Part 10

But here arises a famous Question; the Decision of which will most clearly show the Wisdom of our Ancestors.--Whether the Kingdom of Francogallia were Hereditary, or conferr'd by the Choice and Suffrages of the People, That the German Kings were created by the Suffrages of the People. Cornelius Tacitus, in his Book Demoribus Germanorum, proves plainly; and we have shown, that our Franks were a German People: Reges ex nobilitate, Duces ex virtute sumunt; "Their Kings (says he) they chuse from amongst those that are most eminent for their Nobility; their Generals out of those that are Famous for their Valour:" Which Institution, [Footnote: 1574.] to this very day, the Germans, Danes, Sweeds and Polanders do retain. They elect their Kings in a Great Council of the Nation; the Sons of whom have this privilege (as Tacitus has recorded) to be preferr'd to other Candidates. I do not know whether any thing cou'd ever have been devised more prudently, or more proper for the Conversation of a Commonwealth, than this Institution. For so Plutarch, in his Life of Sylla, plainly advises. "Even (says he) as expert Hunters not only endeavour to procure a Dog of a right good Breed, but a Dog that is known to be a right good Dog himself; or a Horse descended from a generous Sire, but a tryed good Horse himself: Even so, those that constitute a Commonwealth, are much mistaken if they have more regard to kindred, than to the qualification of the Prince they are about to set over them."

And that this was the Wisdom of our Predecessors in constituting the Francogallican Kingdom, we may learn, First, from the last Will and Testament of the Emperor Charlemagn, publish'd by Joannes Nauclerus and Henricus Mutius; in which there is this Clause--"And if any Son shall hereafter be born to any of these, my three Sons, whom the People shall be willing to Elect to succeed his Father in the Kingdom; My Will is, that his Uncles do consent and suffer the Son of their Brother to reign over that portion of the Kingdom which was formerly his Father's." Secondly, What Aimoinus, lib. I. cap. 4. says, of Pharamond, commonly counted the first King of the Franks, in these Words.--"The Franks electing for themselves a King, according to the custom of other Nations, raised up Pharamond to the Regal Throne." And again, lib. 4.--"But the Franks took a certain Clerk or Priest called Daniel; and as soon as his Hair was grown, establish'd him in the Kingdom, calling him Chilperic." And lib. 4. cap. 67.--"King Pipin being dead, his two Sons, Charles and Carlomannus, were elected Kings by the consent of all the Franks." And in another place--"As soon as Pipin was dead, the Franks having appointed a solemn Convention, constituted both his Sons Kings over them, upon this foregoing condition, that they should divide the whole Kingdom equally between them."--And again, after the Death of one of the Brothers--"But Charles, after his Brother's Decease, was constituted King by the consent of all the Franks." Also, towards the end of his History of Charles the Great, he says, "The Nobility of the Franks being solemnly assembled from all parts of the Kingdom; he, in their presence, called forth to him Lewis King of Aquitain, (the only one of Heldegardis's Sons then living) and by the advice and consent of them all, constituted him his Associate in the whole Kingdom, and Heir of the Imperial Dignity." Thus much out of Aimoinus.

Many Testimonies of the like nature we find in Gregorius Turen whereof we shall cite only these few following, lib. 2. cap. 12.--"The Franks (says he) having expelled Childeric; unanimously elected Eudo for their King."--Also lib. 4. cap. 51.--"Then the Franks (who once looked towards Childebert the Elder) sent an Embassy to Sigebert, inviting him to leave Chilperic and come to them, that they by their own Authority might make him King."--And a little after--"The whole Army was drawn up before him; and having set him upon a Shield, they appointed him to be their King."--And in another place--"Sigebert agreeing to the Franks Proposals, was placed upon a Shield, according to the Custom of that Nation, and proclaimed King; and so got the Kingdom from his Bother Chilperic"--And presently after--"The Burgundians and Austrasians concluded a Peace with the Franks, and made Clotharius King over them in all the three Kingdoms," Which particular the Abbot of Ursperg confirms. "The Burgundians (says he) and Austrasians having struck up a Peace with the Franks, advanced Clotharius to be King and sole Ruler of the whole Kingdom."--And in another place--"The Franks appointed one of his Brothers, called Hilderic, who was already King of the Austrasians, to be also their King."

