Page:Bury J B The Cambridge Medieval History Vol 2 1913.djvu/217

Rh sixth, which is conclusive with regard to the vote. The difference between the respective powers of the lay and clerical elements was limited to matters wholly religious, and the right of proposing laws to the king.

With regard to lay matters, the functions of the Councils were of three kinds: (1) Deliberative, concerning the methods of government, adoption of new laws, modification or repeal of the old ones, and their codification or compilation. On these points the king consulted the Councils, both in the tomus regius which he handed to them at the opening of the Council, and in special communications, such as the one sent to the sixteenth Council (9 May 693). (2) The right to petition or to initiate legislation, that is to say, the right to present to the monarch, for approval, such proposals as were not included in these communications or in the tomus regius. But only the ecclesiastics were entitled to take this initiative. (3) Judicial, that is to say, the power to act as a kind of tribunal in the case of disputes connected with the administration; this tribunal settled the complaints and charges brought by the citizens against the government officials, and possibly also against influential men. In this sense, the Council formed part of the system of the courts. It is not known whether these matters were laid directly before the Council, or whether they first passed through the hands of the king. The discussion concerning the tomus and the royal communications was followed by voting, as a result of which the original proposal of the monarch was approved or modified. He frequently entrusted to the Council, not only the adoption of specially important laws, but also the general revision of all the existing laws — as we see from the tomus regius of the eighth, twelfth, and sixteenth Councils. This added to the freedom enjoyed by the clergy with regard to legislative initiative (as expressed in the canons of the sixteenth and seventeenth Councils) and furnishes grounds for the very general opinion that the Visigothic monarchy was dominated by the clergy, and was therefore mainly ecclesiastical in character. In the different Visigothic codes, and, consequently, in the most recent versions of the Liber or Forum Judicum, there is a large proportion of laws made by the Councils on ecclesiastical initiative: further, the political and theological doctrines of the time — of which Isidore of Seville is the chief representative — are reflected at every stage in the legislation, such as the duties of the monarch, the divine origin of power, the distinction drawn between the private means of the monarch and the patrimony of the Crown, etc., and the duty of the State to defend the Church and to punish crimes committed against religion.

The Visigothic legislation was deeply imbued with the spirit of Catholicism. This was due, not only to the piety of the monarchs and upper classes, but also to the superior culture of the clergy, which gave them great authority over Spanish society, and enabled them to defend the principles of justice. Yet we have no right to suppose that, from