Aulic Council

Reichskanzlei wing of the Hofburg, Vienna

The Aulic Council (Latin: Consilium Aulicum; German: Reichshofrat; literally "Court Council of the Empire", sometimes abbreviated in academic writing as "RHR") was one of the two supreme courts of the Holy Roman Empire, the other being the Reichskammergericht. Unlike the Reichskammergericht, the Aulic Council was tied directly to the Emperor.

It had not only concurrent jurisdiction with the latter court, but in many cases exclusive jurisdiction: the Aulic Council had exclusive jurisdiction in all feudal processes, and in criminal affairs, over the immediate feudatories of the Emperor and in affairs which concerned the Empire, and more (see Responsibilities below). It did not have a single set seat, rather, it was bound with the Emperor's residences. Prague, Wels, Frankfurt, were all sites of the court, but the most important seat of the Aulic Council was at the Hofburg residence of the Habsburg emperors in Vienna.

Since 1960, the accomplishments of the Aulic Council have been extensively researched in academia, with some of its former court files (of which there are more than 100,000 that still exist) stored at the Austrian State Archives. It played a major role the constitutional, legal, and political history of the Holy Roman Empire, and is considered one of the most prominent supreme courts in early modern Europe. As historian Eva Ortlieb puts it, "Like the Rota Romana and the Parlement de Paris, [the Aulic Council] ranks among the most significant supreme courts of Europe."

History

Meeting of the Aulic Council, 1683

The Aulic Council (from the Latin aula, court in feudal language, in antiquity a Hellenistic type of grand residence, usually private) was originally an executive-judicial council for the Empire. Originating during the Late Middle Ages as a paid Council of the Emperor, it was organized in its later form by the German king Maximilian I by decree of 13 December 1497, and a constitution for the court was established in 1550. It was meant as a rival to the separate Reichskammergericht, which the Imperial Estates had forced upon him by promulgating the Ewiger Landfriede at the Diet of Worms two years before. Maximilian emphasised the fact that the Emperor embodied supreme legal authority and would continue to answer legal requests addressed to him. During the reign of Charles V, the Aulic Council responded to hundreds of petitions, as the Emperor was often absent from the Empire.

The relationship between the Aulic Council and the Reichskammergericht is described as both competitive but also cooperative, depending on the situation. For most cases, litigants could choose between both courts. From 1620 onward, the Aulic Council began to significantly out produce the Reichskammergericht in terms of litigant counts. It is also during this time the Aulic Council underwent large reforms. The court would appoint Fiskal, special attorneys (see more information in composition), and established advocates to represent any litigants. The Aulic Council would further evolve thanks to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), and later Emperor Ferdinand III's new constitution for the court in 1654. The Aulic Council being faster than the Reichskammergericht, and also possessing the Emperor's direct authority, made it attractive to litigants.

In 1767, the Aulic Council handled 2,088 cases. This grew to 3,388 in 1779.

When Napoleon I's gains after the Battle of Austerlitz and the Peace of Pressburg culminated in the end of the Holy Roman Empire, the Aulic Council likewise ceased to exist in 1806 as an imperial institution.

The Aulic Council is believed by modern historiography to be quite significant. In particular, the court helped stabilize the balance of power in the Empire and provided a forum for legal diplomacy, rather than violence. Historians often use the term juridification (Verrechtlichung) to describe this process of increased legal resolutions rather than violent resolutions in the Empire. Though the court was nominally in Vienna and politically tied to the Emperor, historians today do not consider it to be strictly partisan in favor of the Emperor. A nuanced view states how Emperor's after the Westphalia (1648) realized that using the Aulic Council for political means would make the court less respected, and that the courts sometimes went against the Emperor's wishes or policies. The Aulic Council attached much of its importance to legal arguments, so it sometimes contradicted the Emperor.

An example of Juridification and the protection of smaller Imperial estates: Brandenburg-Kulmbach vs Prussia

The Holy Roman Empire, even in its later years, maintained relative peace of stability. Additionally, the existence of smaller territorial princes was maintained, in spite of attempts by more powerful princes to absorb smaller ones (which later occurred during mediatisation). In this regard, the Aulic Council played a major role. Historian Siegrid Westphal demonstrated in her work that the Aulic Council played the role of a mediator in conflicts between Imperial estates. A great example of this is the Brandenburg-Kulmbach succession crisis.

