Front Page Titles (by Subject) SECTION III.: ORIGINAL ARTICLES AND PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNAL CHARTER OF AMIENS. * - The Formation and Progress of the Tiers État, or Third Estate in France vol. 2
Return to Title Page for The Formation and Progress of the Tiers État, or Third Estate in France vol. 2
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
Also in the Library:
SECTION III.: ORIGINAL ARTICLES AND PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNAL CHARTER OF AMIENS. * - Augustin Thierry, The Formation and Progress of the Tiers État, or Third Estate in France vol. 2 
The Formation and Progress of the Tiers État, or Third Estate in France, translated from the French by the Rev. Francis B. Wells, Two volumes in One (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1859).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
ORIGINAL ARTICLES AND PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNAL CHARTER OF AMIENS.*
“1. Unusquisque jurato suo fidem, auxilium consiliumque per omnia juste observabit.†
“2. Quicumque furtum faciens intra metas communie comprehendetur vel fecisse cognoscetur, preposito nostro tradetur, et quidquid de eo agendum judicio communionis judicabitur, ei fiet; reclamanti vero id quod furto sublatum est, si potest inveniri, prepositus noster reddet; reliqua in usus nostros convertentur‡
“3. Nullus aliquem inter communiam ipsam commorantem, vel mercatores ad urbem cum mercibus venientes, infra banleucam civitatis disturbare presumat. Quod si quis fecerit, faciat communia de eo, ut de communie violatore, si eum comprehendere poterit, vel aliquid de suo, justitiam facere.*
“4. Si quis de communione alicui jurato suo res suas abstulerit, a preposito nostro submonitus, justitiam prosequetur; si vero prepositus de justitia defecerit, a majore vel scabinis submonitus, in presentia communionis veniet, et quantum scabini inde judicaverint, salvo jure nostro, ibi faciet.†
“5. Qui autem de communione minime existens, alicui res suas abstulerit, justitiamque illi infra banleucam se executurum negaverit, postquam hoc hominibus castelli ubi manserit notum fecerit communia, si ipsum vel aliquid ad se pertinens, comprehendere poterit, donec ipse justitiam executus fuerit, prepositus noster retinebit, donec nos nostram et communia similiter suam habeat emendationem.*
“6. Qui pugno aut palma aliquem de communia, preter consuetudinarium conturbatorem vel lecatorem, percusserit, nisi se defendendo se fecisse duobus vel tribus testibus contra percussum disrationare poterit coram preposito nostro, viginti solidos dabit, quindecim silicet communie et quinque justitie dominorum.†
“7. Qui autem juratum suum armis vulneraverit, nisi similiter se defendendo legitimo testimonio et assertione sacramenti, se contra vulneratum disrationare poterit, pugnum amittet, aut novem libras, sex silicet firmitati urbis et communie, et tres justitie dominorum, pro redemptione pugni persolvet, aut si persolvere non poterit in misericordia communie, salvo catallo dominorum, pugnum tradet.‡
* * * * * *
“9. Qui vero de communione minime existens, aliquem de communia percusserit vel vulneraverit, nisi judicio communie coram preposito nostro justitiam exequi voluerit, domum illius, si poterit, communia prosternet, et capitalia erunt nostra. Et si eum comprehendere poterit, coram preposito . . . . per majorem et scabinos, de eo justitiam capiet, et catalla nostra erunt*
“10. Qui juratum suum turpibus et inhonestis conviciis lacesserit, et duo vel tres audierint ipsum, per eos statuimus convinci, et quinque solidos, duos scilicet conviciato, et tres communie dabit.†
“11. Qui inhonestum aliquid de communia dixerit in audiencia quorumdam, si communie propalatum fuerit, et se quod illud non dixerit, judicum communie judicio defendere noluerit, domum illius, si poterit, prosternet communia, ipsumque in communia morari, donec emendaverit, non patietur, et si emendare noluerit, catalla ejus erunt in manu domini . . . et communie.*
* * * * * *
“14. Qui, clamore facto de adversario suo, per prepositum et majorem et judices communie justitiam prosequi non poterit, si postea adversus eum aliquid fecerit, illum rationabiliter communia conveniet, ejusque audita ratione, quid inde postea agendum sit, judicabit.†
“15. Qui a majoribus et judicibus et decanis, scilicet servientibus communie, submonitus, justitiam et judicium communie subterfugerit, domum illius, si poterunt, prosternent, ipsum vero inter eos morari, donec satisfecerit, non permittent, et catalla erunt in misericordia prepositi . . . et majoris.‡
“16. Qui hostem communie in domo sua scienter receperit, eique vendendo et emendo et edendo et bibendo vel aliquod solacium impendendo communicaverit, aut consilium aut auxilium adversus communiam dederit, reus communie efficietur, et, nisi judicio communie cito satisfecerit, domum illius, si poterit, communia prosternet, et catalla . . . erunt.*
* * * * * *
