¹ Fawtier, R., The Capetian Kings of France, Eng. ed., tr. Butler, L. and Adam, R. J., (London and New York 1960) 32–33, hereafter cited as Capetian Kings. The ordinances establishing these commissioners and many of the documents dealing with their early activities were published by L. Delisle in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, vol. 24 (Paris 1738–1902).Google Scholar

² Fawtier, , Capetian Kings, 37; Cazelles, R., ‘Une exigence de l'opinion depuis Saint Louis: la réformation du royaume,’ Annuaire-Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire de France (1962–63) 92–93, hereafter cited as ‘Réformation du royaume’; Glénisson, J., ‘Les enquêteurs-réformateurs de 1270 à 1328,’ Positions des thèses, École Nationale des Chartes (Paris 1946) 86–87, hereafter cited as ‘Enquêteurs.’ Glénisson makes the point (ibid. 82) that enquêteurs were hardly used at all during the reign of Philip III (1270–85).Google Scholar

³ The principal published works of interest to any study of the royal commissioners after 1328 are Cazelles, R., La société politique et la crise de la royauté sous Philippe de Valois (Paris 1958); and his article, ‘Réformation du royaume.’ Three important recent studies, which touch upon aspects of the problem prior to 1328, have regrettably not been published. Glénisson, Besides, ‘Enquèteurs,’ of which only the Position has been published, there is another valuable École des Chartes thesis: Carreau, M.-E., Les commissaires royaux aux amortissements et aux nouveaux acquits sous les Capetiens (1275–1328), hereafter cited as Commissaires (citations in these notes will be to the typescript of the thesis rather than to the Position of 1953). The third useful thesis is that of Brown, E. A. R., Charters and Leagues in Early Fourteenth Century France: the Movement of 1314 and 1315 (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Radcliffe College, Cambridge [Mass.] 1960, hereafter cited as Charters, Also important for certain conclusions is Pegues, F., The Lawyers of the Last Capetians (Princeton 1963), herafter cited as Lawyers. Sometimes overlooked but often of the greatest value are the extensive notes of A. Molinier in HL, IX, passim. Google Scholar

⁴ Thus Ord. I. 484–487 (1311), prohibited the lending of money at interest except at the Champagne fairs, and even there the maximum rate was 2 1/2% for loans lasting longer than the duration of a single fair.Google Scholar

⁵ The most recent works on the subject are Miskimin, H. A., Money, Prices, and Foreign Exchange in Fourteenth-Century France (New Haven 1963), hereafter cited as Money ; and Cazelles, R., ‘Quelques réflexions à propos des mutations de la monnaie royale française (1295–1360),’ Moyen Age 72 (1966) 83–105, 251–278, hereafter cited as ‘Quelques reflexions.’ Google Scholar

⁶ Carreau, , Commissaires, 2 and 2 bis. Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁸ Ord. I. 303–307. Carreau, Commissaires 31, pointing out that the fines were not to be levied on rear fiefs with more than a certain number of intermediate seigneurs, does not regard this ordinance as a revenue measure primarily. On the other hand, Miller, E., ‘The State and Landed Interests in Thirteenth Century France and England,’ reprinted in Thrupp, S., Change in Medieval Society (New York 1964) 116–132, seems to feel (p. 123) that even this earliest franc-fief ordinance aimed to raise money.Google Scholar

⁹ Carreau, , Commissaires, 57–58. This fact is significant because the economic and social interests of the nobility would have important influence in the Valois period. Just as coinage debasement hurt the nobility through its inflationary effects, and certain usury laws worked a hardship on nobles who needed to borrow, so also did royal control of fief alienations become unpopular. Particular hostility would greet the commissioner empowered to inforce all three types of ordinance.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The ordinance is in Ord. I. 322–324. On the fiscal policies of Philip IV generally, see Strayer, J.R., in Strayer and Taylor, C.H., Studies in Early French Taxation (Cambridge [Mass.] 1939) 7, hereafter cited as French Taxation. Google Scholar

¹¹ Carreau, , Commissaires, 32, 38. The rates were established (Ord. I. 322–324) according to the revenues of the fief changing hands. A non-noble purchasing land had to pay six years' revenue if it were a direct fief and four years' revenue for a rear fief. If the non-noble received feudal land as a gift, the rates were lower, four years' revenue for a direct fief, three years' revenue for a rear fief. Amortissement payable by the church was set at four years' revenue for purchased fiefs and two years' revenue if the land were a gift or bequest.Google Scholar

¹² Carreau, , Commissaires, 190ff., has counted thirty-six commissions of this sort between 1291–1313. Many of the commissioners remained on the job for several years.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid. There were only three new commissions between 1313 and 1324 although some of the earlier commissioners remained active into the reign of Philip V.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. infra, notes 41–42, 47–49.Google Scholar

¹⁵ AN JJ 58 n^o 451, transcribed in Carreau, Commissaires, 291–292, as P.J. n^o 23.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ord. I. 745–749. On acquisitions made during the past sixty years, the church was now to pay the very high amortissement of six years' revenues for gifts of feudal land and eight years' revenues for purchased fiefs. In Languedoc this rate was even higher—twelve years' revenues for purchased fiefs and six years' revenue for purchased rear fiefs. Moreover, the church could not purchase allods lying in royal lands without paying six years' revenue (ten years' revenue in Languedoc). The rates for non-nobles were not raised very much, but new acquisitions in Languedoc were assessed at double the franc-fief levied elsewhere.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ord. I. 786–787 re-enacted the rate schedule cited in the last note and declared that these were minimum rates. The commissioners were to collect more when ability to pay warranted it.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See for the full account of this mission the citation infra, note 19. Most recently it has been discussed by Pegues, , Lawyers, 114–116.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Langlois, C.V., ‘Les doleances de communautés du Toulousain contre Pierre de Latilli et. de Breuilli Raoul,’ Revue historique 95 (1907) 23–53, especially 29–33.Google Scholar

²⁰ Carreau, , Commissaires, 190–217, has listed these commissioners and their powers. One of the three commissions concerned with fiefs was that cited infra, notes 27–28. Glénisson, , ‘Enquêteurs,’ 87 has noticed that once enquêteurs-réformateurs were in the field the king would ‘incessamment’ give them added assignments. I have already commented on this practice which reflects a combination of practical administration, and a growing royal awareness that such added powers had great fiscal possibilities. Glénisson's statement seems exaggerated as far as Philip the Fair's reign is concerned. He is dealing, however, with the period up to 1328 and it will be seen infra that Philip's sons greatly generalized this use of multiple functions.Google Scholar

²¹ Pegues, , Lawyers, 113–119, especially p. 118. Glénisson, , ‘Enquêteurs,’ 84, points out that the enquêteurs-réformateurs were almost invariably men who were permanent members of the royal curia. Google Scholar

