people; the one, an attachment to the French nation and monarchy in opposition to foreign enemies; the other, a zeal for their own privileges, and the family of Montfort, in opposition to the encroachments of the crown. In Francis II., the present duke, the male line of that family was about to be extinguished. His daughter Anne was naturally the object of many suitors, among whom were particularly distinguished the duke of Orleans, who seems to have been preferred by herself; the lord of Albret, a member of the Gascon family of Foix, favoured by the Breton nobility, as most likely to preserve the peace and liberties of their country, but whose age rendered him not very acceptable to a youthful princess; and Maximilian, king of the Romans. Britany was rent by factions, and overrun by the armies of the regent of France, who did not lose this opportunity of interfering with its domestic troubles, and of persecuting her private enemy, the duke of Orleans. Anne of Britany, upon her father's death, finding no other means of escaping the addresses of Albret, was married, by proxy, to Maximilian. This however aggravated the evils of the country, since France was resolved at all events to break off so dangerous a connexion. And as Maximilian himself was unable, or took not sufficient pains, to relieve his betrothed wife from her embarrassments, she was 4489 Marriage of Charles VIII. to the duchess of Britany. ultimately compelled to accept the hand of Charles VIII. He had long been engaged by the treaty of Arras to marry the daughter of Maximilian, and that princess was educated at the French court. But this engagement had not prevented several years of hostilities, and continual intrigues with the towns of Flanders against Maximilian. The double injury which the latter sustained in the marriage of Charles with the heiress of Britany seemed likely to excite a protracted contest; but the king of France, who had other objects in view, and perhaps was conscious that he had not acted a fair part, soon came to an accommodation, by which he restored Artois and Franche-Comté. 1492 France was now consolidated into a great kingdom; the feudal system was at an end. The vigour of PhilipAugustus, the paternal wisdom of St. Louis, the policy of Philip the Fair, had laid the foundations of a powerful monarchy, which neither the arms of England, nor seditions of Paris, nor rebellions of the princes, were able to shake. Besides the original fiefs of the French crown, it had acquired two countries beyond the Rhone, which properly depended only upon the empire, Dauphiné, under Philip of Valois, by the bequest of Humbert, the last of its princes; and Provence, under Louis XI., by that of Charles of Anjou (1). Thus having conquered herself, if I may use the phrase, 4481 (4) The country now called Dauphiné formed part of the kingdom of Arles or Provence, bequeathed by Rodolph III. to the emperor Conrad II. But the dominion of the empire over these new acquisiflons being little more than nominal, a few of the chief nobility converted their respective flefs into independent principalities. One of these was the lord, or dauphin of Vienne, whose family became ultimately masters of the whole province. Humbert, the last of these, made John, son of Philip of and no longer apprehensive of any foreign enemy, France was prepared, under a monarch flushed with sanguine ambition, to carry her arms into other countries, and to contest the prize of glory and power upon the ample theatre of Europe (1). CHAPTER II. ON THE FEUDAL SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY IN FRANCE. PART I. State of ancient Germany-Effects of the Conquest of Gaul by the Franks-Tenures of Land -Distinction of Laws-Constitution of the ancient Frank Monarchy-Gradual Establishment of Feudal Tenures-Principles of a Feudal Relation-Ceremonies of Homage and Investiture-Military Service-Feudal Incidents of Relief, Aid, Wardship, etc.-Different Species of Fiefs-Feudal Law-books. Political state many GERMANY, in the age of Tacitus, was divided among a number of independent tribes, differing greatly in popu- of ancient Gerlation and importance. Their country, overspread with forests and morasses, afforded little arable land, and the cultivation of that little was inconstant. Their occupations were principally the chase and pasturage; without cities, or even any contiguous dwell Valols, his heir, on condition that Dauphiné should be constantly preserved as a separate possession, not incorporated with the kingdom of France. This bequest was coufirmed by the emperor Charles IV., whose supremacy over the province was thus recognised by the kings of France, though it soon came to be altogether disregarded. Provence, like Dauphiné, was changed from a feudal dependency to a