The Special Tribunal in Martinique: from the history of French colonial justice in the early 19th century

Krichevtsev Mikhail Vladimirovich PhD in History Associate professor, Department of Theory and History of State and Law, Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management 630099, Russia, Novosibirsk, Kamenskaya Street 52/1 cm.martellus@gmail.com Other publications by this author

The colonial rule of France in the West Indies in the Antilles began in the XVII century. One of the islands was Martinique, which is still a French overseas department. In 1794, at the height of the Great Revolution, the island was captured by England, but as a result of Napoleon's victories at the conclusion of the Peace of Amiens in 1802, it was returned to France again. The transfer of the island under the French wing was significant, since the wife of the first consul of the French Republic, Creole Josephine Bonaparte, was from Martinique.

The basis of the plantation economy in the Antilles, which exported sugar, coffee and other products, traditionally consisted of the use of slave labor. Realizing the importance of maintaining the profitability of this production, Napoleon restored slavery in the West Indian colonies of France, abolished by the Jacobins in 1794. It was also supported in Martinique, where it existed during the reign of the British. The revival of slavery in the French West Indies provoked a massive movement of the Black population for liberation from the power of colonialists and slave-owning planters. Its center was the island of Saint-Domingue (Haiti), where the rebels managed to create their own state, independent of France. In Martinique, French power continued to be maintained until 1809, when the island was again captured by the British. In conditions of social instability and constant external threat from Great Britain, the colonial leadership of Martinique was forced to use special means to suppress slaves, including the judicial authorities. One of the instruments of repression was a special tribunal established on the island at the end of 1803.

The history of the tribunal in the period 1803-1809 has already attracted the attention of researchers. At various times, S. Daney, I. Debbash, A. Nikola, L. Trani, A. A. Louis wrote about him ^{[15, p. 63, 124, 238, 239],[16, p. 174, 175],[23, p. 294, 296],[24],[19, p. 503, 504]}. Unlike other studies, which give only the most general ideas, L. Trani's work on Martinique of the Napoleonic period contains a detailed description of the special tribunal and the proceedings against slaves ^{[24, p. 270-276]}. However, the history of the court in its depiction is quite static. It does not take into account the changes in the jurisdiction of the tribunal in the period from 1803 to 1809, which is a serious flaw in the analysis. As a rule, the authors tend to define the special tribunal in Martinique as a military court with extraordinary jurisdiction. However, they do not set out to compare it with the special tribunals established in the metropolis in 1801-1802. Only I. Debbash (in 1963) casually wrote about the influence of the law of the metropolis on the formation of the tribunal of Martinique ^{[16, p. 175]}. B. Maillard's work on the special tribunal in Guadeloupe, another colony of France in the West Indies, is also of interest for this topic. He drew attention to the similarities in the organization of the special tribunals of France and Guadeloupe. As he writes: "obviously, the normative text (the decree on the establishment of the tribunal in Guadeloupe of February 3, 1803 – M. K.) is inspired by the law of 18 pluviosis IX (February 7, 1801), which established special tribunals in the departments of the metropolis..." ^{[20, p.51]}. By analogy, one can see a similar thing in the law of Martinique. Since this issue of borrowing the judicial institute of the metropolis has not been covered in detail in scientific research, there is a reason for its consideration in the proposed article. The appeal to the topic of the Martinique Tribunal is also due to the lack of special research in the domestic scientific literature. In general, the topic seems interesting and promising for studying the links between colonial law and the law of the metropolis within the French Empire, as well as for understanding racial politics in France of the Napoleonic era.

The main purpose of the study is to determine the legal basis for the organization of the special tribunal in Martinique and to identify its features in relation to the special tribunals of the metropolis. To achieve this goal, the article proposes to consider the main normative legal acts of 1803-1809 related to the special tribunal of the colony; determine the composition of the court and the procedure for the production of cases in the tribunal; identify the stages in the formation of its competence; conduct a comparative analysis with the special tribunals of the metropolis of 1801 and 1802. The subject of the study is the evolution of the special tribunal during the period of French rule on the island – from the establishment of the court in 1803 to the loss of French control over Martinique in 1809. The object of study is judicial law, which determined the organization and forms of criminal proceedings in the special tribunal of the colony and the special tribunals of the metropolis.

