imperial control of the aulic council Though all of these cases dealt with thestato publico, it was finally a matter of discretion if an affair touched the interests of the empire or belonged to thepura judicialia. So the question is whether thevota ad imperatorem were the basis for cabinet justice. This is supported by the fact that the Privy Council was not bound by the assessments in its autonomous decision-making. According to this, theRHROof 1654 stated that the emperor could either follow the assessment or decide something else according to his will and liking.67 All the emperors firmly maintained this principle. LeopoldII (1790 – 1792) managed to prevent a proposal from the principality of Brunswick to be incorporated into the Electoral Capitulations which forbade the emperor to revise or annul a judicial decision.68 But how did this work in practice? Normally, the emperor received advice from theRHR, for example if an imperial estate had appealed directly to him over a controversial matter.69 If the emperor agreed with the proposal he either acted himself or he instructed theRHRto proceed according to thevotum ad imperatorem. If a case was already pending, the RHRprovided an assessment whether ex officio or at its own discretion.70 In this way, e. g. as in the case mentioned above concerning Hamburg,71 there are also cases of unjustified custom duties (APAvol. 1 no. 59; APAvol. 3 no. 2419), imperial, county and city taxes (APAvol. 1 no. 452, APAvol. 3 no. 2811; Antiqua vol. 1 no. 80; Antiqua vol. 2 no. 90), the violation of imperial rights and mandates (APAvol. 1 no. 689; APAvol. 2 no. 1243), destruction of monasteries (APAvol. 2no. 1321), the recognition of regional power (Antiqua vol. 1 no. 100), attacks on regions of Upper Hessia (Antiqua vol. 2 no. 199), numerous Jesuit proceedings (Antiqua vol. 2 no. 800, 801, 804, 815, 816 and 822) or the violation of a sales ban on an inheritance contract authorised by the emperor (Antiqua vol. 2 no. 895) and attacks on ships (APAvol. 3 no. 2812), the construction of fortifications (Antiqua vol. 1 no. 243). There were also “important” criminal sentences, as well as corporal and substantial monetary penalties ex capite gratiae which should be remitted; for this see Malblank, Julius Friedrich 1792 p. 241 f. 66 APAvol. 4 no. 4102; APAvol. 1 no. 391, 407, 418 and 467. 67 Tit. V 20 §RHRO1654. Malblank Julius Friedrich 1792 p. 256 f., sees a “violation of the basic principles of the German constitution”, as the judiciary would have been subject to “the mercy of the regent”. 68 Malblank, Julius Friedrich 1792 p. 257 f. 69 For example, when count Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg writes to the emperor in 1667 that he would again like to mediate in the conflict between the guilds of Lübeck and the local patricians, the letter is forwarded to the Privy Council. It asks the RHR for an assessment; see Sellert, Wolfgang 2010 no. 262. 70 See also Moser, Johann Jacob 1774 p. 221. 71 See supra fn. 16. 66
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=