To this matter belongs what Luitprandus Ticinensis writes, lib. i. cap. 6. "And when he was about to enter into that Francia which is called Roman, (after having cross'd the Countries of the Burgundians) several Ambassadors of the Franks met him, acquainting him that they were returning Home again; because being tired with long expectation of his coming, and not able any longer to be without a King, they had unanimously Chosen Odo or Wido, tho' 'tis reported the Franks did not take Wido upon this occasion for their King, &c."

But concerning this Odo, the Story is memorable which Sigibert relates; from whence we may more clearly be inform'd of the manner of their rejecting their King's Son, and "setting up another in his stead." For (sub anno 890.) he says thus "But the Franks neglecting Charles the Son of Lewis the Stammerer, a Boy scarce ten years old; Elected, Odo for their King, who was Son of Duke Robert, slain by the Normans." Also Otto Frinsing Chronic. lib. 6. cap. 10. "The Western Franks (says he) with the consent of Arnolphus, chose for their King Odo a valiant Man, and Son of Robert."--Also in the Appendix to Gregory of Tours, lib. 15. cap. 30. "After the Death of Dagobert, Clodoveus his Son obtain'd his Father's Kingdom, being at that time very young, and all his Leudes (that is, Subjects) rais'd him to the Throne, in Villa Masolano."--Also Sigebert, in chronic. anno 987.--"Lewis King of the Franks being dead, the Franks had a mind to transfer the Kingdom to Charles the Brother of Lotharius; but whilst he spent too much time, deliberating with his Council concerning that Affair, Hugo acquires the Kingdom of the Franks, &c." There are many Testimonies, of the same Kind in Ado, viz. anno 686.--"Clodoveus the King dying, the Franks elect Clotarius his Son for their King." And again, "--Clotarius having reigned four Years, died, in whose stead the Franks elected Theodorick his Brother--." Again, anno 669. "The Franks establish'd in the Kingdom a certain Clerk, called Daniel, having caused him to quit his Tonsure and Orders, and name him Chilperic." And again,--"The Franks appoint, as King over them, Theodoric the Son of Dagobert"--. Also Otto Frising chron. 6. cap. 13.--"Otto (says he) King of the Franks being dead, Charles was created King by unanimous Consent--." The Appendix to Greg. Turon. lib. 11. cap. 101. says thus, "When Theodoric was dead, the Franks elected Clodoveus his Son, who was very young, to be their King." And cap. 106. "But the Franks appoint one Chilperick to be their King." Also Godfrey of Viterbo, chron. part. 17. cap. 4. "--But Pipin in being elected by the Franks, was declared King by Pope Zacharias, they having thrust their cowardly King Hilderic into a Monastery."

From these Proofs, and very many others like them, I think 'tis most plain, that the Kings of Francogallia were made such rather by the Suffrages and Favour of the People, than by any Hereditary Right. Of which a farther Argument may be the Forms and Ceremonies used by our Ancestors, at the Inauguration of their Kings. For we observe, the very same Custom was continued at the Election of our Kings, which we told you before out of Cornelius Tacitus, was formerly practised by the Caninesates, (the Franks own Country-men) viz. that they set their Elected King upon a Shield, and carried him on high on Men's Shoulders. So did we; for whoever was chosen by the Votes of the People, was set upon a Shield, and carried thrice round the place of publick Meeting for Election, or round about the Army on Men's Shoulders, all the People expressing their joy by Acclamations, and clapping of Hands. Greg. Turen. lib. 2. where he makes mention of King Clodoveus's Election,--"But they (says he) as soon as they heard these things, applauding him both with their Hands and Tongues, and hoisting him on a Shield, appointed him to be their King--." Also lib. 7. cap. 10. where he speaks of Gondebaldus,--"And there (says he) placing their King upon a Shield, they lifted him up; but 'tis reported, that as they were carrying him round the third time, he fell down; so that he was scarcely kept from tumbling to the very Ground by those that stood about him." Of which Accident Aimoinus, lib. 3. cap. 6. gives us this Account,--"They called forth Gondebaldus, and according to the Custom of the ancient Franks, proclaimed him their King, and hoisted him on a Shield; and as they were carrying him the third time round the whole Army, of a sudden they fell down with him, and could scarce get him up again from the Ground--." The like says Ado. Vien. AEtat. 6.--"Sigebertus consenting to the Franks, was placed upon a Shield, according to the Custom of that Nation, and proclaimed King": And peradventure from hence arose that Form among those Writers, who treat of the Creation of a King;--In Regem elevatus est.