Materials from the National Archives of Overseas France (Archives nationales d'outre-mer –ANOM), photocopies of handwritten and printed documents (acts of colonial power, decisions of the special tribunal of Martinique, materials of official correspondence); published (authentic) acts of legislation and acts of individual ministers of the early 19th century; acts of the island administration collected in "The Code of Martinique" ^[13],[14]. When working on the topic, the method of concrete historical analysis was applied, a comparative legal analysis of legal documents and a structural and functional analysis of judicial bodies were carried out.

To understand the specifics of colonial justice in relation to slaves, it is necessary to outline at least the legal status of a slave. Having restored slavery in the colonies of France in 1802, Napoleon simultaneously resumed the former norms that applied to slaves at the time of the outbreak of the Revolution in 1789. Accordingly, the provisions of the Black Code (Code Noir) of 1685 and subsequent royal regulations began to operate again in the overseas possessions. In the law of the Old Order, a slave was considered as the "movable property" of the owner, in other words, as a thing, and not a person in the legal sense ^{[18, p. 9]}. This is reminiscent of the slavery of Ancient Rome with its famous position "servi res sunt" ("slaves are things"). However, unlike ancient slavery, slaves in the colonies of France were endowed with certain rights that a "thing" in the full sense of the word could not have. In particular, the law took into account the religious needs of a slave who had the right to be baptized and initiated into the faith of Christ. It also gave the slave the right to create a family: a slave could legally marry and have children. However, the marriage required the consent of the owner, and the offspring born were counted among his property (namely, the property of the master of the mother of the children, if the slaves belonged to different masters, which was recognized by Roman law) (for a comparison of the slave law of the Antilles with the law of Rome, see: ^[21]).

Everything produced by the slave's labor was the property of the master. In the civil law sphere, the slave was incapacitated and deprived of independent legal responsibility. It was different in the criminal law sphere. Here, the Black Code subordinated slaves partly to the action of general criminal laws on an equal basis with free persons. As stated in art. XXXII of the Code, "slaves may be prosecuted without the need to involve their master, except in the case of complicity: and these slaves will be accused, tried in the first instance by ordinary judges and on appeal to the Supreme Council for the same investigation, with the same formalities as free persons" ^{[18, p. 8]}. For crimes committed by slaves, the courts could impose punishments up to the death penalty, but in this latter case, the owner had to be paid monetary compensation for the loss of property ^{[18, p. 8, 9]}. The Black Code allowed the owners themselves to use violence against slaves: to put them in chains, beat them with rods or ropes, but without using torture and cutting off members on pain of confiscation of slaves and criminal prosecution against the master ^{[18, p. 9]}. Thus, French law, to a certain extent, created conditions for recognizing the identity of a slave and provided her with legal protection from the complete arbitrariness of her master. It allowed for a certain interference of public authorities in the sphere of relations between the master and the slave when the latter committed a criminally punishable act.

An important feature that distinguished colonial slavery was its pronounced racial character. Ancient slavery usually did not make strict distinctions between slaves of different races, whereas Modern slavery was based on the idea of the inferiority and underdevelopment of African peoples who were the object of exploitation of the white man. The ideas of racial superiority of the French over blacks were clearly expressed in the circular of the Minister of the Navy and Colonies Denis Decret dated July 20, 1807, which maximally restricted the entry of black and colored people of both sexes into the metropolis (in accordance with the old normative act – the royal declaration of August 9, 1777). The minister wrote that this was the most acceptable means"to stop the penetration of the African race into France, the politically short-sighted and scandalous mixing that could have occurred in French blood and other serious inconveniences associated with this immigration" ^{[10, f. 260]}. Another circular of the Supreme judge and Minister of Justice K.A. Rainier dated January 18, XI of the year of the Republic (hereinafter – G. R.) (January 8, 1803) expressed the "intention of the government" to prevent marriages between white men and black women and between blacks and white women ^{[17, p. 449]}. This legal ideology created a regime of racial segregation in the French Colonial Empire. It was not new enough for France and relied mainly on the norms of the Old Order, but was aggravated by the excesses of the Haitian Revolution and the hostile actions of the black population on the side of Great Britain.

Within the framework of this regime, it became quite natural to introduce special justice for black people deprived of their liberty. The Louis XIV Black Code established the relative equality of whites and blacks before criminal justice, but in Martinique at the beginning of the 19th century, the authorities tried to evade this provision and create a special repressive body in the form of a special tribunal.

