 Section 23 of Manors, Customs, and Dress. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Donna Stewart. Manors, Customs, and Dress during the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance period by Paul Lacroix. Section 23. Law and the Administration of Justice. The Family, the Origin of Government. Origin of Supreme Power amongst the Franks. The Legislation of Barbarism Humanized by Christianity. Right of Justice Inherent to the Right of Property. Laws under Charlemagne. Judicial Reforms. Witnesses. Duals, etc. Organization of Royal Justice under San Luis. The Châtelet and the Provost of Paris. Jurisdiction of Parliament, its duties and its responsibilities. The Bailoics. Struggles between Parliament and the Châtelet. Codification of the Customs and Usages. Official Cupidity. Comparison between the Parliament and the Châtelet. First the ancient Celtic and German population, before any Greek or Roman innovations have become engrafted onto their Customs. Everything, even political power as well as the rightful possession of lands, appears to have been dependent on families. Julius Caesar in his Commentaries tells us that each year the magistrates and princes assigned portions of land to families as well as to associations of individuals having a common object whenever they thought proper and to any extent they chose, though in the following year the same authorities compelled them to go and establish themselves elsewhere. We again find families, familiae and associations of men, Cognatione's hominem, spoken of by Caesar in the barbaric laws and referred to in the histories of the Middle Ages the names of genealogii, pharomenii, pharii, etc. But the extent of the relationship, Parentola, included under the general appellation of families, varied among the Franks, Lombards, Visigoths and Bavarians. Generally among all the people of German origin, the relationship only extended to the seventh degree. Amongst the Celts it was determined merely by common ancestry, with endless subdivisions of the tribe into distinct families. Among the Germans, from whom modern Europe has its origin, we find only three primary groups. Namely first the family proper comprising the father, mother and children and the collateral relatives of all degrees. Secondly the vassals, ministeriales or servants of the free class and thirdly the servants, Manzionarii, Colony, Liti, Servi, of the Servile class attached to the family proper. Domestic authority was represented by the Mund or head of the family, also called Rex, the king, who exercised a special power over the persons and goods of his dependents, a guardianship in fact with certain rights and prerogatives and a sort of civil and political responsibility attached to it. Thus the head of the family, who was responsible for his wife and for those of his children who lived with him, was also responsible for his slaves and domestic animals. To such a pitch did these primitive people carry their desire that justice should be done in all cases of infringement of the law, that the head was held legally responsible for any injury which might be done by the bow or by the sword of any of his dependents without it being necessary that he should himself have handled either of these weapons. Long before the commencement of the Merovingian era, the family whose sphere of action had at first been an isolated and individual one became incorporated into one great national association which held official meetings at stated periods on the Malburg, Parliament Hill. These assemblies alone possessed supreme power in its full signification. The titles given to certain chiefs of Rex, King, Dukes, Duke, Graf, Count, Bren, General of the Army only defined the subdivisions of that power and were applied, the last exclusively, to those engaged in war and the others, to those possessing judicial and administrative functions. The duty of dispensing justice was specially assigned to the Counts who had to ascertain the cause of quarrels between parties and to inflict penalties. There was a Count in each district and in each important town. There were, besides, several Counts attached to the Sovereign under the title of Counts of the Palace, Cometes Palatii, an honorable position which was much sought after and much coveted on account of its pecuniary and other contingent advantages. The Counts of the Palace deliberated with the Sovereign on all matters and all questions of state, and at the same time they were his companions in hunting, feasting, and religious exercises. They acted as arbitrators in questions of inheritance of the Crown. During the minority of princes they exercised the same authority as that which the Constitution gave to sovereigns who were of full age. They confirmed the nomination of the principal functionaries and even those of the bishops. They gave their advice on the occasion of a proposed alliance between one nation and another, on matters connected with treaties of peace or of commerce, on military expeditions or on exchanges of territory, as well as in reference to the marriage of the Prince, and they incurred no responsibility beyond that naturally attached to persons in so distinguished a position among a semi-barbarous community. At first the Legates, Legati, and afterwards the King's ambassadors, Missi Domenici, the bishops and the dukes or commanders of the army were usually selected from the higher court officials such as the Counts of the Palace, whereas the Ministeriales forming the second class of the royal officials filled inferior though very honorable and lucrative posts of an administrative and magisterial character. Under the Merovingians the legal principle of power was closely bound up with the possession of landed property. The subdivision of that power, however, closely followed this union and the constant ruin of some of the nobles rapidly increased the power of others, who absorbed to themselves the lost authority of their more unfortunate brethren. So much so that the Frank-Kings perceived that society would soon escape their rule unless they speedily found a remedy for this state of things. It was then that the Lois-Salique and Ripoyer appeared, which were subjected to successive revisions and gradual or sudden modifications necessitated by political changes or by the increasing exigencies of the prelates and nobles. But far from lessening the supremacy of the king, the national customs which were collected in a code extended the limits of the royal authority and facilitated its exercise. In 596, Childebert, in concert with his Ludes, decided that in future the crime of rape should be punished with death and that the judge of the district, Pages, in which it had been committed should kill the ravisher and leave his body on the public road. He also enacted that the homicide should have the same fate. It is just, to quote the words of the law, that he who knows how to kill should learn how to die. Robbery, attested by seven witnesses, also involved capital punishment and a judge convicted of having let a noble escape underwent the same punishment that would have been inflicted on the criminal. The punishment, however, differed according to the station of the delinquent. Thus, for the non-observance of Sunday a salient paid a fine of fifteen souls, a Roman seven and a half souls, a slave, three souls, or his back paid the penalty for him. At this early period some important changes in the barbaric code had been made. The sentence of death, when once given, had to be carried out and no arrangements between the interested parties could avert it. A crime could no longer be condoned by the payment of money. Robbery, even, which was still leniently regarded at that time and beyond the Rhine even honored, was pitilessly punished by death. We therefore cannot have more striking testimony than this of the abridgment of the privileges of the Frankish aristocracy and of the progress which the sovereign power was making towards absolute and uncontrolled authority over cases of life and death. By almost imperceptible steps Roman legislation became more humane and perfect, Christianity engrafted itself into barbarism, licentiousness was considered a crime, crime became an offense against the king and society, and it was in one sense by the king's hand that the criminals received punishment. From the time of the baptism of Clovis the church had much to do with the rearrangement of the penal code. For instance, marriage with a sister-in-law, a mother-in-law, an aunt or a niece was forbidden. The traveling shows, nocturnal dances, public orgies, formerly permitted at feasts were forbidden as being profane. In the time of Clotère the prelates sat as members of the Supreme Council which was strictly speaking the highest court of the land having the power of reversing the decisions of the judges of the lower courts. It pronounced sentence in conjunction with the king and from these decisions there was no appeal. The nation had no longer a voice in the election of the magistrates for the assemblies of Malburg did not meet except on extraordinary occasions and all government and judicial business was removed to the supreme and often capricious arbitration of the king and his council. As long as the mayors of the palace of Austrasia and of that of Burgundy were only temporarily appointed, royal authority never wavered and the sovereign remained supreme judge over his subjects. Suddenly, however, after the execution of Brunehote who