But now we come to the third Part of this Controversy, in order to understand, how great the Right and Power of the People was, both in making and continuing their Kings. And I think it is plainly prov'd from all our Annals, that the highest Power of abdicating their Kings, was lodged in the People. The very first that was created King of Francogallia, is a remarkable instance of his Power. For when the People had found him out to be a profligate lewd Person, wasting his time in Adulteries and Whoredoms, they removed him from his Dignity by universal Consent, and constrain'd him to depart out of the Territories of France: and this was done, as our Annals testify, in the Year of Christ 469. Nay, even Eudo, whom they had placed in his stead, abusing his Power thro' excessive Pride and Cruelty, was with the like Severity turned out. Which Fact we find attested by Gregory of Tours, lib. 2. cap. 12. Aimoinus, lib. 1. cap. 7. Godfrey of Viterbo, part. 17. cap. 1. Sigibertus, sub annis 461, & 469. "Childeric (says Gregorius) being dissolved in Luxury, when he was King of the Franks, and beginning to deflower their Daughters, was by his Subjects cast out of the Throne with Indignation; whereupon he finding they had a Design to kill him, fled into Thoringia." But the Abbot of Ursperg says, "the People were unwilling to kill him, but contented themselves with having turn'd him out, because he was a dissolute Man, and a Debaucher of his Subjects Daughters--." Sigibertus says,--"Hilderick behaving himself insolently and luxuriously, the Franks thrust him out of the Throne, and made AEgidius their King."

And this most glorious and famous Deed of our Ancestors, deserves the more diligently to be remark'd, for having been done at the very Beginning, and as it were, the Infancy of that Kingdom; as if it had been a Denunciation, and Declaration, that the Kings of Francogallia were made such, upon certain known terms and Conditions; and were not Tyrants with absolute unlimited and arbitrary Power.

Their Successors also, keeping up the same Custom, in the Year of Christ 679, forced Childeric, their Eleventh King, to Abdicate, because he had behaved himself insolently and wickedly in his Government. And he having formerly caused a certain Nobleman, called Bodilo, to be tied to a Stake and whipp'd, without bringing him to a Tryal, was a few Days after slain by the same Bodilo. Our Authors are Aimoinus, lib. 4. cap. 44, Trithemius, anno 678. and Sigebertus, anno 667.

The Severity of our Ancestors appear'd in the same Manner a little while after, in the Instance of their 12th King Theodoric; who being a wicked and covetous Prince, "the Franks (says Aimoinus) rose up against him, and cast him out of the Kingdom, cutting off his hair by force," lib. 4. cap. 44.--Ado, AEtat. 6. anno 696. but Sigebertus sub anno 667. imputes a great many of his Crimes to Ebroinus his Favourite and chief General. [Footnote: Praefectus Regius.] "King Theodorick" (says he) "was deposed by the Franks, because of the Insolence of Ebroinus, and his Brother Hilderick was with unanimous Consent chosen King." And Ado says, "The Franks cast Theodorick out of the Kingdom, shaved Ebroinus in the Monastery of Lexovium, and afterwards raised Childerick to be King over them." Also the Appendix to Greg. of Tours, lib. II. cap. 64.--"The Franks rise up in Arms against Theodorick, cast him out of the Kingdom, and cut off his Hair: They shaved also Ebroinus."

The like Virtue our Ancestors exerted in the Case of Chilperick their 18th King, whom they forced to abdicate the Kingdom, [Footnote: Regno se abdicare coegerunt.] and made him a Monk, judging him unworthy to sit at the Helm of so great an Empire, [Footnote: Propter inertiam.] by reason of his Sloth. Whereof Aimoinus, lib. 4. cap. 61. Sigibertus and Trithemius, anno 750. and Godfrey, Chronic. part. 17. cap. 4. are our Witnesses.