The need for its establishment on the island was justified by Captain General of Martinique and Admiral L.-T. Villars de Joyeuse in a letter to the Minister of the Navy and Colonies D. Decre dated November 6, XII (November 28, 1803). The Admiral wrote that he had to resort to this measure due to the increasing cases of poisoning committed by Blacks- slaves ^{[3, f. 112]}. The Tribunal was to become an organ for the suppression of Negro crime. Villars issued a decree on such a court on 24 Vandemieres XII (October 17, 1803) ^{[4, f. 188-194],[13, p. 626-633]}. The act contained 37 articles and dealt with various aspects of the composition and competence of the tribunal, the procedure for conducting procedural actions and making judicial decisions, and established a system of penalties. The Special Tribunal was considered in the act as a temporary institution: its operation was to cease a year after the conclusion of peace (obviously with Great Britain).

The tribunal consisted of seven persons: the commander of the gendarmerie (chairman at the court session), the lieutenant of the gendarmerie, the civil commissioner of the quarter (district on the territory of the island) in which the crime was committed, the deputy commissioner, one eminent resident (habitant notable) who owned property in the same quarter, as well as the commissioner of the Government and the secretary. The Commissioner of the Government and the Secretary (on the recommendation of the highest judge of Martinique) were appointed by the Captain-General of the island. In the absence of a civilian commissioner of the quarter or his deputy, they could be replaced by eminent residents of the same quarter or a neighboring one, but necessarily from among the captains of the National Guard. Such residents could be appointed commander of the gendarmerie. The functions of the gatekeeper at the special tribunal were to be performed by gendarmes.

The range of criminal cases subject to the jurisdiction of the special tribunal was determined in art. I and II Resolutions. There were three elements of the crime: poisoning, arson, theft of boats and a pie, committed by slaves, who were henceforth removed from the jurisdiction of ordinary ships. Art. V clarified that these crimes would be prosecuted ex officio by the Commissioner of the Government at a special tribunal on the basis of an accusation brought by any person, free or slave.

The pre-trial investigation procedure assumed that any person who was aware of the crime committed by a slave should have reported this to the civil commissioner of the quarter or his deputy. The commissioner of the quarter, having notified the commissioner of the Government at the special tribunal, was to arrest the suspect. The latter was to be kept under reliable guard in one of the quarters of the island (Fort de France, Saint Pierre or Trinite). Next, the Commissioner of the Government presented his act of denunciation (plainte) to the commander of the gendarmerie, who was supposed to appear at the scene for the investigation and convene the tribunal within the prescribed time. The protocol with the determination of the identified evidence and the results of the site inspection in the case of all three elements of the crime should have been conducted by the commissioner of the quarter or his deputy. In case of poisoning, the presence of a surgeon was also necessary to examine the victim's corpse and determine the toxic substances. Two eminent persons were supposed to be present when drawing up the protocol. The interrogation of the defendant should have been carried out within 24 hours from the moment of the presentation of the charge by the Commissioner of the Government. The interrogation protocol was necessarily signed on each sheet by the commander of the gendarmerie, the secretary and the accused himself. The witnesses were interrogated under oath, separately and in the absence of the accused. However, in case of contradictions in the testimony, confrontations between witnesses or a witness and the accused were allowed. If there were several accused, it was possible to conduct confrontations also between them or individually with each of them with a witness. A witness who gave false testimony or changed the original words was subject to prosecution in a regular court. Upon completion of the pre-trial investigation, his materials were to be handed over to the Government Commissioner. The commissar was then obliged to submit his conclusions in writing and sealed to the commander of the gendarmerie.

Judges, as well as witnesses, were invited to the meeting of the special tribunal by special letters on behalf of the Commissioner of the Government. A slave could be called as a witness, but in this case the letter was addressed to the slave's master. Attendance by letter and participation in the work of the tribunal were mandatory under threat of a fine. Members of the court who were called to the tribunal and did not appear without good reason or refused to sign the verdict could be punished with a fine of 1,000 livres. Witnesses who refused to appear on call were fined 250 livres (the owners of slaves were also fined if they did not agree to send them as witnesses). At the court session of the special tribunal, the report on the case was to be made by a lieutenant of the gendarmerie, individual papers could be read out by the secretary of the tribunal. The secretary also had to formulate the verdict of the court, which all judges were required to sign, regardless of their opinion on the case. The final decision was made by the judges by a majority vote (the act of 1803 did not specify which majority was meant). The verdict was final and could not be appealed. It should have been immediately announced to the defendant and immediately executed. However, at the request of the commander of the gendarmerie and the commissar of the government, it could have been postponed for five to six hours at most in order to carry out the execution in the presence of groups of slaves (obviously for greater effect and intimidation). However, it was necessary to adhere to the rule that the execution of the sentence could not take place after sunset. If the verdict had to be pronounced too late, it should have been announced to the defendant the next morning.

Articles XXXIV and XXXV of the Captain General's Resolutions contained criminal norms relating to punishments applied to slaves. Poisoning and arson were punishable by death. An attempt at poisoning or arson in the presence of obvious actions and preparations was punished in the same way by the death of the perpetrator. However, if the perpetrator suddenly and "under remorse" stopped carrying out the crime, the punishment could be mitigated by the decision of a special tribunal. The theft of boats and a pie for the purpose of escape was punishable by death for the leaders of the conspiracy, and for accomplices, the punishment of galleys for life was established. A failed attempt to commit this crime could have been punished less severely: for the organizers – life galleys; for accomplices, at the discretion of the tribunal – pillorying, imprisonment or whipping. Since the slave represented the property of the master, and as a result of being sentenced to punishment, the master lost the opportunity to use it, the act of 1803 provided for the payment of monetary compensation (art. XXXVI). To do this, before executing the punishment, two white residents (but not relatives of the owner), in the presence of a government commissioner, had to evaluate the slave and determine its value. The price must then be paid to the master from the special "cashier of condemned slaves" (la caisse des esclaves justici?s).

Subsequent regulations of the island authorities have made certain changes to the working procedure and competence of the special tribunal. So, already at the very beginning of the court's action in 1803, when the case of poisoning at the settlement of Eyma (l'habitation Eyma), in Manatee, was being considered, the commissioner of the government at the special tribunal Deland (Deslandes) appealed to the supreme judge Lefessier Grandprey with a remonstration. The commissioner expressed dissatisfaction with the excessive requirements for the execution of formalities during interrogations of suspects, the need for confrontations between slaves, etc., which could lead to a strong slowdown in the process (the number of persons involved in the prosecution could exceed 25 people). The supreme judge then issued his ruling, agreed with the Captain General, dated 9 Brumaire XII (November 1, 1803) ^{[5, f. 198-199]}.  In order to save time, it was decided to conduct interrogations and confrontations between the accused and witnesses immediately in the presence of the entire convened court.

Subsequently, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was also significantly expanded. The resolution of the Captain General of 24 pluviose XII (February 14, 1804), consisting of only two articles, assigned to the tribunal the right to try all Negro slaves accused of desertion to the enemy, recruitment (l'embauchage), espionage, boarding enemy ships and returning to the territory of the colony. Attempts to commit these crimes should have been punished in the same way as the executed crime ^{[6, f. 202, 202v]}.

In the future, the effective, from the point of view of the Captain-General, the practice of the special tribunal led to the need to issue a new Decree of 8 Messidor XIII (June 27, 1805), consisting of nine articles ^{[14, p. 27-29]}. It was systemic in nature and further expanded the terms of reference of the Tribunal. The ruling confirmed the jurisdiction of the tribunal in cases of poisoning, arson and kidnapping of boats and pirogues by slaves (art. I), as well as partially the cases defined in the Decree of 1804 – on desertion to the enemy, recruitment and espionage in favor of the enemy (art. VI). Other articles contained new compositions that were not previously subject to the jurisdiction of this court. In particular, according to art. II a slave who participated in rebellious gatherings or tried to incite his own kind to revolt was assigned to the jurisdiction of the special tribunal, according to art. III – any runaway slave who took up arms. It was also pointed out that any offence (d?lit) committed by a runaway slave was subject to a tribunal (art. IV). For all the crimes specified in the art. II, III, VI, the Decree provided for the death penalty (including for a runaway slave captured with a weapon in his hands). The death penalty for desertion, recruitment and espionage could be replaced with another, milder one if it was established that the slave was involved in the crime by force. As for other crimes, in particular those committed by a slave during the escape, the special tribunal had to determine the penalties according to the violation committed. Of serious importance was article VIII, which subordinated the jurisdiction of special tribunals of free persons of "colored people" (individuu de couleur libre) accused of committing desertion, recruitment and espionage in favor of the enemy, or only in an attempt to commit them. The exception was the case when a colored person was in the service. In this case, such crimes were subject to the court of the military Council.

