XXII Inaugural Address. 
own local customs, as a rule of decision in cases for which 
they had not provided ; but in the greater number it mingled 
imperceptibly with their usages, and had a powerful though 
less sensible influence. 
To the revival of the Roman Law must, also be attributed 
the decline of the Trial by Peers and by the prodes homines. 
The duties of both were, originally, similar and required nei- 
ther capacity nor study. They decided upon the usage and 
custom of the people and place to which they belonged, and 
a knowledge of these was all which it was necessary for them 
to possess. But when the Institutes and digest of Justinian 
were translated and publicly taught, the proceedings in the 
different Tribunals were materially changed, Learning a- 
mong the laity was totally unknown—but the clergy having 
some information, and being in possession of all the offices in 
the different Courts, eagerly adopted the practice of the Ro- 
man Law. <A new form of Trial was thus introduced, which 
was no longer an exhibition of state, grateful to the Seigneur 
and interesting to a warlike people, but a dry course of plead- 
ing which they neither understood nor cared to learn, and upon 
which the Judge was soon left to give judgment alone, for 
the Peers and the ‘‘ prodes homines,’’ being no longer capa- 
ble of deciding, withdrew by degrees, and were succeeded by 
Lawyers, who were appointed to assist the Judges with their 
advice, under the title of Assessors.(1) 
The Royal Judges, upon their re-establishment, were great= 
ly embarrassed by the different local customs to which, in the 
administration of Justice, they were compelled to have re- 
course, and upon which, by the secession of the Peers and 
prodes homines, they found themselves obliged to decide in 
person. It was impossible for them to have a knowledge of 
the usages of each particular Seigneurie, and, therefore, in 
all cases in which any question aruse respecting the existence 
of acustom, or of the practice which had obtained undera 
(1) Montesquieu, Book 28, cap. 42, vol. 2d. p. 319 & 320. 
