wolfgang sellert it led to a constant to and fro between the vota ad imperatorem and the judicial function of theRHR– in other words the functions of legal counselling and decision-making cohered. It should be mentioned that the emperor and the Privy Council very rarely made use of their right to amend the decisive proposals of theRHR.72 Ignoringminor modifications to a fewproposals, the examined documents showonly two cases in which the Privy Council repudiated the proposals submitted by the RHR.73 This procedural practice speaks against a cabinet justice in the traditional sense.74 Rather, it leaves the impression of a useful cooperation between the emperor, the Privy Council and theRHR.75 It was useful in so far by involving the Privy Council the economic, religious and political consequences could be better calculated in all imperial affairs.76 In this respect the Privy Council and the RHR, along with the emperor, came together as the highest judicial and governmental authority, aimed at exchanging information and coordinating,77 with the main task being that of securing peace in the empire. This is also emphasised by the close personal relationship between the RHRand the Privy Council through the deputy chancellor. Firstly he was the deputy of the president of theRHR and, as first judge, had a seat and a vote on the bench. Secondly, he was ex officio a member of the Privy Council.78 Due to this, he often acted as a mediator between the Privy Council and the RHR.79 72 See Malblank, Julius Friedrich 1792 p. 257;Moser, Johann Jacob 1774 p. 224, however, reports that Karl VI (1711-1740) regularly ignored the vota ad imperatoremof the RHR. 73 In one case [APAvol. 2 no. 682] one former envoy of the duchy of Kurland asked his previous employer for a petitionary letter due to outstanding emoluments, which the RHR ruled on positively in 1663 and which the Privy Council had rejected. In another case, [APA vol. 1 no. 39] a merchant sued an imperial military captain for the return of goods. As the RHR apparently did not feel responsible for this case, an imperial order was issued in 1593 to help the plaintiff, whose goods had been confiscated, to achieve his rights. The RHRrejected this in avotum ad imperatorem, which in turn was not accepted by the emperor; see Gschließer, Oswald von 1942 p. 14. 74 Ogris, Werner col. 1487-1492. Moser, Johann Jacob 1774 p. 190, reports however of some cases in which the emperor issued “cabinet orders” to theRHRand cites two cases. These appear to have been exceptions. 75 Sellert, Wolfgang 1973 p. 352 f. 76 Ibid. 77 Ehrenpreis, Stefan 1997 pp. 187-205 (p. 198). 78 Gschließer, Oswald von 1942 p. 67. 79 Cf. Leyers, Peter 1976 pp. 110-113, 117-120, 130-133 and 180-184. Neither the president of 67
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=