sovereignty, in the weakness and dissolution of the kingdom of Arles, about the early part of the eleventh century. By the marriage of Douce, heiress of the first line of sovereign counts, with Raymond Berenger, count of Barcelona, in 1112, It passed into that distinguished family. In 4167, it was occupied or usurped by Alfonso H., king of Arragon, a relation, but not heir, of the house of Berenger. Alfonso bequeathed Provence to his second son, of the same name, from whom it descended to Raymond Berenger IV. This count dying without male issue in 1245, his youngest daughter Beatrice took possession by virtue of her father's testament. But this successton being disputed by other claimants, and especially by Louis IX., who had married ber eldest sister, she compromised differences by marrying Charles of Anjou, the king's brother. The family of Anjou reigned in Provence, as well as in Naples, fill the death of Joan In 1382, who, having no children, adopted Louis, duke of Anjou, brother of Charles V., as her suc cessor. This second Angevin line ended in 1481 by the death of Charles 111., though Renier, duke of Lorraine, who was descended through a female, had a claim which it does not seem easy to repel by argument. It was very easy however for Louis XI., to whom Charles III, had bequeathed his rights, to repel it by force, and accordingly he took possession of Provence, which was permanently united to the crown by letters patent of Charles VIII. in 1486.* (1) The principal authority, exclusive of original writers, on which I have relied for this chapter, Is the history of France by Velly, Villaret, and Garnler; a work which, notwithstanding several defects, has absolutely superseded those of Mezeray and Daniel. The part of the Abbé Velly comes down to the middle of the eighth volume, (12mo. edition,) and of the reign of Philip de Valols. His continuator Villaret was interrupted by death in the seventeenth volume, and in the reign of Louis XI. In my references to this history, which for common facts I have not thought it necessary to make, I have merely named the author of the particular volume which I quote. This has made the above explanation convenient, as the reader might imagine that I referred to three distinct works. Of these three historians, Garnier, the last, is the most judicious, and, I believe, the most accurate. His prolixity, though a material defect, and one which has occa¬ * Art de vérifier les Dates, t, il. p. 445.—Garnler, t. xix, pp. 57. 474. ings. They had kings, elected out of particular families; and other chiefs, both for war and administration of justice, whom merit alone recommended to the public choice. But the power of each was greatly limited; and the decision of all leading questions, though subject to the previous deliberation of the chieftains, sprung from the free voice of a popular assembly (1). The principal men, however, of a German tribe fully partook of that estimation, which is always the reward of valour, and commonly of birth. They were surrounded by a cluster of youths, the most gallant and ambitious of the nation, their pride at home, their protection in the field; whose ambition was flattered, or gratitude conciliated, by such presents as a leader of barbarians could confer. These were the institutions of the people who overthrew the empire of Rome, congenial to the spirit of infant societies, and such as travellers have found among nations in the same stage of manners throughout the world. And, although in the lapse of four centuries between the ages of Tacitus and Clovis, some change may have been wrought by long intercourse with the Romans, yet the foundations of their political system were unshaken. Partition of lands in ces. When these tribes from Germany and the neighbourcoping countries poured down upon the empire, and began quered provin to form permanent settlements, they made a partition of the lands in the conquered provinces between themselves and the original possessors. The Burgundians and Visigoths took two thirds of their respective conquests, leaving the remainder to the Roman proprietor. Each Burgundian was quartered, under the gentle name of guest, upon one of the former tenants, whose reluctant hospitality confined him to the smaller portion of his estate (2). The Vandals in Africa, a more furious race of plunderers, seized all the best lands (5). The Lombards of Italy took a third part of the produce. We cannot discover any mention of a similar arrangement in the laws or history of the Franks. It is, however, clear that they occupied, by public allotment, or individual pillage, a great portion of the lands of France. Alodial and Salic lands. The estates possessed by the Franks, as their property, were termed alodial; a word which is sometimes stoned