by the successive acquisitions of Louis le Gros, Philip Augustus, and Saint Louis, and which, at the end of the thirteenth century, without any doubt, placed the king beyond comparison at the head of the great lords of France.

Thus, in right, here was no sovereignty systematically unlimited, but no limits converted into institutions or into national doctrines; in fact, adversaries and embarrassments, but no rivals; such, in truth, was the condition of royalty, when Philip le Hardi succeeded Saint Louis.

There was here, I need hardly say, a fertile germ of ab solute power a marked inclination towards despotism. Hitherto, we have not seen this germ develop itself. It would be totally unjust to pretend that, from the tenth to the middle of the thirteenth century, royalty laboured to render itself absolute; it laboured to re-establish some order, peace, Justice; to raise some shadow of society and general government. There was no question of despotism.

There is nothing to be surprised at in this. All institutions, all social forms begin, in their development, by the good they are to do. It is by this title, as they are more or less useful to society, more or less in harmony with its existing general wants, that it becomes accredited and increases. Such was the progress of royalty under the reigns of Louis le Gros, Philip Augustus, and Saint Louis: Louis le Gros, by repressing a number of petty tyrants in and about his domains, and by giving to royalty its character of a public power and protector; Philip Augustus, by reconstructing the kingdom, and by again giving to the nation through his wars against foreigners, the splendour of his court, and his efforts at

civilization, the sentiment of nationality; Saint Louis, by impressing upon his government the character of equity, respect for rights, love of justice and the public good, which is seen in all his acts, assuredly rendering to France the most important, the most essential services; and it may be said without hesitation that, during this epoch, good prevailed over evil in the development of French royalty, and moral principles, or at least principles of public interest, over principles of absolute power.

Still the germ of absolute power was there, and we now arrive at the epoch when it began to be developed. The metamorphosis of royalty into despotism is the characteristic of the reign of Philip le Bel. If we believe a somewhat oldfashioned theory, but one which has resumed in our times confidence in itself, and some degree of credit-if it be true that all things here below are necessarily, fatally connected, without human liberty having anything to do or anything to answer for-we should simply understand that at the end of the thirteenth century, the circumstances amidst which royalty was displaying itself, the social and intellectual state of France, made of that invasion of absolute power, a necessity which no one brought about or could prevent; that, accordingly, it can be attributed to no one, and that no one is guilty of this evil. Fortunately, the theory is false.

In fact, as I have already remarked, the personal character, the free-will of the kings who reigned from the eleventh to the thirteenth century, powerfully influenced the course of things, especially the destinies of royalty. You have seen, among others, how great a part Saint Louis, in person, took in the turn of the institutions under his reign. It was the same under Philip le Bel; his personal character had much to do with the new phase which royalty then assumed. Independently of all the general causes which doubtless concurred to it, evil in himself and despotic by nature, he impelled it, perhaps, more violently than any other cause towards absolute power.

There are great varieties in despotism; I do not merely speak of great inequalities as regards the degree of despotism, but of great varieties in the very nature of despotism and in its effects. For some men absolute power has scarcely been more than a means; they were not governed by completely

egoistical views; they turned over in their minds plans of public utility, and made use of despotism to attain them. Charlemagre, for example, and Peter the Great in Russia, were true despots, but not exclusively egoistical despots, occupied solely with themselves, consulting merely their own caprices, acting only with a personal end in view. They, each of them, in his own country, had general and disinterested views and wishes concerning the destiny of men, views in which the satisfaction of their own passions held but the least place. Despotism, I repeat, was for them a means, not an end-a means vicious in its nature, and which carries evil into the bosom of the good which it accomplishes; but which serves, at least sometimes, to hasten the progress of good, while giving it an impure alloy.

For other men, on the contrary, despotism is the end itself, because they blend egoism with it; they have no general views, form no design of public interest, seek, in the power of which they have the disposition, the satisfying of their passions and caprices, of their miserable and ephemeral personality. Such was Philip le Bel. During the whole course of his reign, we encounter no general idea which relates to the good of his subjects. He is a selfish despotic, devoted to himself, who reigns for himself, and asks of power only the accomplishment of his own will. Just as great as was the place which the personal virtue of Saint Louis held in his government, so great was the influence exercised by that personal wickedness of Philip le Bel over his, and as powerfully did it contribute to the new turn-to that moral and despotic turn which royalty took under his reign.

I shall not recount the history of Philip le Bel; I always take some knowledge of events as granted. It is more especially in original documents, in the legislation or political acts of all kinds, that I seek the history of institutions, and that of royalty in particular.

It is only necessary to open the ordinances of the Louvre, in order to be struck with the different character which the royal power assumed in the hands of Philip le Bel, and the changes introduced into its mode of action. I have hitherto placed before you, in each reign, the number an nature of the ordinances and other political acts which remain to us of different princes. Under Philip le Bel, the

number of these acts, all at once, became infinitely greater. The collection of the Louvre contains 354 of them, which may be classed in the following manner:

44 of political legislation and of government properly so called;

101 of civil, feudal, or demesne legislation;

58 concerning coinage, whether royal coinage, coinage of the lords, or foreign coinage;

104 concerning affairs of local privilege or private interest, concession or confirmation of boroughs, privileges granted to certain places and to certain corporations, or to certain persons, &c.;

21 concerning Jews, and Italian and merchants traders; 38 upon various subjects.

Royalty is evidently far more active, and interferes in a far larger number of affairs and interests than it had hitherto done.

If we entered into a detailed examination of these acts, we should be still more forcibly struck with this fact, by following it in all its forms. I have made a complete summary of these 354 ordinances or acts of government of Philip le Bel, in order properly to understand the nature of each. I shall not place this table before you in its whole extent, but I will give you an idea of it. You will see what was the variety of interests in which royalty interfered under this reign, and how much more decisive and extensive was its action than it had hitherto been.

I will rapidly analyse the ordinances of the first years of the reign of Philip le Bel, and of these, those only which are contained in the first volume of the collection of the Louvre.

In 1286, I find but two acts without interest in the present day: instructions in matters of redemption, and a local concession.

In 1287, there are three ordinances, two of which are very important: the object of the one, in ten articles, is the mode of acquiring the burgesship, and regulates how he who wishes to establish himself in a town may become a burgher; what formalities he will have to fulfil; what relations will subsist between him and the lord whose domains he has quitted, or him whose domains he has entered