dangerous a principle; and that they neither could themfelves, nor ever would, make any difference between the caule of the prince and the magiftrates, and that of any other citizen whatever. They fum up the whole, with repeating their declaration, that parliament, therefore, will never cease to demand the liberty or the impeachment of the prince and the magiftrates; and that, thinking them felves equally bound to employ the fame zeal and the fame perfeverance for the welfare of all their fellow citizens, they will not ceafe to intreat his majefty to grant and to infure to every Frenchman, that perfonal fecurity, which is folemnly promifed by the laws, and due to them by the principles of the con

ftitution.

The parliament was fent for 17th. to Verfailles, to receive the king's answer to this remonftrance, which afforded as little fatisfaction to that body as any of the prece ding. They were informed, that although he had condefcended to receive their reprefentations in behalf of the two magiftrates whom he had punished, he did not think proper to recall them. That, be ides, the manner in which their reprefentations were exprefled, was by no means fuch as to deferve his indulgence. On the fubject of lettres de cachet, he affured them, that the lawful liberty of his fubjects was as dear to him as to themfelves; but he at the fame time declared, that he would not fuffer his parliament to oppofe the exercife of an authority, which the tranquillity of families fo much and fo often required; which magiftrates themselves to frequently folicited and implored; and of which

he had the fatisfaction to know, that he had made a more moderate ufe than his predeceflors. He then informed them, that the expreffions made ufe of in their refolutions of the 4th inftant, were as indifcreet and improper, as thofe which they had ufed on the 27th of Auguft in the former year. That he therefore fuppreffed the refolutions of both thofe days, as being contrary to that refpect and fubmiffion which his parliament owed, and was bound to fet an example of to all his fubjects, he concluded by forbidding them to purfue fuch a conduct, or to form any fuch refolutions in future.

So little effect did this charge produce, that the parliament, on the fucceeding day, paffed a new fet of refolutions, which befides reiterating the principal arguments and pofitions of the former pieces, held out fuch new matter, as, if it could not add much to their force, was, however, well calculated to operate upon the minds of the people, which were already exceedingly inflamed in every part of the kingdom.

In this manner was the contest continued for fome time longer, the apparent firmnefs on one fide being met by an equal degree of perfeverance on the other: nor in the mean time was it at all clear, whatever conceffions had been made, or even if all the claims of the parliament had been granted, that the latter had left it in their power to relieve the crown from its dif treffes, or confequently to enable it to carry on the bufinefs of government. This proceeded from their unexpected declaration, that it was neither in their power, nor in that of the crown, nor of both united, [1] 3

to grant or to raise any money by the levy of new taxes upon the people; a declaration evidently degned to lay the king under a neceflity of convoking the states general of the kingdom.

Whatever were the particular motives of the party, by whofe influence that body was induced to make this voluntary furrender of its authority, the new doctrine ran like wild-fire through the nation. In proportion to the general odioufnefs of taxes, was the joy at this emancipation from all actual authority to raise new ones; whilft the patriotifm of that body, which had thus teftified its own incompetence, in order thereby to eftablish the difqualification of the crown, was fcarcely lefs than idolized. Thus circumftanced, it would not have been easy for the parliament, however inclined, to retract its own measure, and to refume a competence which it formerly declared it did not poffefs; as little could it renew that ancient authority in the crown, which it had juft endea voured to cancel.

In the mean time, that fpirit of liberty which we have heretofore had occafion to take notice of, and for the growth and progrefs of which we then affigned different caufes, was not only now every where fpread, but feemed already, in fome inftances and places, difpofed to over-leap all reftraints, and to trample upon that diftinction of ranks, and thole lines of fubordination, which had hitherto not only been deemed neceffary to the wellbeing of government, but even to the prefervation of fociety.

This was accompanied by its ufual concomittant, a fpirit of innovation, which attempted to reach and to embrace every thing. The

French feemed transformed to a nation of projectors; and every projector wifhed to be a reformer, Nothing almoft could be heard or liftened to but reforms; and the language and difpofition feemed to become as prevalent at court as with the people or parliaments. Two aftances, however, occurred, in which this fpirit was laudably and advantageoufly exert ed. The firft was a general reform in the codes both of civil and criminal juftice, a reform long wifhed, and than which nothing could be more wanted; but its difficulty and magnitude had hitherto deterred any minifter from venturing upon fo arduous an undertaking. M. de Lamoignon, the keeper of the feals, had not only the courage to encounter thefe difficulties, but the happinefs and honour to form fo excellent a plan for completing the defign, as to leave but little to be done by thofe who were destined to be his fucceffors in carrying it into execution. And, for the relief of thofe perfons who might be liable to trial in the interim, before the great work could be perfected, he introduced feveral most humane and effential regulations into the immediate proceedings of the criminal courts; particularly with refpect to evidence, and the mode of obtaining it (in which the fyftem was extremely faulty:) and fill more particularly in thofe cafes where the life of the accufed was affected.

