The general assemblies that were held at first in the month of March，and afterwards in the month of May，were national assemblies，indeed，but not such as the ancient Germans held；among whom the principal men consulted and decided about the least，and the whole body of the people about the greatest affairs.In these assemblies of the French the people had nothing to do，unless we reckon for something the function of hollowing，which the author I have just now quoted assigns them，and which he says that custom had rendered necessary.In one word，the people had not any share in the supreme power，either collectively or representatively，in the original plan of the French government.Whether they acquired any share in this power afterwards，let us enquire next.Mézeray pretends，and indeed the whole history of France vouches for him，'that no nation ever honoured their nobility so much as the French；amongst whom the nobility was not only exempt from all sorts of impositions and charges，but commanded absolutely all inferior ranks，who were almost in a state of servitude'.How could it be otherwise，when the nobility，and chief magistrates，and the clergy，composed alone the national councils，or parliaments，and even exercised distributive justice all over the kingdom？Their power increased，as that of the kings of the first race diminished.Charles Martel，indeed，who trusted to that battle-axe which gave him his name，and to foreign troops，laid aside the national assemblies，neglected the nobility，and misused even the clergy，who damned him for it.
But Pepin found it necessary to regain both，and attach them to his interest，in order to mount the throne.By attaching them，he attached the whole nation to him.Childeric was deposed，and he chosen king in a general assembly held at Soissons，which Mézeray calls most improperly，since the expression communicates a false idea to his reader，the states，'les états'.
These assemblies，in his time，in that of his son Charles the Great，and so on，consisted of the nobility and clergy alone；and once more it is beyond all dispute certain，that the people had no more share in these national councils，under the second，than under the first race of the kings of France.
When the third race of these kings began in Hugues Capet，the lords were so powerful in their estates，and so independent in their governments，that he was forced to come to a Kind of composition with them.They became sovereigns，each in his territory，but held of the crown，and acknowledged the King for the supreme lord.There was scarce a town which had not a little sovereign，scarce a castle without some little tyrant.The parliaments，in these ages，took several turns；'ills prirent divers plis'，as Pasquier expressed himself，but still they consisted of princes，great lords，bishops and abbots，who decided in them their disputes with one another，and with the King，and maintained by these means a sort of national confederacy，or federal union of many states，politically united under one head.Such assemblies as these，under the second and third race，were the original institutions，from whence the parliaments of France have proceeded，as many alterations as they have received，and as much as they are now changed：so that we may safely affirm the parliaments of France never gave the people any share in the government of that kingdom；and whoever entertains a notion that the assemblies of the states did，or that these assemblies are of great antiquity，or that they are the foundation of the liberty of the people of that country，will find himself，on due examination，grossly deceived.