“20. Qui judices communie de falsitate judicii comprobare voluerit, nisi, ut justum est, comprobare potuerit, in misericordia . . . est et majoris et scabinorum, de omni eo quod habet.†
* * * * * *
“44. Si conventio aliqua facta fuerit ante duos vel plures scabinos, de conventione illa amplius non surget campus vel duellum, si scabini qui conventioni interfuerint, hoc testificati fuerint.‡
“45. Omnia ista jura et precepta que prediximus majoris et communie, tantum sunt inter juratos, non est æquum judicium inter juratum et non juratum.”*
These sixteen articles, of which fifteen belong in an authentic manner, and one by conjecture, to the earliest communal law of Amiens, imply the existence of a city in the political meaning of the word, i.e., of a city which is formed into a corporation and is self-governed, and which, in spite of the restraints which the times and circumstances may impose upon it, acts and pronounces with supreme authority on its own particular affairs. Like every political body, the commune of Amiens is restricted in two ways—in its action and in its rights: on one side by the limits of its territorial circonscription, and on the other by the legal distinction between the citizen and the stranger; or, according to the language of the new constitutional law, between him who belongs to the commune and him who does not, between the confederate (juré) and the non-confederate (non-juré), The district in which the jurisdiction of the city is exercised, and in which the authority of its magistracy extends to all, is first within the walls—the ancient cité, next without the walls—the precincts (banlieu), either determined according to the tradition of the old municipal recollections, or settled recently by agreement between the commune and the count. The city of Amiens thus enjoyed within these ancient limits, and in consequence of its revolution, the full exercise of the three sorts of right—the right of political liberty, the right of the administration of criminal justice, and also that of civil. The two last, as we have seen above, were, in a certain degree, inherent in the Roman as well as in the Gallo-Frank municipality; but the first, carried to such a height as to make the city a state possessing the right of war and peace with respect to its neighbours, and the right of legislation with respect to itself, was a state of things which had never before been witnessed—the original work of the twelfth century. In order to guarantee this privilege of urban sovereignty, there were at that time instituted, with a marvellous instinct, new constitutions, new magistracies, and an entirely new assumption of municipal power and independence.
It is a circumstance calculated to surprise at first sight, that the political right, the most exalted of all the new rights acquired by the city of Amiens, is the one which plays the least important part in its communal charter. Except the brief declaration of the reciprocal duties and exclusive privilege of those who have taken the oath of the commune, and except the mention of the crimes of treason against the commune, and the infringement of its rights,* everything in respect to regulations and constitutional provisions appears to be silently implied. The échevinage, that supreme council to which all the powers of the commune were delegated, is merely named, by way of remembrance, in regard to the offences, the judgment of which is to belong to it henceforward. We are not told what is the number of its members, nor their different duties, nor the mode of their election, nor the revenues by means of which they are to administer the interests of the city. This omission is explained by the nature of the deed, which is an agreement made between the city and the count of Amiens, and by the state of political ideas, so different in the twelfth century from what they are at the present time.
The armed dispute between the bourgeois and their seigneur having been terminated by the defeat of the seigneurial government, the confederation, the commune was recognised by the count, together with the institutions which it had newly created; and it was of little consequence to the count under what form it should be organised for the future; no new dispute could result from that; there was, therefore, nothing under this head to require regulation in the compact of agreement. The particular constitution of the commune of Amiens, the mode of electing its magistrates, the division of the duties between the various magistracies, the deliberations of the whole body of the bourgeois, as well as those of the supreme council, were points affecting the commune alone; its free decision in this respect was derived from the very fact of its existence. The seigneur had no interest to interfere in them, and the commune itself, on its part, was not driven by any pressing motive of utility to desire that any express and detailed account should be made of these arrangements of internal government.
