wolfgang sellert While the reaction of the RKGis unknown in these two cases, one can learn of a spectacular intervention by theRHRfrom the literature of the 1780s, against which theRKGresisted.22 The subject matter was a pending concordant case, over which the RHRclaimed sole jurisdiction. It instructed the RKGto hand over all documents and senate minutes regarding the case. Some assessors – those in the minority – declared the emperor’s order to be unauthorised and outrageous. The imperial estates also reacted indignantly and declared that by this unfair presumption of the imperial court not only violated the justice of the whole German empire, but also the independent judicial order of theRKGhad been offended.23 Overall, however, such rigorous interventions appear to have been the exception. In contrast, theRHR, in its role as highest judicial authority, often tried to influence the RKGwith so-called Promotoriales – written admonitions;24 for example when parties turned to it for help if their proceedings in theRKGdragged on too long,25 because they were hoping for the annulment of a detention imposed by it26 or for the dismissal of an appeal.27 Even though the Promotoriales were disallowed in the Electoral Capitulation of 1742,28 they were generally accepted if they appeared as promotoriales simplices, that is when no party was favoured in a matter, or judges should not be ‘preoccupied’.29 If and how the RKGreacted to such non-binding admonitions is, thus far, unknown.30 22 Bülow, Heinrich Wilhelm von 1791 pp. 209-212. 23 Bülow, Heinrich Wilhelm von 1791 p. 212. The protestant estates reacted in 1787 with the printed script Untersuchung der Frage, ob kaiserliche Gebothsbriefe, welche ohne Vorwissen und Bewilligung der Reichsstände ans Cammergericht erlassen, von Kraft und Würkung seyn können, Bülow, Heinrich Wilhelm von Ibid. However, there were also cases after 1654 in which the RHR disregarded the ban on prevention and avocation, which the RKGbemoaned in a letter to the Reichstag; see Sellert, Wolfgang 1965 p. 116 f. 24 In Vienna‘s Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchivthere is a whole department with intervention and suggestion letters; for this see Bittner, Ludwig 1936 p. 310. 25 APAvol. 4 no. 3551, 3659, 3974 and 3988; APAvol. 5 no. 5660 and 6127. 26 APAvol. 5 no. 4851 and 6029. 27 APAvol. 4 no. 4360; APAvol. 5 no. 4754 and 4857. 28 See supra fn. 13. 29 Bülow, Heinrich Wilhelm von 1791 p. 213; Ludolf, Georg Melchior 1722 pp. 263-265. 30 As the now surveyed documents show, the relationship betweenRKGandRHRwas still defined more by cooperation than confrontation. 61
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=