Industry proper, which in France dates from the time of de Sully and de Colbert, was subject to another regime, that of monopoly. The king alone could authorize the establish ment of a factory; he granted the exclusive right of manufacture, for a specified district, and often fixed the condition of fabrication and sale as well as the prices.
Monopolies and corporations alike were, however, doomed to disappear by dint of the great revolutionary crisis and cede their place to a more equitable system, the basis for which existed, moreover, and was to be found under the old regime, to the undoubted benefit of the tradespeople and artisans of communes with a limited population.
Judicial The latter cen tunes of the old regime witnessed the progress ive diminution of the power of the lords, the clergy and the municipal authorities and the gradual development of Royal justice. To the. multiplicity of existing jurisdictions a tendency arose to substitute a system of unity — a status definitely realized moreover by the Revolution. Royal efforts were directed mainly on two prin cipal points: submit to its tribunals those cases previously submitted to seignorial courts and subordinate the latter in every instance to the control of the former, notably withdrawing from them the right to pronounce judgment in a final appeal.
Royal justice had been dispensed since the Capetians by provosts, or officials who besides rendering justice recruited soldiers for the army and collected taxes. Philippe Auguste made them subordinate to abaillisa (bailiffs) in the north of France, and to asinechaux* (sen eschals) in the south; bailiffs and seneschals fulfilled a triple function, judicial, financial and military. Gradually the provosts confined their role to that of magistrates, and the bailiffs, whose duties were less and less arduous, ceded their judicial functions to their two assistants, one civil and the other criminal.
The king in his quality of supreme suzerain presided over a feudal court called Curia Regis. At first the great vassals of the Crown were members of this court, but they soon wearied of its sittings especially when written proofs were substituted for the traditional judicial passage of arms.
They were replaced by Juris-consults and the Curia Regis became the parliament which was subsequently to decide the appeals against the decisions of the bailiffs and afterward those of the Court of Judicature at a time when the intermediary tribunals were intercalated under Henri II between the bailiffs and parliament.
Parliament consisted of four Houses or Chambers: the aGrande Chambre which dealt with matters pertaining to the king or the peers; the aChambre des Requites,a which pro nounced judgment on persons privileged to be tried directly by Parliament without appearing before the lower courts; the aChambre des En which tried suits drawn up in writing; and the eTournelle,D which was solely concerned with criminal cases. All appeals against de cisions of the aChambre des Equetesi were pleaded before the aGrand Chambre.* Thirteen otherarliaments were established in the provinces. justice also comprised special tribunals such as consular tribunals instructed to settle points in litigation connected with commercial legislation, and admiralty tribunals whose function consisted in applying maritime law.
• Many public functions, and particularly the judicial ones, constituted offices bought from the king from which he derived quite a sub stantial revenue. These payments subsequently became hereditary on payment of a tax. How ever, the mercenary manner in which these offices were granted and their hereditary nature gave rise to such abuse that the Revolution suppressed them altogether.
As the compensation allowed was very small, the magistrates accepted from suitors what were called court-fees, consisting really in the gift of various articles and especially cash. Racine's play 'Les Plaideurs) throws an inter esting light on this old custom.
The judges and counsellors-at-law naturally judgment udgment in the name of the king, the latter reserving to himself the right to call before his own council any action pending before any tribunal. This prerogative was a relic of the old system of justice dispensed directly by the king, such, for instance, as that rendered by Saint Louis under his oak tree. It was also the King's Council, or at least one of its sections the "Conseil des Parties,* which judged cases of appeals.
Legislative Power.— The legislative power, like the judiciary power and the executive power, belonged alone to the king. It is true the "Etats Generaux" collaborated with him to a certain extent in that they made him ac quainted with the desiderata of the three or ders: nobility, clergy and laymen, of which the population was composed. But from 1614 to 1789 there were no "Etats Genersnx" and the king was not actually obliged to give satisfac tion to the wishes of his subjects.
Contrary to the "Etats Generaux" the mem bers of the "Assemblees de Notables') were not elected but appointed by the king. They also were only empowered to make suggestions or express opinions.
The Royal Decrees were, however, only ex ecutory after having been registered by ment. The latter took advantage of this to address remonstrances to the sovereign, who nevertheless could ignore them and force Parliament to register the decree by means of the ceremonial known as "lit de justice." On many occasions Parliament endeavored to un dermine the autocratic power of the king: the conflict was particularly bitter under Louis XV who banished the Paris Parliament and annulled the Provincial parliaments. Louis XVI was merely able to restore order temporarily, and eventually he prorogued Parliament and sum moned the "Etats Generaux" in 1789, which put an end to the old regime.
Parliament also participated in the legisla tive power by means of decretal decisions; when that one of its rulings was likely to cover frequently arising questions, it was formulated in general terms and such formula was deemed to be law. This method of fixing jurisprudence has been removed from French legislation since the Revolution as being contrary to the prin ciple of the separation of powers.