Inaugural Address. xIx 
mon with the Seigneurs, taken advantage of the disorders 
which prevailed, and of the superstition of the age, not only 
to enlarge their own peculiar Jurisdictions, but to shake off, 
entirely, their subjection to all authority, except that of the 
Church. They had, in fact, so multiplied their pretexts for 
extending the Jurisdiction of the Spiritual Courts, that it 
was, ultimately, in their power to withdraw almost every 
person, and every cause, from the cognizance of the Civil 
Magistrate(1) They claimed and exercised, as their ex~ 
clusive privilege, the right of deciding all civil causes, in 
which any of their body was a party, or was, in any manner, 
interested, and allcriminal prosecutions, in which the de- 
fendant either was, or asserted himself to be, a Clerk ; in 
causes where none but laymen were concerned, they claimed 
and exercised a similar priyilege for various extraordinary 
reasons—in matters of contract, because contracts were then 
usually euforced by the oath of the parties—in all testamen~ 
tary cases, because the deceased having left his body to the 
Church for Sepulture, the execution of his Will, by the 
Church, was a necessary consequence, inasmuch as it con- 
cerned the repose of his soul(2)—in all matrimonial cases, 
because marriage was a Sacrament—and in all cases in which 
a widow oran orphan was a party, because it was the duty 
ofthe Church to protect such characters. In other cases 
the same privilege was claimed for reasons which were not 
Jese extraordinary. If an individual resisted their authority, 
he was excommunicated, and upon his submission, a pecunia- 
ry fine was imposed for reconciliation with the Church, which 
the temporal Judge, in whose Jurisdiction he resided, was 
required to enforce by his authority, under pain of personal 
excommunication, and the interdiction of the whole District 
over which he presided, iu case of disobedience.(3) 
—___— t The 
(1) Robertson's Charles V. vol. Ist. p.112. Fleury’s Institut. du Droit 
Canon, vol. 2. p. 8 Hericourt, part ist. p. 120. 
(2) Loysean des Seigneuries. 
(3) Floury’s hustitat, du Droit Canon, vol. 2. p. 9 & 10, 
