In no country in Europe were the ordinary courts of justice less dependent on the Government than in France; but in no country were extraordinary courts of justice more extensively employed. These two circumstances were more nearly connected than might be imagined. As the King was almost entirely5 powerless in relation to the judges of the land—as he could neither dismiss them, nor translate them, nor even, for the most part, promote them—as, in short, he held them neither by ambition nor by fear, their independence soon proved embarrassing to the Crown. The result had been, in France, more than anywhere else, to withdraw from their jurisdiction the suits in which the authority of the Crown was directly interested, and to call into being, as it were beside them, a species of tribunal more dependent on the sovereign, which should present to the subjects of the Crown some semblance6 of justice without any real cause for the Crown to dread7 its control.
In other countries, as, for instance, in some parts of Germany, where the ordinary courts of justice had never been as independent of the Government as those of France, no such precautions were taken, and no administrative justice (as it was termed) existed. The sovereign was so far master of the judges, that he needed no special commissions.
The edicts and declarations of the Kings of France, published in the last century of the monarchy8, and the Orders in Council promulgated9 within the same period, almost all provided on behalf of the Government, that the differences which any given measure might occasion and the litigation which might ensue, should be exclusively heard before the Intendants and before the Council. ‘It is moreover ordered by his Majesty10, that all the disputes which may arise upon the execution of this order, with all the circumstances and incidents thereunto belonging, shall be carried before the Intendant to be judged by him, saving an appeal to the Council, and all courts of justice and tribunals are forbidden to take cognisance of the same.’ Such was the ordinary form of these decrees.
In matters which fell under laws or customs of an earlier date, when this precaution had not been taken, the Council continually intervened, by way of what was termed evocation11, or the calling up to its own superior jurisdiction from the hands of the ordinary officers of justice suits in which the administration of the State had an interest. The registers of the Council are full of minutes of evocation of this nature. By degrees the exception became the rule, and a theory was invented to justify12 the fact.[27] It came to be regarded as a maxim13 of state, not in the laws of France, but in the minds of those by whom those laws were applied14, that all suits in which a public interest was involved, or which arose out of the construction to be put on any act of the administration, were not within the competency of the ordinary judges, whose only business it was to decide between private interests. On this point we, in more recent times, have only added a mode of expression; the idea had preceded the Revolution of 1789.
Already at that time most of the disputed questions which arose out of the collection of the revenue were held to fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Intendant and the King’s Council.[28] So, too, with reference to the regulation of public waggons15 and stage-coaches, drainage, the navigation of rivers, etc.; and in general all the suits in which the public authorities were interested came to be disposed of by administrative tribunals only. The Intendants took the greatest care that this exceptional jurisdiction should be continually extended. They urged on the Comptroller-General, and stimulated16 the Council. The reason one of these officers assigned to induce the Council to call up one of these suits deserves to be remembered. ‘An ordinary judge,’ said he, ‘is subject to fixed17 rules, which compel him to punish any transgression[47] of the law; but the Council can always set aside rules for a useful purpose.’
On this principle, it often happened that the Intendant or the Council called up to their own jurisdiction suits which had an almost imperceptible connection with any subject of administrative interest, or even which had no perceptible connection with such questions at all. A country gentleman quarrels with his neighbour, and being dissatisfied with the apparent disposition18 of his judges, he asks the Council to evoke19 his cause. The Intendant reports that, ‘although this is a case solely20 affecting private rights, which fall under the cognisance of the courts of justice, yet that his Majesty can always, when he pleases, reserve to himself the decision of any suit whatever, without rendering21 any account at all of his motives22.’
It was generally before the Intendant or before the Provost of the Maréchaussée that all the lower order of people were sent for trial, by this process of evocation, when they had been guilty of public disturbances23. Most of the riots so frequently caused by the high price of corn gave rise to transfers of jurisdiction of this nature. The Intendant then summoned to his court a certain number of persons, who formed a sort of local council, chosen by himself, and with their assistance he proceeded to try criminals. I have found sentences delivered in this manner, by which men were condemned24 to the galleys25, and even to death. Criminal trials decided26 by the Intendant were still common at the close of the seventeenth century.
Modern jurists in discussing this subject of administrative jurisdictions27 assert, that great progress has been made since the Revolution. ‘Before that era,’ they say, ‘the judicial28 and administrative powers were confounded; they have since been distinguished29 and assigned to their respective places.’ To appreciate correctly the progress here spoken of, it must never be forgotten, that if on the one hand the judicial power under the old monarchy was incessantly30 extending beyond the natural sphere of its authority, yet on the other hand that sphere was never entirely filled by it. To see one of these facts without the other is to form an incomplete and inaccurate31 idea of the subject. Sometimes the courts of law were allowed to enact32 regulations on matters of public administration, which was manifestly beyond their jurisdiction; sometimes they were restrained from judging regular suits, which was to exclude them from the exercise of their proper functions. The modern law of France has undoubtedly33 removed the administration of justice from those political institutions into which it had very[48] improperly34 been allowed to penetrate35 before the Revolution; but at the same time, as has just been shown, the Government continually invaded the proper sphere of the judicial authorities, and this state of things is unchanged, as if the confusion of these powers were not equally dangerous on the one side as on the other, and even worse in the latter mode; for the intervention36 of a judicial authority in administrative business is only injurious to the transaction of affairs; but the intervention of administrative power in judicial proceedings37 depraves mankind, and tends to render men at once revolutionary and servile.
