imperial control of the aulic council the vota were a thorn in the side of the estates – mainly the Protestant ones, who feared the Catholic influence of the imperial court.45 Thevota, was the argument, handed the emperor a “whipwithwhich he could make his imperial standing in the judicial system clear to the estates, even the influential ones.”46 Even though the estates did not question the legality of the vota, they bemoaned the alleged misuse of this practice.47 For example, they criticised that many pending proceedings were brought indifferenter per pura vota ad caesarem, whichmade the judges to bemore like councillors rather than judges.48 On the whole, the criticism of the estates concurred with the view taken by the commentator of the RHROof 1654, H. v. Portner, who claimed that nearly nothing that bore even a small relation to the statum publicumwas resolved without a votum ad Caesarem.49 All this, so the estates maintained, would make a mockery of justice and partisanship. This situation should be ended, especially as the Privy Council altered the decision proposals without consulting the RHR.50 So, we can ask whether the judges of theRHRwere under the complete control of the emperor and acting as his minions? This view could be confirmed by the conspicuous number of judicial assessments uncovered byO. v.Gschließer.51 In truth, the total sum of vota– in proportion to the 45 It has been claimed that the Vota would come into Pfaffen-Hände, which would employ “with jesuit wit” (mit jesuitischem Scharsinn) to influence the decisions of theRHR. TheRHR had thus become a scourge of the protestants; see Bülow, Heinrich Wilhelm von 1791 p. 215; Moser, Johann Jacob 1733 pp. 484 and 502-505. One of the protestant estates proceedings claimed that with nearly all Causis principum, praesertimEvangelicorum, there would easily be a public interest to move a lawsuit from the RHRto the forum of the emperor; see Sellert, Wolfgang 1973 p. 349; Malblank, Julius Friedrich 1792 p. 245. 46 Klüber, Johann Ludwig 1832 p. 82; Moser, Johann Jacob 1733 pp. 481-485. It was especially criticised that the Privy Council, without calling in the judge-rapporteur and judgeco-rapporteur, often arbitrarily amended what the judges of theRHRhad decreedeinhellig oder per Majorai.e. unanimously or by a majority vote. For critique of thevota ad imperatorumby the estates see Moser, Johann Jacob 1733 pp. 472-506; RHRO1654 pp. 200-209; Leyers, Peter 1976 pp. 47-51 and 90-103; Gschließer, Oswald von 1942 p. 48; Malblank, Julius Friedrich 1792 pp. 244-248; Sellert, Wolfgang 1973 p. 350. 47 Gschließer, Oswald von 1942 p. 48. 48 Cf. RHRO1654 p. 208; Malblank, Julius Friedrich 1792 p. 245 f. 49 Cf. RHRO1654 p. 201. 50 See supra fn. 43; also Bülow, Heinrich Wilhelm von 1791 p. 215 f.; Moser, Johann Jacob 1733 p. 481. 64
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=