Search

En 1668, après avoir conquis une importante partie des territoires des Pays-Bas espagnols, Louis XIV établit à Tournai un conseil souverain chargé d’administrer la justice aux nouveaux sujets de la Couronne. Cette juridiction est érigée en parlement en 1686 et son ressort évolue au fil des guerres menées par le Roi Soleil. Transférée à Cambrai en 1709 après la perte de Tournai lors de la guerre de Succession d’Espagne, la cour emménage définitivement à Douai en 1714. Malgré les promesses du maintien des particularismes locaux formulées dans les actes de capitulation des villes, la monarchie tente insidieusement de rapprocher la pratique judiciaire du ressort du parlement de Flandre de celle du reste du royaume de France. La justice, comme l’armée, l’administration et l’Église, est une institution majeure permettant progressivement l’assimilation des territoires conquis. C’est à cette fin que l’ordonnance criminelle de 1670 est envoyée pour enregistrement à la cour et que de nombreux textes de droit pénal viennent dicter les politiques répressives à appliquer. L’historiographie présente généralement les officiers de ce parlement comme dociles envers la monarchie. Pourtant, le dépouillement des arrêts rendus par cette juridiction a permis de révéler deux exemples de désobéissance manifeste aux ordres de Louis. En appliquant les anciens usages des Pays-Bas espagnols, les magistrats n’hésitent pas à faire ouvertement primer leurs intérêts financiers sur les ordres du roi., After he gained an important part of the Southern Netherlands in 1668, Louis XIV created a sovereign court in Tournai to administer justice in the newly conquered territories. The court obtained the title of parliament in 1686 and its jurisdiction evolved as a consequence of the numerous wars and treaties in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Because of the War of Spanish Succession, the parliament moved to Cambrai in 1709 and in Douai in 1714. Although the monarch had solemnly promised to maintain the local particularities in the capitulation acts of the main cities, he insidiously attempted to introduce the French legal rules into the judicial practice of the northern territories of the kingdom. Justice is a fundamental institution allowing gradually the assimilation of conquered territories, just as army, administration or Church. Thus the criminal ordinance of 1670 was sent to the court in order to amend the rules of criminal procedure and other statutes came to impose the repressive policies to be followed. Historiography generally presents the parliament of Flanders’ magistrates as obedient to the royal power. However judicial archives revealed two examples of manifest disobedience to Louis XIV’s orders. Applying the ancient customs of the Netherlands is here a good way for the councillors to give priority to their financial interests.Parliament of Flanders - Louis XIV - History of criminal Law - History of criminal procedure

Justice was administered in the name of the king by his judges before the French revolution. Criminal decisions were not founded on the judges’ own findings. They were theoretically based on a tripartite classification of proofs according to their probative value: the statutory proofs theory. Is the use of the term "statutory" legitimate to describe such an organization? According to the litteral meaning of the word it originates from the medieval civil and canon law. In Modern Times texts such as the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina expressly referred to it whereas French legislation was much more sparse. We should examinate other sources of law, doctrine and case law to understand the history of this theory. In 1668 Louis XIV. created the parliament of Flanders, a royal court of justice. A study of its criminal sentences will highlight the judges' attitude in front of this classification of proofs.

The call for the present conference explicitly asks if law reduces the differences between man and woman, from an evolutionary point of view. In an age where female political representation is far from guaranteed, even in the most gender-oriented Western democracies, I would like to bring the example of a forceful and proud female Ancien Régime ruler: Elisabeth Farnese, the “Termagant Queen of Spain”, who, together with her feeble husband Philip V, “esclavo de sus mujeres”, ruled the Iberian peninsula and the Spanish colonies in both of the Indies, and terrified her native Italian peninsula. Elisabeth has the image of a “strong” and “ambitious”, but also unreliable and outright irrational woman. Philip had found in her his second wife. The already numerous children from his first marriage would precede those of his Italian bride. Yet, Elisabeth’s relentless quest for a dominion for her children, or of a dowry for herself as “administratrix”, kept the European state system in suspense from the end of the Spanish (1701-1714) to the end of the Austrian War of Succession (1740-1748). The multiple twists and turns of Spanish foreign policy are attributed to the de facto absolute government Elisabeth held over her “Imbecile” husband. However, as her legal status was concerned, she was but the spouse of the ruling monarch, who personally incarnated sovereignty. Recent historians have called for a reassessment of Philip’s mental lability (e.g. Henry Kamen), or of the aggressive Spanish foreign policy, or new “Risorgimento” in Italy (Christopher Storss), where the Spanish monarchy succeeded in founding two secondary branches (Parma-Piacenza and Naples), against all odds. Elisabeth correctly understood the Balance of Power in European relations after the Treaty of Utrecht. Yet, there was more than mere political shrewdness. If the Queen was capable of bullying male sovereigns into submission, she exploited legal arguments as well. Not only the historical Spanish presence in Italy, but foremost her position as relative ofthe extinct Farnese and Medici-dynasties, were the trump card in Philip’s hand. She managed to bend and bow Imperial succession law, excluding women, to plant the Bourbon flag in the heart of Habsburg dominated Italy.