the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 86 serve for himself.231 Accordingly, during the first session, the Court of Appeal participated in the adjudication of many criminal cases. It also dealt with several instances of crime referred from the provinces. The picture given by the fine records of the Svea Court of Appeal in 1614 indicates that this practice had been present ever since the beginning and that it became routine with time. It also shows that the state had fiscal interests in letting – in Shakespearian terms –“mercy season justice.” Confiscation of property could bring in even more money. There seems to have been an urgency to optimize the collection of revenues from the administration of justice for the royal coffers which may be understood against the general background of the financial catastrophe and chaos of the Swedish state. Sweden was embroiled in warfare against Russia and, in addition, had to raise and pay the “probably the heaviest tax that ever had been imposed on the Swedish nation,”232 the “crushing” one million silver-daler ransom of Älvsborg to Denmark as required by the 1613 Treaty of Knäred. The first instalment of this “gigantic war indemnity” was in 1616, and it was with great difficulty that Sweden managed scrape together the funds for the first payment. The government’s financial administration was resorting to what we may call hand-to-mouth measures, while the crown could not pay all its household expenses.233 Against the ongoing financial disaster of the state, one ought also to regard the establishment of the Svea Court of Appeal in terms of impending state insolvency and an acute need to collect revenues to pay for state expenses and to amass money for the ransom of Älvsborg. As has been observed, customs were one of the most important sources of revenue for the king and crown, but its yield depended first and foremost on how diligently each customs officer did his job.234 Therefore, in 1614 the Court of Appeal did a thorough job of investigating the alleged smuggling of goods in and out of Stockholm and suspicions of venality among the Stockholm 231 Rättegångs-Ordinantie (1614), inKongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 139: “[I] wår fiärran frånwaru, gifwe wij them Fullmacht att förklare sigh på alle Hals- och Liijffzsaker, och hwad the ther uppå för Förklarning gifwandes warde… thet skal så fast gälla, som wij thet giordt hade, och aff wåre Ståthållare och Befallningzmän strax och vthan uppehåldning effterkommit warde. Och hwar någon finnas kunde, som Domaren till Lijwet icke frija måtte, och lijkwäl för någre omständigheeter skuld Christeligen wore honom til Lifwet förskone, thet wele wii oss sielfwe förbehållit hafwa.” 232 Ahnlund, Nils 1930 p. 147. 233 Roberts, Michael 1953 pp. 122-129. 234 Barudio, Günter 1982 p. 137.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=