titulary himself. Thus, the hold of the bishop on his clercs was feeble;
he did not hold them through the hope of a favor. And, on the other
hand, he had still less hold on them, no hold at all, through fear of
losing favor. They might displease him almost with impunity; his
faculty for punishment was much more restricted than his means of
recompense. His subordinates could find shelter and refuge against
his displeasure, and even against his hostility. In the first place,
and as a principle, a titulary, whether ecclesiastic or secular, owned
his office and hence was irremovable; they themselves, plain vicar-
curates, the humble desservans[27] of a rural parish, had acquired
this privilege through the declarations of 1726 and 1731.[28]
Moreover, in case of interdiction, suspension or of censure, a titulary
could always recur to the courts against episcopal judgment and any
other, against all encroachment on spiritual or temporal prerogatives,
or on those which were useful or honorary belonging to his charge.

These courts were of two kinds, one ecclesiastical and the other
secular, and in each an appeal could be made from a lower to a higher
court, from the diocesan official to the metropolitan official, and
from the présidial to the parliament, with a complete judicial staff,
judge, assessors, public ministry, prosecutors, advocates and clerks,
restricted to the observing of all judicial formalities, authentic
papers, citations of witnesses and challenges of testimony,
interrogatories and pleadings, allegation of canons, laws and
precedents, presence of the defendant, opposing arguments, delays in
procedure, publicity and scandal. Before the slow march and
inconveniences of such a trial, the bishop often avoided giving
judgment, and all the more because his verdicts, even when confirmed
by the ecclesiastical court, might be warded off or rendered
ineffective by the lay tribunal; for, from the former to the latter,