was sacrificed to the hatred of the feudal lords, the mayorality of the palace became a life appointment and in consequence the person holding the office became possessed almost of supreme power and the rightful sovereigns from that time practically became subject to the authority of the future usurpers of the crown. The edict of 615 to which the ecclesiastical and state nobility were parties was in its laws and customs completely at variance with former edicts. In resuming their places in the French constitution, the Merovingian kings who had been deprived both of influence and authority were compelled by the Germanic institutions to return to the passive position which their predecessors had held in the forests of Germany. But they no longer had, like the latter, the prestige of military authority to enable them to keep the position of judges or arbitrators. The cannons of the Council of Paris which were confirmed by an edict of the king bearing the date the fifteenth of the Callens of November 615 upset the political and legal system so firmly established in Europe since the fifth century. The royal power was shorn of some of its most valuable prerogatives, one of which was that of selecting the bishops. Lay judges were forbidden to bring an ecclesiastic before tribunals, and the treasury was prohibited from seizing intestate estates with a view to increasing the rates and taxes. And it was decreed that Jews should not be employed in collecting the public taxes. By these cannons the judges and other officers of state were made responsible. The benefits which had been withdrawn from the Ludes were restored. The king was forbidden from granting written orders, except for carrying off rich widows, young virgins, and nuns, and the penalty of death was ordered to be enforced against those who disobeyed the cannons of the Council. Then sprung two new species of legislation, one ecclesiastical, the other civil, between which royalty, more and more curtailed of its authority, was compelled for many centuries to struggle. Amongst the Germanic nations the right of justice was inherent to landed property from the earliest times, and this right had reference to things as well as to persons. It was the patronage, patronachinium, of the proprietor, and this patronage eventually gave origin to feudal jurisdictions and to lordly and customary rights in each domain. We may infer from this that under the two first dynasties laws were made by individuals and that each lord, so to speak, made his own. The right of jurisdiction seems to have been so inherent to the right of property that a landed proprietor could always put an end to feuds and personal quarrels, could temporarily bring any lawsuit to a close, and, by issuing his ban, stop the course of the law in his own immediate neighborhood, at least within a given circumference of his residence. This was often done during any family festival or any civil or religious public ceremony. On these occasions whoever infringed the ban of the master was liable to be brought before his court and to have to pay a fine. The lord who was too poor to create a court of sufficient power and importance obtained assistance from his lord paramount or relinquished the right of justice to him. Whence originated the saying, the thief is one thing and justice another. The law of the Visigoths speaks of nobles holding local courts similar to those of the official judge, count, or bishop. King Dagoburt required the public and the private judges to act together. In the law of Lombardy, landlords are mentioned who, in virtue of the double title of nobles and judges, assumed the right of protecting fugitive slaves taking shelter in their domains. By an article of the Saley Law, the noble is made to answer for his vassal before the court of the count. We must hence conclude that the landlord's judgment was exercised indiscriminately on the serfs, the colons, and the vassals, and a statute of 855 places under his authority even the freemen who resided with other persons. From these various sources we discover a curious fact which has hitherto remained unnoticed by historians, namely that there existed an intermediate legislation between the official court of the count and his subordinates and the private courts, which was a kind of court of arbitration exercised by the neighbors Vichini, without the assistance of the judges of the county, and this was invested with a sort of authority which rendered its decisions binding. Private courts, however, were limited in their power. They were neither absolutely independent nor supreme and without appeal. All conducted their business much in the same way as the high, middle, and lower courts of the Middle Ages, and above all these authorities towered the king's jurisdiction. The usurpation of ecclesiastical bishops and abbots, who, having become temporal lords assumed a domestic jurisdiction, was curtailed by the authority of the count, and they were even more obliged to give way before that of the misi dominici, or the official delegates of the monarch. Charles the Bald, notwithstanding his enormous concessions to feudalism and to the church, never gave up his right of final appeal. During the whole of the Merovingian epic, the Mal, Malus, the general and regular assembly of the nation, was held in the month of March. Persons of every class met there clad in armor. Political, commercial, and judicial interests were discussed under the presidency of the monarch. But this did not prevent other special assemblies of the king's court, Curia Regales, being held on urgent occasions. This court formed a parliament, Parliamentum, which at first was exclusively military, but from the time of Clovis was composed of Franks, Burgundians, Gallo-Romans, as well as of feudal lords and ecclesiastics. As by degrees the feudal system became organized, the convocation of national assemblies became more necessary, and the administration of justice more complicated. Charlemagne decided that two mauls should be held annually, one in the month of May, the other in the autumn, and in addition that in each county two annual plagues should meet independently of any special mauls and plagues which it should please him to convoke. In 788 the emperor found it necessary to call three general plagues, and besides these he was pleased to summon his great vassals both clerical and lay to the four principal feasts of the year. It may be asserted that the idea of royalty being the central authority in matters of common law dates from the reign of Charlemagne. The authority of royalty based on law took such deep root from that time forth that it maintained itself erect notwithstanding the weakness of the successors of the great Charles and the repeated infractions of it by the church and the great vassals of the crown. The authoritative and responsible action of a tribunal which represented society thus took the place of the unchecked animosity of private feuds and family quarrels which were often avenged by the use of the gibbet, a monument to be found erected at almost every corner. Not infrequently in those early times the unchecked passions of a chief of a party would be the only reason for inflicting a penalty. Often such a person would constitute himself sole judge and without the advice of anyone he would pass sentence and even with his own sword or any other available instrument he would act as his own executioner. The tribunal thus formed denounced dueling the pitiless warfare between man and man and between family and family, and its first care was to protect not each individual man's life which was impossible in those days of blind barbarism, but at least his dwelling. Imperceptibly the sanctuary of a man's house extended first to towns of refuge then to certain public places such as the church, the mollum or place of national assemblies, the market, the tavern, etc. It was next required that the accused, whether guilty or not, should remain unharmed from the time of the crime being committed until the day on which judgment was passed. This right of revenge, besides being thus circumscribed as to locality, was also subject to certain rules as to time. Sunday and the principal feasts of the year such as Advent, Christmas week, and from that time to the epiphany, from the ascension to the day of Pentecost, certain vigils, etc., were all occasions upon which the right of revenge could not be exercised. The power of the king, says a clever and learned writer, partook to a certain degree of that of God and of the saints. It was his province to calm human passions. By the moral power of his seal and his hand he extended peace over the great lines of communication, through the forests, along the principal rivers, the highways and the by-ways, etc. The Trev du Dieu, in 1035, was the logical application of these humane principles. We must not suppose that justice in those days was dispensed without formalities and that there were no regular intervals between the various steps to be gone through before final judgment was given, and in consequence of which some guarantee was afforded that the decisions arrived at were carefully considered. No one was tried without having been previously summoned to appear before the tribunal. Under the Carlovingians, as in previous times, the periods when judicial courts were held were regulated by the moon. Preference was given to the day on which it entered the first quarter or during the full moon. The summonses