²² Strayer, J. R., ‘Pierre de Chalon and the Origins of the French Customs Service,’ Festschrift Percy Ernst Schram zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag von Schülern und Freunden zugeeignet I (Wiesbaden 1964) 335.Google Scholar

²³ HL, X, c. 632–634, AN JJ 64, n^o 55.Google Scholar

²⁴ For some of Sully's activities, see infra, notes 38–40. A detailed study of this officer would be most instructive as to the methods of Philip V's government. Named Butler of France in 1317 (BN, Inventaire Redet, I 287), Sully received many royal gifts and favors (AN JJ 53, n^o 3, 4, 11, 37, 362, 363; JJ 54A, n^o 17, 359–361, 531) and executed various important assignments for the king (AN JJ 54A, n^o 273–274; BN fr. 23256, f^o 34–37; BN NAF 7599, f^o 212–216^v). Sully was also involved in the assemblies of 1321 (JT Ch. IV, n^o 3852). A leading member of the Parlement, he figured prominently in the royal project to recover alienated portions of the royal domain. See Langlois, C. V., ‘Registres perdus des archi ves de la Chambre des Comptes de Paris,’ Notices et extraits des manuscrits 40 (1917) 144–146. Mile de Noyers, Sully's eventual successor as Butler, also served Philip V (AN JJ 53 n^o 309), and as leader of the Chamber of Accounts was the dominant figure in the government of Philip VI in the years after 1335. See. Cazelles, , Société politique 111–132. For examples of his going ‘into the field’ see ibid. 115–116 and Cazelles, R., Lettres closes, letters ‘de par le roy,’ de Philippe de Valois (Paris 1958) n^o 102.Google Scholar

²⁵ A valuable recent article has suggested that the practice of sending important royal advisers into the provinces with sweeping delegated powers became a major characteristic of Philip VI's government. See Bautier, R. H., ‘Recherches sur la chancellerie royale au temps de. Philippe VI,’ BEC 122 (1964) 103–105 and notes. In these pages Bautier elaborates on the views already expressed by Cazelles, Société politique 420–426, and describes certain royal lieutenants in Languedoc as ‘veritable viceroys.’ Among the examples cited are those discussed here infra, notes 135–145 and 169.Google Scholar

²⁶ The documentation is scarce for this southern subsidy of 1305. Strayer, French Taxation, 76, is not too clear but seems to believe that it was a new levy, perhaps repeating the grant made in 1304. In this case the crown may have anticipated resistance and wished to collect as much money as possible while the peace negotiations were still in progress. There is nothing in the documents, however, to prove that the collections made in 1305 were not arrears from 1304.Google Scholar

²⁷ HL, IX. 282, and Molinier's note 3; HL, X, c. 447–448. The reform mission continued for some years after the end of hostilities in 1305. See also Carreau, , Commissaires, 77, where a trend towards multiple functions is noted.Google Scholar

²⁸ Molinier, , HL, IX, 282, note 3.Google Scholar

²⁹ An important question which must be resolved in any more detailed study of this subject is the degree to which the crown intended that the investigatory powers be employed in this coercive manner. There seems little doubt that after 1325 this was often a matter of conscious policy, but it is not yet at all clear how much the king's advisers may have recognized the possibilities of these reform missions during the reign of Philip IV.Google Scholar

³⁰ Strayer, , French Taxation, Hit. Google Scholar

³¹ Commissioned to levy the marriage aid in 1308 (Archives historiques de Poitou 13 [1883] 22) and again in 1310 (Archives historiques de Saintonge 12 [1884] 69–71), Hugues de la Celle received his additional powers on 7 July (Archives historiques de Poitou 11 [1881] 68–72) and 8 July (ibid. 65–68) 1309. Among transactions later concluded by this official are AN JJ 46, n^o 246; JJ 47, n^o 102, 141; JJ 49, n^o 15; and JJ 52, n^o 38.Google Scholar

³² Prof. Elizabeth Brown's research on the marriage aid of 1309 should, when published, shed considerable light on the activities of Hugues de la Celle. He was active in investigating crimes and levying fines as late as 1313 (Archives historiques de Saintonge 12 [1884] 83–85).Google Scholar

³³ Brown, , Charters, 471, 854–855. See also Petit, J., et al., Essai de restitution des plus anciens mémoriaux de la Chambre des Comptes de Paris (Paris 1899) 211–213, hereafter cited as Essai de restitution. Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid. See also Mignon, n^o 1645–47, 1650, 1654, 1655, 1658, 1660, 1668, 1688, 1689, 1691, 1692; and AN JJ 54B, n^o 77.Google Scholar

³⁵ Brown, , Charters, 473.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid. 448 ff. and 470, note 28; AN JJ 52, n^o 80; JJ 55, n^o 2; BN Moreau 221, f^o 230–233^v ; Glénisson, , ‘Enquêteurs,’ 82.Google Scholar

³⁷ These commissioners, the count of Forez and Raoul Rousselet (Bishop of Laon), pursued an active career in Languedoc in 1318–20. Their mission was evidently not affected by the royal suspension cited infra, note 47. Most of their activities involved the sale of privileges, offices, paréages and various rights. One transaction involving the salin of Carcassone was supposed to yield the crown 150,000 pounds. Among their transactions recorded at the chancery are AN JJ 56, n^o 302 (publ. HL, X, c. 589–591); JJ 59, n^o 221, 309, 344, 345, 349, 355–357, 555.Google Scholar

³⁸ Taylor, , French Taxation, 128–131, and notes (which further illuminate Sully's role in the negotiations).Google Scholar

³⁹ BN Doat 119, f^o 48.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ BN Doat 119, f^o 50–56. A further trace of Sully's fiscal activity in 1319 comes from Montauban, where he obtained a 1000-pound ‘loan.’ BN Coll. Languedoc 159, f^o 14r.Google Scholar

⁴¹ AM Millau CC 509, unnumbered document. This liasse in the Millau archives contains a long succession of protests against fief fines.Google Scholar

⁴² Albe, E., ‘Cahors: Inventaire raisonné et analytique des archives municipales,’ pt. 2 Bulletin de la Société des Études Litteraires, Scientifiques, et Artistiques du Lot 41 (1920), n^o 274–276, hereafter cited as ‘Cahors: Inventaire.’ Google Scholar

⁴³ Cf. supra notes 37–38.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ AN JJ 53, n^o 86. The original seizure had been made by two enquêteurs. The composition of 1316, made with the constable of France, involved the cancellation of an old debt owed by the king to his offending servant, and a new aid of 6000 pounds to be paid by the widow. This was not a case of enquêteurs' extorting a subsidy, but it does show how their activities could lead to the collection of revenues for the war chest. Further evidence of how multiple functions could be assigned, perverting the original role of the enquêteur, is the case of P. de Ferrières, seneschal of Rouergue. This officer, while seneschal, served both as franc-fief commissioner and réformateur in his own jurisdiction: AN JJ 41, n^o 1; Cabrol, E., Annates de Villefranche de Rouergue I (Villefranche 1860) 174, hereafter cited as Annates Villefranche. Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Taylor, C. H., ‘An Assembly of French Towns in March, 1318,’ Speculum 13 (1938) 295ff., and his ‘The Composition of Baronial Assemblies in France, 1315–1320’ Speculum 29 (1954) 440ff., hereafter cited as ‘Baronial Assemblies.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The meetings summoned in July 1319 represent the second round in this long series of assemblies. See Taylor, , French Taxation, 110ff., and ‘Baronial Assemblies,’ 441–442.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Carreau, , Commissaires, 318–320 (P.J. n^o 24).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ This is certainly the impression conveyed ibid. 87. M^lle Carreau suggests that the recall of these commissioners was due to Philip's concern over embezzlement, but she is at a loss to explain why they were reinstated in 1319. Cf. note 49.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid. 321–322 (P. J. n^o 25).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Taylor, , French Taxation, 121–127; ‘Baronial Assemblies,’ 440ff. Google Scholar

⁵¹ Taylor, C. H., ‘French Assemblies and Subsidy in 1321,’ Speculum 43 (1968); Hellot, A., ‘Chronique parisienne anonyme de 1316 à 1339,’ Mémoires de la Société de l'histoire de Paris 11 (1885) 59–60, hereafter cited as ‘Chron. parisienne.’ Google Scholar

⁵² Charles IV's lack of zeal in pursing the English homage during the first eighteen months of his reign has been attributed to a moderate and accommodating attitude on his part by de Bréquigny, L. G., ‘Mémoire sur les differends entre la France et l'Angleterre sous le règne de Charles le Bel,’ in Leber, C., Collection des meilleurs dissertations, notices, et traités particuliers rélatifs à l'histoire de France 18 (Paris 1838) 368–369, 377 (hereafter cited as Mémoire). Bréquigny takes a very friendly position towards Charles IV in this whole matter. The recent student of this subject is Chaplais, P., who also feels the French were trying to be accommodating on the homage question and notes that Edward's war in Scotland was a reason why Charles did not press him. See his edition of The War of Saint-Sardos (1323–1325). Gascon Correspondence and Diplomatic Documents (London 1954) ix (hereafter cited as St. Sardos). Despite these opinions, the French fiscal and political situation was such that Charles did not want to get involved in war subsidy negotiations at the beginning of his reign. His moderation in dealing with his English brother-in-law was most probably motivated by fiscal necessity. Certainly the policy towards the homage seems to coincide well with the general spirit of conservatism he was displaying in fiscal matters.Google Scholar

⁵³ Miskimin, , Money, 163–165, and Cazelles, , ‘Quelques réflexions,’ 88–90 indicate the moderate coinage changes under Charles IV. See also Guilhiermoz, P., ‘Avis sur la question monetaire données aux rois Philippe le Hardi, Philippe le Bel, Louis X et Charles le Bel’ (part 7), Revue Numismatique 30 (1927) 96–100; Ord. I 766–773. An assembly of towns was held in the summer of 1322 to discuss the coinage: Berthelet, J. and Castets, F., Archives de la ville de Montpellier, inventaires et documents: Inventaire du Grand Chartrier (Montpellier 1895–99) n^o 3170 (G-3). This valuable collection and a supplementary volume published by de Dainville, O. (Montpellier 1955), hereafter cited as Montpellier: Grand Chartrier. Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Chaplais, , St. Sardos, Introduction.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ In late 1324 the king obtained a series of loans from Italians which were described as being in subsidio guerrarum (JT Ch. IV, n^o 5842, 5928, 6111, 6144–6178, 6255–6257). In January 1325 the finances normally collected from Italian businessmen in France were vastly increased (seventy-three entries in JT Ch. IV between n^o 6651 and n^o 6988). Another large payment was obtained later in 1325 (169 entries in JT Ch. IV between n^o 8392 and n^o 9378).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ord. I. 783–784.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ BN Doat 243, fo 14r–20v; Moreau, J. N., Mémoire sur la constitution politique de la ville et cité de Périgueux, avec recueil de titres et autres pièces justificatives II (Paris 1775) 195–209.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Bréquigny, , Mémoire, 407ff. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Carreau, , Commissaires, 221–243, has itemized each commission with various particulars and references concerning the missions that were carried out.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ord. I. 786–787; AN JJ 62, n^o 438; JJ 64, n^o 560.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Mignon, n^o 1730 ff.; BN NAF 21155, n^o 8, also suggests that fines for fief alienations were being collected with subsidy payments.Google Scholar

