The Online Library of Liberty

The feudal king naturally was not content with his restricted authority under the feudal régime and attempted to assert his right as head of the state to enforce general laws for the whole realm. When the king was strong and able, he could do this to some extent, but when he was weak, his commands received little attention. In the reigns of Conrad II and Frederick I, in Germany, the monarch was able to control his great vassals and enforce obedience to his laws. But the triumph of the papacy, allied with the great nobles of Germany, over the emperor was fatal to the development of a strong monarchy, and after the death of Frederick II the feudal lords became independent princes. See the progressive concessions to princes, nos. 136, 139, 153, 160. In France the monarchy became absolute by acquiring, in accordance with feudal law, actual possession of all the great fiefs. In England, the conflict between the king and the feudal lords gave opportunity for the rise of a representative system of government, which was used sometimes by the king to control the lords (as in the cases of Henry I and Henry II), sometimes by the great lords to control the king (John and Henry III). Thus the feudal system, under different conditions, resulted in France in an absolute monarchy, in England in a constitutional monarchy, and in Germany in a weak central government and a kingdom composed of many practically independent principalities.

It is not our purpose to give a complete account of all the mediæval courts, nor to show fully their mutual connection. Because of the great difficulties of the subject and the lack of suitable documents we name only the most important courts and offer a few passages to illustrate them. It is not that such documents are scarce that we have presented so few of them; but they contain so much that would require long explanations that they would demand far more space than we felt could properly be given to this subject. The materials which we offer illustrate the courts for the most part after 1100, but they throw light on those of the earlier period. In many other documents contained in this book there are references to courts and judicial processes which the student should carefully observe.

I. The royal court. According to mediæval theory the king was the judge in the whole realm. He had jurisdiction over all things. But because he could not be present everywhere and hear all cases, he appointed men (dukes, counts, etc.) to act as judges in his place. But they merely represented him. So whenever the king in his travels comes to a place, he at once replaces the local judge and all the machinery for the administration of justice. Since he was present in person, he needed no one to represent him. Eventually the great princes refused to receive him into their palaces because of the heavy expense in entertaining him and his numerous retinue, so his journeys as judge into their territories gradually ceased. In 1220 Frederick II agreed that he would exercise his rights as judge in the cities of the bishops only during the diets which he should hold in them and a week before and a week after. (See no. 136, par. 10.) He soon ceased to travel as judge, and after 1250 acted as judge only in and during the diets which he held.

Since in theory all judges and courts merely represented the king, he had the right to call before himself any case, no matter where it was pending. This was called the jus evocandi, the “right of calling.” Rudolph of Hapsburg and his successors granted both princes and cities exemption from this. In the Golden Bull (no. 160, chs. VIII and XI) Charles IV renounced all right to call any of the subjects of the electoral princes before his court. These exemptions were gradually extended to all the princes, imperial cities, bishops, and other territorial lords, until in 1487 the crown completely lost its jus evocandi.

In the same way everyone had the right to appeal to the king, against the decision of any court. But in time the king surrendered this also in the same way to the electoral princes and agreed never to receive appeals from any of their subjects. See no. 160.

Frederick II found it impossible to attend to all the business of the royal court, and so in 1235 appointed a justiciar to represent him in all minor cases. See no. 232, par. 28. He also made provision for keeping complete records of the imperial court, and appointed a court secretary and put him under the control of the justiciar. See no. 232, par. 29.

II. The county courts. The county was composed of several districts called hundreds. Each hundred had its court, which was always held in the same place. The count received his authority as judge from the king, and with it the right to inflict the king’s ban or fine of sixty shillings. The count went about from one court place to another, holding three courts a year in each place. This regular court was in session three days. If the business of the court could not be attended to in these three days, the count announced another court to be held a few weeks later. All the freemen of the hundred in which the court was held were bound to be present at it. The courts of the count were called the greater courts (judicia majora) and had jurisdiction over property, criminal actions of a serious character, and suits to recover serfs. The lower or hundred courts (judicia minora, see nos. 139, § 7; no. 231, I, 58) had jurisdiction over cases involving debts, chattels, and trespass. These lower courts were presided over by judges of inferior rank called Schultheissen, Gografen, or hundred-counts, who were either appointed by the count or elected by the people. They merely represented the count, and could not inflict the king’s ban.

The counts were at first regarded as officials of the king, but under the influence of feudalism they became vassals and received their judgeships as fiefs.

III. Courts on the royal domain. All who lived on the crown lands, or royal domain, as they were called, were exempt from the county courts. The king appointed an official to administer justice to them. He was called an advocate and his office an advocacy. His position was similar to that of the count in the county courts. He presided over the judicia majora, and appointed Schultheissen to preside over the judicia minora.

IV. Courts on the lands of bishops and abbots. All those who lived on the lands of bishops and abbots who held directly from the king, were also exempt from the county courts. They were under the jurisdiction of the bishop or abbot, who appointed an advocate to preside over the higher courts, and Schultheissen to preside over the lower. These courts were quite like those on the royal domain.

V. The sovereign courts of the princes. The dukes received their jurisdiction with their fiefs, and in theory their courts did not differ from those of the counts. But they had a different development. For the dukes steadily developed toward sovereignty in their territories, and in 1231 many of them got complete exemption from the royal jurisdiction (see no. 139).

The duke of Austria was the first one to secure such complete exemption (1156); see no. 110. The Golden Bull (chaps. VIII and XI) shows that all the electors had acquired complete exemption and were sovereigns in their territories in the administration of justice.

VI. The courts of great landholders. Every great landholder, having a large number of vassals, held a court for the trial of all questions which arose between him and his vassals, or among his vassals. Since he also had jurisdiction over all the tenants and serfs on his lands, he of course held courts for them, which were similar to those described in III and IV. They are very similar also to the manorial courts in England.

VII. For the courts of the ministerials see nos. 297, 231, III, 42.

VIII. Ecclesiastical courts. There were also ecclesiastical courts which were presided over by clergymen, such as bishops, abbots, cathedral provosts, archbishops, etc. They tried all cases which involved offenses against the laws of the church.

IX. As the cities secured the right to govern themselves, they also in many cases got jurisdiction over themselves. In the documents in section X there are many references to courts and judicial processes in the cities. From the explanations given here the student will be able to understand at least their chief features.

X. Arbitration. Since the courts and the machinery for administering justice proved to be inefficient, it became common, especially among the cities, to create a commission of arbitration to settle all quarrels in a peaceable manner. See no. 319.

In German courts the judge was really only the presiding officer. The decision was rendered by the people who were present or by the Schoeffen. Generally some particular person had the right to propose the verdict (cf. no. 297, § 5). At the proper time the judge asked him what decision he wished to propose. Then the others present might agree with the proposed verdict or offer another in its stead.

In cases where there were no witnesses the accused was compelled to bring one or more of his relatives, friends, or neighbors, who swore that they believed that he was telling the truth. They were called his compurgators.

Schoeffe, pl. Schoeffen, were the permanent judges of the hundred court. They were instituted by Karl the Great to take the place of the temporary rachinburgii of the Salic law (see no. 4, title L, note 5). There were generally twelve of them in each county, and seven must be present before a court could be legally opened. They gave the decision in certain courts, and in so far they may be compared to our modern jury. They held their office for life. In the German cities the board of Schoeffen played a very important part in the administration of justice.

Schoeffen free, or Schoeffenbar free, were all the free-born. They were eligible for the office of Schoeffe.

The Pfleghaften were the free peasants who owned lands but because they did not render military service were compelled to pay an army tax. The payment of this tax was regarded as an evidence that they were not completely free, and hence their position was lower than that of the freemen who rendered military service for their lands.

The Landsassen were, like the leti (see no. 4, title L, note 1), essentially serfs, attached to the soil, and paying fixed rent and services.

The Bauermeister was at the head of the peasants of a village or district and acted as judge in certain cases when no other judge was at hand.