were returnable by moons or quarter moons, that is, every seventh day. The summonses were issued four times, after which, if the accuser did not appear, he lost the right of counterplay or was non-suited. The Salek Law allowed but two summonses before account, which had to be issued at an interval of forty nights the one from the other. The Third, which summoned the accused before the King, was issued fourteen nights later, and if he did not put in appearance before sunset on the fourteenth day, he was placed or de Sapahol, his goods were confiscated and he forfeited the privilege of any kind of refuge. Among the Visigoths, justice was equally absolute from the Count to the Tithe Gatherer. Each magistrate has his tribunal and his special jurisdiction. These judges call to their assistants assessors or colleagues, either Röschingborgs, who were elected from Freeman, or Provosts, or Achevin, Scabini, whose appointment was of an official and permanent character. The Scabins, created by Charlemagne, were the first elected magistrates. They numbered seven for each bench. They alone prepared the cases and arranged as to the sentence. The Count or his delegate alone presided at the tribunal and pronounced the judgment. Every vassal enjoyed the right of appeal to the sovereign, who, with his court, alone decided the quarrels between ecclesiastics and nobles and between private individuals who were specially under the royal protection. Criminal business was specially referred to the sovereign, the Misi or the Count Palatine. Final appeal lay with the Count Palatine in all cases in which the public peace was endangered, such as in revolts or in armed encounters. As early as the time of the invasion, the Franks, Bavarians, and Visigoths, when investigating cases, began by an inquiry and, previously to having recourse to trials before a judge, they examined witnesses on oath. Then he who swore to the matter was believed and acquitted accordingly. This system was no doubt flattering to human veracity, but unfortunately it gave rise to abuses, which it was thought would be avoided by calling the family and friends of the accused to take an oath, and it was then administered by requiring them to place their hands on the crucifix, on some relics, or on the consecrated host. These witnesses, who were called Conjuratoris, came to a test before the judges, not the fact itself, but the veracity of the person who invoked their testimony. The number and respectability of the Conjuratoris varied according to the importance of the case in dispute. Gregory of Tours relates that King Gontran, being suspicious as to the legitimacy of the child who afterwards became Clotère II, his mother, Fretagonda, called in the impartial testimony of certain nobles. These, to the number of three hundred, with three bishops at their head, Tribus Episcopis, et Tretcentis Vedis optimis, swore, or as we say, made an affidavit, and the queen was declared innocent. The laws of the Burgundians and of the Anglians were even more severe than those of the Germanic race, for they granted to the disputants trial by combat. After having employed the ordeal of red-hot iron and of scalding water, the Franks adopted the judicial duel. This was imposed first upon the disputing parties, then on the witnesses and sometimes even on the judges themselves. Dating from the reign of the Emperor Otho the Great in 967, the judicial duel which had at first been restricted to the most serious cases, was had recourse to in almost all suits that were brought before the courts. Neither women, old men, children, nor infirm persons were exempted. When a person could not himself fight, he had to provide a champion whose soul business was to take in hand the quarrels of others. Ecclesiastics were obliged in the same manner to fight by deputy. The champion or substitute required of course to be paid beforehand. If the legend of the dog of Montarges is to be believed, the judicial duel seems to have been resorted to even against an animal. In the 12th century Europe was divided so to speak into two vast judicial zones. The one, southern Gallo-Roman and Visigoth, the other, northern and western, half Germanic and half Scandinavian, Anglian, or Saxon. Christianity established common ties between these different legislations and imperceptibly softened their native coarseness, although they retained the elements of their pagan and barbaric origin. Sentences were not as yet moving. They were entrusted to the memory of the judges who had issued them. And when a question or dispute arose between the interested parties as to the terms of the decision which had been pronounced, an inquiry was held and the court issued a second decision called a record datum. As long as the king's court was a movable one, the king carried about with him the original text of the law in the seizure of a number of these by the English during the reign of Philip Augustus in 1194, that the idea was suggested of preserving the text of all the laws as state archives and of opening authentic registers of decisions in civil and criminal cases. As early as the time of Charles the Bald the inconvenience was felt of the high court of the count being movable from place to place and having no instructions might be given as to modes of procedure for the hearing of witnesses and for keeping the accused in custody etc. A former statute provided for this probable difficulty but there seems to be no proof that previous to the 12th century any fixed courts of justice had been established. The king's and likewise the counts held courts in the open air at the entrance to the palace or in some other public place under a large tree for instance as San Louis did in the wood of Vincennes. Monsieur de Mez in his valuable researches on the history of the Parliament of Paris says in 1191 Philip Augustus before starting for Palestine established bailawics which held their assizes once a month. During their sitting they heard all those who had complaints to make and gave summary judgment. The bailiff's assize was held for a period from time to time and at a fixed place. It was composed of five judges the king deciding the number and quality of the persons who were to take part in the deliberations of the court for each session. The royal court only sat when it pleased the king to order it. It accompanied the king wherever he went so that it had no settled place of residence. Louis IX ordered that the courts of the nobles should be governed and succeeded in carrying out this reform. The bailiffs who were the direct delegates of the sovereign power assumed an authority before which even the feudal lord was obliged to bend because this authority was supported by the people who were at that time organized in corporations and these corporations were again bound together in communes. Under the bailiffs a system was developed the principles of which the right of custom which it nevertheless respected and the judicial trial by duel completely disappeared. Inquiries and appeals were much resorted to in all kinds of proceedings and Louis IX succeeded in controlling the power of the ecclesiastical courts which had been much abused in reference to excommunication. He also suppressed the arbitrary and ruinous confiscations which the nobles had unjustly made out of vassals. The edict of 1276 very clearly established the jurisdiction of parliaments in Bailewicks. It defined the important duties of the bailiffs and at the same time specified the mode in which proceedings should be taken. It also regulated the duties of council, matter the racket, auditors and advocates. To the Bailewicks in existence Louis IX added the four great devices of Vermandois, of Saint, of Saint-Pierre-le-Moustier and of Macron to act as courts of final appeal from the judgment of the nobles. Philip Lebel went still further for in 1287 he invited all those who possessed temporal authority in the Kingdom of France to appoint for the purpose of exercising civil jurisdiction a bailiff a provost and some sergeants who were to be laymen and not ecclesiastics and if there should be ecclesiastics in the set offices to remove them. He ordered besides that all those who had cases pending before the Court of the King and the secular judges of the Kingdom should be furnished with lay attorneys, though the chapters as well as the abyssin convents were allowed to be represented by cannons. Monsieur de Mez adds this really amounted to excluding ecclesiastics from judicial offices not only from the Courts of the King but also from those of the nobles and from every place in which any temporal jurisdiction existed. At the time of his ascension Hugh Capet was the Count of Paris and as such was invested with judicial powers which he resigned in 987 on the understanding that his County of Paris, after the decease of the male heirs of his brother Eudice, should return to Paris. In 1032 a new magistrate was created called the Provost of Paris whose duty it was to give assistance to the bourgeois in arresting persons for debt. This functionary combined in his own person the financial and political chief of the capital. He was also the head of the nobility of the county. He was independent of the governor and was placed above the bailiffs and seneshaws. He was the senior of the urban magistracy and police, leader of the municipal troops and in a word the prefect Prifectus Urbis as he was called under the Emperor Aurelian or the first magistrate of Lutitia as he