3。Ifthelordwassuedinhisowncourt，[212]whichneverhappenedbutupondisputesinrelationtothefief，afterlettingallthedelayspass，thelordhimselfwassummonedbeforethepeersinthesovereign’sname，[213]whosepermissionwasnecessaryonthatoccasion。Thepeersdidnotmakethesummonsintheirownname，becausetheycouldnotsummontheirlord，buttheycouldsummonfortheirlord。[214]
Sometimestheappealofdefaultofjusticewasfollowedbyanappealoffalsejudgment，whenthelordhadcausedjudgmenttobepassed，notwithstandingthedefault。[215]
Thevassalwhohadwrongfullychallengedhislordofdefaultofjusticewassentencedtopayafineaccordingtohislord’spleasure。[216]
TheinhabitantsofGaunthadchallengedtheEarlofFlandersofdefaultofjusticebeforetheking，forhavingdelayedtogivejudgmentinhisowncourt。[217]Uponexaminationitwasfoundthathehadusedfewerdelaysthaneventhecustomofthecountryallowed。Theywerethereforeremandedtohim；uponwhichtheireffectstothevalueofsixtythousandlivreswereseized。Theyreturnedtotheking’scourtinordertohavethefinemoderated；butitwasdecidedthattheearlmightinsistuponthefine，andevenuponmoreifhepleased。Beaumanoirwaspresentatthosejudgments。
4。Inotherdisputeswhichthelordmighthavewithhisvassal，inrespecttothepersonorhonourofthelatter，ortopropertythatdidnotbelongtothefief，therewasnoroomforachallengeofdefaultofjustice；becausethecausewasnottriedinthelord’scourt，butinthatoftheparamount：vassals，saysDéfontaines，[218]havingnopowertogivejudgmentonthepersonoftheirlord。
Ihavebeenatsometroubletogiveaclearideaofthosethings，whicharesoobscureandconfusedinancientauthorsthattodisentanglethemfromthechaosinwhichtheywereinvolvedmaybereckonedanewdiscovery。
29。EpochoftheReignofSt。Louis。St。Louisabolishedthejudicialcombatsinallthecourtsofhisdemesne，asappearsbytheordinancehepublishedthereupon，[219]andbytheInstitutions。[220]
Buthedidnotsuppresstheminthecourtsofhisbarons，exceptinthecaseofchallengeoffalsejudgment。[221]
Avassalcouldnotchallengethecourtofhislordoffalsejudgment，withoutdemandingajudicialcombatagainstthejudgeswhopronouncedsentence。ButSt。Louisintroducedthepracticeofchallengingoffalsejudgmentwithoutfighting，achangethatmaybereckonedakindofrevolution。[222]
Hedeclared[223]thatthereshouldbenochallengeoffalsejudgmentinthelordshipsofhisdemesnes，becauseitwasacrimeoffelony。Inreality，ifitwasakindoffelonyagainstthelord，byamuchstrongerreasonitwasfelonyagainsttheking。Butheconsentedthattheymightdemandanamendment[224]ofthejudgmentspassedinhiscourts；notbecausetheywerefalseoriniquitous，butbecausetheydidsomeprejudice。[225]Onthecontrary，heordainedthattheyshouldbeobligedtomakeachallengeoffalsejudgmentagainstthecourtsofthebarons，[226]incaseofanycomplaint。
ItwasnotallowedbytheInstitutions，aswehavealreadyobserved，tobringachallengeoffalsejudgmentagainstthecourtsintheking’sdemesnes。Theywereobligedtodemandanamendmentbeforethesamecourt；andincasethebailiffrefusedtheamendmentdemanded，thekinggaveleavetomakeanappealtohiscourt；[227]orrather，interpretingtheInstitutionsbythemselves，topresenthimarequestorpetition。[228]
Withregardtothecourtsofthelords，St。Louis，bypermittingthemtobechallengedoffalsejudgment，wouldhavethecausebroughtbeforetheroyaltribunal，[229]orthatofthelordparamount，nottobedecidedbyduel[230]butbywitnesses，pursuanttoacertainformofproceeding，therulesofwhichhelaiddownintheInstitutions。[231]
