Index
1. Appeal Made to the Court of Louis VI, c. 1132 (click
here)
2. The Court of King Louis VII Ends a Dispute, Bourges, 1140 (click
here)
3. Philip Augustus Apportions Legal Jurisdiction in Normandy, 1210
(click here)
4. The Bishop of Orleans Refuses to Submit to Royal Justice, c.1210
(click here)
5. Philip Augustus rules on the legal rights of minors, 1213 (click
here)
6. King Philip Augustus relates how a suit between Erard of Brienne
and the Countess of Champagne was
resolved in royal court, 1216 (click here)
7. Appeal De defectu (for default of justice) carried to the court
of King Philip Augustus, 1224 (click here)
8. The officers of King Louis IX claim jurisdiction over the hanging
of forgers, 1257 (click here)
9. St. Louis Rules on the Ability of Women to Plead in the Royal Court,
1263 (click here)
In the name of the Holy Trinity, I, Louis, by the grace of God king of the French. I want it to be known to all the faithful, both those living and those yet to come, that our vassal Alvisus, bishop of Arras, came to us and explained a certain judgment which a certain of his liege vassals, John Bechet, had made in our court, and for which [judgment] he had challenged the same John in our tribunal. The facts of the matter were these. Eustace of Lungne, a certain knight, demanded a certain fief, namely thirty shillings in feudal revenues, from the said bishop, since the previous bishop of Arras, Robert, had given this fief to Eustace's father, and he [Eustace] had in turn held it from the same Bishop Robert after the death of his father. The response of the bishop was this, that he did not want to respond to him concerning this fief because Eustace was excommunicate and, moreover, because Eustace had been excommunicate for a year before Alvisus became bishop; as such, he [the bishop] was unable, and indeed ought not to communicate with an excommunicate or even receive the homage of an excommunicate; [he was also unable to hear him] because it was a new fief; [and because] he had been given privileges by the Roman Popes which forbade that the property of the church of Arras be diminished from the state and nature that in which it had existed at the time of Bishop Lambert; and fnally because we [ie., the king], who are the advocates and patrons of the church of Arras, and the chapter of that church had given no consent there, when [it is known that] that cannot happen and ought not to happen without the consent of us and the chapter of Arras. And when, therefore, the day had arrived on which the persons of the church of Arras and the the group of bishop's men had gathered together to render a sentence of judicial sentence [on the matter lying] between the bishop and Eustace, and, with certain of the bishops party and men protesting and requesting a truce until justice and truth might better be discovered, John Bechet, with two of his men, Hugh Paganus and Ralph, took it on themselves to judge that the bishop ought to invest the aforesaid Eustace with that fief. They judged moreover that neither on account of the excommunication nor any other reason that [the bishop] might hold against [Eustace], should Eustace have to abandon it; yet after the investiture, if the bishop should desire it, he might then proceed [judicially] against Eustace concerning this fief. When he had heard this, the bishop summoned the aforesaid judges to our tribunal for rendering false judgment, and he arraigned them in this matter for the next day, namely the Sunday after the octave of Epiphany. On the stated day the bishop arrived, but the aforesaid judges did not and had not requested a delay, so on the following day certain of our bishops, abbots and barons who had gathered together in our presence to decide this matter, having carefully considered the case and the judgment, discovered that the aforesaid judges had rendered false judgment. Yet [they also found that] it was not legal for the bishop to grant a fief to anyone from the goods of the church without the consent of us and of the cathedral chapter; moreover we approve of the judgment [of the royal judges] and hold it to be valid for all the churches everywhere in our kingdom.
SOURCE: Charles Langlois, Textes relatifs à l'histoire du Parlement depuis les origines jusqu'en 1314 (Paris: Picard, 1888), no. 7, p. 12-13, citing R.H.F., 15:342. Translated from the Latin by Richard Barton.
In the name of the Lord, I, Louis, by the grace of God king of the French and duke of the Aquitanians. We want it to be known to everyone, both those living and those yet to come, that we terminated, with the counsel of our court and after many arguments and discussions had been presented in our presence by both sides, the struggle and controversy which had existed for a long time between Falco de Mercato and Savary, abbot of Saint-Sulpice de Bourges, concerning a certain tax-right and the land which lies between two roads, namely the road of St Medard and the road of St Gregory, which [land] is located between the bridge of Saint Ambrose and Mont Caprarium as it ends by the bank of the river. With the falsity of Falco's claim having been made known, and the truth of the abbot's demonstrated, we, together with the common assent of our judges, gave a definitive judgment concerning the controversy [and] formally invested the abbot of Saint-Sulpice with the tax rights and land, and we conceded that he and the church of Saint-Sulpice should hold the tax and the land forever. And so that we might obtain the strength of perpetual stability, we entrusted [the judgment] to writing and to the authority of our seal and we affixed the letters of our name beneath it. This was done publicly at Bourges in the year of the lord 1140, in the fourth year of our reign, with those whose names and signa appear below appearing with us in the palace:
Signum [cross] of Ralph, count of the Vermandois, our butler. Signum of William the butler. Signum of Matthew the chamberlain. Signum of Matthew the constable. Given by the hand [ie., written by] of Cadurcus the chancellor.