was still called under Clotaire in 663. Assessors were associated with the Provost and together they formed a tribunal which was afterwards known as the Châtelet because they assembled in that fortress, the building of which is attributed to Julius Caesar. The functions of this tribunal did not differ much from those of the royal Châteletis. Its jurisdiction embraced quarrels between individuals, assaults, revolts, disputes between the universities and the students and improper conduct generally, ribaudat. In consequence of which the Provost acquired the popular surname of Roi de Ribaud. At first his judgment was final but very soon those under his jurisdiction were allowed to appeal to Parliament and that court was obliged to have certain cases sent back for judgment from the Châtelet. This was, however, done only in a very few important instances, not withstanding frequent appeals being made to its supreme arbitration. In addition to the courts of the Counts and bailiffs established in certain of the large towns, Aldermanic or Magisterial courts existed which rather resembled the Châtelet of Paris. Thus the Capiola of Toulouse, the senior alderman of Metz and the burgamaster of Strasbourg and Brussels, possessed in each of these towns a tribunal which judged without appeal and united the several functions of a civil, criminal and simple police court. Several places in the north of France had Provosts who held courts and duties were various, but who were principally charged with the maintenance of public order and with suppressing disputes and conflicts arising from the privileges granted to the trade corporations, whose importance, especially in Flanders, had much increased since the 12th century. On his return from abroad Louis IX took his seat upon the bench and administered justice by the side of the good Provost of Paris. This Provost was none other than the learned Etienne Boileau, out of respect to whom the Provost's chip was declared a charge de magistrature. The increase of business which fell to the Provost's office especially after the boundaries of Paris were extended by Philip Augustus caused him to be released from the duty of collecting public taxes. He was authorized to furnish himself with competent assistants who were employed with matters of minor detail and he was allowed the assistance of Juge Auditeur. We order that they shall be eight in number, says an edict of Philip Lebel, of February 1324, four of them being ecclesiastics and four laymen, and that they shall assemble at the Châtelet two days in the week to take into consideration the suits and causes in concert with our Provost. In 1343 the Provost's court was composed of one king's attorney, one civil commissioner, two king's counsel, eight councillors and one criminal commissioner, whose sittings took place daily at the Châtelet. From the year 1340 this tribunal had to adjudicate in reference to all the affairs of the university, and from the 6th of October 1380 to all those of the saltfish market which were no less numerous so that its importance increased considerably. Unfortunately, numerous abuses were introduced into this municipal jurisdiction. In 1313 and 1320 the officers of the Châtelet were suspended on account of the extortions which they were guilty of, and the king ordered an inquiry to be made into the matter. The Provost and two councillors of the Parliament sat upon it and Philip de Valois, adopting its decisions, prescribed fresh statutes which were naturally framed in such a way as to show the distrust in which the Châtelet was then held. To these the officers of the Châtelet promised on oath to submit. The ignorance and immorality of the lay officers who had been substituted for the clerical caused much disturbance. Parliament authorized two of its principal members to examine the officers of the Châtelet. Twenty years later of fresh complaints Parliament decided that three qualified councillors chosen from its own body should proceed with the king's attorney to the Châtelet so as to reform the abuses and informalities of that court. End of Section 23 Recording by Donna Stewart Seattle, Washington Section 24 of Manors, Customs and Dress This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Recording by Donna Stewart Manors, Customs and Dress during the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance period by Paul Lacroix Section 24 Law and the Administration of Justice Part 2 In the time of Philip LaBelle there existed in reality but one Parliament and that was the king's court. Its action was at once political, administrative, financial and judicial and was necessarily therefore of a most complicated character. Philip LaBelle made it exclusively a judicial court to find the territorial limit of its power and gave it as a judicial body privileges tending to strengthen its independence and to raise its dignity. He assigned political functions to the Great Council Consideta Financial matters to the Chamber of Accounts and the hearing of cases of heresy, wills, legacies and dowries to the prelates. But in opposition to the wise Edict of 1295 he determined that Jews should be excluded from the Parliament and prelates from the Palace of Justice by which latter proceeding he was depriving justice of the abilities of the most worthy representatives of the Gallican Church. But Philip LaBelle and his successors while incessantly quarreling either with the aristocracy or with the clergy wanted the great judicial bodies which issued the edicts and the urban or municipal magistrates which being subject to re-election were principally recruited from among the bourgeois. The common centre of opposition to any attempt at usurpation of power whether on the part of the church, the nobility or the crown. The great days of Troy Diece Magni Trecensus the assizes of the ancient Counts of Champagne and the ex-checker of Normandy were also organised by Philip LaBelle and further he authorised the maintenance of a Parliament at Toulouse and which he solemnly opened in person on the 10th of January 1302. In times of war the Parliament of Paris sat once a year in times of peace twice. There were, according to circumstances during the year two, three or four sittings of the ex-checker of Normandy and two of the great days of Troy tribunals which were annexed to the Parliament of Paris and generally presided over by one of its delegates and sometimes even by the supreme head of that High Court. At the King's Council it was decided whether a case should be reserved for the Parliament of Paris or passed on either to the ex-checker or to the great days of Troy. As that advanced reformer Philip LaBelle died before the institutions he had established had taken root for many years even down to the time of Louis XI a continual conflict for supremacy was waged between the Parliament of Paris and the various courts of the Kingdom. Between the Counts and the Parliament and between the latter and the King which, without lessening the dignity of the Crown gradually tended to increase the influence which the judges possessed. Immediately on the accession of Louis Le Houtain in 1314 a reaction commenced the higher clergy re-entered the Parliament but Philip Le Long took care that the laity should be in a majority and did not allow that in his Council of State the titled councillor should be more numerous than the lawyers. The latter succeeded in completely carrying the day on account of the services they rendered and the influence which their knowledge of the law of the country gave them. As for centuries the sword had ruled the gown so since the emancipation of the bourgeois the lawyers had become the masters of the administrative and judicial world and notwithstanding the fact that they were still kept in a somewhat inferior position to the peers and barons their opinion alone pre-dominated and their decision frequently at once settled the most important questions. An edict issued at Tom on the 11th of March 1344 increased the number of members of Parliament which from that time consisted of three presidents fifteen clerical councillors fifteen lay councillors twenty-four clergymen and sixteen laymen of the Court of Inquiry and five clergymen and sixteen laymen in the Court of Petitions. The King filled up the vacant seats on the recommendation of the Chancellor and of the Parliament. The reporters were enjoined to write the decisions and sentences which were given by the Court in large letters and far apart so that they might be more easily read. The duties of police in the Courts the keeping of the doors and the internal arrangements generally for those attending the Courts in the Parliament were entrusted to the ushers who divided among themselves the gratuities which were given them by virtue of their office. When an advocate was admitted to plead he was required to take oath and to be inscribed on the register. The Parliament as then established was somewhat similar in its character to that of the old national representative government under the Germans and Franks. For centuries it protected the King against the undue interference of the spiritual power it defended the people against despotism but it often lacked independence and political wisdom and it was not always remarkable for its correct appreciation of men and things. This tribunal although supreme over all public affairs sometimes wavered before the threats of a minister or of a court favorite succumbed to the influence of intrigues