Again, a sixth Example of the like Severity is extant in Charles the Gross their 25th King; who for the like Cowardise, and because he had granted away part of France to the Normans, suffering his Kingdom to be dismembred, was [Footnote: Ab optimatibus Regni repudiatas.] rejected and turn'd out by the Nobility and Gentry of the Kingdom, as Sigebertus tells us anno 890. Which same thing Godfridus records, part. 17. But more at large Otto Frising, chron. 6. cap. 9. where he adds this memorable Passage,--"This Man (says he) who next to Charles the Great, had been the King of greatest Power and Authority of all the Kings of the Franks, was in a short time reduced to so low a Condition, that he wanted Bread to eat, and miserably begged a small Allowance from Arnolphus, who was chosen King in his stead, and thankfully accepted of a poor Pension: From whence we may observe the uncertain and miserable State of all Human Greatness; that he who had govern'd all the Eastern and Western Kingdoms, together with the Roman Empire, shou'd at last be brought down to such a Degree of Poverty, as to want even Bread." A Seventh Instance is Odo the 26th King, who after he had been elected King in the Room of Charles the Son of Lewis the Stammerer, was in the 4th Year of his Reign, by the Franks, banish'd into Aquitain, and commanded to abide there; they replacing in his stead the same Charles the Son of Lewis. Which Fact is recorded by Sigebertus, sub anno 894. Aimoinus lib. 5. cap. 42. and Godfridus part. 17.

We must add to this Number Charles the 27th King, sirnamed (because of his Dullness) [Footnote: Propter Stuporem ingenii.] Charles the Simple: Who having thro' his Folly suffer'd his Kingdom to run to Decay, and lost Lorrain (which he had before recover'd) was taken and cast into Prison, and Rodolphus was chosen in his place, as Aimoinus, lib. 5. cap. 42. and Sigebertus, anno 926. do testify.

* * * * *

CHAP. VII.

What Rule was observ'd concerning the Inheritance of the deceased King, when he left more Children than one.

All that we have above said, tends to prove, that the Kingdom of Francogallia in old times, did not descend to the Children by Right of Inheritance (as a private Patrimony does); but was wont to be bestow'd by the Choice and publick Suffrages of the People: So that now there is the less Room left for the Question,--What Rule was observed in Relation to the Children of the deceased King, when he left more than one behind him. For since the Supreme Power nor only of Creating, but also of dethroning their Kings, was lodged in the Convention of the People, and Publick Council of the Nation; it necessarily follows, that the ordering the Succession (whether they should give it entirely to one, or divide it) was likewise in the People. Altho' in this place another Question may arise, viz. supposing the People shou'd reject the Son of their King, and elect a Stranger, whether any thing should be allowed to the first to maintain his Dignity? For the Solution, of which 'tis to be understood, that Lawyers reckon four Kinds of such Goods, as may be properly said to be under the King's [Footnote: In Regis ditione.] Governance; viz. the Goods of Caesar, the Goods of the Exchequer; the Goods of the Publick, and Private Goods. The Goods of Caesar are such as belong to the Patrimony of every Prince, not as he is King, but as he is Ludovicus, or Lotharius, or Dagobertus. Now this Patrimony is called by the Gallican Institutions, The King's Domain; which cannot be alien'd, but by the Consent of the publick Council of the Nation, as we shall make it appear hereafter, when we come to treat of the Authority of that Council. The Goods of the Exchequer are such as are given by the People, partly to defend the King's Dignity, and partly appropriated to the Uses and Exigencies of the Commonwealth. The Goods of the Publick (as the Lawyers call them) are such as inseparably belong to the Kingdom and Commonwealth. The private Goods are reckon'd to be such Estate, Goods and Fortune, as are esteemed to belong to every Father of a Family. Therefore upon the Death of any King, if the Kingdom be conferr'd on a Stranger, the Patrimonial Estate, as Lawyers call it, (being what was not in the King's Power to alienate) shall descend by Inheritance to his Children: But that which belongs to the Kingdom and Commonwealth, must necessarily go to him who is chosen King, because it is part of the Kingdom. Altho' it may be reasonable, that Dukedoms, Counties, and such like (by Consent of the publick Convention of the People) may be assigned to such Children for the Maintenance of their Quality; as Otto Frising, Chron. 5. cap. 9. and Godfrey of Viterbo, tell us, That Dagobert Son of Lotharius being made King, assigned certain Towns and Villages near the Loire, to his Brother Heribert for his Maintenance. Which Aimoinus confirms, lib. 4. cap. 17. and further adds, that he made a Bargain with him, to live as a private Person, and to expect no more of his Father's Kingdom. Also in his 61. chap. where he speaks of King Pipin, "He bestowed (says he) some Counties on his Brother Grison, according to the Order of the Twelve Peers." And to this belongs what Greg. Turon. writes, lib. 7. cap. 32.--"Gondobaldus sent two Ambassadors to the King with consecrated Rods in their hands, (that no Violence might be offer'd them by any body, according to the Rites of the Franks) who spoke these Words to the King, Gondobaldus says, he is a Son of King Clotharius, and has sent us to claim a due Portion of his Kingdom."

