CHAP. XXIX.: Epoch of the Reign of St. Lewis.

ST. LEWIS abolished the judicial combats in all the courts of his demesne, as appears by the ordinance In the year 1260. ^†743 he published on that account, and Book i. chap. 2. and 7. and book ii. chap. 10. and 11. ^†744 by the institutions.

But he did not suppress them in the courts of his As appears every where in the institutions, &c. and Beaumanoir, chap. 61. page 309. ^†745barons, except in the case of appeal of false judgment.

A vassal could not appeal the court of his lord of false judgment, without demanding a judicial combat against the judges who had pronounced sentence. But St. Lewis Institutions, book i. chap. 6. and book ii. chap. 15. ^†746 introduced the practice of appealing of false judgment without fighting, a change that may be reckoned a kind of revolution.

He declared Ibid. book ii. chap. 15. ^†747, that there should be no appeal of false judgment in the lordships of his demesne, because it was a crime of felony. If it was a kind of felony against the lord, by a much stronger reason it was felony against the king. But he consented they might demand an amendment Ibid. book i. chap. 78. and book ii. chap. 15. ^†748 of the judgments passed in his courts; not because they were false or iniquitous, but because they did some prejudice Ibid. book i. chap. 78. ^†749. On the contrary, he ordained, that they should be obliged to make an appeal of false judgment against the courts of the barons Ibid. book ii. chap. 15. ^†750, in case of any complaint.

It was not allowed by the institutions, as we have already observed, to bring an appeal of false judgment against the courts in the king’s demesnes. They were obliged to demand an amendment before the same court: and in case the bailiff refused the amendment demanded, the king gave leave to make an appeal Institutions, book ii. chap. 78. ^†751 to his court; or rather interpreting the institutions by themselves, to present him Ibid. chap. 15. ^†752 a request or petition.

With regard to the courts of the lords, St. Lewis by permitting them to be appealed of false judgment, would have the cause brought But if they wanted to appeal without falsifying the judgment, the appeal was not admitted. Institutions, book ii. chap. 15. ^†753 before the royal tribunal, or that of the lord paramount, not Book i. chap. 6. and 47. and book ii. chap. 15. and Beaumanoir, chap. 11. page 58. ^†754 to be decided by duel, but by witnesses pursuant to a certain form of proceeding, the rules of which he laid down in the institutions Book i. chap. 1, 2, and 3. ^†755.

Thus, whether they could falsify the judgment, as in the court of the barons; or whether they could not falsify, as in the court of his demesne, he ordained, that they might appeal, without the hazard of a duel.

Défontaines Chap. 22. art. 16. and 17. ^†756 gives us the two first examples he ever saw, in which they proceeded thus without a legal duel: one, in a cause tried at the court of St. Quintin, which belonged to the king’s demesne; and the other, in the court of Ponthieu, where the count, who was present, opposed the ancient jurisprudence: but these two causes were decided by law.

Here, perhaps, it will be asked, why St. Lewis ordained for the courts of his barons a different form

of proceeding from that which he had established in the courts of his demesne? The reason is this: when St. Lewis made the regulation for the courts of his demesnes, he was not checked or confined in his views: but he had measures to keep with the lords who enjoyed this ancient prerogative, that causes should not be removed from their courts, unless the party was willing to expose himself to the dangers of an appeal of false judgment. St. Lewis preserved the usage of this appeal; but he ordained, that it should be made without a judicial combat, that is, in order to render the change more insensible, he suppressed the thing and continued the terms.

This regulation was not universally received in the courts of the lords. Beaumanoir Chap. 61. page 309. ^†757 says, that in his time there were two ways of trying causes; one according to the king’s establishment, and the other pursuant to the ancient practice; that the lords were at liberty to follow which way they pleased; but when they had pitched upon one in any cause, they could not afterwards have recourse to the other. He adds Ibid. ^†758, that the count of Clermont followed the new practice, whilst his vassals kept to the old one; but that it was in his power to re-establish the ancient practice whenever he pleased, otherwise he would have less authority than his vassals.

It is proper here to observe, that France was at that time See Beaumanoir Défontaines, and the Institutions, book ii. chap. 10, 11, 15, and others. ^†759 divided into the country of the king’s demesne, and that which was called the country of the barons, or the baronies; and, to make use of the terms of St. Lewis’s institutions, into the country under obedience to the king, and the country out of his obedience. When the king made ordinances for

the country of his demesne, he employed his own single authority. But when he published any ordinances that concerned also the country of his barons, these were See the ordinances at the beginning of the third race, in the collection of Lauriere, especially those of Philip Augustus, on ecclesiastic jurisdiction; that of Lewis VIII. concerning the Jews; and the charters related by Mr. Bressel; particularly that of St. Lewis, on the lease and recovery of lands, and the feudal majority of young women, tom. ii. book 3. page 35. and ibid. The ordinance of Philip Augustus, page 7. ^†760 made in concert with them, or sealed and subscribed by them: otherwise the barons received or refused them, according as they seemed conducive to the good of their baronies. The rear-vassals were upon the same terms with the great-vassals. Now the institutions were not made with the consent of the lords, though they regulated matters which to them were of great importance: but they were received only by those who believed they would redound to their advantage. Robert, son of St. Lewis, received them in his county of Clermont; yet his vassals did not think proper to conform to this practice.