But, as we have already said, the jurisdiction was the fundamental point, the most striking attribute of sovereignty in the twelfth century: in this the commune of Amiens discovered the right most liable to be disputed—the right which the dispossessed seigneur might resume in detail, diminish, question, or shackle it in its exercise, by the daily interference of his officers—the right, lastly, which it was absolutely necessary to guarantee for ever, by specifying, in an authentic manner, the various cases which constituted the full and entire application of it. The exercise of the right of justice heretofore belonged to the commune, but the profits attached to this right were to be divided between it and the co-seigneurs of Amiens; now it was necessary that this division should be expressly regulated for each kind of crime or offence. Among all those which the communal charter enumerates without regard to order, we can distinguish three classes:—1. Crimes and offences against the commune, regarded as a body politic; 2. Crimes and offences against the persons of individual jurés, or members of the commune; 3. Crimes and offences against the goods of the jurés. The first category, that of political offences, is the most curious, because it forms the entirely new part of the municipal right of Amiens, and there was no usage or local tradition to supply the elements of it. This class of offences presents the peculiarity, that punishment, properly so called, is not appointed for any of them, but only a preliminary vengeance, which consists in the demolition of the house of the guilty, and his expulsion from the territory of the commune, until he may have given full satisfaction.
The first of state-crimes is the act of connivance or friendship, or merely pacific relations with an enemy of the commune. “He,” says the charter, “who shall knowingly have received into his house an enemy of the commune, and shall have communicated with him, either in buying and selling, in eating and drinking, or in rendering him any kind of service whatever, shall be guilty of treason against the commune.”* Whoever hinders the free passage of persons belonging to the commune, or of merchants who come to the city through its precincts, is considered as a violator of the commune, and to be treated as such.† Whoever flies from justice is to be punished with banishment, and his house is to be destroyed.* Whoever makes injurious remarks upon the commune incurs the same punishment.† Such are the provisions common to the charters of Amiens and Abbeville, that is to say, to those which are authenticated as more ancient than the royal act of 1190. If we proceed further, and remark in this act other provisions, which are also probably original, we shall find the penalties of the political crime, the destruction of the house and banishment, applied to him who wilfully violates the constitutions of the commune, and to him who, when injured in a quarrel, refuses the composition adjudged, and likewise refuses to give security to his adversary.
A less penalty—for it requires the destruction of the delinquent’s house alone, unless he prefers paying the value of it—is imposed on him who uses insulting language to the mayor while in the discharge of his duties, and on him who strikes one of the jurés sitting in court before the magistrates.‡ In this manner the destruction of the house—the vengeance of the commune when injured by treason or outrage—was at once a punishment in itself, and the token which rendered the sentence of conditional or absolute banishment more terrible in imagination. It took place in the greater part of the communes of the north of France, with a gloomy and imposing solemnity, in the presence of the citizens, who were summoned by the tolling of a bell: the mayor struck the house of the condemned with a hammer, and workmen, employed in the public service, proceeded to the demolition, which they continued till not a stone remained.
An inexplicable peculiarity of the communal charter of Amiens is, that the crime of homicide is not even mentioned in it; nothing, in this respect, is either appointed or provided for. This omission, of which the cause escapes our inquiry, cannot induce us to believe that the punishment of voluntary or involuntary bloodshed was left in 1117 to the jurisdiction of the count, for such a reservation could not have failed to have been formally stated; and it is, moreover, proved that, in the years which followed, the commune exercised the right of high justice, which exercised, as was then said, the judgment in cases of blood.* In 1190, when Philippe-Auguste, become count of Amiens, reserved to himself, as belonging to the prerogatives of royalty, cases of rape and murder, that is to say, assassination, he made this reservation the subject of an additional article to the original charter, and from that time the jurisdiction of the commune, limited on this point, always continued to act in cases of homicide committed with violence, or by simple accident. A custom of the city of Amiens, drawn up before 1250, lays down as the recompense of blows dealt with arms, “life for life, limb for limb.”*
Another peculiarity of the charter of Amiens is, that all the penalties which it pronounces resolve themselves, or seem necessarily to be resolved, into pecuniary penalties. The person who has wounded one of his jurés is to lose his hand, or pay nine livres for the redemption of it; the house of the person who has insulted the mayor is to be pulled down; but the delinquent can redeem it at its value, at the mercy of the judges.† The words, mercy of the commune (misericordia communiæ), occur again and again in regard to the fines, which, in the cases of the greatest importance, have no fixed amount. Besides the undefined satisfactions which were exacted by these formulas, nisi cito satisfecerit, donec satisfecerit, appear to have been nothing more than penalties at discretion.