and adapted itself to the prejudices of the times. We see it in moments of error and of blindness both condemning eminent statesmen and leading citizens such as Jacques Cœur and Robertet and handing over to the executioner distinguished men of learning and science in advance of the times in which they lived because they were falsely accused of witchcraft and also doing the same towards unfortunate maniacs who fancied they had dealings with the devil. In the 14th and 15th centuries all the members of Parliament formed part of the Council of State which was divided into the Smaller Council and the Greater Council. The Greater Council only assembled in cases of urgency and for extraordinary and very important purposes. The Smaller Council assembled every month and its decisions were registered. From this arose the custom of making a similar registration in Parliament confirming the decisions after they had been formally arrived at. The most ancient edict placed on the register of the Parliament of Paris dates from the year 1334 and is of a very important character. It concerns a question of royal authority and decides that in spiritual matters the right of supremacy does not belong more to the Pope than to the King. Consequently Philip de Velois ordered his friends and vassals who shall attend the next Parliament and the keepers of the accounts that for the perpetual record of so memorable a decision it shall be registered in the chambers of Parliament and kept for reference in the Treasury of the Charters. From that time cases of complaint and other matters relating to benefices have no longer been discussed before the ecclesiastical judges but before Parliament or some other secular court. During the captivity of King John in England royal authority having considerably declined the powers of Parliament and other bodies of the Magistracies so increased that under Charles VI the Parliament of Paris was bold enough to assert that a royal edict should not become law until it had been registered in Parliament. This bold and certainly novel proceeding the Kings nevertheless did not altogether oppose as they foresaw that the time would come when it might afford them the means of repudiating a treaty afforded from them under difficult circumstances. The close connection which existed between the various Parliaments and their political functions for they had occasion incessantly to interfere between the acts of the Government and the respective pretensions of the provinces or of the three Orders naturally increased the importance of this supreme Magistracy. More than once the Kings had cause to repent having rendered it so powerful and this was the case especially with the Parliament of Paris. In this difficulty it is interesting to note how the Kings acted. They imperceptibly curtailed the various powers of the other courts of justice. They circumscribed the power of the Parliament of Paris and proportionately enlarged the jurisdiction of the great Bailawicks as also that of the Châtelet. The Provost of Paris was an auxiliary as well as a support to the royal power which nevertheless held him in its grasp. The Châtelet was also a centre of action and of strength which counteracted in certain cases parliamentary opposition. Thence arose the most implacable rivalries and dissensions between these various parties. It is curious to notice with what ingenuity and how readily Parliament took advantage of the most trifling circumstances or of charges based upon the very slightest grounds to summon the officers of the Châtelet before its bar on suspicion of pre-veracation or of outages against religion, morals or the laws. Often were these officers and the Provost himself summoned to appear to make amende en hable before the Assembly notwithstanding which they retained their offices. More than once an officer of the Châtelet condemned to death and executed but the King always annulled that part of the sentence which had reference to the confiscation of the goods of the condemned thus proving that in reality the condemnation had been unjust although for grave reasons the Royal Authority had been unable to save the victim from the avenging power of the Parliament. Hugh Obrio the Provost was thus condemned to imprisonment for life on the most trivial grounds and he would have undergone capital punishment if Charles V had abandoned him at his time of trial. During the English occupation in the disastrous reign of Charles VI the Châtelet of Paris which took part with the people gave proof of extraordinary energy and of great force of character. The blood of many of its members was shed on the scaffold and this circumstance must ever remain an approach to the judges and to those who executed their cruel sentences and a lasting crown of glory to the martyrs themselves. An edict of King John issued after his return from London in 1363 a short time before his death clearly defined the duties of Parliament. They were to try cases which concerned peers of France and such prelates, chapters, barons, corporations and councils as had the privilege of appealing to the Supreme Court and to hear cases relating to estates and appeals from the Provost of Paris the bailiffs, the Sénéchales and other judges. It disregarded minor matters but took cognizance of all judicial debates which concerned religion the king and the state. We must remark here that advocates were only allowed to speak twice in the same cause and that they were subjected to fine or at least to remonstrance if they were tedious or indulged in needless repetition in their replies and especially if they did not keep carefully to the facts of the case. After pleading they were permitted to give a summary in writing of the principal points of importance as well as their client's grounds of defense. Charles V confirmed these orders and regulations with respect to advocates and added others which were no less important among which we find a provision for giving legal assistance to poor and destitute persons who go to law. These regulations of Charles also limited the time in which officers of justice were to get through their business under a certain penalty. They also proclaimed that the king should no longer hear minor causes and that whatever might be the rules of the court they forbad the presidents from deferring their judgment or from retarding the court of justice. Charles VI before he became insane contributed no less than his father to the establishment on a better footing of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom as well as that of the Châtelet and the Baileux. In the 15th century the Parliament of Paris was so organized as not to require material change until 1789. There were noble, clerical and lay counselors, honorary members and Maître de Raquette, only four of whom sat, a First President who was Supreme Head of the Parliament, a Master of the Great Chamber of Pleas and three Presidents of the Chamber, all of whom were nominated for life. There were 15 Masters or Clerical Counselors and 15 who were laymen and these were annually approved by the king on the opening of the session. An Attorney General, several advocates general and deputies who formed a committee or college constituted the active part of this court, round which were grouped consulting advocates, conciliari, pleading advocates, proponentes, advocates who were mere listeners, orientes, ushers and sergeants, whose chief on his appointment became a member of the nobility. The official costume of the First President resembled that of the ancient barons and knights. He wore a scarlet gown lined with ermine and a black silk cap ornamented with tassels. In winter he wore a scarlet mantle lined with ermine over his gown on which his crest was worked on a shield. This mantle was fastened to the left shoulder by three gold cords in order to leave the sword side free because the ancient knights and barons always sat in court wearing their swords. Amongst the archives of the Majority of London we find in the account of the entry of Henry V King of England into Paris on the 1st of December 1420 that the First President was in royal dress et toi en obie royale the first usher preceding him and wearing a fur cap. The church dignitaries wore blue robes and hoods and all the others in the procession scarlet robes and hoods. This imposing dress in perfect harmony with the dignity of the office of those who wore them degenerated towards the 15th century. So much was this the case that an order of Francis I forbade the judges from wearing pink slashed hoes or other rakeish garments. In the early times of the monarchy the judicial functions were performed gratuitously but it was the custom to give presence to the judges consisting of sweet meats, spices, sugar plums and preserves until at a subsequent period 1498 when as the judges preferred money to sweet meats says the Chancellor Etienne Pasquet the money value of the spices et cetera was fixed by law and made compulsory. In the bills of expenses preserved among the National Archives we find that the First President of the Parliament of Paris received 1,000 livres par ici annually representing upwards of 100,000 francs at the present rate of money. The three presidents of the chamber 500 livres equal to 50,000 francs and the other nobles of the said parliament 5 sols par ici or 6 sols 3 deniers about 25 francs per day for the days only on which they sat. They received besides two mantels annually the prelates princes