Finally, another Resolution of the Captain General dated September 26, 1806 (of two articles) supplemented the previous norms ^{[14, p. 170, 171]}. His appearance was caused by the growing unrest in groups of slaves engaged in rural labor (in the so-called. ateliers). In order to tighten discipline, it was decided that "any rural slave accused of mutiny against a white man or of striking him would be subject to the jurisdiction of a special tribunal." But at the same time, jurisdiction over free people was expanded: from now on, any person without a place of residence and recognition (sans aveu) who appeared unnoticed in the colony and was accused of espionage, luring to the enemy or sedition was subject to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. At the same time, it was clarified that the color of the accused's skin did not matter. The court had to punish him in accordance with the laws, in accordance with the offense committed. As can be seen, this Decree of 1806 led to the loss of the special tribunal's exclusively racial specialization. In general, based on the normative legal acts of the local government, the history of this court during the era of French rule in Martinique can be presented in the form of three main periods. In 1803-1805, the tribunal acted as an exclusive means of criminal repression against slaves. Then in 1805-1806. It was a serious crimes court for all black and colored people, slaves and free. Then, in 1806-1809, it was a serious crimes court not only for black and colored people, but also for out-of-towners from among the white population.

The practice of the special tribunal shows that one of the most common crimes committed by slaves and subject to trial was poisoning. Poison was a very affordable means that slaves could use to carry out revenge or in a state of despair. Criminals poisoned other slaves or animals first of all. Poison was used less often against the owners: in the past, there was a belief among Blacks that African poisons had a weaker effect on whites ^{[22, p. 141]}. The poisoners could have attempted to kill members of their family, among other things. For example, according to the case file of 1807, the commander of the settlement of La Capote (Mr. Fortier) Alexis was suspected of poisoning his own son "in a moment of anger"; the mulatto slave of Mr. Valmont Basil poisoned his daughter; the Negro Jean-Denis at Mr. Leiritz decided to get rid of his wife, etc. ^{[9, f. 56, 56v]} It is interesting to note that for the manufacture of poison, criminals, in addition to herbal ingredients, often used the remains of corpses extracted from graves in the cemetery, they could even prepare a "decoction" based on them ("bouillon des cadavres") ^{[9, f. 55]}.

In the appendix to Sidney Daney's publication on the history of Martinique (1846), there is a document signed by the Royal prosecutor Gouin, which appeared after the re-capture of Martinique by the British ^{[15, p. 419-427]}. It shows the number and content of sentences handed down in cases of poisoning from the moment the tribunal was founded in 1803 until 1811 (the body was retained by the British authorities). The above list allows us to judge the intensity of the court's work and the severity of the punishments used. The total number of convictions in cases of poisoning during the period of French rule in 1803-1809 was 19. Of these, two sentences were handed down at the end of 1803 (the tribunal was established in October of this year), two in 1804, two in 1805, one in 1806, three in 1807, eight in 1808, one in January 1809. As for the punishments imposed, the sentences imposed included the death penalty for 58 persons, punishments of other types (among them could be galleys, hard labor (la cha?ne, "fetters"), exile, life imprisonment and deportation) – for 26 persons. A significant part of the slaves were also left in suspicion for lack of proof of guilt. In some cases, it was about mass repression. For example, on November 2, 1807, a verdict was passed in the Basse Pointe quarter, where 19 people were sentenced to death and 9 to another punishment; on February 16, 1808, a verdict was passed in the settlements of O'mullan and Lagrave, in Manatee, where 11 people were sentenced to death. Most of the sentences affected the fate of one or two criminals ^{[15, p. 420-425]}. As can be seen from the above materials, the special tribunal dealt with poisoning cases more intensively towards the end of French rule on the island. It can be assumed that the increased threat of attack from the British and their influence on the local population could contribute to the intensification of criminal repression during this period.