Thus，whethertheycouldfalsifythejudgment，asinthecourtofthebarons；orwhethertheycouldnotfalsify，asinthecourtofhisdemesnes，heordainedthattheymightappealwithoutthehazardofaduel。
Défontaines[232]givesusthefirsttwoexamplesheeversaw，inwhichtheyproceededthuswithoutalegalduel：one，inacausetriedatthecourtofSt。Quentin，whichbelongedtotheking’sdemesne；andtheother，inthecourtofPonthieu，wherethecount，whowaspresent，opposedtheancientjurisprudence：butthesetwocausesweredecidedbylaw。
Here，perhaps，itwillbeaskedwhySt。Louisordainedforthecourtsofhisbaronsadifferentformofproceedingfromthatwhichhehadestablishedinthecourtsofhisdemesne？Thereasonisthis：whenSt。
Louismadetheregulationforthecourtsofhisdemesnes，hewasnotcheckedorlimitedinhisviews：buthehadmeasurestokeepwiththelordswhoenjoyedthisancientprerogative，thatcausesshouldnotberemovedfromtheircourts，unlessthepartywaswillingtoexposehimselftothedangersofanappealoffalsejudgment。St。Louispreservedtheusageofthisappeal；butheordainedthatitshouldbemadewithoutajudicialcombat；thatis，inordertomakethechangelessfelt，hesuppressedthething，andcontinuedtheterms。
Thisregulationwasnotuniversallyreceivedinthecourtsofthelords。
Beaumanoirsays[233]thatinhistimethereweretwowaysoftryingcauses；oneaccordingtotheking’sestablishment，andtheotherpursuanttotheancientpractice；thatthelordswereatlibertytofollowwhichwaytheypleased；butwhentheyhadpitchedupononeinanycause，theycouldnotafterwardshaverecoursetotheother。Headds，[234]thattheCountofClermontfollowedthenewpractice，whilehisvassalskepttotheoldone；butthatitwasinhispowertoreestablishtheancientpracticewheneverhepleased，otherwisehewouldhavelessauthoritythanhisvassals。
ItisproperheretoobservethatFrancewasatthattimedividedintothecountryoftheking’sdemesne，andthatwhichwascalledthecountryofthebarons，orthebaronies；and，tomakeuseofthetermsofSt。
Louis’Institutions，intothecountryunderobediencetotheking，andthecountryoutofhisobedience。[235]Whenthekingmadeordinancesforthecountryofhisdemesne，heemployedhisownsingleauthority。Butwhenhepublishedanyordinancesthatconcernedalsothecountryofhisbarons，theseweremadeinconcertwiththem，[236]orsealedandsubscribedbythem：otherwisethebaronsreceivedorrefusedthem，accordingastheyseemedconducivetothegoodoftheirbaronies。Therear—vassalswereuponthesametermswiththegreat—vassals。NowtheInstitutionswerenotmadewiththeconsentofthelords，thoughtheyregulatedmatterswhichtothemwereofgreatimportance：buttheywerereceivedonlybythosewhobelievedtheywouldredoundtotheiradvantage。Robert，sonofSt。Louis，receivedtheminhiscountyofClermont；yethisvassalsdidnotthinkpropertoconformtothispractice。
30。ObservationonAppeals。Iapprehendthatappeals，whichwerechallengestoacombat，musthavebeenmadeimmediatelyonthespot。"Ifthepartyleavesthecourtwithoutappealing，"saysBeaumanoir，[237]"heloseshisappeal，andthejudgmentstandsgood。"Thiscontinuedstillinforce，evenafteralltherestrictionsofjudicialcombat。[238]
31。ThesameSubjectcontinued。Thevillaincouldnotbringachallengeoffalsejudgmentagainstthecourtofhislord。ThiswelearnfromDéfontaines，[239]andheisconfirmedmoreoverbytheInstitutions。[240]
