Clamor of haro

The clamor of haro is a term which formerly indicated a protest legal and suspensive having course in Normandy, and nowadays with the Channel Islands, by which one summoned somebody to at once appear in front of a judge to complain in justice by civil proceeding about the damage that one affirmed to have suffered.

History

Called quiritatio Normanorum by the Juriste Dumoulin, the clamor of haro was a verbal complaint and public clamor of that with which one had made some violence or injustice and which beseeched the protection of its prince or which, having found its part wanted to carry out it in front of the judge, so that this clamor contained a verbal assignment.

Several etymologies were given to explain the term of “ haro ”, most used being that the term of haro would have been a corruption of “ha Rollo”, an invocation of the name of Rollon, first duke of Normandy, which went sizeable to its people, so much by his conquests than by the love than it had for justice. Like, of alive sound, one beseeched his protection by a public clamor, by calling it and by uttering his name and that after its death, its memory was in veneration with its people, one would have continued to use the same clamor and the term of “ haro ”. This etymology was however revoked in doubt.

This habit of the clamor of haro testifies to the secular attachment of Normandy to the respect of the right. The first most memorable example of the use which was fact is that which took place at the time of death with Rouen in September 1087 of William the Conqueror, Duc of Normandy and King d' Angleterre. The body of the latter had been transported in the church of Saint-Etienne of Caen which it had made build when a poor fellow of the town of Caen, name of Asselin, dared to stop the undertaking of the prince by a clamor of haro by declaring that the church had been built on a ground stolen to his/her father and that it was opposed so that the Conqueror is buried. This clamor of haro stopped the funeral, time for the bishops and the lords present to make an investigation and to recognize the cogency of the complaint of Asselin to which the sum required for price of the ground was paid.

In the same way, when Henri V put, during the Guerre One hundred Year old, the seat in front of Rouen in 1417, a priest was appointed to make him this harangue: “ Very-excellent prince and lord, it is to me enjoint to shout against you large the haro ”. Henri V did not submit with the clamor and, that after a six month old seat it was made main from the city by composition, but that proves the use which had been made of this clamor in all times.

During the meeting of Normandy to the crown, Normandy had stipulated that the clamor of haro would be maintained with all its legal effects, from which comes that the kings of France added in all their ordinances, edicts, declarations and letters patent, the clause, “notwithstanding charter Norman and clamor of haro ”, which shows that this clamor appeared to have enough authority to make obstacle with the execution of the new laws if it were not derogated there by a clause express. This use ceased only with the Révolution.

Old the usual of Normandy contained a chapter of haro , whose Terrien made mention in its comment, liv. XII. CH. XVIII|18 . The same thing is in the old style to proceed which at the end of this usual, is reported by Terrien, liv. VIII. CH. XI|11 .

According to old the Coutume of Normandy, the haro could not be interjeté that for a criminal cause, such as for a fire, a larceny, a homicide or another obvious danger, but the old style to proceed watch which the use had changed and which the practice of the haro had already extended to the cases where it was a question of preserving the possession of the buildings and even pieces of furniture. For this reason, during the drafting of the new habit which started to be observed at July 1st 1583, the police chiefs named by the king and the deputies of the three states inserted in the book of the reformation article 54 stipulating that the haro can be brought, not only for evil spell of body and thing where there would be imminent danger, but for any introduction of possessory lawsuit, although it is out of matter bénéficiale or relating to the good of the church.

Under the term of evil spell of body were included/understood in this place all kinds of offenses, such as flights, larcenies, fires; and thus at present the clamor of haro could be brought for all kinds of offenses and disputes civil, bénéficiales, possessory and provisional, even for pieces of furniture: but when it was about the petitory one, it was necessary to take the ordinary way of the actions and to observe the formalities prescribed for the requests. The same applied to the covering of a movable effect, when that which had it was a domiciled man and who his escape was not to fear.

It was not absolutely necessary that the clamor is brought against the culprits or defendants at the moment even as the action which one complained had been made; the clamor could be brought etiam ex intervallo , especially when it was about an offense and that the defendant was a man not domiciled.

The ministry of a law officer was not necessary to bring the haro ; it was enough that which shouts haro makes it in the presence of witnesses and sum her part to come in front of the judge, that which launched the clamor being invested to him only kind of temporary function giving him the same capacity as to the law officers.