Ruled by a branch of the Prussian Hohenzollern family, the small margraviate was at risk of falling into Prussian hands. Prussia had purchased the succession claim from a junior Brandenburg-Kulmbach prince, Christian Heinrich, in 1703. A dispute took place on whether or not Christian Heinrich's son, George Frederich Karl, should have succession rights. The Prussians refused to accept George Frederich Karl's claim, and began to actively prepare the territory for a Prussian takeover following the death of the reigning Margrave, George Wilhelm.

Worried about the possibility of Prussian annexation, Kulmbach margraves appealed to the Emperor the Elector of Mainz for protection. Imperial Vice-Chancellor, Friedrich Karl von Schönborn, petitioned the case to Emperor Charles VI, seeking to limit Prussia's growing power. To appear impartial, the case was sent the case to the Aulic Council. In 1716, the Aulic Council declared that the Prussian purchase of the Kulmbach succession claim was invalid, and went against the succession customs of the Hohenzollerns. The Aulic Council stated that the transfer of claims was made during a time of duress (War of the Spanish Succession). A Kulmbach envoy is reported to have said have commented "'at least in Germany we no longer have to rely on weapons, but on due process, which gives the weaker estates cause to rejoice." Prussia complied with the Aulic Council's demands, and the crisis in Kulmbach was settled without further trouble.

An interesting note to be made is that even though Kulmbach was receiving Imperial protection, it, alongside other princes like Duchy of Württemberg, had been trying to suppress the rights of the Imperial knights, which were being protected by the Emperor. This shows how the Emperor could intervene on multiple layers of hierarchy: the Emperor was protecting the margrave from Prussia, but also protecting the Imperial knights against the margraves.

Further examples can be found in the Examples of Cases Settled settled.

Composition

President

The president of the Aulic Council was a nobleman, often a count. They did not necessarily have legal training, but did have experience in politics and diplomacy. The president moderated sessions and took part in voting. His vote was a tiebreaker. He was appointed by the Emperor. There was also a Vice President.

Vice Chancellor

The Vice Chancellor, who was appointed by the Elector of Mainz in his capacity as Imperial archchancellor, held sway in the Aulic Council.

Councillors

Each emperor summoned a new Council upon his accession to the throne. The court normally consisted of 10-25 members, though this fluctuated over time. In 1559, the Council had 18 councillors, who were all chosen by the Emperor. Of the 18 councilors, six were Protestants, whose votes, when they were unanimous, were an effective veto, so that a religious parity was to some extent preserved. Under pressure from the Imperial Diet, the number of Protestants and Catholics on the council were balanced by Ferdinand III in 1654. Upon the death of an Emperor, the Council was dissolved and had to be reconstructed by his successor. The Emperor was responsible for paying the councillors.

The Council was divided into 2 benches: The Lords' Bench (Herrenbank), mainly consisting of councillors recruited from the nobility, and the Knights' and Scholars' Bench (Ritter- und Gelehrtenbank). Both benches decided as one body. Councillors were required to have legal qualifications, regardless of what bench they sat on, and their votes held the same weight.

In addition to legal degrees, councilors often had professional experience in Habsburg governance, worked in estates closely tied to the Emperor, or served on the Reichskammergericht.

Fiskal

The Fiskal (also spelled Fiskale), were special attorneys that represented Imperial interests. They often came from amongst officials in either the Aulic Council, the Imperial Chancellery (Reichskanzlei), or Austria below the Enns River.

Other

The court also employed numerous lawyers, attorneys, procurators, and scribes.

Decision Making and Enforcement

The court made decisions based on majority vote, and transcriptions were written in German or Latin. Proceedings were not comparatively formal, less so than the Reichskammergericht, and instead aimed to resolve conflict amicably. Rulings were not appealable, and decisions could only be challenged by appealing to the Emperor, or later, the Imperial Diet. In cases where the court was in doubt, it could contact the Emperor for help with decision-making (votum ad imperatorem). In particular, cases that immense political sensitivity would be sent to the Emperor and his privy-conference (Geheime Konferenz) for recommendations. The privy-conference in particular was prone to political polarization. Three key factions, the Reichskanzlei (Imperial Chancellery), the Austrian Hofkanzlei (Court-Chancellery), and the Spanish Council, all fought over influence in the Austrian Habsburg court. During Emperor Charles VI's reign, these factions often went against each other. To mitigate this and create some coordination, the president of the Aulic Council was often part of the privy-conference when Aulic Council cases were under investigation.

The Aulic Council had a formalized method of issuing verdicts, mainly through use of military force, and gaining help from "commissions" consisting of princes in Imperial Circles. Such enforcement was legitimized by the Emperor. Interestingly, the Aulic Council could enforce many of its verdicts, even against stronger members of the Empire (ex. Prussia), without using force, to the extent that Frederick William I partook in bribing members of the Aulic Council in hopes of securing more favorable verdicts, to avoid being contumacious.

Responsibilities

An important clarification is that the Aulic Council handled both Judicial and Political matters, and the distinction between both is not always easy to make. The Aulic Council did not try to make a distinction between the two, calling all of its cases causae.

Like the Imperial Chamber Court, the Aulic Council was an appeals court, in which matters that could not be settled were brought to the supreme court for deliberation.

The Aulic Council commonly dealt with feudal disputes. These included "imperial overlordship, protecting imperial fiefs, all issues relating to investitures, inheritance, pawning, or purchase of fiefs, and all sorts of lawsuits related to these matters." The Aulic Council also dealt with constitutional disputes, especially in Imperial cities and imperial knightly territories. It also proved to be a major court when it came to succession disputes within the Empire. For example, the Aulic Council was charged with dealing with cases such as the Jülich Succession and the succession in the Ernestine duchies. Internal conflicts between rulers and their subjects were also commonly brought to the Aulic Council. See the Examples of Cases Studied section below for more information. Uniquely, the Aulic Council also had exclusive rights over judicial matters in the Kingdom of Italy. The court's power could even bypass the Privilegium de non appellando, if the litigants could credibly show that they had been denied due process.

The Aulic Council was often concerned with private law. It often heard economic disputes, disputes over sovereign rights, disputes between princes and provincial diets, and disputes between landowners and subjects. In addition to the aforementioned responsibilities, the Aulic Council also dealt with house pacts and family disputes. An example of this is the Nassau Family Pact, which was submitted to review by the Aulic Council. The court processed also imperial privileges, issuing letters of safe conduct, passage, and protection, granted legitimation of bastard children, and confirmed various contracts and wills.

Low funds and low social status did not hamper one from appealing to the court, as the Aulic Council was required to provide counsel free of charge (the Reichskammegericht had a similar establishment). Peasants often sought audiences with the Emperor, with some travelling from distant parts of the Empire. The Emperor would generally give a formulaic response: "You shall have justice", before turning over the case to the Aulic Council.

The Aulic Council was meant to serve as a supreme court for the Habsburg crownlands, but by the end of the 17th century, this was no longer the case, so most cases came from elsewhere in the Empire. An exception to this were Jewish litigations, who were protected by the Emperor and as such could petition their complaints to the Council, even if in the Habsburg crownlands. Oftentimes, Jewish businessmen would use the Aulic Council to sue princes for nonpayment of debts.

The Aulic Council also possessed the right to watch over finances of princes. The court had the right to prevent princes or free cities from taking too much debt, by holding the power to authorize large loans (though this was often bypassed). If a prince defaulted, the Council could appoint a commission that would take over the governing of the land until the debt was repaid. In this time, the prince would be granted a pension. This was probably tolerated by the imperial princes since it enhanced their credit amongst lenders. Through its management of princely finances, the court saved many noble houses from financial ruin, such as the Dukes of Saxe-Hildburghausen.

Examples of Cases Settled

16th Century

Reichsregiment vs Archduchy of Austria

The case Reichsregiment v. Archduchy of Austria was primarily contested over an economic issue, pertaining to the Archduchy of Austria's investment agreements with the Grand Duchy of Moscow. The Reichsregiment sued the Archduchy of Austria over Austria's failure to comply with Imperial obligations. See a translated English transcript of the case here: https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/51529251/rechsregiment-v-archduchy-of-austria.pdf

17 Century

Jülich-Cleves-Berg Succession Crisis

In 1609, a succession crisis in the United Duchies of United Duchies of Jülich-Cleves-Berg fell under the jurisdiction of the Aulic Council. The case was not resolved and escalated into the War of the Jülich Succession.

Mainz vs Erfurt

Between 1648 and 1664, Erfurt's magistrates attempted to secure the city's status as an imperial city. However, Erfurt was nominally obedient to the Elector of Mainz. Two struggles ensued: one between Erfurt and Mainz, and another between the burghers of Erfurt and the magistrates. The Elector of Mainz in particular sought to use the opportunity to strengthen his control over Erfurt, which most of the Saxon rulers wanted to prevent. In this period, the Emperor appointed four commissions to deal with the crisis, with the last three commissions all including members of the Aulic Council. The appointed Aulic Councilor, Johann Christoph von Schmidburg, was a partisan in favor of Mainz. Erfurt was placed under Imperial Ban, and the Elector of Mainz was given the right to enforce the imperial decree. In 1664, Erfurt was subdued by Mainz for good.

18th Century

Deposition of Prince William Hyacinth

Prince William Hyacinth ruled the small teritory of Nassau-Siegen. His violent and extortionately behavior led to multiple lawsuits against him at the Aulic Council, which led to armed intervention in his lands, and later his deposition in 1707. Following William's deposition, the Aulic Council commissioned the cathedral chapter of the Electorate of Cologne to temporarily administer his lands. The court's mandates were "promptly executed by Electoral Cologne." Later, the lands would pass into the administration of the local Imperial Circle.

Limpurg Succession Crisis

When the Count of Limpurg (not to be confused with Limburg) died without heirs in 1713 without male heirs, Prussia occupied the territory. The widowed countess appealed to the Aulic Council, in hopes of restoring the autonomy of Limpurg. The prince-bishops of Bamberg and Würzburg, along with the Duke of Württemberg, formed a commission, and the countess requested that "in case good offices are employed to no avail, [the commissioners] should employ armed force to drive the Prussian invaders out of the Limpurg territories". The Prussians promptly withdrew from Limpurg, and the countess was restored to her lands.

Uncovered fraud of Rheingraf Karl Magnus

Rheingraf Karl Magnus of Grehweiler contracted large loans by forging the consent of his subjects. He used these funds to pay for his construction projects. When his fraud was uncovered, the Aulic Council sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

Internal Disputes in Mecklenburg and Württemberg

Internal conflicts were often fought between princes and local estates and parliaments. Oftentimes, these were fought over taxation. A form of this occurred in Mecklenburg and Württemberg. The Aulic Council played a significant role in both cases. In Württemberg, the estates' complaints led to the emperor deposing regent Frederick Charles in 1693. Similarly, in Mecklenburg, a complaint resulted in the emperor deposing Karl Leopold in 1728. Ultimately, these conflicts ended with victories for the estates over their rulers—Mecklenburg in 1755 and Württemberg in 1764/70. Similar cases also occurred in Bavaria and East Frisia.

Hesse-Rheinfels vs Hesse-Kassel

A dispute between Hesse-Rheinfels and Hesse-Kassel was fought over the Rheinfels fortress and the county of Katzenelnbogen. The lands belonged to Hesse-Rheinfels, but the fortress was occupied by the larger Hesse-Kassel in 1692 to defend it against French attacks in the Nine Years' War. Hesse-Kassel decided to retain the fortress even after the war, until the Treaty of Baden (1714), which demanded that Hesse-Kassel return the fort to Hesse-Rheinfels. Landgrave Charles of Hesse-Kassel refused, and so Hesse-Rheinfels appealed to the Emperor. The Aulic Council supported the claim of Hesse-Rheinfels, but the mandate was unable to be enforced, due to developments both within the Empire and beyond (Hesse-Kassel had support from the Dutch Republic, for example, and had marriage ties with Sweden). Eventually, in 1718, armies of the Palatinate, Mainz, and Trier, engaged in skirmishes against Hesse-Kassel. The conclusion of the Austro-Turkish War finally led to Hesse-Kassel's surrender, as it meant Imperial armies could be diverted to deal with the issue.

