Under Philip the Fair and his successors down to Charles VII a considerable though precarious revenue had often been realised by the disastrous method of tampering with the standard of value. In the latter years of Charles VII and under his three successors this device was rarely employed. A considerable depreciation may be indeed observed between the standard of Louis XII and that of Charles VII; but the changes were far less important and frequent than those of the earlier period. A certain revenue was obtained by legitimate seigniorage, and the illegitimate profits of debasement and the like may be almost neglected.
The system of collection was still only partially centralised, and marked the imperfect union of the successive acquisitions of the monarchy. For the collection and administration both’ of domaine and extraordinary revenue the older provinces were distributed into four divisions. Western Languedoil was administered with Guyenne; but the parts of Languedoil beyond Seine and Yonne, when reunited to the Crown, about 1436, were organised as a separate financial group (Outre-seine). Normandy formed a third and separate administrative area. Administrative Languedoc, that is to say the three senechaussees of Carcassonne, Beaucaire, and Toulouse, forms the fourth. Picardy, Burgundy, Dauphine, Provence, Roussillon and of course Britanny, were not included in the general scheme. Milan had its separate financial establishment, and maintained 600 lances. .In these last-mentioned provinces the ordinary and extraordinary revenue were administered together; elsewhere domaine and extraordinary revenue were separated. For the administration of the domaine each of the four main divisions had a separate treasurer, who was practically supreme in his own district. Under them were as administrators on the first line the baillis or senechaux, on the second, the prevots, vicomtes, or viguiers. The separation of the receipt from the administration of funds is a principle that runs through the whole system of finance both ordinary and extraordinary. Accordingly, there is a receveur for each prevote or other subdivision, and a general receiver for the whole domain, known as the changeur du Tresor. But the actual collection of cash at the central office was in large measure avoided, partly by charging the local officer of receipt with all local expenses, and partly by a system of drafts on local offices adopted for the payment of obligations incurred by the central government. The beneficiary presented his draft to the local receveur or grenetier, or discounted it with a broker, who forwarded it to his agent for collection. The same plan was adopted in the extraordinary finance, and made an accurate knowledge of the financial position, and correct supervision of the accounts, a matter of extreme difficulty. Contentious business was either settled by the baillis or prevots, or by a central tribunal of domaine finance, the Chambre du Tresor, or in some cases by the Chambre des Comptes or the Parlement.
The same regions of France were similarly divided for extraordinary finance into four generalites. At the head of each were two generaux, one pour le fait des finances, the other pour le fait de la justice. The four generaux de la justice met together to form the Cour des Aides, an appeal Court for contentious questions arising out of the collection of the extraordinary revenue. There are other Cours des Aides, at Montpellier for Languedoc, and at Rouen for Normandy. Each general des finances was supreme in the administration of his own generalite. Associated with each general there was a receveur general, who guarded the cash and was accountable for it. In Languedoc the partition and collection of faille and the collection of aides was managed by the Estates of the province. The other three generalites (except Guyenne, which was administered by commissioners) were divided into elections, a term reminiscent of the earlier system when the Estates collected the sums they had voted and elected the supervising officers. The elus, who stood at the head of each Election, and whose duty it was to apportion the tattle over the several parishes, to let out the aides, and to act as judges of first instance in any litigation that might arise, were now, as they had long since been, the nominees of the King. Beside them stood the receveurs, who as a rule handled the product both of tattle and aides. As a general rule each receveur, whether of ordinary or extraordinary finance, was doubled with a comptroller, whose business it was to check his accounts, and fortify his honesty. The aides were let out at farm. The actual collection of the tattle was carried out by locally appointed collectors, who received five per cent, for their trouble. The assessment on individuals was the work of locally elected asseeurs. The collection of the gabelle was in the hands of special officers. Each grenier had a receiver called grenetier and the inevitable contreroleur.
All accounts of the area so circumscribed were inspected and passed by a superior body, the Chambre des Comptes. Separate Courts were also set up at Nantes, Dijon, Aix, and Grenoble for their respective provinces. The Chambre des Comptes of Paris was differently composed at different times but consisted in 1511 of two presidents and ten maitres des Comptes. It had power to impose disciplinary penalties on financial officers, and claimed to be a sovereign Court, exempt from the controlling jurisdiction of the Parlement, but this claim was not always successfully maintained. All alienations of domain, and pensions for more than a brief period of years, had to be registered in the Chambre des Comptes,—a form which gave this Court the opportunity to protest against, and at any rate to delay, injudicious grants.
As will be seen, this financial system by no means lacked checks and safeguards; rather perhaps it erred on the side of over-elaboration. Although an immense improvement is perceptible since the time of Charles VI, there can be little doubt that the system suffered from considerable leakage. The men employed in the King’s finance were mostly of bourgeois rank; Jacques Cceur, Guillaume and Pierre Bricon-net, Jacques de Beaune, Etienne Chevalier, Jean Bourre, are among the most famous names; in many cases they were related to each other by blood or marriage, and they all, almost without exception, became very rich. In some cases this need be thought no shame; thus Jacques Coeur no doubt owed his wealth to the inexhaustible riches of oriental trade. But as a rule servants only grow rich at the expense of their master; and it is a sign of evil augury when the servant lends his master money, as for instance Jacques de Beaune did on a large scale. This great financier was in the ambiguous position of a banker who himself discounted the bills just signed by him for his King. The business was legitimate, and lucrative because of its very hazardousness; but it comported ill with a position of supreme financial trust and responsibility.
Not only was the system of control imperfect, and the tradition of honesty unsatisfactory, but the scheme lacked unity of direction. There was no single responsible financial officer. Jacques de Beaune (sieur de Semblencay, 1510-23) enjoyed a certain priority of dignity, but exercised no unifying authority. Once a year the treasurers and g&n&-raux, “Messieurs des finances”