the work itself to become an immeasurable undertaking, which could never be completed on the same scale, is chiefly occasioned by too great a regard to details, and is more tolerable than a similar fault in Villaret, proceeding from a love of idle declamation and sentiment. Villaret, however, is not without merits. He embraces, perbaps more fully than bis predecessor Velly, those collateral branches of history which an enlightened reader requires almost in preference to civil transactions, the laws, manners, literature, and in general the whole domestic records of a nation. These subjects are not always well treated; but the book itself, to which there is a remarkably full index, forms upon the whole a great repository of useful knowledge. Villaret had the advantage of official access to the French archives, by which he has no doubt cariched his history; but his references are indistinct, and his composition breathes an air of rapidity and want of exactness. Velly's characteristics are not very dissimilar. The style of both is exceedingly bad, as has been severely noticed, along with their other defects, by Gaillard, in Observations sur l'histoire de Velly, Villaret, et Garnier. (4 vols. 12mo. Paris, 1806.) (4) De minoribus rebus principes consultant, de majoribus omnes; ita tamen, ut ea quoque, quorum penes plebem arbitrium est, apud principes pertractentur. Tac. de Mor. Germ. c. xi. Acidalius and Grotius contend for prætractentur; which would be neater, but the same sense appears to be conveyed by the common reading. (2) Leg. Burgund. c. 54. 55. restricted to such as had descended by inheritance (1). These were subject to no burthen except that of public defence. They passed to all the children equally, or, in their failure, to the nearest kindred (2). But of these alodial possessions, there was a particular species, denominated Salic, from which females were expressly excluded. What these lands were, and what was the cause of the exclusion, has been much disputed. No solution seems more probable, than that the ancient lawgivers of the Salian Franks (3) prohibited females from inheriting the lands assigned to the nation upon its conquest of Gaul, both in compliance with their ancient usages, and in order to secure the military service of every proprietor. But lands subsequently acquired, by purchase or other means, though equally bound to the public defence, were relieved from the severity of this rule, and presumed not to belong to the class of Salic (4). Hence, in the Ripuary law, the code of a tribe of Franks settled upon the hanks of the Rhine, and differing rather in words than in substance from the Salic law, which it serves to illustrate, it is said, that a woman cannot inherit her grandfather's estate (hæreditas aviatica), distinguishing such family property from what the father might have acquired (5). And Marculfus uses expressions to the same effect. There existed, however, a right of setting aside the law, and admitting females to succession by testament. It is rather probable, from some passages in the Burgundian code, that even the lands of partition (sortes Burgundionum) were not restricted to male heirs (6). And the Visigoths admitted women on equal terms to the whole inheritance. of Gaul. A controversy has been maintained in France, as to Roman natives the condition of the Romans, or rather, the provincial inhabitants of Gaul, after the invasion of Clovis. But neither those who have considered the Franks as barbarian conquerors, enslaving (1) Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal; the former being strictly proprie tary, while the latter depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of inheritance; and this seems to be its meaning in the famous 62d chapter of the Salic law, de Alodis. Alodium interdum opponitur comparato, says Du Cange, in formulis veteribus. Hence in the charters of the eleventh century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia. Recueil des Historiens de France, t. xl. préface Caissette, Hist, de Languedoc, t. ii. p. 109. (2) Leg. Salicæ, c. 62. (3) The Salic laws appear to have been framed by a Christian prince, and after the conquest of Gaul. They are therefore not older than Clovis. Nor can they be much later, since they were altered by one of his sons. (5) By the German customs, women, though treated with much respect and delicacy, were not endowed at their marriage. Dotem non uxor marito, sed maritus uxori confert. Tacitus, c. 18. A similar principle might debar them of inheritance in fixed possessions. Certain it is, that the exclusion of females was not unfrequent among the Teutonic nations. We find it in the laws of the Thuringians and of the Saxons; both ancient codes, though not free from interpolation. Leibnitz, Scriptores