SOURCE: Charles Langlois, Textes Relatifs à l'histoire du Parlement depuis les origines jusqu'en 1314 (Paris: Picard, 1888), no. 9, p. 16. Translated from the Latin by Richard Barton.
In the name of the Holy and Individual Trinity, Amen. Philip by the grace of God king of the French. Let everyone, both present and future, know that we, for the good of our soul and the souls of our ancestors, conceded to our beloved and faithful Ralph, abbot of Fécamp and to the monks of Fécamp in perpetuity the pleas of the sword [placitum spate] [Note 1] from all the land which the monks possess on the day in which the present charter was drawn up. [They will hold such pleas] over domain lands as well as the fiefs of fourteen knights and vavassors. Moreover they shall hold these pleas in their own court, and whatever they decide there concerning these pleas shall be held as true judgment and shall be alloted every stability. And if they shall fail to render justice in these pleas, let them hold and emend themselves concerning this default of justice according to the judgment of the French court [ad judicium curie gallicane]. We retain for ourselves [the rights over] usurers, inquests [recognitiones?] and Jews, in such a way that any letters, charters, or other instruments which the abbot or monks of Fécamp or someone else might produce against us concerning these types of cases, will not profit them against us in any way. So that this may obtain perpetual strength, through the authority of our seal and the characters of our name attached below, we caused the present page to be confirmed, saving our hearth-money [foagium] and the service of ten knights which the land of the abbot owes to us. Done at Pont-de-l'Arche, in the year 1210 from the Incarnation of the Lord, with those appearing in our palace whose names and signa are placed below.
With no dapifer
Sign of Guy the butler
Sign of Bartholomew the chamberlain
Sign of Drogo the constable
Given with the chancellorship vacant
NOTES:
1. Pleas of the sword [placitum spatae] implied jurisdiction over cases
whose guilt carried capital punishment. Sometimes called 'justice
du sang' in French. Cf. Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon
Minor, sub 'placitum', ch. 24.
Source:
Recueil des Actes de Philippe Auguste, 4 vols. (Paris: Imp.
Nationale 190?-197?), v. 3, ed. ed. J. Monicat and J. Boussard (1966),
no. 1200. Translated from the Latin by Richard Barton.
The lord king [Philip Augustus] brought the bishop of Orléans into his presence at Paris in order to discuss the stewardship [procurationibus] of Pithiviers and Meung, and [he] offered in the presence of Robert, count of Dreux, and in the presence of the count of Boulogne, the bishop of Lisieux and the abbot of Fleury, to cause justice to be pronounced by those who ought to do so and who were competent to do so. The Bishop, however, said publicly that he ought not to be judged by anyone save the bishops of France; because of this, the bishop departed [from the court], even though the lord king was offering justice in the matter, as was said above.
SOURCE: Charles Langlois, Textes Relatifs à l'histoire
du Parlement depuis les origines jusqu'en 1314 (Paris: Picard, 1888),
no. 18, p. 31, citing Actes de Parlement de Paris, I, p. ccc.
Also Recueil des Actes de Philippe Auguste, v. 3, no. 1157.
Translated from the Latin by Richard Barton.
Philip by the grace of God, King of the French. Let everyone who shall view the present letters know that we have observed the custom of the kingom of France, which is this, namely that no heir who is less than twenty-one years of age is able or ought to be dragged into a legal case [in causam] concerning any matter which his father held in peace without dispute [in pace et sine placito] when he died. Having taken counsel with our barons, we decreed it be established thus that our beloved and faithful Blanche, countess of Champagne, and our most beloved nephew Theobald, count of Champagne and her son, shall have and hold the county of Champagne and Brie and all other properties that Count Theobald of good memory, late husband of the said countess and father of the said count, had, held, or possessed in peace and without dispute at the time of his death. They shall hold these properties just as they now have, hold, and possess them, until Count Theobald shall have reached his twenty-first birthday, such that they shall not be held to respond to anyone in anyway concerning a legal matter relating to these properties until the stated time shall have been completed [ie., until Theobald reaches the age of 21]. So that this may be permanently known and held firm, we subscribed this document and wished it strengthened with the power of our seal. Done at Paris, in the year 1213 from the Incarnation of the Lord, in the month of July.