⁶² Cf. the citations supra, note 59, and infra notes 67, 68.Google Scholar

⁶³ JT Ch. IV n^o 7555, 7782, 8301, 8629.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ibid, n^o 9067, 9467, 9968 (Senlis), 9178 (Troyes), 9268 (Vitry), 9351 (Rouergue), 9477 (Poitou), 9070 (Saintonge), 9902 (Mâcon), 9075, 9742, 9856 (Paris); Mignon, n^o 1838, 2713 (Rouen), 1840 (Caux), 1845, 1846 (Caen), 1764 (Cotentin), 1815 (Amiens), 1811, 2700 (Vermandois), 1770, 1855, 1856 (Vitry), 1766 (Troyes), 1803, 1804 (Senlis), 1829 and appendix, p. 370 (Bourges), 1870 (Auvergne), 2728 (Mountains of Auvergne), 1827 and appendix p. 370 (Mâcon), 1859–61 (Poitou-Limousin), 1876 (Rouergue), 1784 (Toulouse, Carcassonne-Bigorre); AN JJ 62 n^o 412 (Cotentin); AN JJ 62 n^o 506 (Meaux); AN JJ 64 n^o 9–12 (Périgord and Quercy); AN JJ 62 n^o 502, 521, 522 (Troyes); AN JJ n^o 77 (Saintonge); AN JJ 62 n^o 345 (Bigorre-Toulouse); Maillard, F., Comptes royaux, 1314–1328 (Documents financiers IV. 1 [Paris 1961]) n^o 8782–10151, 12155–12169 (Poitou-Limousin); Montpellier: Grand Chartrier, n^o 1941–46, 1216, 2081 (Beaucaire).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Richard, J. M., Inventaire sommaire des archives départmentales anterieures à 1790: Pas de Calais, Archives Civiles, série A, I (Arras 1878) 353 (A 451), indicates a series of messengers exchanged between the countess of Artois and the royal chancellor in 1326, culminating in the dispatch of royal letters stopping the investigation of usurers and fiefs in that region. This is hereafter cited as INV AD Pas-de-Calais. Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Maillard, , Comptes royaux, pt. 1, n^o 10152–11263, has published the account for war subsidy collections made by R. de Rechignevoisin and the seneschal of Limousin, who were negotiating the tax, looking into fief transactions, and serving as enquêteurs-réformateurs (AN JJ 64, n^o 560). They obtained about 2200 pounds as war subsidy, while their account for franc-fief and amortissement (Comptes royaux, pt. 1, n^o 8782–10151) indicates collection of over 4163 pounds for these fines. According to Mignon, n^o 1859, fines for fief transactions reached 7026 pounds through the end of 1326, with some amounts still outstanding. Even making due allowance for the questionable value of such figures, it seems clear that revenues from fief alienations could exceed greatly the normal subsidy grant from a given region. Moreover, these fines were collected in Languedoc at double the rate employed in Poitou (Carreau, , Commissaires, 58, and supra, note 16) so it is small wonder that fief commissioners could exercise particular leverage in subsidy negotiations in the south.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ HL, X, c. 632–634. This letter is directed to Pierre de Chalon (of customs service fame) and the seneschal of Carcassonne, for joint operations in that district. Chalon was also ordered to levy the subsidy in the seneschalsy of Toulouse, where he was associated with Raoul Chaillaot, réformateur in the region, by identical letters of the same date (AN JJ 62, n^o 523; JJ 64, n^o 55). The latter commission is preserved in AM Cordes CC 29 and has been published by Portal, C., Histoire de la ville de Cordes 1222–1799 (Albi 1902) PJ. 5, pp. 585–587 (hereafter cited as Cordes). The comparable orders to the commissioners in Rouergue are in BN Doat 146, f^o 172 and AM Millau EE 118, n^o 3, while those issued for the bailiwick of Senlis are in BN NAF 7600 (Fontanieu 67) f^o 153v–156. Google Scholar

⁶⁸ These varied powers are enumerated by Dom Vaissete in HL, IX, p. 435. The extant versions of the subsidy commission of 18 January cited in the last note do not include them, but they are all listed in BN Coll. Languedoc 83, f^o 177r–v (probably Vaissete's source). This document is dated 20 January 1325, as is the letter giving sweeping authority (including that of réformateurs) to two royal commissioners in Poitou-Limousin (supra, note 66). This text (AN JJ 64, n^o 560) has been published in Archives historiques de Poitou 11, 296–302. Another example of multiple powers assigned at this time is AN JJ 62, n^o 438, by which two commissioners in the bailiwick of Caen were to reform abuses, receive ‘compositions’ and finances, and levy fines for fief acquisitions, all for the ‘necessity’ of the war with England. Other letters of 20 January ordering fief investigations in different sections of the kingdom are AN JJ 62, n^o 352; JJ 64, n^o 16; and JJ 65A, n^o 112. The crown seems not to have used completely uniform procedure throughout the kingdom. Some commissioners probably had more authority than others. Nonetheless, the order to levy a subsidy, issued on 18 January, seems to have been general, as was the order to seek fines for fief alienations, issued on 20 January (Carreau, , Commissaires, 89). An interesting comment is that of Glénisson, ‘Enquêteurs,’ 82, who recognized the increased assignment of multiple functions to réformateurs in 1325 and noted that their most common additional duty was the investigation of fief acquisitions. Had he continued his study through the reign of Philip VI he might have attached even greater significance to this development.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ AN JJ 64, n^o 58.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ AN JJ 64, n^o 36.Google Scholar

⁷¹ AN JJ 62, n^o 524.Google Scholar

⁷² AN JJ 62, n^o 523.Google Scholar

⁷³ Montpellier: Grand Chartrier, E-3, n^o 2081. Negotiation of the subsidy and investigation of usury and fief acquisitions in this region were under the supervision of the prior of La Charité.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ The viguerie of Alès paid only 400 pounds: AM Ales I S-3, n^o 5; I S-12, n^o 6–8. This payment was very small compared to those of the Toulouse jugeries and evidently included the war subsidy only.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ HL, X, c. 646–648, 653–654.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Montpellier: Grand Chartrier, C-9, n^o 1216.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid. E-3, n^o 2081.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Albi was under relentless pressure from commissioners for usury violations and other matters during the midsummer of 1325. BN Doat 103, f^o 137^r-v, 153^r–154^r. In AM Albi FF 20 are various protests against the royal commissioners which were lodged by the consuls of Albi during the later 1320s.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Berthelet, J., Archives de la ville de Pézénas: Inventaires et documents: Inventaire de F. Ressequier (Montpellier 1907) 244 (n^o 1619–20), hereafter cited as INV AM Pézénas. Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Artières, J., Documents sur la ville de Millau (Archives historiques du Rouergue 7 [Millau 1930]) n^o 145, 148, hereafter cited as Millau, has shown opposition to fief investigations at Millau. At Gahors the crown finally permitted exemption from these fines, after some negotiating: LaCoste, G., Histoire générale de la province de Quercy III (Cahors 1873–76) 39–40 (hereafter cited as Quercy); Dufour, E., La commune de Cahors au Moyen Age (Cahors 1846) 92–93 (hereafter cited as Cahors); Albe, , ‘Cahors: inventaire,’ loc. cit. n^o 315.Google Scholar

⁸¹ BN NAF 7600 (Fontanieu 67), f^o 153^v–162, 169, describes the Senlis negotiations, while Ord. I, 785–786, describes the grant by Paris. See also Mignon, n^o 1732, 1733.Google Scholar