The most high–profile case in the jurisdiction of the special tribunal was the 1806 case of the attempted murder of a high-ranking person - the mother-in-law of Emperor Napoleon I. The mother of Empress Josephine Rosa-Claire Tascher de La Pagerie (1736-1807) continued to live in Martinique, enjoying honor and respect from the authorities and the local population. There is also information that the aristocrat treated her slaves quite graciously. Nevertheless, she almost became a victim of a crime committed by a slave girl close to her (m?tive – mestizo). According to biographer J. G. Abri, this slave named Emilia was supposed to be freed according to the will of her mistress ^{[2, p. 20]}. Wanting to speed up this moment, the slave went to commit murder: On June 3, 1806, she tried to kill her mistress by pouring crushed glass into a plate of peas. During the meal, Madame de La Pagerie discovered the danger, so there was no tragedy. The investigation began, which lasted only a few days in June, following the necessary formalities. In addition to Emilia, Negroes Teresa and Joseph, employees of the government palace, suspected of complicity, were also arrested and interrogated. A special tribunal was formed to try them. It included: squadron commander K. O. L. Motte (Chairman of the tribunal), commander of the gendarmerie; S. de Crozan, Commissar-commander of the parish of Fort de France; T. R. Garnier Laroche, Deputy commissioner of the parish; J. Champin, senior surgeon of the military and naval hospital of Fort de France; C. F. Saint-Felix, captain of the gendarmerie and rapporteur on the case; P. F. Depaz, Secretary of the Tribunal. The tribunal handed down the verdict on June 9, 1806. According to the results of the investigation, confrontations and court hearings, the slave Emilia was found guilty of attempted poisoning and taking the life of her mistress; the Black woman Teresa was left in suspicion, and a broader investigation should have been conducted against her; the Negro Joseph was acquitted. The punishment of the guilty slave was determined in accordance with art. XXXIV of the Decree of 24 Pluviosis XII, which prescribed the punishment of death not only for murder committed by poisoning, but also for an attempt on him, accompanied by obvious preparations for a criminal act. Emilia was sentenced to be burned alive in the most prominent place in the city, followed by scattering her ashes to the wind. The execution was to be carried out within twenty–four hours from the moment of sentencing ^{[7, f. 210-212v],[8, f. 174–176v]}. It should be noted that in the French metropolis at that time, another, more "humane" type of death penalty was used – beheading on the guillotine, and for punishing the military – execution. It is obvious that the qualified execution in the form of burning was intended for slaves in accordance with the traditions of the Old Order.

In general, an extraordinary court appears as a special tribunal in Martinique, convened on a case-by-case basis and endowed with broad punitive power. Let us turn, however, to the experience of organizing special tribunals in France during the Consulate era in order to understand how much the colonial court resembled or differed from the courts with the same name that were established in the metropolis in 1801.

It should be noted that the act on the establishment of the special tribunal of the colony in 1803 did not contain references to the law on the establishment of special tribunals in France. This immediately raises doubts about borrowing the institution of the metropolis. Even greater doubts arise when referring to the composition and competence of these French Tribunals. In accordance with the Law of 18 Pluviosis IX of the year (February 7, 1801), the tribunal consisted of eight judges: three from the local criminal tribunal of the department (chairman and two judges); three military men with the rank of captain and two civilians who possessed qualities that allowed them to be a judge. These five judges were to be appointed by the First Consul. Since criminal judges from departmental tribunals were also appointed only by the first consul under the Constitution of 1799, in fact, the entire composition of the special tribunal was determined by the head of government. The relevant officials of the criminal tribunal in the department were to act as the commissioner of the Government and the secretary at this tribunal ^[11]. As can be seen from the above list, the composition of the special tribunal of the metropolis did not coincide with the composition of the tribunal of the colony (eight judges against five). There were no professional judges from the local criminal court in the colony's tribunal, but representatives of the gendarmerie played a leading role. Nevertheless, one can see something in common in the mixed composition of the Tribunals: in both cases, military and civilian persons had to participate in the same court. Only in the metropolitan tribunal a civilian was the chairman, and in the colony tribunal a military one (gendarmerie commander). In addition to the special tribunals of 1801, a second type of them was introduced in the metropolis the following year (according to the Law of 23 Floreal, born on May 13, 1802). Such a special tribunal already consisted of six judges and only civilians: three from the criminal departmental tribunal (the chairman and two judges), three more from the civil tribunal of first instance (the chairman and two judges). If necessary, they could be replaced by their deputies ^[12]. The composition of these special tribunals was even more different from that of the colony's tribunal.

