1117: Articles of the Communal Charter of Amiens

Grant made by Philip of Alsace, Count of Amiens—Cession of the County of Amiens to Philippe-Auguste, King of France—Confirmation of the Commune—Additional Articles of the Communal Charter of Amiens; its definitive Text.*

In 1161 Philip of Alsace, count of Flanders and Amiens, with the consent of his wife, Isabel, made a grant to the abbey of Saint-Jean-lez-Amiens.† The following words occur in the deed which was then drawn up: “I direct and prescribe to the mayor and the whole commune of Amiens, as well as to all others who owe me allegiance, to maintain in peace the property of this church, and if it happen to be disturbed or attacked, to afford it assistance and protection in my stead.”* It is as successor to the ancient counts, and heir of their seigneurial rights, that Philip of Alsace addresses this injunction to the citizens, and speaks to them as their supreme lord. We should not, however, infer from this imperative form of expression that his power was greater at Amiens in 1161 than that of the commune. From the year 1117 the political government within the city and its precincts belonged entirely to the bourgeoisie. The words which I have quoted, then, contain an appeal to the effective means of the commune rather than a delegation of the seigneurial power. In the year 1170 a letter of the count, Philip, placed in the same manner another abbey under the protection of the civic body. This letter, like that of 1161, proves, in my opinion, that the commune alone had at that time sufficient strength and authority to protect the civil and ecclesiastical possessions in an efficient manner, and to maintain peace and good order throughout the whole of the territory subjected to its jurisdiction.

Philip of Alsace, having lost his wife Elizabeth in 1182, still kept possession of all the fiefs which she had brought to him as her dowry. Eleanor of Vermandois reclaimed the inheritance of her sister, and Philippe-Auguste, to whom she had secretly ceded a part of Vermandois and Amiénois, put in his claims to these domains. A war, already excited on account of them between the king and the count of Flanders, was terminated by putting Amiens in sequestration into the hands of the bishop of that city. Philippe-Auguste again took arms in defence of the interests of Eleanor in 1184; and the following year, Philip of Alsace, compelled to resign, abandoned all his rights over the county of Amiens to the king.

This cession would necessarily react upon the constitution of the commune. As king and count at once, Philippe-Auguste found himself suddenly invested with a twofold power in the city of Amiens. Without giving up his feudal title of count of Amiens, he took care to show in all his acts that royal power, which placed him above the seigneurs whose position he occupied, and he clearly established the difference which existed between his authority and that of the ancient counts. The latter, when they took possession of the county of Amiens, had to do homage to the bishop; Philippe-Auguste did not choose to discharge a formality which would have made him resemble a simple baron, and have been contrary to the idea of absolute sovereignty attached to the title of king. The following is an instance of the manner in which he expressed himself in a charter granted to the church of Amiens in 1185:—

“Let all, present and to be, know, that Philip, count of Flanders, having resigned to us the city and county of Amiens, we have clearly recognised the fidelity and devotion of the church of Amiens towards us; for not only has it displayed much devotion to us in this matter, but, besides, seeing that the tenure of the above-mentioned land and county belong to this church, and that it has the right of homage for them, this church has indulgently consented and agreed that we should hold its fief without rendering it homage, for we neither ought nor can render homage to any.”*

The union of the county of Amiens to the crown could not, as we have said, remain without influence on the destinies of the commune. The relations of the bourgeois to the count and his officers had been determined in the charter which was drawn up in 1117; but the new order of things of necessity brought on a change, if not in the constitution of the city, and the nature of its relations to its immediate seigneur, yet at least in the manner of regulating, and especially of expressing, these relations. In this respect it was necessary to fix the principles and to certify the facts by an authentic document. In passing, moreover, under the power of a new seigneur, the bourgeois of Amiens could not help feeling the necessity of making their municipal franchises known to him, and much more as that new seigneur was the king of France, who had united in his own person the entire local right of the count, and the general right of the sovereign. Such was the double object of the charter granted in 1190 by Philippe-Auguste, at the request of the bourgeois of Amiens—a charter which conceded (concéda) to them, according to its official tenour, or, more accurately, guaranteed to them, the establishment of the commune confederated in 1113, and constituted in 1117.

This charter, far from being a new act, only repeated, with the exception of certain modifications of form, and the regulation of certain more direct relations between the city and the royal power, the text of the charter which emanated from the first successor of Enguerrand de Boves. It consists of three distinct parts; to wit, 1, forty-five articles, which, in my opinion, formed the first charter which was deliberated upon by the bourgeois, and agreed to by the count, after the communal revolution; 2, a memorandum concerning the redemption of tolls, effected by the commune between the years 1144 and 1164;* 3, six additional articles annexed by the chancery of Philippe-Auguste to the original charter, when this charter was examined and revised.

It is easy to prove the history of this revision from the text of the document itself. The original of the constitutional act of 1117 existed from this date in the archives of the commune of Amiens; about 1160 was inscribed at the foot of this original, after the signatures, the memorandum relative to the redemption of tolls; and in this condition the charter was conveyed to the royal chancery, which maintained both its provisions and its form, with the exception of some alterations in the words. In the articles in which the title of count occurred, the title of king was substituted simply and without addition; the rest of the text was not subjected to the least correction; the formulas præpositus noster and the simple word præpositus, which had served to designate the prévôt of the count of Amiens, were retained to designate the prévôt of the king.* The signatures attached in 1117 were suppressed, and a memorandum of this suppression was made the subject of an article, the forty-sixth, after which the royal officers, without troubling themselves about the incongruity, placed their six additional articles.

These provisions, derived from a different source, formed the official code, the body of written law, by which the commune of Amiens was henceforth governed. I shall say nothing of the memorandum, which was placed by chance among the legal articles. With respect to the forty-five articles, of which I have already spoken in the notice which I took of those, which their agreement with the charter of Abbeville points out as undoubtedly original, I have already examined them under two heads, that of the political and that of the criminal law. I shall now examine them under the head of the civil law, of which no mention has been made above, as the commune of Abbeville, finding in its local customs rules of civil law, did not borrow anything in this respect from the text of the communal charter of Amiens.

The civil usages, indeed, sanctioned by this charter in 1117, were of immemorial antiquity in the city and county of Amiens; they had existed long previously to the commune; and when the difference in the political institutions took place, they were registered, not decreed, by the enfranchised bourgeois. Two principles of law seem to have been then proclaimed for the first time; the one which restrained the abuses of the trial by duel, by appointing that no hired champion should be allowed to engage with a member of the commune;* the other, which, no doubt, derogating from the ancient custom, ordered that the accuser, the accused, and the witness might, if they chose, make themselves heard in every case by advocates.†

The traditional provisions which passed into the communal charter of Amiens from the ancient custom must be referred to three sources,—the Roman law, the traces of which, however faint and indistinct they may be, exist at the base of all our customs; the ancient law of the German populations; and that common law of the middle ages which is called the feudal law.

No article of the charter can be pointed out in particular as being derived from a formal text of the Roman law. The provisions of the 21st, 23d, 22d, 35th, and 32d, have reference in a greater or less degree to the German laws. Under the name of dot, the 21st article points out the dowry assigned by the husband to his wife, and declares it inalienable, without saying what its nature was in the usages of the city of Amiens—whether it were settled by custom, or merely conventional. The 23d article shows that the widow who had children under age was subjected to a sort of guardianship, and placed under the direction of a protector, whom some customs name a mainbourg.* The 22d and 35th have relation to the division of property acquired during marriage, and in certain cases secure the revenue derivable from them to the surviving party.† Lastly, the 32d article declares the purchaser of a stolen object, who alleges his ignorance, not punishable, and it allows the judge in this case to exact the oath of both parties.‡

The provisions which are derived from the feudal law are found in the articles, in which the judicial combat is allowed, under certain restrictions, as a means of terminating civil suits; in the twenty-fifth article, which consecrates, while at the same time it modifies, the principle of redeeming family property; and in the eighth article, which establishes a penalty against a person who, being injured, refuses to give assurement, that is to say, security to keep the peace to his adversary.*

I call the attention of the reader, moreover, to the following provisions:—The twenty-sixth article fixes seven years as the term necessary to acquire the right of prescriptions. It is known that usage on this point has varied according to times and countries; and there is reason to believe that the charter of Amiens did no more than sanction a rule of local law, which could not be referred to any legislation. The forty-second article, which treats of injurious language made by one juré towards another, places, in the first line, as the most serious offence, the application of the name of serf. The thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh articles lay down a different penalty for injury done to the maire in the discharge of his duties, and for injury done to the prévôt; outrage on the person of the maire is a political crime, punished as such by the destruction of the delinquent’s house; outrage on the person of the prévôt is a fault to be compounded for by agreement, after judgment given by the échevins, and without public punishment. The maintenance of these provisions in the revised charter of 1190 is worthy of remark. It proves that if the prévôté exercised at Amiens in the name of the king had some prerogatives above those of the ancient prévôté of the count, it was not any more than the latter a constitutional power; and, in regard to its dignity, it was still kept under the communal magistracies.

I now come to the six articles which contain the new provisions added to the original charter by the chancery of Philippe-Auguste. Their substance is as follows:—Suits relative to real property within the city shall be judged by the prévôt in open court three times a-year.—All crimes and offences shall be judged by the maire and échevins in presence of the bailli of the king, if he wishes to be present at the judgment; if he does not wish, or is unable to be present, justice shall be administered without him, except in the case of murder and abduction, which are reserved for the king.—The goods of homicides, incendiaries, and traitors, shall be confiscated to the king alone, without division with any other, that is to say, with any co-seigneur.—None shall have power to make a proclamation (ban)* in the city, except by permission of the king and the bishop.—The king, the sénéchal or the prévôt of the king, the bishop and the maire, shall have power, each once a-year, to admit an exile into the city, except in a case where condemnation has been pronounced for murder, homicide, incendiarism, treason, and abduction. Such is the substance of the five first articles. With respect to the sixth and last, it is thus conceived:—“We will and grant to the commune, that it shall never be lawful for ourselves or our successors to cede away the said commune or city of Amiens, but that it shall remain in perpetuity, and without change, united to the royal crown.” A guarantee was implied in this promise for the constitution and franchises of the city, which were henceforth secured against the dangerous eventualities of a change of seigneur.

If a recapitulation be now made of the modifications introduced into the municipal law of Amiens, by the substitution of the seigniory of the king for that of the count, and by the revision of the communal charter, it will be seen that these modifications affect simply the judicial government, and do not make any change at all in regard to the political rights. The seigneurial right of making proclamation or ordinance was, it is true, expressly reserved to the king and the bishop; but it was in respect of other seigneurs of Amiens, and not in respect of the commune, that this restriction took place. For, on the one hand, the articles of the original charter which mentioned the establishment of échevins, statuta scabinorum,* received a fresh sanction by the maintenance given to them in the act granted in 1190; and, on the other hand, the documents subsequent to the twelfth century prove undeniably that the échevinage retained the power of making ordinances on all subjects, legislation, administration, justice, and police. I give below the perfect and definitive text of the communal charter of Amiens:—

“In nomine sancte et individue trinitatis. Amen.* Philippus Dei gratia Francorum rex, quoniam amici et fideles nostri cives Ambianenses fideliter sepius suum nobis exhibuere servitium, nos eorum dilectionem et fidem erga nos plurimam attendentes, ad petitionem ipsorum, communiam eis concessimus,† sub observatione harum consuetudinum, quas se observaturos juramento firmaverunt.

“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 quicquid de eo agendum erit, judicio communionis judicabitur et 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 de communia 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 perturbatorem vel lecatorem, percusserit, nisi se defendendo se fecisse, duobus vel tribus testibus contra percussum disrationare poterit, coram preposito nostro, viginti solidos dabit, quindecim scilicet 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 scilicet 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.

“8. Si vero ita superbus fuerit vulneratus, quod emendationem non velit accipere ad arbitrium prepositi et majoris et scabinorum, vel securitatem prestare, domus ejus, si domum habuerit, destruetur, et catalla ejus capientur; si domum non habuerit, corpus ejus capietur, donec vel emendationem acceperit vel securitatem prestiterit.

“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 regio per majorem et scabinos de eo vindicta capietur, 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, alicui, 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 regis et communie.

“12. Si quis de juratione erga juratum suum facta, vel fide mentita, comprobatus fuerit coram preposito et majore, judicio communie punietur.

“13. Si quis de communia prædam scienter emerit vel vendiderit, si inde comprobatus fuerit, prædam amittet eamque prædatis reddet nisi ab ipsis prædatis, vel eorum dominis, adversus dominos communie vel ipsam communiam aliquid committatur.

“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 regis 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 regis erunt.

“17. Infra fines communie non recipietur campio conducticius contra hominem de communia.

“18. Si quis communie constitutiones scienter absque clamore violaverit, et inde convictus fuerit, mox domum illius communia, si poterit, prosternet, eumque inter eos morari, donec satisfecerit, minime patietur.

“19. Statutum est etiam quod communia de terris sive feodis dominorum non debet se intromittere.

“20. Qui judices communie de falsitate judicii comprobare voluerit, nisi, ut justum est, comprobare potuerit, in misericordia regis est et majoris et scabinorum, de omni eo quod habet.

“21. Mulier dotem quam tenet nec vendere, nec in vadium mittere poterit, nisi propinquiori heredi et nisi de anno in annum. Si autem heres aut non possit aut nolit emere, oportet mulierem tota vita sua tenere, per annum autem locare poterit.

“22. Si quis vir et uxor ejus infantes habeant, et contingat mori infantes, quis eorum supervixerit, sive vir sive mulier, quicquid similiter possederunt de conquisitis, qui superstes erit, quamdiu vixerit, in pace remanebit et tenebit, nisi in vita premorientis donum vel legatum inde factum fuerit. Quod si antequam convenerint, vel vir vel uxor infantes habuerint, post decessum patris aut matris hereditas infantum ad eos redibit, nisi sit feodum.

“22. Si mortuo marito uxor supervixerit, et infantes ejus vivi remanserint, mulier de omni possessione quam vir ejus in pace tenuerat, quamdiu infantes in custodia erunt, donec ipsa advocatum habeat, nisi sit vadimonium, non respondebit.

“24. Si quis ab aliqua vidua pecuniam requisierit, ipsa contra unum testem, non contra plures, per sacramentum se deffendet et in pace remanebit; si vero ab ea aliquam ejus possessionem ut vadium requisierit, ipsa se per bellum deffendet.

“25. Si quis terram, aut aliquam hereditatem ab aliquo emerit, et illa, antequam empta sit, propinquiori heredi oblata fuerit, et heres eam emere noluerit, nunquam amplius de ea illi heredi in causa respondebit. Si autem propinquiori heredi oblata non fuerit, et qui eam emerit, vidente et sciente herede, per annum eam in pace tenuerit, numquam de ea amplius respondebit.

“26. Si quis septem annis aliquam suam possessionem presente adversario in pace tenuerit, numquam de ea amplius respondebit.

“27. Si quis alienus mercator aliquid vendiderit, et ipsa hora pecuniam habere non potuerit, ad dominum emptoris, vel ad prepositum domini prius clamorem faciet, et si una ei justitia defuerit, ad majorem clamorem deferet, et major ei cito pecuniam suam habere faciet, quecunque dies sit.

“28. Quicumque de promissione clamorem fecerit nichil recuperabit.

“29. Si quis major, aut scabinus, aut aliquis de justitia majoris, premium vel acceperit vel requisierit, et ille qui dederit, vel a quo premium quesitum fuerit, ad majorem clamaverit, vel testem super hoc habuerit, accusatus viginti solidos persolvet; et si premium acceperit, reddet.

“30. Quod si accusator testem non habuerit, ille qui accusabitur per sacramentum se defendet.

“31. Si quis ad prepositum clamorem deferet, et prepositus ei justitiam facere noluerit, clamator ad majorem clamorem deferet, et major prepositum ad rationem mittet ut ei justitiam faciat; quam si facere recusaverit, major, salvo jure regio, justitiam faciet, secundum statuta scabinorum.

“32. Si quis super aliquem aliquid quod suum est interciaverit, et ille qui accusabitur responderit se illud non a latrone scienter emisse, hoc pro quo accusabitur perdet, et ante justitiam per sacramentum se defendet, si prepositus vel justicia voluerit, et postea in pace abibit; et hoc idem faciet garanus, si hoc idem dixerit, tam primus quam secundus et tertius; accusator autem hoc quod clamaverit, sacramento confirmabit, si voluerit ille qui justitiam tenebit.

“33. In omni causa et accusator et accusatus et testis per advocatum loquentur, si voluerint.

“34. De possessionibus ad urbem pertinentibus, extra urbem nullus causam facere presumat.

“35. Si vir et uxor aliquam possessionem in vita sua acquisierint, et eorum quispiam mortuus fuerit, qui superstes fuerit medietatem solus habebit, et infantes aliam. Si vir mortuus fuerit, aut uxor mortua fuerit, et infantes vivi remanserint, possessiones, sive in terra sive in redditu, que ex parte mortui venerint, ille qui superstes erit nec vendere, nec ad censum dare, nec in vadium mittere poterit, absque assensu propinquorum parentum mortui, aut donec infantes ejus absque custodia fuerint.

“36. Si quis prepositum regis, in placito vel extra placitum, turpibus et inhonestis verbis provocaverit, in misericordia prepositi erit, ad arbitrium majoris et scabinorum.

“37. Si quis majorem in placito turpibus et inhonestis verbis provocaverit, domus ejus prosternatur; aut secundum pretium, domus in misericordia judicum redimatur.

“38. Si quis juratum suum percusserit vel vulneraverit, et ille qui percussus fuerit clamorem fecerit quod pro veteri odio percussus sit, percussor rectum faciet, secundum statuta scabinorum, pro ictu, et post hoc pro veteri odio, aut per sacramentum se purgabit, aut rectum faciet communie, et novem libras dabit, scilicet vi libras communie et lx solidos justitie dominorum, et persolvet medietatem recti infra octo dies, aut totum, si scabini voluerint. Nullus enim pro eo qui percusserit, quicumque sit, aut vir aut mulier aut puer, sacramentum faciet.

“39. Si major cum communia et juratis in causa sedeat, et aliquis ibi suum juratum percusserit; illius, contra quem in causa plures testes exierint, qui primus ictum dederit, domus prosternetur.

“40. Qui autem in causa jurato suo conviciatus fuerit viginti solidos communie persolvet, ibi justitia dominorum nichil capiet.

“41. Qui juratum suum in aquam aut in paludem jactaverit, si clamator unum testem adduxerit, et major immunditiam viderit, ille malefactor lx solidos persolvet et de hiis habebit justitia dominorum xx solidos. Si immundus nullum testem habuerit contra sanguinem vel immunditiam, per sacramentum se defendet, et liber abibit.

“42, Qui vero juratum suum, servum recredentem, traditorem, wissot,* id est coup, appellaverit, viginti solidos persolvet.

“43. Si filius burgensis aliquid forifacti fecerit, pater ejus pro filio justitiam communie exequetur. Si autem in custodia patris non fuerit, et submonitus, justitiam subterfugerit, uno anno a civitate ipsum extraneum esse oportebit. Si autem anno preterito, redire voluerit, secundum statuta scabinorum preposito et majori rectum faciet.

“44. Si conventio aliqua facta fuerit ante duos vel plures scabinos, de conventione illa amplius non surget campus nec 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 equum judicium inter juratum et non juratum.

“46. Ambianensium solebat esse consuetudo, quod, in festis apostolorum, de unaquaque quadriga per unam quatuor portarum urbis in villam introeunte, Guarinus Ambianensis archidiaconus obolum accipiebat. Major vero et scabini, qui tunc temporis extiterunt, per consilium Theodorici, tunc episcopi Ambianensis, consuetudinem prefatam ab archidiacono, quinque solidis et quatuor caponibus, emerunt et ad censum ceperunt; et censum illum ad furnum Firmini de Claustro, extra portam Sancti Firmini, in valle situm, archidiaconus sumit.

“47. De omnibus tenementis ville justitia exhibebitur per prepositum nostrum, ter in anno, in placito generali: videlicet in Natali domini, in Pascha et in Penthecoste.

“48. Omnia autem forifacta, que infra banleugam civitatis fient, major et scabini judicabunt, et de illis justitiam facient, sicut debent, presente ballivo nostro, si ibi voluerit interesse; si vero interesse noluerit, vel non poterit, pro ejus absentia justitiam facere non desinent, sed debitam justitiam facient, excepto tamen multro et raptu, quod nobis et successoribus nostris in perpetuum retinemus, sine parte alterius.

“49. Catalla vero homicidarum, incendiariorum et proditorum nostra sunt absolute, sine parte alterius. In catallis vero aliorum forefactorum retinemus nobis et successoribus nostris id quod habuimus et habere debemus.

“50. Bannum in villa nullus potest facere, nisi per regem et episcopum.

“51. Si quis bannitus est pro aliquo forifacto, excepto multro, homicidio, incendio, proditione, raptu, rex, vel senescallus, vel prepositus regis, episcopus, major, unusquisque eorum semel in anno, poterit eum conducere in villam.

“52. Volumus etiam et communie in perpetuum quittamus et concedimus, quod, nec nobis, nec successoribus nostris, liceat civitatem Ambianensem vel communiam extra manum nostram mittere, sed semper regie inhereat corone.

“Que omnia ut in perpetuum rata et firma permaneant presentem paginam sigilli nostri auctoritate et regii nominis karactere inferius annotato, salvo jure episcopi et ecclesiarum et procerum patrie et alieno jure, confirmamus. Actum Lorriaci, anno incarnati Verbi millesimo centesimo nonagesimo, regni nostri anno xio. Astantibus in palatio nostro quorum nomina supposita sunt et signa: S. comitis Theobaldi, dapiferi nostri; S. Guidonis, buticularii; S. Mathei, camerarii; S. Radulphi, constabularii. Data vacante cancellaria.”*

[* ]Recueil des Monuments inédits de l’Histoire du Tiers Etat, t. i., pp. 66, 101, 104, and following.

[† ]The date of the accession of Philip of Alsace to the county of Amiens is very uncertain. Du Cange (Histoire des Comtes d’Amiens, p. 316) admits that Raoul II. of Vermandois presented the county of Amiens as a dowry to his daughter, Isabel, and that on the death of Raoul this domain passed into the hands of Isabel, who married, in 1156, Philip of Alsace. If this conjecture is adopted, it is necessary to suppose that Raoul III. only succeeded his predecessor in the county of Vermandois. According to another opinion, which seems much less probable, Raoul III. might have possessed the county of Amiens till the year 1164, the time of his death; and before this date Philip of Alsace and Isabel might not have assumed the titles of Count and Countess of Amiens, except as the governors of the county during the minority or illness of their brother.

[* ]“Majoribus totique communie Ambianis ceterisque meis hominibus mando et præcipio quatinus ejusdem ecclesie res in pace custodiant et eidem ecclesie in suis perturbationibus loco meo patrocinari non desistant.” (Rec. des Monum. inéd. de l’Hist. du Tiers Etat, t. i., p. 67.)

[* ]Hist. de la Civilisation en France, edition of 1840, t. iv., p. 142. See the general considerations with which M. Guizot has enriched this quotation.

[* ]See the first volume of Rec. des Monum. inéd. de l’Hist. du Tiers Etat, p. 86.

[* ]See below, articles 2, 5, 6, and 9, 8, 12, 14, 31, and 43.

[* ]Article 17.

[† ]Article 33.

[* ]See Laurière, Gloss. du Droit Français, on the word mambournie.

[† ]See the law of the Ripuarians, under head 39.

[‡ ]See the Salic Law, under heads 39 and 49 of the lex emendata.

[* ]Beaumanoir, ch. 59, defines assurement one of the four ways to put an end to private feuds.

[* ]Ordinance, proclamation. (See Du Cange, Glossar., on the word bannum.)

[* ]Art. 31, 38, and 43.

[* ]This charter was published in the Recueil des Ordonnances des Rois de France; but the editors had not the original under their eyes, and the text which they have given of it, after a cartulary of Philippe-Auguste, is very faulty. In reprinting it here I have been able to avail myself of the variations which are found in an authentic copy of the letters of confirmation granted in 1209 by Philippe-Auguste, and copied from the text of that of 1190. (See the Rec. des Monum. inéd. de l’Hist. du Tiers Etat, t. i., p. 180.)

[† ]It is scarcely necessary to observe that, in this charter, as in a multitude of others of the same kind, the word concessimus is a mere formula of the seigneurial style: the commune of Amiens had already existed seventy-three years. The right granted to the citizens by Philippe-Auguste was, not to form a commune jurée, but to preserve their commune, together with its institutions.

[* ]We have said above, p. 161, note 2, that the words justitiam prosequi non poterit apply not to the case of the denial of justice, but to the neglect on the part of the plaintiff to obtain it.

[* ]Alias wisloth.

[* ]Rec. des Ordonn. des Rois de France, t. xi., p. 264 and foll.—Baluze, Miscellanea, t. vii., p. 318.—Bibl. Imp. Cartularies of Philippe-Auguste, Collection of Cartularies, No. 172, fol. 17 vo. Collection of the King, No. 9852. a, fol. 43 vo., 9852. 3, fol. 56 ro., and No. 8408. 2. 2, b, fol. 79 ro.—Arch. Nationale, Collection of Charters, reign of Philippe-Auguste, fol. 17 vo.