⁸² Supra note 66.Google Scholar

⁸³ LaCoste, , Quercy, III 40; BN Doat 119, f^o 57, 60; AD Aveyron 2E 178, n^o 2, f^o 200–203 (indicating use of réformateurs in tax negotiations at Najac); Cabrol, , Annates Villefranche I 188. Aside from the pressures employed to obtain or supplement a subsidy, we should notice the occasional large fines which the reform commissioners levied on individuals, because they might surpass in magnitude what an entire town would grant for a subsidy. An example may be found in AN JJ 62, n^o 495, where réformateurs in Périgord and Quercy fined a person 1200 l.t. for ‘violences’ committed against someone protected by a royal safeguard. Although the king reduced it to 500 pounds, it was still a very large fine. Levied in 1325, this fine suggests the kind of threat which a réformateur represented in Périgord on the eve of the tax negotiations of 1326.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ ‘Chron. Parisienne,’ 105; BN NAF 7601, f^o 109 (published with a commentary by Taylor, , French Taxation, 198–200).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ord. I. 797–798; AN P 2288, pp. 1124, 1128–30; Esquier, G., Inventaire des archives communales de la ville d'Aurillac antérieures à 1790 I (Aurillac 1906–11) 429 (CC26), hereafter cited as INV AM Aurillac , Carreau, , Commissaires, 40, makes the interesting point that there is no evidence that this ordinance was put into effect. This fact reinforces the probability that the rates were changed purely for propaganda purposes. M^lle Carreau has been at a loss to explain why such changes in the rates were ordered in this period. Her conclusion on this point has been largely negative—that the rates could have had nothing to do with coinage changes.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Carreau, , Commissaires, 41; Petit, , Essai de restitution, 27, 87; Ord. XI, 501–502, 23 January 1327.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ The instuctions printed in Petit, Essai de restitution, 203–204, are part of a document of 23 January 1327 according to Jusselin, M., ‘Comment la France se préparait à la guerre de Cent Ans,’ BEC 73 (1912) 213, note 2. This would be the same day that the rates for franc-fief were raised and therefore highly significant. Unfortunately, I have failed to find this document in AN J 623, where Jusselin states that the manuscript is located. The year 1327 still seems to be more likely than 1346, the date which Cazelles has assigned (giving no reason) to a similar undated text in BN Dupuy 673, f^o 8 (Cazelles, , Société politique, 176). Another set of instructions seems unmistakably to belong to 1346 (AN P 2292, pp. 55–58, cited by Cazelles, , Société politique, 174) and the document under discussion here most probably belongs to some other year.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Carreau, , Commissaires, 42.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Molinier, , HL, IX, pp. 446–448, note 6, gives a lengthy recital of fines and transactions of every kind by commissioners in Languedoc during 1327. Not all commissioners seem to have been named réformateurs as Raoul Chaillot was, but their powers certainly permitted a wide range of investigations of alleged abuses, infringements of royal rights, violations of ordinances, etc. Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Carreau, , Commissaires, 42, speaks of Robert de Condé, the commissioner in Champagne, whom she found to be particularly relentless in carrying out his task.Google Scholar

⁹¹ There is evidence of them in the following districts: Caen (Mignon, n^o 1845, 1846, 2715, and AN JJ 64, n^o 285, 564), Rouen (Mignon, n^o 1838; BN Moreau 225, f^o 174–175; and JJ 64, n^o 201, 538); Vermandois (Mignon, n^o 1810, 1812; BN Moreau 225, f^o 146–147; Carreau, ; Commissaires, 243; AN JJ 65 A n^o 18, 33, 44); Bourges (Mignon, n^o 1829, 1830, 2707), Rouergue (ibid., n^o 1875 and AN JJ 65A n^o 84); Carcassonne-Toulouse-Bigorre (Mignon, n^o 1784, 1881, 1882 and AN JJ 65A n^o 83); Poitou-Limousin (Mignon, n^o 1859, 1860, 1862 2723 and Archives historiques de Poitou 11. 270–275, 286–296, 302–307); Saintonge (Mignon, n^o 1865, 2730; Archives historiques de Poitou 11. 274–275, and AN JJ 66 n^o 9); Caux (JT Ch. IV, n^o 10170); Cotentin (Mignon, n^o 2715; AN JJ 64 n^o 537, 562 and AN JJ 65A n^o 77); Senlis (Mignon, n^o 1803, 1804, and BN Moreau 225 f^o 40–41); Amiens (Mignon, n^o 1814); Troyes (ibid., n^o 1766, 2719 2720, and AN JJ 64 n^o 200); Touraine (Mignon, n^o 1834, and AN JJ 65 n^o 41, 43, 112); Chaumont (Mignon, n^o 2719, 2720); Mâcon (ibid., n^o 1826; BN Moreau 225 f^o 196–199; AN JJ 65A n^o 11); Meaux (Mignon, n^o 2721, and AN JJ 65A n^o 76, 112, 140); Vitry (Mignon, n^o 2721); Gisors (ibid., n^o 1851, BN Moreau 225 f^o 40–41); Auvergne (Mignon, n^o 1869; AN JJ 64 n^o 455; AN JJ 65A n^o 8, 9, 22, 42); Mountains of Auvergne (Mignon, Comptes particuliers lii; INV AM Aurillac, I, p. 429; AN JJ 64 n^o 455; AN JJ 65A n^o 8, 9 22, 42); Périgord-Quercy (Mignon, n^o 2730; AN JJ 65A n^o 13, 26, 27); Sens (Carreau, Commissaires, 243); Paris (AN JJ 64 n^o 205, 671; AN JJ 65A n^o 34; Mignon, Comptes particuliers lii).Google Scholar

