Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow CHAP. XVIII.: Of the double Service. - Complete Works, vol. 2 The Spirit of Laws

Return to Title Page for Complete Works, vol. 2 The Spirit of Laws

Search this Title:

CHAP. XVIII.: Of the double Service. - Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, Complete Works, vol. 2 The Spirit of Laws [1748]

Edition used:

The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (London: T. Evans, 1777), 4 vols. Vol. 2.

Part of: Complete Works of Montesquieu, 4 vols.

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.


CHAP. XVIII.

Of the double Service.

IT was a fundamental principle of the monarchy, that whosoever was subject to the military power of another person, was subject also to his civil jurisdiction. Thus the capitulary* of Lewis the Debonnaire in the year 815, makes the military power of the count, and his civil jurisdiction over the freemen, keep always an equal pace. Thus the placita of the count who carried the freemen against the enemy, were called the placita of the freemen; from whence undoubtedly came this maxim, that the questions relating to liberty could be decided only in the count’s placita, and not in those of his officers. Thus the count never led the vassals§ belonging to the bishops or to the abbots against the enemy, because they were not subject to this civil jurisdiction. Thus he never commanded the rear-vassals belonging to the king’s vassals. Thus the glossary** of the English laws informs us, that those to whom†† the Saxons gave the name of Coples, were by the Normans called Counts, or companions, because they shared the justiciary fines with the King. Thus we see, that at all times the duty of a vassal‡‡ towards his lord, was to bear arms§§ , and to try his peers in his court.

One of the reasons which produced this connexion between the judiciary right and that of leading the forces against the enemy, was because the person who led them exacted at the same time the payment of the fiscal duties, which consisted in some carriage services due by the freemen, and in general in certain judiciary profits, of which we shall treat hereafter.

The lords had the right of administring justice in their fief, by the same principle as the counts had it in their counties. And indeed the counties in the several variations that happened at different times, always followed the variations of the fiefs; both were governed by the same plan, and by the same principles. In a word, the counts in their counties were lords, and the lords in their seignories were counts.

It has been a mistake to consider the counts as civil officers, and the dukes as military commanders. Both were equally civil and military officers: the whole difference consisted in the duke’s having several counts under him, though there were counts who had no duke over them, as we learn from Fredegarius*

It will be imagined perhaps that the government of the Franks must have been very severe at that time, since the same officers were invested with a military and civil power, nay, even with a fiscal authority, over the subjects; which in the preceding books I have observed to be distinguishing marks of despotism.

But we must not believe that the counts pronounced judgment by themselves, and administered justice in the same manner as the bashaws in Turky; in order to judge affairs, they assembled a kind of assizes, where the principal men appeared.

To the end we may thoroughly understand what relates to the judicial proceedings, in the formulas, in the laws of the barbarians, and in the capitularies, it is proper to observe that the functions of the count, of the Grafio or fiscal judge, and the Centenarius, were the same; that the judges, the Rathimburgers, and the sheriffs, were the same persons under different names. These were the counts assistants, and were generally seven in number; and as he was obliged to have twelve persons to judge , he filled up the number with the principal men .

But whoever had the jurisdiction, the king, the count, the Grafio, the Centenarius, the lords, or the clergy, they never tried causes alone; and this usage, which derived its origin from the forests of Germany, was still continued even after the fiefs had assumed a new form.

With regard to the fiscal power, its nature was such, that the count could hardly abuse it. The rights of the prince in respect to the freemen, were so simple, that they consisted only, as we have already observed, in certain carriages which were demanded of them on some public occasions. And as for the judiciary rights, there were laws which prevented* misdemeanours.

[* ]Art. 1, 2, and the council in verno palatio of the year 845. art. 8. edition of Baluzius, tom. ii. page 17.

[]Or assizes.

[]Capitularies book fourth of the collection of Angezize, art. 57. and the 5th capitulary of Lewis the Pious in the year 819. art. 14th, edition of Baluzius, tom. 1. page 615.

[§ ]See the 8th note of the preceding chapter.

[** ]It is to be found in the collection of William Lambard, de priscis Anglorum legibus.

[†† ]In the word Satrapia.

[‡‡ ]This is well explained by the assizes of Jerusalem, chap. 221 and 222.

[§§ ]The advowees of the church (advocati) were equally at the head of their placita; and of their militia.

[]See the 8th formulary of Marculfus, book i. which contains the letters given to a duke, patrician, or count, and invests them with the civil jurisdiction, and the fiscal administration.

[* ]Chronicle, chap. 78. in the year 636.

[]See concerning this subject the capitularies of Lewis the Pious, added to the Salic law, art 2. and the formula of judgments given by Du Cange in the word boni homines.

[]Per bonos homines, sometimes there were none but principal men. See the appendix to the formularies of Marculsus, ch. 51.

[]And some tolls on rivers, of which I have spoken already.

[* ]See the law of the Ripuarians, tit. 89. and the Law of the Lombards, book ii. tit. 52. sect. 9.