288 Summary den s most prominent seventeenth-century authors), for instance, wrote a memorandum in 1643 in which he criticised judges for accepting claims based on ancient usage to land inside the boundaries of someone else’s property. This legal practice made all boundaries meaningless, he believ^ed. Stiernhielm’s views were never heeded, however. Chapter 5. Legal conceptions and political life Here, the argument of the preceding chapter is placed within a broader setting. It is shown that the procedural advantages connected with possessio (above all, exemption from the burden of proof) and the importance attached to tacit consent are all vital to a proper understanding of seventeenth-century political life and discourse. The main examples to substantiate this vieware gleaned from the discussions at the Four Estate Diets of 1655 and 1680, when the decisions to repossess the Crown land previously transferred to the nobility were taken (known as reduktionen). In these debates, the nobility claimed a right to retain their possessions. The Crown, on the other hand, invoked the provision of the legal code giving the monarch a right to take back alienated land {Konungabalken 3). It also claimed that ordinary civil lawwas not applicable in a situation of acute hnancial crisis, emphasised the importance of the common good, and denied that the rights of the Crown could ever be prescribed by ancient usage or any other form of prescription (‘praescriptio non currit in coronam’). Chapter 6. Land disputes in the courts The Royal Court of Appeal in Stockholm (Svea hovrätt) was the first and most important of the four Swedish appeal courts set up in the seventeenth century. From 1615, it is possible to analyse its practice in civil cases in great depth. During the period 1615-79 the court settled 84 disputes involving claims of ancient usage; in the years 1683-7 the number was 12. These disputes form the main empirical basis for this chapter, but a number of examples fromthe primary hundred courts are also drawn upon. It is shown that • rural landholders, i.e. noblemen and peasant freeholders, were the most common plaintiffs and defendants m such disputes (see table 6:1);
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=