⁹² AN JJ 65A, n^o 99.Google Scholar

⁹³ AN JJ 64, n^o 548.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ AN JJ 65A, n^o 83.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ AN JJ 67, n^o 85.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Molinier, , HL, IX, 446, note 6. The ratification of this transaction is in AN JJ 65A, n^o 62.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ HL, IX, 446.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ de Gaujal, M. A. F., Études historiques sur le Rouergue (Paris 1858–59) II 166, hereafter cited as Rouergue. Another large payment came from the inhabitants of Mas-Saintes-Puelles who paid 2000 pounds for the renewal of privileges (confirmed AN JJ 65A, n^o 32, March 1328).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Lignon, A., Documents rélatifs au comté de Champagne et de Brie 1172–1361, III (Paris 1914) xxii.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Among the documents are ibid. pp. 210–226; BN Moreau 226 f^o 133^r–135^v; AN JJ 66 n^o 34, 75, 154, 155, 169, 170, 180, 188, 624, 625, 777, 848. Cf. Careau, , Commissaires, 42.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Ibid. 43; INV AM Aurillac, I, p. 430 (CC 26).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Letters of non-prejudice issued to the different Toulouse jugeries in 1328 (HL X, c. 683–684; AN JJ 65B, n^o 94, 120, 134, 157; BN ms fr. 7327 n^o 42) are brief and make no allusion to any matters other than the war subsidy. According to Dureau de la Malle, ‘Document statistique inédit (quatorzième siècle),’ BEC 2 (1840–41) 172–173, the entire seneschalsy produced only 21,000 l.t. in 1328. Even if incomplete, this extremely low figure suggests that in 1328 the crown sought a subsidy by itself. One evident explanation is the fact that the agreements of 1327 (supra, notes 92–93) had already arranged payment by these towns for such things as franc-fief. On the other hand the tireless Robert de Condé (supra, notes 90, 99, 100) was active in Champagne and may have exerted pressure there.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ BN ms. fr. 16200, f^o 290^r–296^r; BN Dupuy 533, f^o 651^r–655^v .Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ The presence of the fief or other investigatory commissioners in 1328 and 1329 is indicated in the following districts: Meaux (AN JJ 65B n^o 93, 98, 121, 153; JJ 66 n^o 34); Vitry (AN JJ 65B n^o 133; JJ 66 n^o 88, 364); Troyes and Chaumont (AN JJ 65B n^o 133; JJ 66 n^o 364; JJ 67 n^o 49, 53, 58, 87, 89, 109); Amiens (AN JJ 65B n^o 135; JJ 66 n^o 168); Senlis and Gisors (AN JJ 65B n^o 154); Paris (AN JJ 65B n^o 292); Auvergne and the Mountains of Auvergne (AN JJ 65A n^o 241; JJ n^o 384, 421); Caux (AN JJ 65 n^o 93,157; JJ 67 n^o 21); Rouen (AN JJ 65A n^o 128, 199, 267); Touraine (Archives historiques de Poitou 11, 327–332); Saintonge (AN JJ 66 n^o 9); Périgord and Quercy (AN JJ 66 n^o 363, 464; Cotentin (AN JJ 66 n^o 184); Caen (AN JJ 65A n^o 198); Beaucaire (AN JJ 65A n^o 80); Bigorre (AN JJ 65B n^o 281); and Lille (AN JJ 66 n^o 380).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Viard, , in note to AN JJ 79B n^o 8, AN AB xix 2636. Another royal letter established that Millau was not subject to fines of this sort (Artières, , Millau, n^o 154).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ See supra, notes 92–98. I have found only two of these larger fines during the period 1328–29, neither being recorded in the chancery registers and both perhaps originating from an earlier period: Furgeot, H., Actes du Parlement de Paris, 2 ^e Série , (Paris 1920–60) I. n^o 8 (4000 l.t. paid by the town of Gourdon) and n^o 108 (500 pounds levied on a former royal réformateur who had been guilty of using torture). This collection hereafter cited as Parl. Paris. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Perroy, E., The Hundred Years War (London 1951) 80–83.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Activities by the various commissioners up to 1332 are recorded in AN JJ 66, n^o 538, 624, 638, 655, 777, 848, 986, 1030, 1120, 1129, 1159, 1186, 1257, 1452; JJ 70. See also AN P 2291 p. 15; BN ms. fr. 7327 n^o 23; AM Millau CC 509; Doat 257 f^o 18, 89^v–90^v; AD Aveyron 2E 212, n^o 11, pc. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ord. II 59.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ See infra, notes 125–129.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ There are only a few references to fief transactions between 1332 and 1337: AN JJ 69, n^o 309; JJ 70, n^o 172, 190, 221, 235, 243. In connection with subsidy-raising efforts in 1337–38, we find a renewed interest in franc-fief and amortissement (infra, notes 136, 140–145, 150, 152) and a large-scale investigation of usury. Occasional fines for fief acquisitions were levied in the following years (infra, note 156, for one of the few examples), but the next nationwide fief investigations were those of 1344. See infra, note 164).Google Scholar

¹¹² Montpellier: Grand Chartrier, E-3, n^o 2082.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Ibid. n^o 2084.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ BN ms. lat. 9174, f^o 94^r–96^v .Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ AM Nîmes CC 1, n^o 3.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ AM Nîmes CC 1, n^o 4.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Ord. II. 68; AM Nîmes CC 1, n^o 5; Montpellier: Grand Chartrier, E-3, n^o 2085.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ AM Nîmes CC 1, n^o 6.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ AM Nîmes CC 1, n^o 7.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ AM Alés I S-16, n^o 8.Google Scholar

¹²¹ BN ms. lat. 9174 f^o 102–106^v. For more background on the events at Lunel in this period see Millerot, T., Histoire de la ville de Lunel depuis son origine jusqu'en 1789 (Montpellier 1879) 121–122, and Millerot's excellent Inventaire des archives municipales de Lunel jusqu'en 1789, 2 vols. ms. dated 1874 and located at the Bibliothèque Municipal de Lunel, n^o 1762–64, 2316, herafter cited as INV AM Lunel. Google Scholar

¹²² BN ms. lat 9174, f^o 102–106^v .Google Scholar

¹²³ Montpellier: Grand Chartrier, I, E-3, n^o 2086.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ AN P 2291, pp. 759–766. Following the arrival of the commissioners, Nîmes protested on the basis of the ill-executed royal letter of 10 June 1331 and the debate began again. Proctors of other communities and of several prelates made similar representations before the seneschal in May, 1334 (AM Nîmes CC 1, n^o 5). Finally, in April, 1335, Philip VI annulled the commission (HL, X, c. 750).Google Scholar

¹²⁵ AN JJ 70, n^o 41.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ AN JJ 66, n^o 834.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Viard's note from AM Douai AA 20, found in AN AB xix 2638.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Furgeot, , Parl. Paris, I, n^o 833 (January, 1334), indicates that the 25,000 pound fine against Arras was for brutal treatment of a sergeant of the bishop a generation earlier, in the reign of Philip IV. In April 1334, when it was reduced to 15,000 pounds at the request of Eudes of Burgundy, the fine was declared to be payable in three annual installments beginning at Easter 1335. See AN AB xix 2636 for Viard's note from AM Arras AA 5.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ The dispute over the rights of the Toulouse municipal government began in 1332. See Roschach, E., Ville de Toulouse, Inventaire des archives communales antériéures à 1790, série AA. (Toulouse 1891) 34–35 (AA 3, n^o 228) hereafter cited as INV AM Toulouse ; Molinier, , HL, IX, p. 483, note 1; AN JJ 69, n^o 257 (pardon issued to the capitouls); and AN JJ 69 n^o 252 (an order setting forth new rules for the election of the town government and the reform of abuses). In the cases of all these large fines, it is not entirely certain that they were ever fully paid.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ AD Aveyron G 965 bis, f^o 32^r–33^v . See Sibertin-Blanc, C., ‘La levée du subside de 1337 en Rouergue et l'Hôpital d'Aubrac, au début de la guerre de Cent Ans, à propos d'un mandement inédit de Philippe de Valois,’ Bulletin philologique et historique (1953–54) 317, hereafter cited as ‘Subside de 1337.’ Google Scholar

¹³¹ Ibid. 324; Molinier, , HL, IX, p. 491, note 1; BN Doat 186, f^o 145^r–153^v. This very small tax does not seem to have been negotiated. One has the impression that the crown simply tried to impose it in order to affirm the right of the king to levy taxes on those who were subject to an intermediate seigneur when the kingdom was in danger. The tax was so small that the government probably did not expect serious opposition.Google Scholar