HenceDéfontainessays，[241]"betweenthelordandhisvillainthereisnootherjudgebutGod。"
Itwasthecustomofjudicialcombatsthatdeprivedthevillainsoftheprivilegeofchallengingtheirlord’scourtoffalsejudgment。Andsotrueisthis，thatthosevillains[242]whobycharterorcustomhadarighttofighthadalsotheprivilegeofchallengingtheirlord’scourtoffalsejudgment，eventhoughthepeerswhotriedthemweregentlemen；[243]andDéfontainesproposesexpedientstogentlemeninordertoavoidthescandaloffightingwithavillainbywhomtheyhadbeenchallengedoffalsejudgment。[244]
Asthepracticeofjudicialcombatsbegantodecline，andtheusageofnewappealstobeintroduced，itwasreckonedunfairthatfreemenshouldhavearemedyagainsttheinjusticeofthecourtsoftheirlords，andthevillainsshouldnot；hencetheparliamentreceivedtheirappealsallthesameasthoseoffreemen。
32。ThesameSubjectcontinued。Whenachallengeoffalsejudgmentwasbroughtagainstthelord’scourt，thelordappearedinpersonbeforehisparamounttodefendthejudgmentofhiscourt。Inlikemanner，intheappealofdefaultofjustice，thepartysummonedbeforethelordparamountbroughthislordalongwithhim，totheendthatifthedefaultwasnotproved，hemightrecoverhisjurisdiction。[245]
Inprocessoftimeasthepracticeobservedinthesetwoparticularcasesbecamegeneral，bytheintroductionofallsortsofappeals，itseemedveryextraordinarythatthelordshouldbeobligedtospendhiswholelifeinstrangetribunals，andforotherpeople’saffairs。PhilipofValoisordained[246]thatnonebutthebailiffsshouldbesummoned；
andwhentheusageofappealsbecamestillmorefrequent，thepartieswereobligedtodefendtheappeal：thedeedofthejudgebecamethatoftheparty。[247]
Itooknoticethatintheappealofdefaultofjustice，[248]thelordlostonlytheprivilegeofhavingthecausetriedinhisowncourt。Butifthelordhimselfwassuedasparty，[249]whichbecameaverycommonpractice，[250]hepaidafineofsixtylivrestotheking，ortotheparamount，beforewhomtheappealwasbrought。Thencearosetheusage，afterappealshadbeengenerallyreceived，ofmakingthefinepayabletothelorduponthereversalofthesentenceofhisjudge；ausagewhichlastedalongtime，andwasconfirmedbytheordinanceofRousillon，butfell，atlength，tothegroundthroughitsownabsurdity。
33。ThesameSubjectcontinued。Inthepracticeofjudicialcombats，thepersonwhohadchallengedoneofthejudgesoffalsejudgmentmightlosehiscausebythecombat，butcouldnotpossiblygainit。[251]And，indeed，thepartywhohadajudgmentinhisfavouroughtnottohavebeendeprivedofitbyanotherman’sact。Theappellant，therefore，whohadgainedthebattlewasobligedtofightlikewiseagainsttheadverseparty：notinordertoknowwhetherthejudgmentwasgoodorbad（forthisjudgmentwasoutofthecase，beingreversedbythecombat），buttodeterminewhetherthedemandwasjustornot；anditwasonthisnewpointtheyfought。Thenceproceedsourmannerofpronouncingdecrees，"Thecourtannulstheappeal；thecourtannulstheappealandthejudgmentagainstwhichtheappealwasbrought。"Ineffect，whenthepersonwhohadmadethechallengeoffalsejudgmenthappenedtobeovercome，theappealwasreversed：whenheprovedvictorious，boththejudgmentandtheappealwerereversed；thentheywereobligedtoproceedtoanewjudgment。
Thisissofartruethat，whenthecausewastriedbyinquests，thismannerofpronouncingdidnottakeplace：witnesswhatM。delaRocheFlavinsays，[252]namely，thatthechamberofinquirycouldnotusethisformatthebeginningofitsexistence。