This system of penal law was not, like the system of political organisation, a new institution, a creation of the commune; it was the ancient customary law of the city and county of Amiens. The application of pecuniary penalties for all kinds of crime was introduced, as a principle of law, into the midst of Roman Gaul at the invasion and settlement of the Germanic populations. So long as the distinction of the laws, as they affected individuals, continued, this principle was limited, in its action, to the judgments pronounced against men of barbarian origin. The descendants of the Gallo-Romans continued subject to the penalty of the Roman laws, and, as is known, the cities, even those of the north, were almost entirely peopled by indigenous inhabitants. But when the laws affecting individuals yielded and disappeared under the territorial jurisdiction of the seigneurs, and local usages were everywhere substituted in the place of the written laws, custom, within the cities as well as beyond them, necessarily favoured and developed the system of pecuniary penalties, at the expense of every other system.
In effect, the right of justice having become the property of the seigneur, as the administrator of it, he felt it his principal interest to draw the best revenue possible from this property; hence it happened, that in the law of custom, at its earliest period, fines predominated over corporal penalties, and that, with respect to these last, the power of ransom was almost always allowed. When, by the municipal revolution in the twelfth century, the jurisdiction of the seigneurs in the cities was entirely, or in part, transferred to the cities themselves, they did not even think of making a new penal law. In this respect, as in the case of the civil law, they held to custom, and did not dream of making any innovation. Besides, even if they had perceived the necessity of it, a necessity more imperious of providing for the expenses of the public administration, of availing themselves of the financial resources for the present and future, would have decided them upon maintaining the old penal system, the returns of which must, for a long time, be regarded as the most abundant source of their municipal revenues.
The division of the judicial profits between the commune of Amiens and the co-seigneurs, whose jurisdiction was absorbed in its own, took place in a different manner with respect to the fines, properly so called, and the confiscations. With respect to the fines, the general rule of their division was,—two-thirds for the commune, and one for the count or the seigneur, within whose fief the crime had been committed; by exception, however, the commune sometimes received three-fourths of the fines, and sometimes the whole.* With respect to the confiscations of chattels (capitalia, catalla), which, in the case of crime, formed part of the penalty, the absence of figures to determine their division affords reason to believe that the shares were equal between the commune and the seigneur; there were cases, however, in which the count, instead of the half, took the whole.†
The share which the commune of Amiens received from the sum total of its right of jurisdiction was, during the twelfth century, the principal branch of its ordinary revenues. It is doubtful whether the right of taxation, which the échevinage possessed over all the members of the commune, was exercised periodically, and in other cases besides those of strict necessity. The remainder of the annual revenue consisted of the quit-rents paid by the tenants or farmers of the houses, lands, watercourses, fisheries, and garden-grounds, which belonged to the city, either as remains of the ancient municipal property, or in virtue of grants made by the count to form the new precincts. Moreover, there is ground to believe that a duty on the sale of real property,—a duty which, in the ancient registers of accounts, is called issue de deniers,—was collected from the commencement by the commune. Lastly, a fee (un droit de nouvelle bourgeoisie) was paid by each stranger who became a citizen of Amiens, or, as it was then expressed, was admitted into the commune (entrait dans la commune). This fee answered to the original contribution which, after the principle of the guild, all the members of the confederation had simultaneously deposited to form the first funds of the communal chest. With respect to extraordinary supplies, they were obtained by collections in money or in kind, and from loans which the commune contracted, on the security of stocks given on interest for life, or in perpetuity, at a higher or lower rate.
Such were the financial resources by means of which the bourgeoisie of Amiens were to provide for the expenses of its free government; for, as we have said above, the indirect taxes, collected in the city and its precincts, the duties on merchandise brought or exposed for sale, the customs and tolls, did not belong to it. With such slight resources the body of elective magistrates boldly took upon it the charge of internal order and external security, the custody of the city, the maintenance of the fortifications, the defence of all the civil interests. Probably, from the commencement, each member of the municipal body had the sphere of his public duties traced beforehand, and his department clearly defined. There were, in the body of the échevinage, special officers to discharge each branch of the administration, political affairs, civil and criminal judgments, finances, supervision of morals, control of streets and buildings. In consequence of the paucity of contemporaneous documents, it is, unhappily, impossible to define the demarcation of the different departments and respective duties of the magistrates; but we must suppose that they did exist at that time; and if they were not the same as appear afterwards, they were at least arranged according to some rule. In a word, if we wish to understand the full meaning and drift of acts which are too scarce or too incongruous to convey a clear impression, we must remember, at least, that we have now reached a period when municipal life appears in its full vigour.