Source: Recueil des actes de Philippe Auguste, v. 3, p. 444-445,
no. 1306. Translated from the Latin by Richard Barton.
Philip by the grace of God, King of the French. Let all, both
those present and those in the future, know that our well-beloved vassal
Blanche, countess of Champagne, was summoned by the duke of Burgundy, Matthew
of Montmorency, and by W. de Barris, to come to our court to prepare to
be sworn in concerning the quarrel which Erard of Brienne and Philippa,
his wife, had presented against the same countess and Theobald, her son;
[know also] that the same Erard and the same Philippa had requested that
we accept the homage of the same Erard for the county of Champagne, just
as Henry, formerly count of Champagne, had held it, since Philippa claimed
that Henry was her father. Finally, at Melun and in our presence, the aforesaid
countess of Champagne and Theobald her son, on one side, and the aforesaid
Erard de Brienne and Philippa, on the other side, gathered together so
that judgement might be rendered in this matter. And the case was
judged there by the peers of our realm, namely A. archbishop of Reims,
W. bishop of Lingonensis, W. bishop of Catalonia, Philip bishop of Beauvais,
Stephen bishop of Noyon, Otto duke of Burgundy, and by many others, both
bishops and our barons, including G. bishop of Auxerre, R. bishop of Chartres,
G. bishop of Silvanectis, J. bishop of Lisieux, W. count of Ponthieu, R.
count of Dreux, P. count of Brittany, G. count of Saint-Pol, W[illiam]
des Roches seneschal of Anjou, W. count of Jovigniacus, J. count of Beaumont,
and R. count of Alençon, all of whom heard and approved of the judgment.
The judgement was that we ought in no way to accept the homage of Erard
of Brienne and Philippa concerning Champagne so long as Countess Blanche
and Theobald her son wanted to obtain and pursue justice in our court,
because the practice and custom of France is thus:
That when someone receives
a fief from the lord of the fief, the lord of the fief should not accept
another person in homage for the same fief, inasmuch as he who has received
the fief from the lord of the fief may want and may be prepared to make
and pursue justice in the court of the lord of the fief. And because
we, with the consent of all our barons, with no one speaking against him,
accepted the homage of the late Theobald, our nephew and father of this
Theobald, for the counties of Champagne and Brie, just as his count Henry
was holding thence, and because after the death of the said count Theobald
we accepted [the homage of] Countess Blanche for the same county in feminam
nostram [as his wife?] and as lord, and afterwards we accepted the homage
of Theobald, her son, saving the lordship of his mother, for the same county,
with no one speaking against him, [because of all this] by right we ought
not to disseise [ie., strip the rights and lordship of] Blanche, countess
of Champagne, or Theobald her son, of the counties of Champagne and Brie
as long as they were prepared to make and pursue justice in our court.
And the countess, in the our presence and in the presence of our barons,
promised always to do this [plead in the royal court]. The
aforesaid Erard and Philippa agreed to this judgment, and on the very day
that the judgment was made, they dropped their case against the countess
and her son [literally: they sought nothing more from the countess and
her son]. And thus without delay they departed.
This was done at Melun, in the year of the lord 1216, in the month of July.
SOURCE: Charles Langlois, Textes Relatifs à l'histoire
du Parlement depuis les origines jusqu'en 1314 (Paris: Picard, 1888),
no. 19, pp. 31-33. Translated from the Latin by Richard Barton.
7. Appeal De defectu (for default of justice) carried to the court of King Philip Augustus by Jean de Néelle against the countess of Flanders. Paris, 1224.
When a dispute had arisen between Johanna, countess of Flanders, on the one hand, and Jean de Néelle, on the other, the same John appealed the countess for lack of justice [de defectu] to the court of the lord king. The lord king caused the countess to be cited before him by two knights. Appearing on the given day, the countess claimed that she had been incorrectly cited, since she had been summoned by a mere two knights, whereas she deserved to be cited by her peers. With the parties putting themselves to justice over this matter, it was judged in the court of the king that the countess was sufficiently and lawfully [lit. ‘competenter'] summoned by the two knights, and that the summons made by them was valid and legal.
