ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
In Europe, as in Asia, from the beginning of the Middle Ages, as in the ancient world, the various political institutions have had a history rather than a development. Civilization has frequently rather endured than developed them. We may take it for granted that these institutions, so far as they relate to our domain, are sufficiently well known from the study of political history. It only remains for us to take a more critical review of the subject of the administration of justice.
From what has been already said, it will readily be perceived that right and possession were synonymous. He alone had rights who could maintain them. Among the pagan Germans only the freeman—that is, the possessor of the land—had frill rights; the serfs were limited to a few; the slave had none at all. The latter, being generally a war-captive, was a mere chattel, and might be sold or even slain at the will of his master.
was administered only on complaint; an accused person could establish his innocence by an oath. This alone, however, was not sufficient; a number of reputable men belonging to a community, and who in that case were called " oath-helpers," had likewise to testify to his innocence. In more serious cases the duel or some other form of ordeal was resorted to. Conviction followed only when the criminal had been caught in the act or if the general community condemned him.
Freemen alone could act as accusers, witnesses, or judges. Trials were held publicly on a definite spot called the Malfilatz, usually situated near some sacred tree or spring. Capital punishment could be inflicted on freemen only for treason or some other crime against the public wel fare. Murder was compensated by the payment of weregild to the family of the deceased; other crimes by ransom-money to the injured party. The penalties or fines were in general severe, and especially was the honor of the female sex strenuously protected. Among the Franks disrespectful conduct toward a woman was punished by a fine of fifteen shillings or as many cows. It was optional with the offended party to appeal to the law
or to obtain satisfaction privately. He might also declare a fend against the one who wronged him and seek blood-revenge (see Index, Vol. I.), though not for offences against property.
As social conditions became more complicated, the old forms of law were found insufficient. In fact, principles had not been formulated, although such were contained in the few existing maxims of law. The aim had been to attach a definite punishment to each possible case of crime; and when new cases occurred they were decided by analogy with similar cases. But this process was accompanied by great inequality in the further development of law. Charlemagne attempted to give relief by means of his Capitularies, and his successors followed in his steps. But the civil law gradually assumed the forms of the Roman code, both because of the contemporaneous development of the canon law by the side of the former, and of the rigid enforcement of the newly-arisen feudal law. The criminal law withstood Roman influence much longer than the civil code, because the old German sense of personality, the feeling of each man's individuality, did not accord with the Roman ideas. Hence, long after the advantages of the Roman methods had been recognized in the set tlement of cases concerning property, crimes concerning the person were dealt with publicly and orally according to ancient modes of procedure.
The emperor was supreme judge, and he was represented by the vested proprietary or by designated judges, who were aided by a number of sher iffs. Spiritual as Nv el 1 . as secular princes were invested with the right of penal judicature. The cities were the seats of imperial judges, who selected their sheriffs from the most prominent families. In course of time, as the cities acquired the right of administering justice, these sher iffs or judges constituted a patriciate, which must not be confounded, as is sometimes done, with the old urban nobility.