¹³² HL X, c. 769–774.Google Scholar

¹³³ For a region which has supplied so much documentation of royal fiscal activity in the fourteenth century, the Toulousain offers a strange dearth of information for 1337. From AM Cordes CC 30 (See also, Portal, , Cordes, 47) we learn that this town refused to pay a very modest hearth tax of 6 s. t. The crown tried, it appears, to impose this subsidy without preliminary consultation. Although it marked a considerable retreat from the 20 s.t. first proposed as a general hearth tax in Languedoc, the consuls of Cordes insisted that prior consent must be obtained. Moreover, by November, the date of their final refusal to pay, it was becoming apparent that no Anglo-Gascon invasion would take place in 1337.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ LaCoste, , Qaercy, III, 86.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Their orders are included in a number of different documents, among them BN Doat 186, f^o 131^v–143^v; AN JJ 71, n^o 251; AN JJ 72, n^o 4.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ BN Doat 186, f^o 131^v–133^v; AN JJ 71, n^o 251. Molinier, , HL, IX, pp. 498–499 note 1, discuscusses the commissioners and their activities. The captains-general issued orders to these subordinates in letters of 26 and 27 December 1337.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ BN Doat 186, f^o 133^v–134^v .Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Ibid., f^o 134^v–143^v ; de Gaujal, , Rouergue, II. 174, both of which are probably based on a document in AM Rodez, FF 7.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ This transaction was ratified by the king in February, 1339 (AN JJ 71, n^o 251). By comparison, Millau promised 500 pounds in 1337 (AM Millau EE 118), much of which was still unpaid in 1343 (ibid: CC 508, n^o 139). In 1315 and 1319, the town had paid only 300 pounds (ibid. CC 505). Evidently impressed with the larger sum extorted by commissioners with multiple functions in 1338, the crown repeated this procedure at Millau in 1339, collecting 1100 l.t. for transgressions of monetary and usury ordinances (Artières, , Millau, 78) as well as obtaining a contingent of sergeants (AM Millau EE 118).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ AN JJ 71 n^o 47; BN Coll. Languedoc 84 f^o 75 (a résumé of this text and that cited infra, note 148).Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ AN JJ 71 n^o 49; see also the discussion of Molinier, who deals with all these transactions in HL, IX, pp. 498–499, n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁴² AN JJ 71 n^o 79; AM Cordes CC 31.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ AN JJ 71 n^o 182.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Portal, C., Inventaire sommaire des archives communales antérieures à 1790, ville de Cordes (Albi 1903) 208 (EE 3). This work cited hereafter as INV AM Cordes. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ AM Cordes CC 31; AN JJ 71 n^o 79.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ See the interesting article of Edwards, J. G., ‘Taxation and Consent in the Court of Common Pleas.’ English Historical Review 57 (1942) 474–478, dealing with a case of 1338 in which English subjects accepted taxation by a central assembly but rejected a grant obtained from a local meeting.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ AN JJ 72, n^o 4.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ AN JJ 71, n^o 188, a résumé of which is in BN Coll. Languedoc 84, f^o 75.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ AN JJ 73, n^o 333. Another large sum was obtained from the inhabitants of Auch for ‘excesses’ (AN JJ 72, n^o 386). Montpellier also was subject to the pressure of commissioners named by Erquery and La Baume (Montpellier: Grand Chartrier, I, G-5, n^o 3346).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Ord. XII. 37–38.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Teilhard de Chardin, E., Inventaire sommaire des archives communales antérieures à 1790, ville de Clermont-Ferrand: Fonds Montferrand. (Clermont-Ferrand 1902–22) II 1 (C 333), hereafter cited as INV AM Montferrand, indicates a small subsidy payment by this town in 1337. At Riom a hearth tax was levied (AM Riom CC 10, n^o 1338).Google Scholar

¹⁵² INV AM Montferrand, I, 312 (CC 1).Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Cazelles, , Société politique, 115–132.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ BN NAF 7375, f^o 39^r–40^r (for 1339); BN ms. lat. 9046, f^o 88^r-v (for 1340).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ AN JJ 72, n^o 45.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ AN JJ 71, n^o 297, 299.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ The brief statement of Cabrol, Annates Villefranche , I 210–211, is not entirely satisfactory, but it at least indicates the presence at Villefranche of investigatory commissions in 1339 when subsidies were sought for a war on two fronts. For similar activity at Millau, see supra, note 139.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ The letters of safeguard and pardon are found in two chancery registers: AN JJ 68, 97–98; JJ 72, n^o 327–328. I have previously discussed the subsidy negotiations at Montpellier in 1340 in greater detail. See Henneman, J., ‘Financing the Hundred Years’ War: Royal Taxation in France in 1340,’ Speculum 42 (1967) 276–281, hereafter cited as ‘Financing.’ Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ INC AM Toulouse 532 (AA 45 n^o 8). This buying off of enquêteurs by municipal governments, which I have stressed here because of its implications for royal taxation, may also be an important factor in internal municipal politics. Related to it is the widespread practice whereby towns, especially in Languedoc, would avoid royal tax collectors by advancing the king a lump sum. The municipal government would then recover the money by levying a tax of its own choosing on the townspeople. According to P. Wolff (‘Les luttes sociales dans les villes du Midi française, xiii^e–xv^e siêcles,’ Annates, économies, sociétés, civilisations 2 [1947] 443–454), the principal cause of internal conflict within the southern towns was regressive municipal tax policies. When the crown withdrew tax collectors and/or réformateurs in return for a large lump sum, the town oligarchs were, in effect, allowed a free hand in governing their communities without royal intervention. It would be interesting to learn more about the possible connection between these fiscal bargains and internal urban politics.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Archives historiques de Poitou, XIII, pp. 165, 168–174; XLVI, pp. 89–91. For this subsidy in Poitou and for a wide variety of fiscal pressures on Périgord in 1340, see also Henneman, , ‘Financing,’ 284–285.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ HL, X, c. 885–887.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Molinier, , HL, IX, 534, note 5.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Perroy, , Hundred Years' War, 106.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ On a kingdom-wide basis, serious investigation of fief alienations, so intensive in 1325–32, occurred on only two other occasions in Philip VI's reign: 1337 and 1344. That a general assignment of commissioners for this purpose occurred in 1344 seems apparent from the entry in AN PP 117, pp. 480–481, dated 17 July. During the year we find such commissioners in the following bailiwicks and seneschalsies: Carcassonne (AN JJ 75 n^o 228), Senlis (BN Moreau 230 f^o 158^r–162^r, 180^r), Poitou (AN JJ 75 n^o 184), Rouen (AN JJ 68 n^o 24), Mâcon (AN JJ 68 n^o 125), and Valois (BN Moreau 230 f^o 180 r., where it appears that a single bailiff now had charge of both Senlis and Valois).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ The crown collected 2000 l.t. from money changers in Limoges (AN JJ 75, n^o 242) and 600 florins from those of Tours (AN JJ 75, n^o 131). Funds were squeezed from delinquent tax farmers (AN JJ 74, n^o 25; JJ 75, n^o 214). Two noble women who had helped the enemy had to pay 500 pounds to the king (AN JJ 75, n^o 45). There was also an effort to collect money by creating new judicial offices in Languedoc, subdividing the viguerie of Béziers into three jurisdictions (INV AM Pézénas, n^o 751; Furgeot, , Parl. Paris, II, n^o 7778, 7929, 8959, 9552). As in such earlier peacetime years as 1327 and the middle 1330s, the government compensated for its inability to gain a war subsidy by attempting numerous fiscal expedients.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Montpellier: Grand Chartrier, A-9, n^o 185.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Perroy, , Hundred Years' War, 120–121; Molinier, , HL, IX, p. 572, note 4; 573, note 1.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ HL, X, c. 978.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Ibid. c. 980.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Ibid. c. 981–982.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Ibid. c. 996, art 32: Item gravantur omni tempore bellorum et pacis: tempore bellorum propter diversis impositiones, subsidia et gabellas; pacis tempore propter diversos commissarios et reformatores per majestatem regiam missos super pluribus et diversis populo impositis, ad extorquendum peccunias jure vel injuria, ex quo populus multum est oppressus. Google Scholar

