We must not be surprised, strange as it may appear and is, to find, under the old monarchy, public functionaries--many of them belonging to the public service, properly so called--pleading before the Parliaments to ascertain the limits of their own powers. The explanation of this is to be found in the fact that all these questions were questions of private property as well as of public administration. What is here viewed as an encroachment of the judicial power was a mere consequence of the error which the Government had committed in attaching public functions to certain offices. These offices being bought and sold, and their holders’ income being regulated by the work done and paid for, it was impossible to change the functions of an office without impairing some right for which money had been paid to a predecessor in the office. To quote an instance out of a thousand:--At Mans the Lieutenant-General of Police carries on a prolonged suit with the _Bureau de Finance_ of the town, to prove, that being charged with the duty of street-watching, he has a right to execute all legal instruments relative to the paving of the streets, and to the fees for such instruments. The _Bureau_ replies, that the paving is a duty thrown upon him by the nature of his office. The question in this case is not decided by the king in council; the parliament gives judgment, as the principal matter in dispute is the interest of the capital devoted to the purchase of the office. The administrative question becomes a civil action. Note (XLIV.)--Page 96, line 23. ANALYSIS OF THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ORDER OF NOBILITY IN 1789.