According to old usual, when one shouted haro , each one was to leave and, if the offense appeared worthy of dead or mutilation of member, each one was to help to retain the culprit or to shout haro after him under penalty of fine. Those which had taken the criminal could keep it only one night, after which they were to return it to justice, unless it did not have an obvious danger there. Thereafter, it remained of this former practice that when somebody shouted haro , if it were a question of preventing some public or particular violence made with weapons or without weapons as against somebody which wanted in outrager another, to make a flight or a rape, all the people were to assist the plaintiff; it was not even necessary that it is offended which interjette the haro , a third could do it and it was also owe him assistance to protect the innocent ones so much, which to make punish the culprits.

The clamor of haro could be brought only in Normandy, but it could the being by all people remaining in this province, that they of it are originating. Contrary, the Norman ones could not use about it in another country, even between them.

The women could bring this clamor: the impubères could have recourse also there, even without being assisted of tutor or curator. It could be brought against ecclesiastics, without them being able to decline the secular jurisdiction, but it could not be brought against the King, nor even against his officers to prevent them from making their functions and in particular against the clerks, ushers and sergeants employed for the rights of the King. The ordinance of the assistances, tit. X|10 . Article 38. defends with all ushers to receive such clamors and with the judges to rule there. Godefroy excludes nevertheless the case where a judge would intervene on the jurisdiction of others and that where an officer would misuse his capacity, as if a sergeant carried the pieces of furniture by him carried out without leaving exploit; in these cases, it would be necessary to shout with the haro. The officers of the basoche or regency of the palate of Rouen, were authorized by various stops to bring the clamor of haro against the solicitants who are in infringment with the regulations on the discipline of the palate.

The effect of the haro was that at the moment that he was shouted on somebody, this one was done prisoner of the King; and if it went away, he was always famous prisoner in some place which he goes; and though it is not resséant jurisdiction of the place where the haro had been shouted, it could be continued and taken in some jurisdiction that it is found, to be brought in the prisons of the place where the haro had been shouted. Very undertaken was to cease on both sides, under penalty of fine against that which would have done something with the damage and to be condemned to restore what it would have carried or demolishes.

The two parts were held to give guarantee; to know, the applicant to continue his clamor and the defendant to defend there; and these guarantees were held to pay the judge. It was to the sergeant to receive these guarantees, just as the other legal guarantees. If the parts refused to give guarantee, the judge was to imprison them.

After the guarantees were given, the contentious thing was sequestered, until the judge ruled on the provision.

The old usual one said that the duke of Normandy had to it court of the haro , i.e. the knowledge of this clamor and that it was to make investigation to know if it were shouted with right or wrongly.

The knowledge of the haro belonged to the royal judge, without nevertheless excluding the lord high retributive. When one proceeded in front of the royal civil matter judge, the knowledge of the haro belonged to the Viscount between commoners and to the baillif between noble and to the criminal lieutenant, out of criminal matter, between all kinds of people.

If the applicant or the defendant did not bring their proceedings on the haro in the year and day that it had been interjeté, they were not admissible any more there; and so after or the other to have formed one their action, they remained during one year without making continuation, the clamor of haro fell in time limitation.

The judge of the haro was to pronounce a fine against one or the other of the parts; only the share of the fine was arbitrary. The parts could not compromise in this matter; it is by this reason that one made them give guarantee, one to continue, the other to defend.

Still existing, in various forms, in the islands of the Norman archipelago always controls by the Habit of Normandy, the clamor of haro always makes it possible whoever to obtain the immediate suspension of any action which he considers enfreindre his rights.

In the bailliage of Guernesey:

In Sercq, the plaintiff must, opposite it pilot, to be discovered the head, to kneel, recite " Haro, haro, haro! In the name of God and of the Queen, leave this work… " , and the Our Father (in French). The complaint must be then recorded with the office of the clerk's office in the twenty-four hours. All the actions against the person must then cease until the object of the disagreement is heard by the court of justice. The last recorded “clamor” was marked in June 1970 to prevent the construction of a wall of garden.
In Guernesey one must recite and exclaim (in French also): “ haro , haro , haro ! With my assistance my Prince, one makes me wrong! ” and ours Father. Two witnesses are needed, and one can raise the clamor in front of the Mob instead of on the spot of offense.

In the bailliage of Jersey:

injured is put at knees on the spot of offense, in front of two witnesses, and recites “Haro! Haro! Haro! , With the assistance my Prince, one makes me wrong”. Ours Père is not obligatory.

Random links: