The house of Capet had made such progress that no lord now dared say to his vassal, “Come fight under my banner against the lord, our king,” much as this anarchial privilege was still recognised in the so-called “Establishments” of St. Louis, a compilation of customs in vogue in Orleans. The counts of Flanders and of Brittany and the duke of Guienne, were about the only ones who had not degenerated to the condition of docile vassals; yet feudalism still preserved some immense prerogatives and St. Louis attacked these in the name of justice and religion. In holding to a strict execution of the ordinances of _quarantaine-le-roi_[10] and _asseurement_ (inviolability) he suppressed nearly all private wars. As a Christian he did not approve of these wars which sent to God so many souls ill-prepared to appear before him. As a prince he wished to stop the devastation throughout the country, “the fires and the obstacles placed in the ways of tilling the fields.” He forbade in his domains the _duel judiciare_ which gave over the settlement and right to the chances of skill and strength. The king’s justice usurped the place of individual violence, and proof by witnesses and procedure by writ replaced justice by battle, for “battle is not the path of right.” The lords still dispensed justice throughout their domains. The villein could not escape this judgment, but the vassal had the rights of appeal to the sovereign from the judgment of his lord “in default of right,” when the lord refused to render justice; for “false judgments” when the condemned believed himself to have been injured by an unjust sentence. Now the king favoured the custom of direct appeal to his court, which subordinated the lord’s justice to that of his own which was final; “for,” says Beaumanoir,[j] “since he is sovereign, his court is sovereign”; and the “Establishments” explain why there could be no appeal from the royal decision: “There is no one who can have this right, since the king gets his power from no one but God and himself.” The duke of Brittany also retained the final appeal. When a case brought to the justice of the lords interested the king, in whatever way it may be, the bailiff raised the “conflict” as we would say nowadays and laid claim to the judgment, the king not being under the jurisdiction of a lord. These cases were the “royal cases.” Legists were most careful to define them so as not to deprive the king’s officials of any pretexts for interfering in trials before the feudal courts. It was easy to multiply these at that time and the officials did not fail to do so--taking as much as possible from the province of the lord’s justice and adding it to the king’s.