But to return to the Question, as far as it relates to the Succession of the Kingdom; I can find out no certain Rule or Law in Francogallia touching that Matter; because (as I said before) the Kingdom was not hereditary. 'Tis true, that in many Noble Patrimonies there was what we call Fiefs, Feuda; as Otto Frising. lib. 2. cap. 29. observes, "'Tis the Custom (says he) in Burgundy, which is also in most of the other Provinces of France, that the Authority of the Paternal Inheritance always falls to the Elder Brother, and his Children, whether Male or Female; the others looking on him as their Lord--." And that the same was practised among the whole Nation of the Franks, Petrus de Vincis, lib. epist. 6. epist. 25. and in other Places of his Writings, sets forth at large. But in the Succession of the Kingdom a different Rule was observ'd. For our Records do testify, that in old times the Kingdom of Francogallia, upon the Death of the King, was very often, not bestowed by the People on any one of his Sons, but divided into convenient Parcels, and a part assigned to each of them. Therefore when Clodoveus the 2d King dyed, anno 515. who left four Sons, Theodorick, Clodoveus, Childebert, and Clotharius, we find the Kingdom was thus divided among them; Theodorick had the Kingdom of Metz for his Share, Clodoveus that of Orleans, Clotharius that of Soissons, and Childebertus that of Paris, as 'tis recorded by Agathius, lib. hist. 1. Greg. Turon. lib. 3. cap. 1. Aimoinus lib. 2. cap. 1. Rhegino sub anno 421.

Again, after the Death of Clotharius the 4th King, the Kingdom was divided among his four Sons. So that Cherebertus had that of Paris: Guntranus, Orleans: Chilpericus, Soissons: and Sigebertus that of Rheims--, Greg. lib. 4. cap. 22. Aimoinus lib. 3. cap. 1. Rhegino sub anno 498.

On the other hand, Otto Frising. chron. 5. cap. 9. and God. Viterb. tell us, That about the Year 630, when Lotharius the 7th King died, Dagobertus his Son reigned singly in France, and assigned to his Brother Heribert some Cities and Villages on the River Loire, for his Maintenance. For from Clodoveus's Time till now, the Kingdom of the Franks was confusedly subdivided among the Sons, and the Sons Sons, each of which reigned over the part allotted him.--"The Extent of the Kingdom of the Franks reaching now from Spain, as far as to Hungary: Dagobert being sole King of all the Franks, gave Laws to the Bavarians." So says Godefridus, not without good Grounds, as many wise Men have thought. For, as Justin tells us, lib. 21. "That Kingdom will be much more potent, which remains under the Domination of one Person, than when 'tis divided among many Brothers."

But after some Years, when the Kingdom of the Franks was excessively enlarged on all Sides, and King Pipin was dead, the General Council of the Gauls changed this Method again. Which serves to confirm what we said before; viz. That the whole Power, relating to that Matter, was lodged in that Council. For Eguinarthus, in his Life of Charlemagn, writes thus, "--After King Pipin's Death, the Franks having assembled themselves in a solemn general Convention, did there appoint both his Sons to be their Kings, upon this Condition, that they shou'd equally divide the whole body of the Kingdom between them: And that Charles shou'd reign over that part of it, which their Father Pipin enjoy'd; and Carloman over the other Part which their Uncle held."

