onvoked by the king, who fixed the
place and duration of assembly.

The composition of the states-provincial varied a great deal, according
to the districts. In Brittany all noblemen settled in the province had
the right of sitting, whilst the third estate were represented by only
forty deputies. In Languedoc, on the contrary, the nobility had but
twenty-three representatives, and the class of the third estate numbered
sixty-eight deputies. Hence, no doubt, the divergences of conduct to be
remarked in those two provinces between the Parliament and the
states-provincial. In Languedoc, even during Montmorency's insurrection,
the Parliament remained faithful to the king and submissive to the
cardinal, whilst the states declared in favor of the revolt: in Brittany,
the Parliament thwarted Richelieu's efforts in favor of trade, which had
been enthusiastically welcomed by the states.

In Languedoc as well as in Dauphiny the cardinal's energy was constantly
directed towards reducing the privileges which put the imposts, and,
consequently, the royal revenues, at the discretion of the states.
Montmorency's insurrection cost Languedoc a great portion of its
liberties, which had already been jeoparded, in 1629, on the occasion of
the Huguenots' rising; and those of Dauphiny were completely lost; the
states were suppressed in 1628.

The states of Burgundy ordinarily assembled every three years, but they
were accustomed, on separating, to appoint "a chamber of states-general,"
whereat the nobility, clergy, and third estate were represented, and
which was charged to watch over the interests of the province in the
interval between the sessions. When, in 1629, Richelieu proposed to
create, as in Languedoc, a body of "elect" to arrange with the fiscal
agents for the rating of imposts without the concurrence of the states,
the assembly proclaimed that "it was all over with the liberties of the
province if the edict passed," and, in the chamber of the nobility, two
gentlemen were observed to draw their swords. But, spite of the
disturbance which took place at Dijon, in 1630, on occasion of an impost
on wines, and which was called, from the title of a popular ditty, _la
Sedition de Lanturlu,_ the province preserved its liberties, and remained
a states-district.

It was the same subject that excited in Provence the revolt of the
_Cascaveous,_ or bell-bearers. Whenever there was any question of
elections or "elect," the conspirator