and barons who were chosen by the king received no salaries il ne prena nul gauge law of 27th January 1367 the Sénéchales and high bailiffs like the presidents of the chambers received 500 livres 50,000 francs they and the bailiffs of inferior rank were expressly forbidden from receiving money or fees from the parties of any suit but they were allowed to accept on one day refreshment and bottles of wine the salaries were paid monthly but this was not always done regularly sometimes the king was to blame for this and sometimes it was owing to the ill nature of the chiefs of finance or of the receivers and payers when the blame rested with the king the parliament humbly remonstrated or closed the court when on the contrary any officer of finance did not pay the salaries parliament sent him the bailiffs usher and put him under penalties until he had done so the question of salaries was frequently arising on the 9th of February 1369 the court having been requested to serve without any remuneration for one parliament on the understanding that the king another time the nobles of the court replied after private deliberation that they were ready to do the king's pleasure but could not do so properly without receiving their salaries register of the parliament of Paris at the commencement of the 15th century the scale of remuneration was not increased in 1411 it was raised for the whole parliament to 25,000 leave which calculated according to the present rate amounted to nearly a million francs in consequence of financial difficulties and the general distress the unpleasant question in reference to claims for payment of salaries was renewed with threats that the course of justice would be interrupted if they were not paid or not promised on the 2nd of October 1419 two councillors and one usher were sent to the house of one of the chiefs of finance with orders to demand payment of the salaries of the court in October 1430 the government owed the magistrates two years of arrears after useless appeals to the regent and to the bishop of the then Chancellor of France the parliament sent two of its members to the king at Rouen who obtained after much difficulty one month's pay on the understanding that the parliament sittings in the month of April in the month of July 1431 there was another deputation to the king in order to lay before him the necessities of the court and that it had for some time been pro-rogued and was still pro-rogued on account of the non-payment of salaries after two months of repeated remonstrance the deputies only bringing back promises the court assumed a menacing aspect and on the 11th of January 1437 it pointed out to the chancellor the evil which would arise if parliament ceased to hold its sittings and this time the chancellor announced that the salaries would be paid though six months passed without any result or any practical step being taken in the matter this state of affairs grew worse until the year 1443 when the king was obliged to plead with the parliament in a character of insolvent debtor and in order to obtain remission of part of his debt to the members to guarantee to them a part of the salt duties Charles the 7th after having reconquered his states hastened to restore order he first occupied himself with the system of justice the parliament, the chateau-la and the bailawics and in April 1453 in concert with the princes, the prelates of the state, the judges and others in authority he framed a general law in 125 articles which was considered as the great charter of parliament according to the terms of these articles the counselors are to sit after dinner to get through the minor causes prisoners are to be examined without delay and to hold no communication with anyone unless by special permission the cases are to be carefully gone through in their proper order for courts are instructed to do justice as promptly for the poor as for the rich as it is a greater hardship for the poor to be kept waiting than the rich the fees of attorneys were taxed and reduced in amount those of advocates were reduced to such moderation and fairness that there should be no cause for complaint the judgments by commissary were forbidden the bailiffs and seneshiles were expected to reside within their districts the counselors were ordered to abstain from all communication with the parties in private and consultations between themselves were to be held in secret the judgments given in lawsuits were inscribed in a register and submitted every two months to the presidents who if necessary called the reporters to account for any neglect of duty the reporter was called to draw attention to any point of difficulty arising in a suit and the execution of sentences or judgments was entrusted to the ushers of the court in 1454 the king in consequence of a difficulty in paying the regular installments of the usual salaries of the parliament created after dinner fees des gages d'après-dîner of five sold par ici more than ten francs of our money per day payable to those counselors was called to second hearing matters did not improve much however nothing seemed to proceed satisfactorily and members of parliament deprived of their salaries were compelled to contract a loan in order to commence proceedings against the treasury for the non-payment of the amount due to them in 1493 the annual salaries of parliament were raised to the sum of forty thousand six hundred thirty leave equal to about 1.1 million francs the first president received four leave 22 sold par ici about 140 francs per day a clerical counselor 25 sold par ici about 40 francs and a lay counselor 20 sold about 32 francs this was an increase of a fifth on the preceding year Charles VIII in thus improving the remuneration of the members of the first parliament reminded them of their duties which had been too long neglected he told them that of all the cardinal virtues justice was the most noble and the most important and he pointed out to them the line of conduct which they were to pursue the counselors were to be present daily in their respective chambers from Saint Martin's day to Easter before seven o'clock in the morning and from Easter to the closing of parliament immediately after six hours of intermission under penalty of punishment strict silence was enforced upon them during the debates and they were forbidden to occupy themselves with anything which did not concern the case under discussion amidst a mass of other points upon which directions are given we notice the following the necessity of keeping secret the matters in course of deliberation the prohibition to counselors from receiving either directly anything in the shape of a doser from the parties in any suit and the forbidding all attorneys from receiving any bribe or claiming more than the actual expenses of a journey and other just charges the great charter of parliament promulgated in April 1453 was thus amended confirmed and completed by this code of Charles VIII with a wisdom which cannot be too highly extolled the magistrateur of the supreme courts had been less favored during the proceeding reign Louis XI that cautious and crafty reformer after having forbidden ecclesiastical judges to examine cases referring to the revenues of vacant benefits remodeled the secular courts but he ruthlessly destroyed anything which offended him personally for this reason as he himself said he limited the power of the parliaments of Paris and of Toulouse by establishing to their prejudice several other courts of justice and by favoring the Châtelet where he was sure always to find those who would act with him against the aristocracy the parliament would not give way willingly nor without the most determined opposition it was obliged however at last to succumb and to pass certain edicts which were most repugnant to it on the death of Louis XI however it took its revenge and called those who had been his favorites and principal agents to answer a criminal charge for no other reason than that they had exposed themselves to the resentment of the supreme court the Châtelet in its judicial functions was inferior to the parliament nevertheless it acquired through its provost who represented the bourgeois of Paris considerable importance in the eyes of the supreme court in fact for two centuries the provost held a privilege of ruling the capital both politically and financially of commanding the citizen militia and of being the chief magistrate of the city in the court of audiences a canopy was erected under which he sat a distinction which no other magistrate enjoyed and which appears to have been exclusively granted to him because he sat in the place of Monsieur Saint-Louis Saint-Louis dispensing justice to the good people of the city of Paris when the provost was installed he was solemnly escorted wearing his cap to the great chamber of parliament accompanied by four councillors after the ceremony of installation he gave his horse to the president who had come to receive him his dress consisted of a short robe a mantle, collar turned down sword and hat with feathers he also carried a staff of office profusely ornamented with silver thus attired he attended parliament and assisted at the levies of the sovereign where he took up his position on the lowest step of the throne below the great chamberlain every day accepting at the vintage time he was required to be present at the chateau either personally or by deputy punctually at nine in the morning there he received