[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.12, 34 6).11The heart of the établissement was the assurance that royal justicewould operate in the interests of everyone in the land, great, middlingand small , strangers as well as subjects (c.2).A bailli must swearnot to accept from litigants, for himself or members of his family, giftsother than bread, wine, or fruit worth less than ten sous in any oneweek, and not to borrow more than twenty pounds from anyone due topursue a lawsuit before him; and oaths were required of judges,provosts, and mayors that they in particular would not make gifts tobaillis or their relations (cc.4, 5, 9).The serjeants baillis employedto execute court orders were to be restricted in numbers, and they wereto be appointed in open court and carry proper authorization (cc.17,18).Criminals could ask to know the charges being investigated againstthem; persons of good repute, however lowly, must not be threatenedwith judicial torture to extract money from them; and fines must beimposed and assessed in public court for proven misdeeds, not extractedby terror or unfounded accusations (cc.19, 23).To reduce crime with-out imposing labour and expense on the king s subjects, the baillisshould try malefactors in their localities, and not move courts from theiraccustomed meeting-places (c.25) No one should be disseised of hisproperty without fault proved in court or the king s express order, andbaillies and seneschals must impose no new monetary dues on their11Richard, Saint Louis, 156 8; the numbering of the clauses is that given in Ordonnancesdes Roys de France, i.65 81. Complaints against officials 151bailliages (c.26).The costs payable to the court by the defeated partiesin civil suits were to be limited to a tenth of the value of the property indispute (c.29).Part of the original record of a royal inquest into the conduct ofMatthew of Beaune, bailli of Vermandois from 1256 to 1260, survivesto show with what effectiveness these regulations were applied.In 1261special commissioners put a series of questions clearly related to theordinance of 1254 to 508 persons who had had business with Matthew.The mayor of Chauny, who claimed to have been a jurat of that townfor twelve years, said on oath that Matthew had always behaved welltowards the townsmen; the people s law-suits had been expedited, andthe mayor had heard no one complaining of the bailli.Nor did he knowanything of gifts, services, or other favours that Matthew or his familymight have received, apart from two or three jars of wine when he cameto Chauny; the town had pressed a gift of forty pounds upon him, buthe had repeatedly refused it.Questioned closely, however, the mayortold how the bailli s household had complained of poor housing andbeen given four woollen blankets worth fifty shillings or more (for twoclerks and two esquires), and at another time sixty shillings to dividebetween them.He swore that to his knowledge Matthew had notimprisoned anyone to extort money from them, but some of hiscolleagues on the town council told of a prisoner whom Matthew hadsaid he would see hanged for homicide, but then released when heacknowledged a debt of fifty pounds: under questioning witnesses gaveconflicting testimony as to whether the money was a bribe or for theexpenses of an advocate and maintenance in prison.12Before the commissioners at Soissons there appeared Simon de Rivierto charge Matthew with imprisoning him without reasonable cause andextorting ninety pounds for his release.The former bailli was inSoissons and came to tell the inquiry that the money had been a fineimposed for going about armed in contravention of a royal edict, andSimon was forced to admit that he had led a force of men, armed fortheir own defence, to mow a disputed meadow.The complaint was nowthat the fine had not been properly assessed by a court (cf.clause 23 ofthe Grande Ordonnance), a prior testifying that he and the other peersof the castellany of Pierrefonds had been unwilling to assess it becausethey had never seen such a fine before, and they did not know what theking and his council wanted.There was more testimony that Matthew swife had refused gifts lest her husband should be cross with her.Anadvocate who had been often at assizes claimed that after he hadrepeatedly offered the bailli gifts and services on behalf of the lords12Langlois, Doléances.de Saint Louis , 32 40; Recueil des historiens, 24, pp.318**329 (preuves de la préface, no.152), parts 1 and 7 17 for the evidence from Chauny. 152 New High Courts and Reform of the Regimewhom he counselled, Matthew had told him not to come back again, ifhe loved him.But others said that gifts the bailli had refused hadsimply gone to his wife or his clerks, and that he had threatened tothrow one witness into the thieves pit (fossa latronum) if he gaveevidence against him.The provost of Crépi-en-Valois described how hewas with the bailli of Vermandois and other baillis and knights inthe king s garden at Paris, when Matthew saw that the rest had finerdrinking-cups than he, and sent the witness out to buy him one thatshould be the most beautiful of all.13The commissioners seemed most concerned by the statement of theprovost of Senlis that, whereas the assizes had been accustomed to meetevery six weeks and the date of the next session would be announced atthe end of a meeting, Matthew of Beaune had let nine or even ten weekspass between sessions and notified the date for the assizes a mere eightor ten days beforehand.Asked what inconvenience this caused, thewitness said that his bailiwick of Senlis was twenty leagues long andseven wide and there was too little time to inform a mass of litigantswhose names and business he did not know, so that some lost their suitsby default and others could not get their evidence and counsel intocourt
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]