In terms of competence, special tribunals in the metropolis, formed in 1801, were supposed to consider cases that differed in the quality of the accused persons and in the nature of the crimes committed. According to the quality of the accused persons, only two categories of cases were subject to the jurisdiction of the tribunals: vagrants or "people without recognition" (gens sans aveu) who committed a crime, and criminals who served a painful punishment and committed a crime during escape, as well as the very fact of vagrancy (vagabondage) or escape of a convicted criminal. The criminal act committed by both categories should have been one that was punished with painful or shameful punishment (i.e. it should be quite dangerous). By the nature of the crime and regardless of the qualities of the subject of the offense, the terms of reference of the special tribunals were defined quite broadly. Their jurisdiction included: highway thefts, violence and other aggravating circumstances in the commission of an offense; thefts committed in rural areas and in rural dwellings and buildings with burglary, or with the use of weapons, or by a group of at least two people; arson; counterfeiting; murders prepared by "armed mobs" (attroupemens arm?s); threats, outrages and violent actions against purchasers of national property (because of their acquisitions); incitement to desertion and fraudulent actions committed outside the army and by non-military persons with the aim of bribing or seducing military persons, mobilized soldiers (r?quisitionnaires) or conscripts; participation in rebellious gatherings when criminals were They were captured at the place of the gathering. The Special Tribunal was also authorized to investigate premeditated murders, but in conjunction with the ordinary tribunal. If, in addition to these crimes, other offenses were revealed during the proceedings, the special tribunal was obliged to judge these facts, whatever the nature of these violations. In this sense, the judicial competence of the new Tribunals was unlimited and could extend to criminal cases under the jurisdiction of other courts ^[11].

Other special tribunals of the metropolis, established additionally in 1802, were supposed to conduct cases on such elements of criminal acts as counterfeiting or forgery of government securities, the state seal, the national stamp (timbre national), assay stamps for gold and silver, government signs placed on goods; in general, any crime of forgery a public or private document or the use of deliberately forged papers ^[12] (see also: ^{[1, pp. 337-341]}).

A comparison of the competences of the courts in the metropolis and the special tribunal in the colony shows that the competence of the tribunals of the metropolis was much broader than that of the colonial court. According to the quality of the accused persons, a certain intersection of competence can be stated only at the last stage of the development of the special tribunal in Martinique in 1806-1809, when free persons without residence and recognition became subject to its jurisdiction. As for slaves and free people of color, there were no coincidences, and the trial of such persons constituted the original competence of the colonial tribunal. By the nature of the crimes committed, one can see the presence of similar crimes in the metropolitan courts and in the special tribunal of Martinique, such as arson, incitement to desertion, participation in seditious gatherings. However, the jurisdiction of the colony's tribunal included such specific compositions as poisoning, stealing boats and a pie for the purpose of escape (but not murder or theft as more general compositions), mutiny against a white man and striking him. At the same time, the Martinique Tribunal did not investigate most of the crimes within the jurisdiction of the special tribunals of the metropolis under the acts of 1801 and 1802. All this testifies in favor of the undoubted originality of the colonial court.

At the same time, one can see a fundamental similarity in the nature of these judicial institutions. Like the metropolitan courts, the special tribunal of the colony acted as an extraordinary body of justice: according to an accelerated procedure, without an indictment jury to bring charges and without a small jury to reach a verdict on the fate of the accused; without the possibility of appealing the verdict. The extraordinary nature of these courts was also emphasized by the half-military, half-civilian staff of the special tribunals of the metropolis (1801) and the colony.

The conducted research shows changes in the competence of the Martinique Special Tribunal towards its expansion – over three stages in 1803-1809. From an organ of repression exclusively for slaves, it gradually turned into an extraordinary court for slaves and for free people of color, and then for any vagabonds without a place of residence and recognition. Dangerous crimes of a state nature began to belong to his jurisdiction. While not supporting the idea of completely borrowing this institution from the judicial law of the metropolis, nevertheless, one can see in the organization of special tribunals some general trends in the development of the judicial systems of France and its colonies at the beginning of the XIX century. They were determined, on the one hand, by the military character of the Napoleonic era, which required the adoption of emergency measures and increased criminal repression. On the other hand, they were provoked by the needs of the French state in resolving social conflicts, when criminal justice was used to combat vagrancy and banditry on the territory of the metropolis and to curb the protest movement of negro slaves in the colonies. The result was the creation of alternative justice in the form of special tribunals. They could solve the tasks of criminal proceedings more quickly and efficiently than the courts of general jurisdiction did, although in violation of the procedural rights established in the previous revolutionary period.