The countess then claimed that Jean de Néelle had peers in Flanders, by whom he ought to be judged in the court of the countess, and that she was prepared to offer justice to him in her court through [the judgment] of his peers; but he had said that the countess had denied justice to him concerning his right to trial by his peers, by whom he ought to be judged in the countess's court. And thus she demanded her court for [the case of] Jean de Néelle. Jean de Néelle replied to the contrary that he in no way wanted to be remanded to the court of the countess, because she had denied him justice, and thus, on account of that default of justice, he had appealed her to the court of the king, where he was prepared to prove the default of justice at the pleasure of the court of the lord king. Concerning this, it was judged that Jean de Néelle should not be returned to the court of the countess and that the countess ought to respond to him in the court of the king, where he had appealed her for default of justice.
Afterwards, when the peers of France claimed that the Chancellor, the Butler, the Chamberlain, and the Constable of France, [all] officers of the royal household, had no right to take part in judging a peer of France [ie., the countess], and when they officers of the royal household, on the contrary, argued that according to the practices and customs observed in France, they should be able to be present at the judgment of peers, it was judged in the court of the king that the aforesaid officers of the royal household did have the right to be present with the peers when a peer was to be judged. And then the officers and peers judged the countess of Flanders at Paris, in the year 1224. [my text doesn't include the outcome].
SOURCE: Charles Langlois, Textes Relatifs à l'histoire du Parlement depuis les origines jusqu'en 1314 (Paris: Picard, 1888), no. 21, pp. 35-36. Langlois provides the following other citations for this text: Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ XXVII, f. 172 v.; Martène, Amplissima Collectio, 1, c.1193; Actes du Parlement de Paris, I, p. CCCIII, c. 2. The Langlois text has been translated from the Latin by Richard Barton.
8. The officers of King Louis IX claim jurisdiction over the hanging of forgers. Melun, Parlement of September, 1257.
In the year of the lord 1257, in the month of May, two false moneyers were captured in the New Burg of Saint George, one [apprehended while] fleeing through the fields and roads, and the other apprehended in the marketplace of the said burg. Lords P. of Chartres and André of Chenville, both knights of the lord abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, ordered the false moneyers to be hanged at the fork-shaped gallows in the burg of Saint-Germain. Yet the provosts of Paris [the king's officers in charge of justice in Paris] raised a complaint about this, saying that the hanging of these men belonged to the jurisdiction of the king, not to that of the abbot; whence the lord king ordered that the hanged men be taken down and re-hanged in land that was common to the king and the abbot [to symbolically remove them from the abbot's burg and gallows], wanting that .... [gap in mss.] And an inquest was ordered and commissioned on the part of the king, who sent Philip de Caturco, royal clerk, and lord John ...., knight, to inquire into whether the king or the abbot possessed the right of hanging [the forgers] ... When the inquest had been made and judged at Melun in the Parlement of September in the same year, it was pronounced in the court of the king that jurisdiction over the hanged men belonged to [the abbey of] Saint-Germain. Present at this pronouncement were lord Simon de ..., knight; the archdeacon of Nicosiensis; the dean of Tours; the aforesaid master Philip, treasurer of Bayeux; master Odo of Lorris; .... [de Limeton], royal clerk; Ralph de Saint-Laurence; and me, Odo de Corrigiaria, who as procurator of the monastery heard the judgment.
SOURCE: Charles Langlois, Textes Relatifs à l'histoire
du Parlement depuis les origines jusqu'en 1314 (Paris: Picard, 1888),
no. 28, pp. 44-45, citing Olim, I, 19, no. XVbis. Translated from
the Latin by Richard Barton.
In the case that had erupted between Reginald of Pontibus and his wife, on the one side, and the viscountess of Combornio on the other, concerning an inheritance belonging to the viscountess, the same Reginald and his wife, citing the custom of the [royal] court, refused to respond to her [claim] without the presence of her husband, since she was married. The said viscountess said to the contrary that her claim ought not to be impeded because the inheritance in question belonged to her, and because her husband was so old and weak that he could not come [to court] or ride, as he himself admitted, and especially because she had received the authority to make this plea from her husband. At length, notwithstanding that this [her plea] was against the custom of this court, it nevertheless pleased the king [Louis IX] that Reginald and his wife should respond to the viscountess in the absence of her husband.
Source: Charles Langlois, ed., Textes Relatifs à l'histoire du Parlement depuis les origines jusqu'en 1314 (Paris: Picard, 1888), no. 43, p. 70, citing the Olim, I, 577, no. XVI. Translated from the Latin by Richard Barton.