[* ]Collection of unpublished memorials of the history of the Tiers Etat.
[† ]The first article of the communal charter of Abbeville is drawn up in the following form: “Statutum est itaque, et sub religione juramenti confirmatum, quod unusquique jurato suo fidem, vim, auxilium, consiliumque prebebit et observabit, secundum quod justitia dictaverit.” (Rec. des Ordonn. des Rois de France, t. iv., p. 55.)
[‡ ]“Constitutum est etiam, quod si quis de furto reus apparuerit, captis omnibus rebus furis a vicecomite meo vel a ministris meis, exceptis rebus furtivis quas probare poterit esse suas, qui reclamaverit, res alie furis ad opus meum observabuntur. Fur autem primo a scabinis judicabitur, et penam pillorii sustinebit: postea vicecomiti meo vel meis ministris tradetur.” (Communal Charter of Abbeville, art. 2.)
[* ]“Statutum est quod nullus mercatores ad abatis Villam venientes infra banlivam disturbare presumat. Quod si quis fecerit et emendare noluerit, si ipsum vel res suas comprehendere poterunt idem Burgenses, tam de ipso quam de rebus suis, tanquam de violatore communie, justitiam facient.” (Charter of Abbeville, art. 3.)
[† ]The spirit of this article is found in the fourth article of the charter of Abbeville, but with some variations in its drawing up, to suit it to the political and judicial organisation of the county of Ponthieu:—“Si inter juratum et juratum, vel inter juratum et non juratum de re mobili questio oriatur, ad vicecomitem meum de eo clamor fiet, vel ad dominum vicecomitatus illius in quo manebit qui fuerit impetitus; nisi ipse infra vicecomitatum meum inventus fuerit; tunc enim, tam de eo quam de rebus suis in meo vicecomitatu existentibus, vicecomes meus justitiam faciet; excepto eo quod personam jurati capere non poterit; et qui ab eodem vicecomite meo vel domino, per sententiam condempnabitur, si condempnatus judicio non comparuerit, a scabinis quod judicatum fuerit, exsequi compelletur.” The fifth article of the charter of Abbeville ordains, that in any process relative to real property, the complaint shall be made before the seigneur. This article seems to correspond to the nineteenth article of the charter of Amiens, as follows:—“Statutum est etiam quod communia de terris sive feodis dominorum non debet se intromittere.”
[* ]“Si vero non juratus res jurati abstulerit, et quod justitia dictaverit, exequi noluerit, si ipsum vel res suas comprehendere poterunt, detinebunt, donec quod justitia dictaverit, eidem jurato exequetur.” (Charter of Abbeville, art. 6.)
[† ]“Qui pugno aut palma aliquem cum ira percusserit, nisi se aliqua ratione coram scabinis deffendere poterit, viginti solidos communie persolvet.” (Charter of Abbeville, art. 7.)
[‡ ]This article is blended with other provisions and new developments in the eighth article of the charter of Abbeville:—
[* ]This article, in which the words prévôt royal, which belong to the revision of 1190, are read for the first time, is abridged in the following manner in the 9th article of the charter of Abbeville:—“Si autem non juratus juratum vel non juratum vulneraverit, et judicium scabinorum subire recusaverit, a villa expelletur et judicio scabinorum delictum punietur.”
[† ]“Qui vero juratum suum turpibus leserit conviciis per tres testes vel duos convinci poterit, et, in convictum, secundum quantitatem et qualitatem convicii, a scabinis pena statuetur.” (Charter of Abbeville, art. 10.)
[* ]This article has the word Regis after the word Domini, evidently substituted for comitis in the revision of 1190; it is thus abridged in the 2d article of the charter of Abbeville: “Qui vero inhonestum de communia dixerit in audiencia, et convinci poterit testibus, judicio scabinorum emendabit.”