34。InwhatMannertheProceedingsatLawbecamesecret。Duelshadintroducedapublicformofproceeding，sothatboththeattackandthedefencewereequallyknown。"Thewitnesses，"saysBeaumanoir，[253]
"oughttogivetheirtestimonyinopencourt。"
Boutillier’scommentatorsayshehadlearnedofancientpractitioners，andfromsomeoldmanuscriptlawbooks，thatcriminalprocesseswereancientlycarriedoninpublic，andinaformnotverydifferentfromthepublicjudgmentsoftheRomans。Thiswasowingtotheirnotknowinghowtowrite；athinginthosedaysverycommon。Theusageofwritingfixestheideas，andkeepsthesecret；butwhenthisusageislaidaside，nothingbutthenotorietyoftheproceedingiscapableoffixingthoseideas。
Andasuncertaintymighteasilyariseinrespecttowhathadbeenadjudicatedbyvassals，orpleadedbeforethem，theycould，therefore，refreshtheirmemory[254]everytimetheyheldacourtbywhatwerecalledproceedingsonrecord。[255]Inthatcase，itwasnotallowedtochallengethewitnessestocombat；forthentherewouldbenoendofdisputes。
Inprocessoftimeaprivateformofproceedingwasintroduced。
Everythingbeforehadbeenpublic；everythingnowbecamesecret；theinterrogatories，theinformations，there—examinations，theconfrontingofwitnesses，theopinionoftheattorney—general；andthisisthepresentpractice。Thefirstformofproceedingwassuitabletothegovernmentofthattime，asthenewformwaspropertothegovernmentsinceestablished。
Boutillier’scommentatorfixestheepochofthischangetotheordinanceintheyear1539。Iamapttobelievethatthechangewasmadeinsensibly，andpassedfromonelordshiptoanother，inproportionasthelordsrenouncedtheancientformofjudging，andthatderivedfromtheInstitutionsofSt。Louiswasimproved。Andindeed，Beaumanoirsays[256]thatwitnesseswerepubliclyheardonlyincasesinwhichitwasallowedtogivepledgesofbattle：inotherstheywereheardinsecret，andtheirdepositionswerereducedtowriting。Theproceedingsbecame，therefore，secret，whentheyceasedtogivepledgesofbattle。
35。OftheCosts。InformertimesnoonewascondemnedinthelaycourtsofFrancetothepaymentofcosts。[257]Thepartycastwassufficientlypunishedbypecuniaryfinestothelordandhispeers。Fromthemannerofproceedingbyjudicialcombatitfollowed，thatthepartycondemnedanddeprivedoflifeandfortunewaspunishedasmuchashecouldbe：
andintheothercasesofthejudicialcombat，therewerefinessometimesfixed，andsometimesdependentonthedispositionofthelord，whichweresufficienttomakepeopledreadtheconsequencesofsuits。
Thesamemaybesaidofcausesthatwerenotdecidedbycombat。Asthelordhadthechiefprofits，sohewasalsoatthechiefexpense，eithertoassemblehispeers，ortoenablethemtoproceedtojudgment。
Besides，asdisputesweregenerallydeterminedatthesameplace，andalmostalwaysatthesametime，withoutthatinfinitemultitudeofwritingswhichafterwardsfollowed，therewasnonecessityofallowingcoststotheparties。
Thecustomofappealsnaturallyintroducedthatofgivingcosts。ThusDéfontainessays，[258]thatwhentheyappealedbywrittenlaw，thatis，whentheyfollowedthenewlawsofSt。Louis，theygavecosts；butthatintheordinarypractice，whichdidnotpermitthemtoappealwithoutfalsifyingthejudgment，nocostswereallowed。Theyobtainedonlyafine，andthepossessionforayearandadayofthethingcontested，ifthecausewasremandedtothelord。