Also the Abbot of Ursperg says,--"When Pipin was dead, his two Sons Charles and Carloman, by the Consent of all the Franks, were created Kings, upon Condition, that they shou'd divide the whole body of the Kingdom equally between them.--" The same Method in dividing the Kingdom, was practised after the Death of Charlemagn, as 'tis manifest by his last Will and Testament, recorded by Johannes Nauclerus, and Eguinarthus's History of his Life. Wherein we find almost all Europe so divided among his three Sons, that nothing was assigned either as a Portion or Dower, to his Daughters; but the marrying and providing for them was entirely trusted to the Care and Prudence of their Brothers. Otto Frisingensis, chron. 6. cap. 6. and Rhegino in chron. anno 877. assure us, that the same Manner of dividing the Kingdom was practis'd in East-France, after the Death of King Lewis the Stammerer, in 874. Again, some Years after, anno 880. after King Lewis the 23d King's Death, the very same way of dividing the Kingdom was made use of; which however we are to observe, was not in the Power and Arbitriment of the Kings themselves; but done by the Authority of the Publick Council, as we may easily collect from these Words of Aimoinus, lib. 5. cap. 40. "The Sons (says he) of Lewis, late King of the Franks, met at Amiens, and divided their Father's Kingdom between them, according to the Direction of their faithful Subjects."

From all which Arguments 'tis very plain, that anciently there was no certain Law or Right of Francogallia touching this Matter; but the whole Power of disposing of it was lodged in the Publick Council of the Nation. Indeed afterwards in the Reign of Philip the 3d, (the 41st King) it was ordained, that certain Lordships might be set out and assigned to younger Brothers: But even of this Law there were various Interpretations, and many Controversies arose concerning Daughters; so that we can deliver nothing for certain in this Affair; only thus much we may truly say, That if the Ancient Institution of our Ancestors ought to be our Rule, the Determination of this whole Matter must be left to the Publick General Council of the Nation: that according to the Number of Children, some particular Lordships or Territories, may (by its Authority) be assigned for their Maintenance.

* * * * *

CHAP. VIII.

Of the Salick Law, and what Right Women had in the King's their Father's Inheritance.