The fecond was the edict in fayour of the proteftants, which was introduced by the king on the me morable 19th of November, and was registered by the parliament on the 29th of January, 1783. This edit contained 37 articles, the greater number as well as the most effential of which, were thofe re

lating

lating to marriages, births, baptifms, and burials, fubjects which had frequently been the cause of great trouble, difficulty, and grievance to the proteftants, with refpect to the legitimacy of their iffue, and the legal defcent of their inheritances. While all France was waiting with the utmost attention and folicitude, the iffue of the contest between the king and the parliament of Paris, relative to lettres de cachet, an incident took place in Languedoc which threw the whole kingdom into a ferment upon that fubject. M. de Catalan, the prefident of the parliament of Tholoufe, having, in conjunction with that body, refufed to regifter the late edict for levying a tax of two-twentieths on the nation, the king immediately or dered a lettre de cachet to be iffued against the prefident, the execution of which was committed to the count de Perigord, governor general of the province. M. de Catalan was accordingly arrefted, and fent prifoner to an old caftle at the foot of the Pyrenean nountains.

The month of April brought on an argumentative written difcuffion between the parliament of Paris and the king, which afforded not only a more full explanation of the relpective claims of the parties than had yet appeared, but likewife fome view of their feparate opinions with relpect to fundry great queftions of law, upon which the French conftitution was either fuppofed to be founded, or its prefervation appen

dant.

The parliament preApril 11th. fented a remonftrance, in which, reprefenting the 19th of November as the epoch of á direct attempt to fubvert the public rights, and to establish defpotifm, and fta

ting all the fubfequent proceedings as a continuation of the fame fyftem, they inform the king that his parliament can never allow, that one act of arbitrary power fhould deftroy the effential rights by which his fubjects had been governed for 1300 years paft. They then enumerate feveral loole indefinite charges against government, as the grounds or juftification of the present remonftrance,-that public liberty is attacked in its very principles; that defpotifmn is fubftituted for the law of the land; that the privileges of magiftracy are trampled upon, and parliament made the mere inftrument of arbitrary power.

They declare that their privileges. are not their own: that they are the property of the people at large, and that they, as trustees or con fervators, are bounden to preserve them from violation. That the will of the king, alone, 'does not make a law complete, nor does the fimple expreffion of that will confitute the formal act of the nation. It is neceflary that the king's will in order to be effective, fhould be publifhed under legal authority; and that in order to make the publication of it legal, it must have been firtt freely difcuffed. Such, fire! are the principles of the French conftitution."

In fupport of this doctrine they go back to the early ftages of the French monarchy, and endeavour to fhew from hiftory, the ancient as well as the more recent circumftances which attended the pasling of laws, and which they reprefent as having been held indifpenfably neceary to give them validity. Under the fir race of kings, the fovereign being furrounded by his court, either prefented a new law [4] 4

to the people, or they demanded one. In the first instance, the acceptance of the people, whofe fuffrages were entirely free, established the law; in the fecond, the propofed law was confidered and debated by the court, (which was the royal council) according to whofe fuffrages, which were equally and inviolably free as thofe of the people, it was confirmed by the king's affent, or rejected. The fame order was observed under the fecond race. The court was compofed of noblemen, bishops, and fenators. They were ftyled the adjutants, co-operators, and adminiftrators of the public weal. In all cafes, laws were enacted with the confent of the people, and the confirmation of the king through his court.

Under the third race of kings, they fay, that the form of government did not change, although the court went under different names. It was at different times called the king's court, the court of France, the royal court, the common council, and the parliament.

Upon the whole it does not feem that the information obtained by thefe refearches into the ancient hiftory of the French monarchy, was much to the purpose, or ferved to throw any additional light upon the fubjects of the prefent difputes. The confent of the people to the paffing of laws would have been equally curious and important, if it had been fhewn in what manwas given or obtained; whether the whole nation affembled in one vaft plain, to afford the fanction of its confufed voice; or whether the fuffrages were communicated by delegation. It might perhaps be found no lefs difficult

to establish the fact in one cafe than in the other.

It is always to be remembered in confidering these contefts, (and though we have heretofore mentioned it, it is of fo much confequence to the fubject that we fall venture to repeat the obfervation) that the French parliaments are properly courts of juftice. That thefe bodies are merely adminiftrators of the laws, without any power to make, or even, in the smalleft degree, to alter or amend them. And that they are not farther removed from the powers of legislation, than from the moft diftant pretence of being confidered in any degree as the reprefentatives of the people. The powers of legiflation have refided folely in the crown, ever fince the convocation of the ftates has fallen into difufe; and it poffefied them equally before, in the intervals between the meetings of thofe affemblies.

We have formerly thewn, that the practice of calling upon the parliaments, or courts of justice, to enregifter the king's edicts, did not originate in an idea of their communįcating any authority or force to thofe laws, nor even with a view of receiving their approbation, but merely as notaries to record and authenticate their existence, and thereby, as well to promulgate them, as to prevent any doubts being entertained by the public of their reality. The parliaments, however, as their popularity and power increased, and times and circumftances proved favourable to the defign, affumed a right of judging whether thefe edicts were injurious to the public; and if this was determined in the affirmative, they, under a colour of a fort

of