Butwhenthenumberofappealsincreasedfromthenewfacilityofappealing；[259]whenbythefrequentusageofthoseappealsfromonecourttoanother，thepartieswerecontinuallyremovedfromtheplaceoftheirresidence；whenthenewmethodofproceduremultipliedandprolongedthesuits；whentheartofeludingtheveryjustestdemandsbecamerefined；whenthepartiesatlawknewhowtoflyonlyinordertobefollowed；whenplaintswereruinousanddefenceeasy；whentheargumentswerelostinwholevolumesofwordsandwritings；whenthekingdomwasfilledwithlimbsofthelaw，whowerestrangerstojustice；
whenknaveryfoundencouragementattheveryplacewhereitdidnotfindprotection；thenitwasnecessarytodeterlitigiouspeoplebythefearofcosts。Theywereobligedtopaycostsforthejudgmentandforthemeanstheyhademployedtoeludeit。CharlestheFairmadeageneralordinanceonthatsubject。[260]
36。OfthepublicProsecutor。AsbytheSalic，Ripuarian，andotherbarbarouslaws，crimeswerepunishedwithpecuniaryfines；theyhadnotinthosedays，aswehaveatpresent，apublicofficerwhohadthecareofcriminalprosecutions。And，indeed，theissueofallcausesbeingreducedtothereparationofinjuries，everyprosecutionwasinsomemeasurecivil，andmightbemanagedbyanyone。Ontheotherhand，theRomanlawhadpopularformsfortheprosecutionofcrimeswhichwereinconsistentwiththefunctionsofapublicprosecutor。
Thecustomofjudicialcombatswasnolessoppositetothisidea；forwhoisitthatwouldchoosetobeapublicprosecutorandtomakehimselfeveryman’schampionagainstalltheworld？
Ifindinthecollectionofformulas，insertedbyMuratoriinthelawsoftheLombards，thatunderourprincesofthesecondracetherewasanadvocateforthepublicprosecutor。[261]Butwhoeverpleasestoreadtheentirecollectionoftheseformulaswillfindthattherewasatotaldifferencebetweensuchofficersandthosewenowcallthepublicprosecutor，ourattorneys—general，ourking’ssolicitors，oroursolicitorsforthenobility。Theformerwereratheragentstothepublicforthemanagementofpoliticalanddomesticaffairs，thanforthecivil。And，indeed，wedidnotfindinthoseformulasthattheywereentrustedwithcriminalprosecutions，orwithcausesrelatingtominors，tochurches，ortotheconditionofanyone。
Isaidthattheestablishmentofapublicprosecutorwasrepugnanttotheusageofjudicialcombats。Ifind，notwithstanding，inoneofthoseformulas，anadvocateforthepublicprosecutor，whohadthelibertytofight。MuratorihasplaceditjustaftertheconstitutionofHenryI，forwhichitwasmade。[262]Inthisconstitutionitissaid，"Thatifanymankillshisfather，hisbrother，oranyofhisotherrelatives，heshalllosetheirsuccession，whichshallpasstotheotherrelatives，andhisownpropertyshallgototheexchequer。"Nowitwasinsuingfortheestatewhichhaddevolvedtotheexchequer，thattheadvocateforthepublicprosecutor，bywhomitsrightsweredefended，hadtheprivilegeoffighting：thiscasefellwithinthegeneralrule。
Weseeinthoseformulastheadvocateforthepublicprosecutorproceedingagainstapersonwhohadtakenarobber，buthadnotbroughthimbeforethecount；[263]againstanotherwhohadraisedaninsurrectionortumultagainstthecount；[264]againstanotherwhohadsavedaman’slifewhomthecounthadorderedtobeputtodeath；[265]