[† ]We must understand by the words justitiam prosequi non poterit, not, shall be unable to obtain justice, but shall be prevented by any cause from following up his claim. This article is thus reproduced in the 14th of the charter of Abbeville: “Item, si quis de alio super aliquo clamorem fecerit et ei a judice justitia fuerit oblata, si postea sine auctoritate judicis, adversario suo injuriam fecerit, a scabinis super hoc conventus, ejusque audita responsione, quid super hoc agendum sit, a scabinis statuetur.”
[‡ ]In the charter of Abbeville this provision does not form a separate article; it forms a part of the 12th article, which will be given in the following note.
[* ]In this article, instead of catalla regis erunt, the reading must originally have been catalla comitis erunt; it is thus abridged in the 12th article of the charter of Abbeville: “Item, qui hostem scienter communie receperit in sua domo, et si participaverit in aliquo inimicus communie efficietur; et nisi judicio communie satisfecerit, tam illius quam alterius jurati qui judicium scabinorum subterfugerit, domus prosternetur.”
[† ]Instead of the words in misericordia regis, the reading must originally have been in misericordia comitis; it is again found, with some variations, in the 19th article of the charter of Abbeville: “Sciendum est etiam, quod quicumque scabinos de falsitate judicii infamaverit, nisi eos legitime convincere poterit, unicuique novem libras et aureum obolum persolvere tenebitur.”
[‡ ]“Preterea statutum est, quod si in presentia duorum vel trium scabinorum, contractus emptionis, venditionis, perinutationis, pignoris vel alius contractus mitus fuerit, eorum testimonio causa disrationabitur; salvo jure meo in eo qui convictus fuerit. Hoc idem erit, si carta publica et autentica a majore et scabinis tradita, dictis scabinis non apparentibus, fuerit producta.” (Charter of Abbeville, art. 26.)
[* ]This article is evidently original; we give it as such, although it is not repeated in any shape in the charter of Abbeville.—Below, Section IV., p. 187. see the complete text of the communal charter of Amiens.
[* ]“Reus communie efficietur.” (Communal charter of Amiens, art. 16.) “Faciat communia de eo ut de communie violatore.” (Ibid., art. 3.)
[* ]Charter of Amiens, art. 16; charter of Abbeville, art. 12.
[† ]Amiens and Abbeville, art. 3.
[* ]Amiens, art. 15; Abbeville, art. 12.
[† ]Abbeville and Amiens, art. 11.
[‡ ]See below, Section IV., articles 18, 8, 37, and 39, of the charter of Amiens.
[* ]Judicium sanguinis. In the first volume of the Rec. des Monum. inéd. de l’Histoire du Tiers Etat, p. 99, see a letter of Stephen, abbé of St. Geneviève.
[* ]“Derechief, quiconques par ire faite ferra autrui ou navrera, par coi il perde” vie ou membre, celui pleinement membre perdera, vie por vie; s’il est tenus que “il s’en soit fuis, il sera banis et eskix de la banliue, sor le hart à tous jors.” (In the Rec. des Monum. inéd. de l’Hist. du Tiers Etat, t. i., p. 121, see the complete text of this custom.) The commune of Abbeville, the penal law of which was modelled after that of Amiens, in the twelfth century, fills up, by a special article of its charter, the void which existed in the charter of the model commune:—
[† ]“Novem libras pro redemptione pugni persolvet . . . . Aut, secundum pretium, domus in misericordia judicum redimatur.” (Communal Charter of Amiens, art. 7, 37.)
[* ]“Novem libras, sex scilicet firmitati urbis et communie, et tres justicie dominorum, pro redemptione pugni persolvet. . . . . Novem libras dabit, scilicet sex libras communie et lx solidos justicie dominorum. . . . . Ille malefactor lx solidos persolvet; et de his habebit justicia dominorum viginti solidos. . . . . Viginti solidos dabit, quindecim scilicet communie et quinque justicie dominorum. . . . . Viginti solidos communie persolvet, ibi justicia dominorum nichil capiet” (Communal Charter of Amiens, art. 7, 38, 41, 6, and 40.)
[† ]“. . . . Et . . . . catalla ejus erunt in manu domini regis et communie. . . . . Et catalla erunt in misericordia prepositi regis et majoris. . . . . In misericordia regis est et majoris et scabinorum de omni eo quod habet. . . . . Et catalla nostra erunt. . . . Et catalla regis erunt.” (Ibid., art. 11, 15, 20, 9, and 16.)—We must remember that the word regis belongs to the revision made in 1190.