the list of the prisoners who had been arrested the day before after that he visited the prisons settled business of various kinds and then inspected the town his jurisdiction extended to several courts which were presided over by eight deputies or judges appointed by him and who were created officers of the chateau by Louis XII in 1498 subsequently these received their appointments directly from the king two auditing judges one king's attorney one registrar and some bailiffs completed the provost's staff the bailiffs at the chateau were divided into five classes the kings sergeant at arms the sergeants the sergeants of the mace or foot sergeants the sergeants fiefé the establishment of these officers dated from the beginning of the 14th century and they were originally appointed by the provost but afterwards by the king himself the king's sergeants at arms formed his bodyguard they were not under the jurisdiction of the high constable but of the ordinary judges which proves that they were in civil employ the sergeants de la douzaine were twelve in number as their name implies all of whom were in the service of the provost the foot sergeants who were civilians were gradually increased to the number of 220 as early as the middle of the 15th century they acted only in the interior of the capital and guarded the city the suburbs and the surrounding districts whereas the mounted sergeants had to watch over the safety of the rural parishes and to act throughout the whole extent of the provost's jurisdiction and of that of the vicount of Paris in the midst of the changes of the middle ages especially after the communes became free all those kings who felt the importance of a strict system of justice particularly San Louis Philip Lebel and Charles VIII had seen the necessity of compiling a record of local customs an edict of 1453 orders that the custom shall be registered in writing to be examined by the members of the great council of the parliament nevertheless this important work was never properly carried out and to Louis XII is due the honor of introducing a customary or usage law and at the same time of correcting the various modes of procedure upon which customs and usages had been based and which had become singularly antiquated since the edict of 1302 no monarch showed more favor to parliament than Louis XII during his reign of 17 years we never find complaints from the magistracy for not having been paid punctually but in contrast with this on the accession of Francis I the court complained of not having been paid its first quarter's salary from that moment claims were perpetually being made there were continually delays or absolute refusals the members were expecting a generation for their services in order absolutely to enable them to support their families and households we can thus judge of the state of the various minor courts which being less powerful than the supreme tribunals and especially than that of Paris were quite unable to get their murmurings even listened to by the proper authorities this sad state of things continued and in fact grew worse until the assembly of the league when Mayenne the chief of the leaguers in order to gratify the parliament promised to double the salaries although he was unable to fulfill his promise towards the end of the 16th century the highest French tribunal was represented by nine superior courts namely the parliament of Bordeaux created on the 9th of June 1642 the parliament of Brittany which replaced the ancient grand jour in March 1553 and sat alternately at Nantes and at Rennes the parliament of the Dauphiné established at Grenoble in 1451 to replace the Del Finale Council the parliament of Burgundy established at Dijon in 1477 which took the place of the grand jour at Bonne the movable parliament of D'Homme created in 1528 and consisting at the same time of a court of excise the parliament of Normandy established by Louis XII in April 1504 intended to replace the ex-checker of Rouen and the ancient Ducal Council of the province the parliament of Provence founded at I in July 1501 the parliament of Toulouse created in 1301 and the parliament of Paris which took precedence of all the others both on account of its origin its antiquity the extent of its jurisdiction the number of its prerogatives and the importance of its decrees in 1551 Henry II created besides these an inferior court in each bailiwick the duties of which were to hear on appeal all matters which sums of less than 200 leave were involved there existed besides a branch of the grand jour occasionally sitting at Poitiers Bayeur and at some other central towns in order to suppress the excesses which at times arose from religious dissensions and political controversy the parliament of Paris or great French parliament as it was called by Philip V and Charles V in edicts of the 17th of November 1318 and of the 8th of October 1371 was divided into four principal chambers the grand chamber the chamber of inquiry the criminal chamber and the chamber of appeal it was composed of ordinary councillors both clerical and lay of honorary councillors some of whom were ecclesiastics and others members of the nobility of masters of inquiry and of a considerable number of officers of all ranks it had at times as many as 24 presidents 182 councillors 4 knights of honour 4 masters of records a public prosecutor's office was also attached consisting of the king's council an attorney general and deputies thus forming an assembly of from 15 to 20 persons called a college amongst the inferior officers we may mention 26 ushers 4 receivers general of trust money 3 commissioners for the receipt of goods which had been seized under distress 1 treasurer and paymaster 3 controllers 1 physician 2 surgeons 2 apothecaries 1 matron 1 receiver of fines 1 inspector of estates several keepers of refreshment establishments who resided within the precincts of the palace 60 or 80 notaries 4 or 500 advocates 200 attorneys besides registers and deputy registers down to the reign of Charles the 6th 1380 to 1422 members of parliament held their appointment by commissions granted by the king and renewed each season from Charles the 6th to Francis the 1st these appointments became royal charges but from that time owing to the office being so often prostituted for reward it got more and more into disrepute Louis the 11th made the office of member of the parliament of Paris a permanent one and Francis the 1st continued this privilege in 1580 the supreme magistracy poured 140 million francs which now would be worth 15 or 20 times as much into the state treasury to enable members to sit permanently sur les fleurs de l'île and to obtain hereditary privileges the hereditary transmission of office from father to son dealt a heavy blow with the popularity of the parliamentary body which had already deeply suffered through shameful abuses the enormity of the fees the ignorance of some of the members and the disillute habits of many others the châtelet on the contrary was less involved in intrigue less occupied with politics and was daily engaged in adjudicating in cases of litigation and thus it rendered innumerable services in promoting the public welfare and maintained and even increased the respect which it had enjoyed from the commencement of its existence in 1498 Louis the 12th required that the provost should possess the title of doctor and that his officers whom he made to hold their appointments for life should be chosen from amongst the most distinguished councillors at law this excellent arrangement bore its fruits as earliest 1510 the usages of the city provosty and vi county of paris were published in extenso and were then received with much ceremony at a solemn audience held on the 8th of march in the episcopal palace and were deposited among the archives of the châtelet the parliament held a very different line of policy from that adopted by the châtelet which only took a political part in the religious troubles of protestantism and league with a view to serve and defend the cause of the people in spite of its fits of personal animosity and its rebellious freaks parliament remained almost invariably attached to the side of the king and the court it always leaned to the absolute maintenance of things as they were instead of following progress and changes which time necessitated it was for severe measures for intimidation more than for gentleness and toleration and it yielded sooner or later to the injunctions and admonitions of the king although at the same time it often disapproved the acts which it was asked to sanction during the middle ages and during the Renaissance period by Paul Lacroix section 25 secret tribunals during the middle ages human life was generally held in small respect various judicial institutions if not altogether secret at least more or less enveloped in mystery were remarkable for being founded on the monstrous right of issuing the most sentences with closed doors and of executing these sentences with inflexible rigor on individuals who had not been allowed the slightest chance of defending themselves while passing judgment in secret they often openly dealt blows as unexpected and terrible as they were fatal therefore the most innocent and the most daring trembled at the very name the three judges of the terre rouge an institution which adopted Westphalia as the special or rather as the central region of its authority the council of ten exercised their power in Venice and