Rerum Brunswicensium, t. 1. pp. 81. and 83. But this usage was repugnant to the principles of Roman law, which the Franks found prevalling in their new country, and to the natural feeling which leads a man to prefer his own descendants to collateral heirs. One of the precedents in Marculfus, (1. fi. form. 12.) calls the exclusion of females, diuturna et impia consuetudo. In another, a father addresses his daughter: Omnibus non habetur incognitum, quod, sicut lex Salica continet, de rebus meis, quod mihi ex alode parentum meorum obvenit, apud germanos tuos filios meos minime in bæreditate succedere poteras. Formulæ Marculso adjectæ, 49. These precedents are supposed to have been compiled about the latter end of the seventh century. the former possessors, nor the Abbé du Bos, in whose theory they appear as allies and friendly inmates, are warranted by historical facts. On the one hand, we find the Romans not only possessed of property, and governed by their own laws, but admitted to the royal favour, and the highest offices (1); while the bishops and clergy, who were generally of that nation (2), grew up continually in popular estimation, in riches, and in temporal sway. Yet it is undeniable, that a marked line was drawn at the outset between the conquerors and the conquered. Though one class of Romans retained estates of their own, yet there was another, called tributary, who seem to have cultivated those of the Franks, and were scarcely raised above the condition of predial servitude. But no distinction can be more unequivocal than that which was established between the two nations, in the weregild, or composition for homicide. Capital punishment for murder was contrary to the spirit of the Franks, who, like most barbarous nations, would have thought the loss of one citizen ill repaired by that of another. The weregild was paid to the relations of the slain, according to a legal rate. This was fixed by the Salic law at six hundred solidi for an Antrustion of the king; at three hundred for a Roman conviva regis (meaning a man of sufficient rank to be admitted to the royal table); at two hundred for a common Frank; at one hundred for a Roman possessor of lands; and at fortyfive for a tributary, or cultivator of another's property. In Burgundy, where religion and length of settlement had introduced different ideas, murder was punished with death. But other personal injuries were compensated, as among the Franks, by a fine graduated according to the rank and nation of the aggrieved party (3). Distinction of The barbarous conquerors of Gaul and Italy were laws. guided by notions very different from those of Rome, who had imposed her own laws upon all the subjects of her empire. Adhering in general to their ancient customs without desire of improvement, they left the former habitations in unmolested enjoyment of their civil institutions. The Frank was judged by the Salic or the Ripuary code; the Gaul followed that of Theodosius (4). This grand distinction of Roman and barbarian, according to the law which c. 9. But no distinction was made among them on this account. The composition for the murder of a bishop was nine hundred solidi; for that of a priest, six hundred of the same coin. Leges Salicæ, c. 58. (1) Daniel conjectures that Clotaire I. was the first Romans. See, for instance, Gregory of Tours, 1. vi. who admitted Romans into the army, which had previously been composed of Franks. From this time we find many in high military command. (Hist. de la Milice Françoise, t. 1. p. 44.) It seems by a passage in Gregory of Tours, by Du Bos, (t. fil. p. 547.) that some Romans affected the barbarian character, by letting their hair grow. If this were generally permitted, it would be a stronger evidence of approximation between the two races, than any that Du Bos has adduced. Montesquieu certainly takes it for granted that a Roman might change his law, and thus become to all material intents a Frank. (Esprit des lois, 1, xxvlli. c. 4.) But the passage on which he relies is read differently in the manuscripts. (2) Some bishops, if we may judge from their barbarous names, and other circumstances, were not (3) Leges Salicæ, c. 43. Leges Burgundionum, tit. 2. Murder and robbery were made capital by Childebert, king of Paris; but Francus was to be sent for trial in the royal court, debilior persona in loco pendatur. Baluz. t. 1. p. 17. I am inclined to think, that the word Francus does not absolutely refer to the nation of the party; but rather to his rank, as opposed to debilior persona; and, consequently, that it had already acquired the sense of freeman, or free-born (Ingenuus), which is perhaps its strict meaning. Du Cange, voc. Francus, quotes the passage In this sense. (4) Inter Romanos negotia causarum Romanis 1 |