¹⁷² Ibid. c. 988–996, arts. 2, 3, 4, 8, 21, 30, 31, and 32.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Ibid. arts 5 and 6 (fief commissioners), 27 (waters and forests) and also 9 and 32. Regarding the levy of franc-fief there were complaints (art. 5) that commissarii dati super facto feodorum et retrofeodorum tam pro registris inutilibus quam excessivis emolumentis sigillorum quamplures extortiones pecuniarum fecerunt ac faciunt incessanter, et commissarios servientesque ac comestores patriam discurrentes miserunt atque mittunt in enorme detrimentum subditorum dicte seneschallie. These investigations were obviously as unpopular in 1346 as they had been at Montpellier in 1325 (supra, note 77).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Ibid. arts. 1, 10, and 11.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Ibid. arts. 14–16 to which may be added arts. 2–4 already cited (supra, note 172) in connection with war subsidies.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ BN Doat 81, f^o 99^v–119^v; BN Coll. Languedoc 84, f^o 381^r–385^v .Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Perroy, , Hundred Years' War, 121–123. I have recently examined in more detail the effects of this plague on royal taxation: Henneman, J., ‘The Black Death and Royal Taxation in France, 1347–1351,’ Speculum 43 (1968) hereafter cited as ‘Black Death.’ Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ AM Toulouse AA 35, n^o 82; HL, X, c. 1061–1063.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Ibid. Pibrac's commission was renewed in 1352, when he again supervised taxation in Languedoc.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ AM Cajarc CC, n^o 138.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ HL, X, cols. 1067–1069, art. 10.Google Scholar

¹⁸² Montpellier: Grand Chartrier, D-16, n^o 1768.Google Scholar

¹⁸³ BN Coll. Languedoc 85, f^o 71^r–72^v. Cf. HL, IX. 650.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ Henneman, , ‘Black Death.’ The greater regularity of taxes between 1351 and 1355 took the form of annual grants by bailiwick assemblies subject to specific conditions ratified by the king. Such tax agreements are found in Ord. II. 391–396, 400–410, 439–441, 503, 509, 529–532, 567–570; III. 677–687; IV 277–279, 319–320. Cf. Vuitry, A., Études sur le régime financier de la France avant la Révolution de 1789 (nouv. série) II (Paris 1883) 32ff.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ Cazelles, , ‘Réformation du royaume,’ loc. cit. 92–93.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Ibid. 96. Chaillot was both réformateur and subsidy commissioner: BN Coll. Languedoc 83, f^o 177^r-v; HL, IX. 446, note 6; HL, X, c. 632–634; Carreau, , Commissaires, 232. See supra, notes 67–72.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Ord. III, 124–146.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Cazelles, , ‘Réformation du Royaume,’ 94.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ Thus in 1327, in a period when many reform commissioners were extorting money from royal subjects, they continued to punish royal officers guilty of misdeeds. See BN Doat 146, f^o 183–210; Boutaric, E., Actes du Parlement de Paris, I^er série II (Paris 1867) n^o 7980. Early in 1328, when the town of St. Quentin felt itself oppressed by royal officers, the burghers could think of no better remedy than to petition the king to send enquêteurs : LeMaire, E., Archives anciennes de la ville de Saint Quentin II (St. Quentin 1910) n^o 463. The commissioners sent out as réformateurs to all parts of the realm in 1334 (AN P 2291, 251–252) similarly were concerned with royal officers as well as the augmenting of crown resources.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ Delachenal, R., Histoire de Charles V, I (Paris 1909) 374ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ Perroy, , Hundred Years' War, 138, 142, 162–163.Google Scholar

¹⁹² Henneman, , ‘Black Death.’ The numerous tax agreements cited supra, note 184, reflect the frequent meetings of assemblies at bailiwick and regional levels in the early 1350s. Not all these regions were to develop provincial Estates, but assemblies clearly were making rapid progress as the normal place in which to negotiate subsidies or aids.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ Ord. III. 433ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ After a long period of pursuing the debtors of usurers and collecting the principal of their debts, the crown finally halted these investigations in 1363: Ord. III, 645.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ Carreau, , Commissaires, p. 44, note 1; Ord. IV. 134; AN JJ 89, n^o 4; JJ 90, n^o 109; BN ms. lat. 10002, f^o 5^v .Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ AN JJ 88 n^o 14; JJ 89 n^o 103, 243, 319, 638–641; JJ 91 n^o 398, 399. Other texts of this kind are BN Moreau 233 f^o 191–192, 194–195; BN ms. fr. 25701 n^o 134. Only one document in the chancery registers for 1356–63 contains the assignment of multiple powers to a single officer, and in this case we are dealing with a royal lieutenant in Auvergne and Bourbonnais whose tasks were mainly military and who does not appear to have used his powers to extort a subsidy in the traditional sense: JJ 89 n^o 698 (1361). In Languedoc, however, réformateurs seem to have retained their fiscal role somewhat longer. In February, 1362, three of them were sent to the South with the wide powers typical of the past generation, and in May they assembled the Estates to deliberate on how to finance an army that would expel brigand companies from the region (HL IX. 731–732). Yet these officers did not engage in extortionate methods and Moliniear states that they were much more popular than their predecessors (ibid. 769–770 note 4). Even in Languedoc, moreover, réformateurs were used much less frequently in the second half of John II's reign (ibid.). Their next appearance, in 1365, would prove that they were still objects of suspicion, but it also illustrates the way in which regional assemblies, rather than local communities, now negotiated taxes with the crown. On 23 January 1365 réformateurs were assigned to Languedoc with very extensive powers. Less than three weeks later they were recalled at the request of the Estates when the latter granted a gabelle (ibid.) Google Scholar