againsttheadvocateofsomechurches，whomthecounthadcommandedtobringarobberbeforehim，buthadnotobeyed；[266]againstanotherwhohadrevealedtheking’ssecrettostrangers；[267]againstanother，whowithopenviolencehadattackedtheemperor’scommissary；[268]againstanotherwhohadbeenguiltyofcontempttotheemperor’srescripts，andhewasprosecutedeitherbytheemperor’sadvocateorbytheemperorhimself；[269]againstanotherwhorefusedtoacceptoftheprince’scoin；[270]infine，thisadvocatesuedforthingswhichbythelawwereadjudgedtotheexchequer。[271]
Butincriminalcauses，wenevermeetwiththeadvocateforthepublicprosecutor；notevenwhereduelsareused；[272]noteveninthecaseofincendiaries；[273]notevenwhenthejudgeiskilledonhisbench；[274]
notevenincausesrelatingtotheconditionsofpersons，[275]tolibertyandslavery。[276]
Theseformulasaremade，notonlyforthelawsoftheLombards，butlikewiseforthecapitulariesaddedtothem，sothatwehavenoreasontodoubtoftheirgivingusthepracticeobservedwithregardtothissubjectunderourprincesofthesecondrace。
Itisobviousthattheseadvocatesforapublicprosecutormusthaveendedwithoursecondraceofkings，inthesamemannerastheking’scommissionersintheprovinces；becausetherewasnolongeragenerallawnorgeneralexchequer，andbecausetherewerenolongeranycountsintheprovincestoholdtheassizes，and，ofcourse，therewerenomoreofthoseofficerswhoseprincipalfunctionwastosupporttheauthorityofthecounts。
Astheusageofcombatsbecamemorefrequentunderthethirdrace，itdidnotallowofanysuchthingasapublicprosecutor。HenceBoutillier，inhisSommeRurale，speakingoftheofficersofjustice，takesnoticeonlyofthebailiffs，thepeersandserjeants。SeetheInstitutions[277]andBeaumanoir[278]concerningthemannerinwhichprosecutionsweremanagedinthosedays。
IfindinthelawsofJamesII，KingofMajorca，[279]acreationoftheofficeofking’sattorney—general，withtheverysamefunctionsasareexercisedatpresentbytheofficersofthatnameamongus。Itismanifestthatthisofficewasnotinstitutedtillwehadchangedtheformofourjudiciaryproceedings。
37。InwhatMannertheInstitutionsofSt。LouisfellintoOblivion。ItwasthefateoftheInstitutionsthattheirorigin，progress，anddeclinewerecomprisedwithinaveryshortperiod。
Ishallmakeafewreflectionsuponthissubject。ThecodewehavenowunderthenameofSt。Louis’Institutionswasneverdesignedasalawforthewholekingdom，thoughsuchadesignismentionedinthepreface。
Thecompilationisageneralcode，whichdeterminesallpointsrelatingtocivilaffairs，tothedisposalofpropertybywillorotherwise，thedowriesandprivilegesofwomen，andemolumentsandprivilegesoffiefs，withtheaffairsinrelationtothepolice，&c。Now，togiveageneralbodyofcivillaws，atatimewheneachcity，town，orvillage，haditscustoms，wasattemptingtosubvertinonemomentalltheparticularlawstheninforceineverypartofthekingdom。Toreducealltheparticularcustomstoageneralonewouldbeaveryinconsideratething，evenatpresentwhenourprincesfindeverywherethemostpassiveobedience。Butifitbetruethatweoughtnottochangewhentheinconveniencesareequaltotheadvantages，muchlessshouldwechangewhentheadvantagesaresmallandtheinconveniencesimmense。Now，ifweattentivelyconsiderthesituationwhichthekingdomwasinatthattime，wheneverylordwaspuffedupwiththenotionofhissovereigntyandpower，weshallfindthattoattemptageneralalterationofthereceivedlawsandcustomsmustbeathingthatcouldneverenterintotheheadsofthosewhowerethenintheadministration。