Because we have undertaken to give an Account of the Law and Right of Regal Inheritance, we must not omit making Mention of the Salick Law; which is both daily discours'd of by our Countrymen, and in the Memory of our Forefathers serv'd to appease a great and dangerous Contention, which arose touching the Succession to the Crown. For when (Anno 1328.) Charles the Fair, Son of Philip the Fair, died, leaving his Wife with Child of a Daughter, (which some Months after was born) Edward King of England (Son of Isabella, the Daughter of Philip the fair, and Sister to Charles lately dead) claimed the Inheritance of his Grandfather's Kingdom as his Right. But Philip of Valois, Cousin germain by the Father's Side to the deceased King, standing up, alledged that there was an ancient Regal Law, called the Salick Law, by which all Women were excluded from the Inheritance of the Crown. Now this Law both Gaguinus and other Writers of like Stamp tell us, was written by Pharamond; and he calls it a most famous Law, even to his Time. For in his Life of Philip of Valois; "The Salick Law (says he) was a Bar to Edward's Title; which Law being first given by Pharamond to the Franks, has been religiously observed, even to those Days. By that Law, only the Heirs Male of our Kings are capable of governing the Kingdom, and no Females can be admitted to that Dignity. The Words of that Law are these: Nulla hereditatis portio de terra Salica ad mulierem venito; Let no Part of the Inheritance of Salick Land come to a Woman. Now (says Gaguinus) the French Lawyers call Salick Land, such as belongs only to the King, and is different from the Alodial which concerns the Subjects; to whom, by that Law, is granted a free Dominion of any thing, not excluding the Princely Authority." And to the same Purpose, not only almost all the Francogallican Historians, but even all the Lawyers and Pettifoggers have wrote to this Day, as Paponius testifies, Arrest. lib. 4. cap. 1. So that now the mistake has prevailed so far, as to have obtain'd the Force of a Law. To explain this, it must be remembred (which we formerly gave an Account of) that the Franks had two Seats of their Empire, and two Kingdoms; One in France, which remains to this Day; The other beyond the Rhine, near the River Sala; from whence they were called Salii, and Salici Franci (joyning the two Names together) but for the most part briefly Salici; the Kingdom of these last, and even their very Name is in a Manner extinct. Ammianus Marcellinus makes mention in his History (as we told you before) of these Salii, and shews, that they are called the Eastern Franks, as the others were called the Western. Now as there were two Kingdoms of the Franks, so they had different Laws: those that belonged to the Salii, were called Salick; those that belonged to the Francogalli, were called French. Eguinarthus in his Life of Charles the Great says thus:--"After he had assumed the Imperial Title, finding that his Peoples Laws were in many Things deficient, (for the Franks have two Laws very different from each other in many Cases,) he thought of adding such as were wanting."--The Author of the Preface to the Salick Law has this Passage.--"The renowned Nation of the Franks, before it was converted to the Catholick Faith, enacted the Salick Law by the Great Men of the Nation, who at that Time were their Governors; and from among a great many, four Persons were chosen; Wisogast, Arbogast, Salogast, and Windogast; who, during three Conventions [tres mallos] carefully perusing all Causes from their Original, gave their Judgment and Decree of every one of them in this Manner, &c.--" Sigebertus in Chron. anni 422. & Otto Frising, lib. 4. cap. penult. make use of almost the same Words. "From that time (say they) the Laws recommended to them by Wisigastaldus and Salogastus, began to be in Force. By this Salogastus, they tell us, that Law was invented, which from his Name is to this Day called the Salick Law; and the most noble of the Franks, called Salici, observe it at this time."--Thus say the old Chronographers. By which we may refute the Error of such as derive the Salick Law, a Sale, that is, Prudence; or what is called corruptly Lex Salica, instead of Gallica; than which nothing can be more absurd. But much greater Errors spring from the same Fountain: First, That People are so far imposed upon by those Authors, as to believe the Salick Law had reference to the Publick Right of the Commonwealth and the Government, also to the Hereditary Succession of the Kingdom. Now the very Records or Tables of this Salick Law were not many Years ago found and brought to Light; from whose Inscription it appears, that they were first written and publish'd about Pharamond's time: Besides, that all the Heads and Articles, both of the Salick and French Laws, were Constitutions relating only to private Right between Man and Man, and meddled not with the Publick Right of the Kingdom or Commonwealth: among the rest, one Chapter, tit. 62. has this in it.--"Of the Salick Land, no Part or Portion of Inheritance passes to a Female; but this falls to the Male Off-spring; that is, the Sons shall succeed to the Inheritance: But where a Dispute shall arise (after a long Course of Time) among the Grandsons and great Grandsons, de alode terrae; [Footnote: Allodium is the contrary to Feudum, Gothick words, for which 'tis difficult to find proper English.] let it be divided, Non per stirpes sed per capita." The like Law, Extat apud Ripuarios, tit. 58. Item apud Anglos, tit. 7. Where they are so far from enacting any thing relating to the Inheritances of Kingdoms, that they do not so much as affect Feudal Successions, but only belong to Allodial; altho' a Portion was assigned to Women out of those Allodial Lands. Which Way soever this Matter may be, 'tis manifest in the first Place, that altho' no Article, either of the Frank or Salick Law were extant, which debars Women from the Inheritance of the Crown; yet the Customs and Institutions of a Nation, preserv'd inviolate by universal Consent, during so many Ages, obtain the Force of a written Law: For tho' Childeric, the Third King, left two Daughters behind him at his Death, the Kingdom was given to his Brother Lotharius, and his Daughters excluded. Again, after the Death of Cherebert the 5th King, who left three Daughters; the Succession devolv'd upon his Brother Sigebert. Also when Gontrannus King of Burgundy and Orleans died, the Kingdom was conferr'd on his Brother Sigebert, not on his Daughter Clotilda. Lastly, Philip of Valois's Advocates might with greater Caution, as well as Efficacy, have argued for him out of the Feudal Law, by which all Inheritances of Fiefs descend to the Male Issue only, and not to the Female, who are not admitted to them. And when there happens a Want of Heirs Males in that Line or Branch wherein the Fief is lodged, then the Feudum or Fief returns back to the other Stock or Branch: which was the very Case at that Time. But such Fiefs as thro' a Depravation of the Law, are convey'd down to Women, cannot properly be called Feuda, but Feudastra, as in other of our Writings we have made it appear.

* * * * *