Prussia and Solms-Braunfels vs Bentheim-Tecklenburg

The County of Tecklenburg had been engaged in a succession dispute since the 1500s. In 1686, the Reichskammergericht issued a verdict which settled the conflict, splitting the territory between Bentheim-Tecklenburg and Solms-Braunfels. In 1696, Solms-Braunfels ceded their claim to Brandenburg-Prussia. When Brandenburg and Solms-Braunfels occupied Tecklenburg in 1701, which went against the Reichskammergericht decision, Bentheim-Tecklenburg appealed to the Aulic Council. The conflict escalated when Solms-Braunfels formally sold Tecklenburg to Prussia. The Aulic Council declared this sale illegal. Prussia's activity was condemned by members of the Lower Rhenish–Westphalian Circle, in particularly Münster and the Palatinate. At the Imperial Diet (1722), Prussia, Solms-Braunfels, and the Reichskammergericht, challenged the Aulic Council's decision. Prussia claimed that since the Reichskammergericht had already reached a verdict on the case, the Aulic Council should have never reopened the case. The Aulic Council argued that the Reichskammergericht was not authorized to pass verdicts on disputed immediate Imperial estates, but the Reichskammergericht responded by claiming that Tecklenburg was not a county immediate to the Emperor, but only an allodial property. The case was unable to be settled in the diet.

The Aulic Council continued to publish verdicts against Prussia throughout 1725, but failure of the Council to enforce the case, coupled with the Emperor needing Prussia support with the Pragmatic Sanction, led to a 1729 treaty between Prussia and Bentheim-Tecklenburg. Bentheim-Tecklenburg would give up its claim to Tecklenburg, but would receive 750,000 Reichstaler. The Emperor ratified the treaty in 1730, and Prussia annexed Tecklenburg.

Interestingly, the Tecklenburg case is an example of the Aulic Council somewhat going against Habsburg policy. Despite the Emperor Charles VI attempting to "woo" Prussia in exchange for agreeing to the Pragmatic Sanction, the Aulic Council remained steadfast in challenging Prussia's position in Tecklenburg.

Electoral Palatinate vs Knights of the Göler

Zwingenberg, a fief of the Electoral Palatinate, had been ruled by the lords of Hirschhorn, which fell extinct in 1632. According to a succession treaty in the Peace of Westphalia, the territory was meant to pass to the knights of the Göler. Instead, the Elector Palatine granted the land to the Wiser family. In 1725, the Aulic Council ordered the Elector Palatine to restore Zwingenberg to the Göler.

Diplomatic developments in Europe complicated matters. The Peace of Vienna, and the subsequent Treaty of Hanover, created two new alliances in the continent, which established a new balance of power. Both parties wanted to ally with the powerful German princes: the Palatinate was being courted by Vienna. In 1726, an alliance was agreed upon between the Emperor and the Palatinate, with the Elector Palatine receiving subsidies and support in the Jülich-Berg succession.

Nonetheless, the Aulic Council remained hostile against the Palatinate when it came to the Zwingenberg case. The Swabian circle, was commissioned to eject the Elector-Palatine, but the Emperor did not immediately execute the order by 1727. The Palatinate appealed to the Imperial Diet, with support from the Catholic princes, but with relations between the Elector Palatine and the Emperor deteriorating in 1728, the Emperor became impatient with the issue, and sided with the Protestant party (Corpus Evangelicorum) against the Palatinate (this came after the Emperor promised the Jülich-Berg succession to Prussia, which led to the Elector Palatine aligning himself with the Habsburgs' rivals). In 1728, an unverified report stated that an Swabian commission lawyer was jailed and beaten, and a report from the Aulic Council stated that Imperial delegates were turned away by Palatine dragoons, when attempting to enter Zwingenberg. The Aulic Council was outraged, and demanded that the Elector Palatine be reprimanded. The Elector Palatine was ordered to stop obstructing the commision and that failure to do so what result in unrest in the Empire. In 1728, the Elector Palatine finally stepped down, and the Aulic Council's demand was executed in November 1728.

Sources

• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Barker, Ernest (1911). "Aulic Council". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.). pp. 916–917.

External links

• Order of the Aulic Council of March 16th, 1654 in full-text (in German)