WhatIhavebeensayingproveslikewisethatthiscodeofinstitutionswasnotconfirmedinparliamentbythebaronsandmagistratesofthekingdom，asismentionedinamanuscriptofthetown—hallofAmiens，quotedbyM。DuCange。[280]WefindinothermanuscriptsthatthiscodewasgivenbySt。Louisintheyear1270，beforehesetoutforTunis。
Butthisfactisnottruerthantheother；forSt。Louissetoutuponthatexpeditionin1269，asM。DuCangeobserves：whenceheconcludesthatthiscodemighthavebeenpublishedinhisabsence。ButthisIsayisimpossible。HowcanSt。Louisbeimaginedtohavepitcheduponthetimeofhisabsencefortransactinganaffairwhichwouldhavebeenasowingoftroubles，andmighthaveproducednotonlychanges，butrevolutions？Anenterpriseofthatkindhadneed，morethananyother，ofbeingcloselypursued，andcouldnotbetheworkofafeebleregency，composedmoreoveroflords，whoseinterestitwasthatitshouldnotsucceed。ThesewereMathieu，AbbotofSt。Denis，SimonofClermont，CountofNesle，and，incaseofdeath，Philip，BishopofEvreux，andJean，CountofPonthieu。Wehaveseenabove[281]thattheCountofPonthieuopposedtheexecutionofanewjudiciaryorderinhislordship。
Thirdly，IaffirmittobeveryprobablethatthecodenowextantisquiteadifferentthingfromSt。Louis’Institutions，ItcitestheInstitutions；thereforeitisacommentupontheInstitutions，andnottheinstitutionsthemselves。Besides，Beaumanoir，whofrequentlymakesmentionofSt。Louis’Institutions，quotesonlysomeparticularlawsofthatprince，andnotthiscompilation。Défontaines，[282]whowroteinthatprince’sreign，makesmentionofthefirsttwotimesthathisInstitutionsonjudicialproceedingswereputinexecution，asofathinglongsinceelapsed。TheinstitutionsofSt。Louiswereprior，therefore，tothecompilationIamnowspeakingof，whichfromtheirrigour，andtheiradoptingtheerroneousprefacesinsertedbysomeignorantpersonsinthatwork，couldnothavebeenpublishedbeforethelastyearofSt。Louisorevennottillafterhisdeath。
38。ThesameSubjectcontinued。WhatisthiscompilationthenwhichgoesatpresentunderthenameofSt。Louis’Institutions？Whatisthisobscure，confused，andambiguouscode，wheretheFrenchlawiscontinuallymixedwiththeRoman，wherealegislatorspeaksandyetweseeacivilian，wherewefindacompletedigestofallcasesandpointsofthecivillaw？Tounderstandthisthoroughly，wemusttransferourselvesinimaginationtothosetimes。
St。Louis，seeingtheabusesinthejurisprudenceofhistime，endeavouredtogivethepeopleadisliketoit。Withthisviewhemadeseveralregulationsforthecourtofhisdemesnes，andforthoseofhisbarons。AndsuchwashissuccessthatBeaumanoir，whowrotealittleafterthedeathofthatprince，informsus[283]thatthemanneroftryingcauseswhichhadbeenestablishedbySt。Louisobtainedinagreatnumberofthecourtsofthebarons。
Thusthisprinceattainedhisend，thoughhisregulationsforthecourtsofthelordswerenotdesignedasagenerallawforthekingdom，butasamodelwhicheveryonemightfollow，andwouldevenfindhisadvantageinit。Heremovedthebadpracticebyshowingthemabetter。Whenitappearedthathiscourts，andthoseofsomelords，hadchosenaformofproceedingmorenatural，morereasonable，moreconformabletomorality，toreligion，tothepublictranquillity，andtothesecurityofpersonandproperty，thisformwassoonadopted，andtheotherrejected。
Toallurewhenitisrashtoconstrain，towinbypleasingmeanswhenitisimpropertoexertauthority，showsthemanofabilities。Reasonhasanatural，andevenatyrannicalsway；itmeetswithresistance，butthisveryresistanceconstitutesitstriumph；forafterashortstruggleitcommandsanentiresubmission。