the states of the republic and the assassins of Syria in the time of St. Louis made more than one invasion into Christian Europe we must nevertheless acknowledge that terrible as these mysterious institutions were the general credulity the gross ignorance of the masses and the love of the marvelous helped not a little to render them even more outrageous and alarming than they really were Marco Polo the celebrated Venetian traveler of the 13th century says we will speak of the old man of the mountain this prince was named Elaudin he had a lovely garden full of all manner of trees and fruits in a beautiful valley surrounded by high hills and all around these plantations were various palaces and pavilions decorated with works of art in gold with paintings and with furniture of silk therein were to be seen rivulets of wine as well as milk, honey and gentle streams of limpid water he had placed therein damsels of transcendent beauty and endowed with great charms who were taught to sing and to play all manner of instruments they were dressed in silk in gold and continually walked in these gardens and palaces the reasons for which the old man had these palaces built were the following Muhammad having said that those who should obey his will should go to paradise and there find all kinds of luxuries this prince wished it to be believed that he was the prophet and companion of Muhammad and that he had the power of sending whom he chose to paradise no one could succeed in entering the garden because an impregnable castle had been built at the entrance of the valley and it could only be approached by a covered and secret way the old man had in his court some young man from 10 to 20 years of age chosen from those inhabitants of the hills who seemed to him capable of bearing arms and who were bold and courageous from time to time he administered a certain drink to 10 or 12 of these young men which sent them to sleep and when they were in deep stupor he had them carried into the garden when they awoke they saw all we have described they were surrounded by the young damsels who sang played instruments together caressed them played all sorts of games and presented them with the most exquisite wines and meats so that these young men satiated with such pleasures did not doubt that they were in paradise and would willingly have never gone out of it again at the end of 4 or 5 days the old man sent them to sleep again and had them removed from the garden in the same way in which they had been brought in he then called them before him and asked them where they had been by your grace Lord they answered we have been in paradise and then they related in the presence of everybody what they had seen there this tale excited the astonishment of all those who heard it and the desire that they might be equally fortunate the old man would then formally announce to those who were present as follows thus saith the law of our prophet he causes all who fight for their lord to enter into paradise if you obey me you shall enjoy that happiness by such words and plans this prince had so accustomed them to believe in him that he whom he ordered to die for his service considered himself lucky all the nobles or other enemies of the old man of the mountain were put to death by the assassins in his service for none of them fear death provided he complied with the orders and wishes of his lord however powerful a man might be there for if he was an enemy of the old man he was sure to meet with an untimely end in his story which we translate literally from the original written in ancient French the venerable traveler attributes the origin of the singular system of exercising power over the minds of persons to a prince who in reality did but keep up a tradition of his family for the allowed in, herein mentioned is no other than a successor of the famous Hassan son of Ali who in the middle of the 11th century took advantage of the wars which devastated Asia to create himself a kingdom comprising the three provinces of Turkestan, Jabal and Syria Hassan had embraced the doctrine of the Ishmaelian sect who pretended to explain allegorically all the presets of the Mohammedan religion and who did away with public worship and originated a creed which was altogether philosophical he made himself the chief exponent of this doctrine which by its very simplicity was sure to attract to him many people of simple and sincere minds attacked by the troops of the Sultan Sengar he defended himself vigorously and not unsuccessfully but fearing lest he should fall in an unequal and protracted struggle against an adversary more powerful than himself he had recourse to cunning so as to obtain peace he entranced or fascinated probably by means analogous to those related by Marco Polo a slave who had the daring during Sengar's sleep to stick a sharp dagger in the ground by the side of the Sultan's head on waking Sengar was much alarmed a few days after Hassan wrote to him if one had not good intentions towards the Sultan one might have driven the dagger which was stuck in the earth by his head into his bosom the Sultan Sengar then made peace with the chief of the Ishmaelians whose dynasty lasted for 170 years the castle of Elamand built on the confines of Persia on the top of a high mountain surrounded with trees after having been the usual residents of Hassan became that of his successors as in the native language the word means both prince and old man the crusaders who had heard the word pronounced confounded the two and gave the name of old man of the mountain to the Ishmaelian prince at that time inhabiting the castle of Elamand a name which has remained famous in history since the period when the sire the joint vill published his memoirs ancient authors called the subject of Hassan Hassan Hassan various forms of the same expression which in fact has passed into French with a signification which recalls the sanguinary exploits of the Ishmaelians and seeking for the etymology of this name one must suppose that Hassan is the Latin transformation of the Arabic word Hassan the name of the sect of which we are speaking because the exorcies during which they believe themselves removed to paradise were produced by means of hashish or hashisha we know that this inebriating preparation extracted from him really produces the most strange and delicious hallucinations on those who use it all travelers who have visited the east agree in saying that its effects are very superior to those of opium we evidently must attribute to some ecstatic vision the supposed existence of the enchanted gardens which Marco Polo described from popular tales which of course never existed but in the imagination of the young man who were either mentally excited after fasting and praying or intoxicated by the hashisha and consequently for a time lulled in dreams of celestial bliss which they imagined awaited them under the guidance of Hassan and his descendants the hashishani whom certain contemporary historians describe to us as infatuated by the hope of some future boundless felicity or their melancholy celebrity solely to the blind obedience with which they executed the orders of their chiefs and to the coolness with which they sought the favorable moment for fulfilling their sanguinary missions the old man of the mountain the master of daggers Magister Kultelorum as he is also called by the chronicler Jacques de Vintry was almost continually at war with the muscle man princes who reigned from the banks of the Nile to the borders of the Caspian Sea he continually opposed them with the steel of his fanatical emissaries at times also making a traffic and merchandise of murder he treated for a money payment with the sultans or emirs who were desires of ridding themselves of an enemy the Ishmaelians thus put to death a number of princes and Mahometan nobles but at the time of the crusades religious zeal having incited them against the Christians they found more than one notable victim in the ranks of the crusaders Conrad Marquis of Montferrat was assassinated by them the great Salah Eddin Saladin himself narrowly escaped them Richard Cœur de Lyon and Philippe Augustus were pointed out to the assassins by the old men who subsequently on hearing of the immense preparations which Louis IX was making for the Holy War had the daring to send two of his followers two friends and even into Paris with orders to kill that monarch in the midst of his court this king after having again escaped during his sojourn in Palestine from the murderous attempt by the savage messengers of the Prince of Aleman succeeded by his courage, his firmness and his virtues in inspiring these fanatics with so much respect that their chief looking upon him as protected by heaven asked for his friendship and offered him presents amongst which was a magnificent set of chessmen in chrysal ornamented with gold and amber the successors of Hassan simultaneously attacked by the moguls under Houlayon and by the Egyptians commanded by the Sultan Bebas were conquered and dispossessed of their states towards the middle of the 13th century but long after the Ishmaelians either because their chief sought to recover their power or because they had placed their daggers at the disposal of some foreign foe continued notorious in history at last the sack became extinct or at least retired into obscurity and renounced its murderous profession which had for so long made its members such objects of terror End of section 25