Amongst the nine or ten constitutions which have been established in perpetuity in France within the last sixty years, there is one in which it was expressly provided that no agent of the administration can be prosecuted38 before the ordinary courts of law without having previously39 obtained the assent40 of the Government to such a prosecution41.[29] This clause appeared to be so well devised that when the constitution to which it belonged was destroyed, this provision was saved from the wreck42, and it has ever since been carefully preserved from the injuries of revolutions. The administrative body still calls the privilege secured to them by this article one of the great conquests of 1789; but in this they are mistaken, for under the old monarchy the Government was not less solicitous43 than it is in our own times to spare its officers the unpleasantness of rendering an account in a court of law, like any other private citizens. The only essential difference between the two periods is this: before the Revolution the Government could only shelter its agents by having recourse to illegal and arbitrary measures; since the Revolution it can legally allow them to violate the laws.
When the ordinary tribunals of the old monarchy allowed proceedings to be instituted against any officer representing the central authority of the Government, an Order in Council usually intervened to withdraw the accused person from the jurisdiction of his judges, and to arraign44 him before commissioners45 named by the Council; for, as was said by a councillor of state of that time, a public officer thus attacked would have had to encounter an adverse46 prepossession in the minds of the ordinary judges, and the authority of the King would have been compromised. This sort of interference occurred not only at long intervals47, but every day—not[49] only with reference to the chief agents of the Government, but to the least. The slightest thread of a connection with the administration sufficed to relieve an officer from all other control. A mounted overseer of the Board of Public Works, whose business was to direct the forced labour of the peasantry, was prosecuted by a peasant whom he had ill-treated. The Council evoked48 the cause, and the chief engineer of the district, writing confidentially49 to the Intendant, said on this subject: ‘It is quite true that the overseer is greatly to blame, but that is not a reason for allowing the case to follow the ordinary jurisdiction; for it is of the utmost importance to the Board of Works that the courts of common law should not hear or decide on the complaints of the peasants engaged in forced labour against the overseers of these works. If this precedent50 were followed, those works would be disturbed by continual litigation, arising out of the animosity of the public against the officers of the Government.’
On another occasion the Intendant himself wrote to the Comptroller-General with reference to a Government contractor51, who had taken his materials in a field which did not belong to him. ‘I cannot sufficiently52 represent to you how injurious it would be to the interests of the Administration if the contractors53 were abandoned to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, whose principles can never be reconciled to those of the Government.’
These lines were written precisely54 a hundred years ago, but it appears as if the administrators55 who wrote them were our own contemporaries.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
administrative
|
|
| adj.行政的，管理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
jurisdiction
|
|
| n.司法权，审判权，管辖权，控制权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
immunity
|
|
| n.优惠；免除；豁免，豁免权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
anterior
|
|
| adj.较早的；在前的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
semblance
|
|
| n.外貌，外表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
dread
|
|
| vt.担忧，忧虑；惧怕，不敢；n.担忧，畏惧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
monarchy
|
|
| n.君主，最高统治者；君主政体，君主国 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
promulgated
|
|
| v.宣扬（某事物）( promulgate的过去式和过去分词 )；传播；公布；颁布（法令、新法律等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
majesty
|
|
| n.雄伟，壮丽，庄严，威严；最高权威，王权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
evocation
|
|
| n. 引起，唤起 n. <古> 召唤，招魂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
maxim
|
|
| n.格言，箴言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
waggons
|
|
| 四轮的运货马车( waggon的名词复数 )； 铁路货车； 小手推车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
stimulated
|
|
| a.刺激的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
disposition
|
|
| n.性情，性格；意向，倾向；排列，部署 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
evoke
|
|
| vt.唤起，引起，使人想起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
rendering
|
|
| n.表现，描写 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
disturbances
|
|
| n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 )；打扰；困扰；障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
galleys
|
|
| n.平底大船，战舰( galley的名词复数 )；（船上或航空器上的）厨房 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
jurisdictions
|
|
| 司法权( jurisdiction的名词复数 )； 裁判权； 管辖区域； 管辖范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
incessantly
|
|
| ad.不停地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
inaccurate
|
|
| adj.错误的，不正确的，不准确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
enact
|
|
| vt.制定(法律)；上演，扮演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
improperly
|
|
| 不正确地，不适当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
penetrate
|
|
| v.透(渗)入；刺入，刺穿；洞察，了解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
prosecuted
|
|
| a.被起诉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
assent
|
|
| v.批准，认可；n.批准，认可 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
wreck
|
|
| n.失事，遇难；沉船；vt.(船等)失事，遇难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
solicitous
|
|
| adj.热切的，挂念的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
arraign
|
|
| v.提讯；控告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
commissioners
|
|
| n.专员( commissioner的名词复数 )；长官；委员；政府部门的长官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
adverse
|
|
| adj.不利的；有害的；敌对的，不友好的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
intervals
|
|
| n.[军事]间隔( interval的名词复数 )；间隔时间；[数学]区间；（戏剧、电影或音乐会的）幕间休息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
evoked
|
|
| [医]诱发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
confidentially
|
|
| ad.秘密地，悄悄地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
precedent
|
|
| n.先例，前例；惯例；adj.在前的，在先的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
contractor
|
|
| n.订约人，承包人，收缩肌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
contractors
|
|
| n.（建筑、监造中的）承包人( contractor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
administrators
|
|
| n.管理者( administrator的名词复数 )；有管理（或行政）才能的人；（由遗嘱检验法庭指定的）遗产管理人；奉派暂管主教教区的牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |