Franco-Gallia

Whether the Kingdom of Francogallia was hereditary or elective; and the manner of making its Kings.

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. Ætat. 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 Ægidius 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, Ætat. 6. anno 696. but Sigebertus sub anno 667. imputes a great many of his Crimes to Ebroinus his Favourite and chief General. [Footnote: Præfectus 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.

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 Cæsar, the Goods of the Exchequer; the Goods of the Publick, and Private Goods. The Goods of Cæsar 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. Taron. 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 Joannes 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.

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 terrâ Salicâ 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, à 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 terræ; [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.

Of the Right of Wearing a large Head of Hair peculiar to the Royal Family.

It will not be amiss in this Place to give some Account of a Custom of our Ancestors, relating to the Hair worn by the Royal Family: For 'tis recorded, that our Forefathers had a particular Law concerning it; viz. That such as were chosen Kings by the People, or were of the Regal Family, shou'd preserve their Hair, and wear it parted from the Forehead, on both Sides the Head, and anointed with sweet Oyl, as an Ornament and peculiar Mark of their being of the Royal Family; whilst all other Persons, how nobly born soever, had no right to wear a large Head of Hair; but were obliged to go with their Heads shorn or shaved, upon the Account (as 'tis probable) that they shou'd be more ready and expedite in their continual military Exercises, as the Roman Histories tell us of Julius Cæsar, and several others. Aimoinus lib. 1 cap. 4. says—"The Franks chusing for themselves a King, according to the Custom of other Nations, raised, Pharamond to the Throne, to whom succeeded his Son Clodio crinitus; For at that Time the Kings of the Franks wore large Heads of Hair. Also lib. 3. cap. 61. Gundoaldus being brought up by his Mother after the regal Manner, wore a long Head of Hair, according to the Custom of the ancient Kings of the Franks." In like Manner Agathius, lib. de Bell. Goth. I. where he speaks of Clodoveus, one of our Kings, who was taken in Battel by the the Burgundians, (he calls him Clodamirus). "As soon (says he) as his Horse had thrown him, the Burgundians espying his large Head of Hair, which fell back over his Shoulders, presently knew him to be the Enemy's General; for 'tis not lawful for the Kings of the Franks to cut off their Hair, but even from their Childhood they remain untrimm'd, and always keep a large Head of Hair hanging low down upon their Backs." And we have many Instances that it was our Ancestors Custom, whenever they either deprived any one of the Crown, or took away all Hopes of obtaining the Kingdom, to cut off his Head of Hair. Aimoinus in the same Place—"He earnestly beholding him, commanded his Hair to be cut off, denying him to be his Son.—Also—Having caused his Hair to be cut off a second Time, he put him in Prison at Cologne; from whence making his Escape, he fled to Narses, and suffer'd his Hair to grow again, &c." Which Story Gregory of Tours, lib. 6. cap. 24. likewise records. Also cap. 44. where he speaks of King Theodorick.—"The Franks (says he) rose up in Arms against him, and cast him out of the Kingdom, and cut off his Head of Hair by Force." But there is a very remarkable, or rather horrible Story related by Gregory of Tours, concerning Crotilda, the Queen Mother; who chose rather to have the Heads of her two Grandsons cut off than their Hair. 'Tis in his 3d Book, cap. 18.—"Our Mother (says the King to his Brother) has kept our Brother's Sons with her, and intends to advance them to the Throne; we must concert what Measures ought to be taken in this Affair; whether we shall order their Hair to be cut off, and to reduce them to the State of common Subjects; or whether we shall cause them to be put to Death, and afterwards divide the Kingdom between us: Then they sent Archadius with a Pair of Scissars in one Hand, and a naked Sword in t'other to the Queen; who approaching her, showed them both to her, and said, Your Sons, most Glorious Queen, have sent me to know your Pleasure, what Destiny you are pleased to allot to these two Youths; whether by suffering their Hair to be cut off, you will have them to live; or whether you had rather have both their Throats cut. Whereupon She chose rather to see them both kill'd, than to have their Hair cut off." I further observe, that it was the Fashion when our Kings went to single Combat, to have their long Hair tied up in a large Knot a-top of their Helmets like a Crest; and that was their Cognizance or Mark in all their Fights. Therefore Aimoinus, lib. 4. cap. 18. where he speaks of the dreadful Combat between King Dagobert and Bertoaldus, Duke of the Saxons: "The King (says he) having his Hair, together with a Part of his Helmet, cut off with a Blow of a Sword on his Head, sent them by his Esquire to his Father, desiring him to hasten to his Assistance."

Now when I consider what might be the Reasons of this Institution, I can find none but this. That since it had been the ancient Custom of the Gauls and Franks to wear their Hair long (as it was also of the Sicambri, and of most others in those Parts) our Ancestors thought fit to continue, and in Process of Time to appropriate this Ornament, and Mark of Distinction to the Regal Family. No Person, tho' but indifferently learn'd, needs any Proof that the Gauls wore their Hair long, especially when he calls to mind that of the Poet Claudian, ex lib. in Ruffin. 2.

Now that the Franks did so too, whom we have shewn to be descended from the Chauci or Chaiici, that single Passage of the Poet Lucan is sufficient to confirm.

Which being so, we may easily comprehend the Reason why Strangers, who were ill affected towards our Nation, contumeliously called our Kings, who wore so great a Head of Hair, Reges setatos, bristled Kings; and not only so, but (tho' Bristles and long Hair be common to Lyons, Horses and Swine, all which are therefore called Setosi, or Setigeri) they stretched the Contumely so far, as to say, they had Hogs Bristles. From whence arose that filthy Fiction and foul Name, τριχοραχάτον of which Georgius Cedrenus writes thus in his History, "Ἐλέγοντο δὲ οἱ ἐκ τοῦ γένους ἐκείου καταγόμενοι κριστάτοι, ὅ ἑρμηνεύεται τριχοραχάτοι' εἶχον γὰρ κατὰ τῆς ῥάχεως αύτῶν τρίχας ἐκϕυομένας ὡς χοῖροι" that is, "They who were of the Kingly Race were called Cristati, which may be interpreted Bristleback'd; because they had all along their Back bones, Bristles growing out like Swine"—, Which Passage of Cedrenus, I believe, is corrupted, and instead of the Word, κριστάτοι ought to be Σέτάτοι or perhaps both. For as some Persons called them pleasantly Christati by Reason of their large erected Bunch of Hair upon the Tops of their Helmets; so their Ill-Willers called them upbraidingly Setati, or Setigeri. If Cedrenus had not been so very plain in this Passage, and the Appellation of Cristati be to be retained, I shou'd rather have thought they might have been called τριχοχάρακτοι, as being remarkable for their large Heads of Hair.

The Form and Constitution of the Francogallican Government.

These Things being thus briefly premised, we think it proper now to set forth in what Manner the Kingdom of Francogallia was constituted. And we have already made it plain, that the People reserv'd to themselves all the Power not only of Creating, but also of Abdicating their Kings. Which Form of Government 'tis manifest our Ancestors had; before they were brought under by the Romans, "So that the People (as Cæsar tells us) had no less authority and Power over their Kings, than the Kings had over the People. Populus non minus in Regem, quam rex in populum imperii ac Potestatis retinet." Altho' 'tis probable the Franks did not derive this Constitution of their Commonwealth from the Gauls; but from their Countrymen, the Germans; of whom Tacitus, lib. de mor. Germ. says,—"Regibus non est infinita aut libera Potestas. Their Kings have not an Arbitrary or Unlimited Power." Now 'tis manifest, that no Form of Government is more remote from Tyranny, than this: for not one of the three distinguishing Marks, or Characteristicks of Tyranny, which the old Philosophers make mention of, can be found in the Form and Constitution of our Government. First, as to a forced Obedience; i. e. that a King shou'd rule over a People against their Wills; we have shewn you already, that the Supreme Power, both of Electing and Abdicating their Kings, was in the People. Secondly, as to a Life-guard composed of Foreigners, (which they reckon the Second Mark of Tyranny); so far were our Francogallian Kings from making use of Mercenary Strangers for their Guards, that they had not so much as their own Countrymen and Citizens, for that Purpose; but placed their whole Trust and Confidence in the Love and Fidelity of their Subjects; which they thought a sufficient Guard.

As an Argument of this, we may observe what Gregory of Tours writes, lib. 7. cap. 18. and Aimoinus, lib. 3. cap. 63.—"King Gontrannus being inform'd by an ordinary Fellow at Paris, that Faraulphus lay in Wait for him, presently began to secure his Person by Guards and Weapons; so that he went no whither (not even to the Holy Places) without being surrounded with armed Men and Soldiers." We have at present a very famous History extant of St. Lewis, written by that excellent Person Joannes Jonvillæus, who lived very familiarly with that King for many Years; in which whole History there is not the least Mention made of Guards or Garisons, but only of Porters or Doorkeepers; which in his native Tongue, he calls Ushers.

Now as to the third Mark of Tyranny, which is when Matters are so carried, that what is done tends more to the Profit and Will of the Person governing, than to that of the governed, or the Good of the Commonwealth; we shall hereafter prove, that the Supreme Administration of the Francogallican Kingdom was lodged in the Publick Annual Council of the Nation, which in After-Ages was called the Convention of the Three Estates. For the Frame of this Government was the very same which the Ancient Philosophers, and among them Plato and Aristotle (whom Polybius imitates) judged to be the best and most excellent in the World, as being made up and constituted of a Mixture and just Temperament of the three Kinds of Government, viz. the Regal, Noble, and Popular. Which Form of a Commonwealth, Cicero (in his Books de Republicâ) prefers to all other whatsoever. For since a Kingly and a Popular Government do in their Natures differ widely from each other, it was necessary to add a third and middle State participating of both, viz. that of the Princes or Nobility; who, by Reason of the Splendor and Antiquity of their Families, approach, in some Degree, to the Kingly Dignity; and yet, being Subjects, are upon that Account on the same Foot and Interest with the Commons. Now of the Excellency of this Temperament in a Commonwealth, we have a most remarkable Commendation in Cicero, taken by him out of Plato's Books de Republicâ; which, because of its singular Elegancy, we shall here insert at length.

"Ut in fidibus (inquit) ac tibiis, atque cantu ipsò, ac vocibus, tenendus est quidam concentus ex distinctis sonis, quem immutatum ac discrepantem aures eruditæ ferre non possunt; isque concentus ex dissimillimarium vocum moderatione concors tamen efficitur, & congruens; Sic ex summis, & mediis, & infimis interjectis ordinibus, ut sonis, moderatâ ratione civitas, consensu dissimillimorum, concinit, & quæ harmonia a musicis dicitur in cantu, ea est in Civitate concordia: arctissimum atq; optimum in Repub. vinculum incolumitatis, quæ fine justitiâ nullo pacto esse potest. i. e. As in Fiddles and Flutes, and even in Singing and Voices, a certain Consort of distinct Sounds is to be observed; which if it be alter'd, or not tunable, skilful Hearers cannot bear or endure: And this Consort of very different Tones, is, through as just Proportion of the Notes, rendred Concord, and very agreeable: Even so a Commonwealth, judiciously proportioned, and composed of the first, the middlemost, and the lowest of the States, (just as in the Sounds) through the Consent of People very unlike to each other, becomes agreeable: And what Musicians in Singing call Harmony, that in a Commonwealth is Concord; the very best and strongest Bond of Safety for a Government, which can never fail of being accompanied with Justice." Our Ancestors therefore following this Method, of a just Mixture of all the three Kinds, in the constituting their Commonwealth, most wisely ordained, that every Year on the Calends of May, a Publick Council of the whole Nation should be held: at which Council the great Affairs of the Republick shou'd be transacted by the common Consent and Advice of all the Estates. The Wisdom and Advantage of which Institution, appears chiefly in these three things: First, That in the Multitude of prudent Counsellors, the Weight and Excellency of Counsel shews it self more apparently, as Solomon and other Wise Men have said. Secondly, Because it is an essential part of liberty, that the same persons, at whose cost and peril any thing is done, shou'd have it done likewise by their authority and advice: for ('tis a common Saying) what concerns all, ought to be approved by all. Lastly, That such Ministers of State as have great Power with the Prince, and are in high Employments, may be kept within the Bounds of their Duty, thro' the Awe they stand in of this great Council, in which all the Demands and Grievances of the Subject are freely laid open.—"For such Kingdoms as are ruled by the arbitrary Will and Pleasure of one Prince, may most justly (as Aristotle in his third Book of Politicks observes) be reckon'd Governments of Sheep; and brute Beasts, without Wit or judgment; not of Freemen, who are endued with Understanding, and the Light of Reason." The Case is thus—That even as Sheep are not guided or tended by one of their own Kind, nor Boys govern'd by one of themselves, but by something of more Excellency; even so a Multitude of Men ought not to be ruled and govern'd by one single Person, who perhaps understands and sees less than several others among them; but by many select Persons, who, in the Opinion of all Men, are both very prudent and eminent; and who act by united Counsels, and, as it were, by one Spirit, composed and made up of the Minds of many Wise Men.

Now whereas it may be objected, that most Kings have a constant Privy Council to advise them in the Administration of publick Affairs: We answer, That there is a great deal of Difference between a Counsellor of the King, and a Counsellor of the Kingdom. This last takes care of the Safety and Profit of the whole Commonwealth; the other serves the Humour and studies the Conveniences of one Man only; and besides, these King's Counsellors reside, for the most part, in one certain Place; or at least near the Person of the Prince, where they cannot be supposed to be throughly acquainted with the Condition of the more remote Cities or Provinces; and being debauched by the Luxury of a Court life, are easily depraved, and acquire a lawless Appetite of Domineering; are wholly intent upon their own ambitious and covetous Designs; so that at last they are no longer to be consider'd as Counsellors for the Good of the Kingdom and Commonwealth, but Flatterers of a single Person, and Slaves to their own and Prince's Lusts.

Concerning this Matter, we have a most excellent Saying of the Emperor Aurelian, recorded by Flavius Vopiscus.—"My Father used to tell me (says Aurelian) that the Emperor Dioclesian, whilst he was yet a private Man, frequently said, That nothing in the World was more difficult than to govern well. For, four or five Persons combine together, and unanimously agree to deceive the Emperor they determine what shall be approved or disapprov'd. The Emperor, who, for the most part, is shut up in his Palace, knows nothing of the Truth of Affairs; he is compell'd to hear and see only with their Ears and Eyes; he makes judges, such Persons as do not deserve to be made so; he removes from Offices in the Commonwealth such as he ought to keep in; in short, a good, provident and excellent Emperor is sold by such Counsellors."—Now our Ancestors, in the constituting their Commonwealth, wisely avoiding these Mischiefs (as Mariners wou'd do dangerous Rocks) decreed that the Publick Affairs shou'd be managed by the joynt Advice and Counsel of all the Estates of the Kingdom. To which Purpose the King, the Nobles, and the Representatives of the Commons out of the several Provinces, were obliged to meet at a certain Time every Year. And this very same Institution we find to have been that of many other Nations. First in our Ancient Gallia, where the Administration of Publick Affairs was intrusted with the Common Councel of the chosen Men in the whole Nation as we have above demonstrated. But because we are now speaking of a Kingdom, I shall give Instances of them. 'Tis man felt, that in old Times the Council of the Amphictions was instituted in Greece (as Suidas and others testify) by King Amphyction, Son of Deucalion; and therein it was ordained, that at a certain appointed Time every Year, Representatives chosen out of the Twelve Commonwealths of Greece shou'd meet at Thermopylæ, and deliberate concerning all the weighty Affairs of the Kingdom and Commonwealth: For which Reason, Cicero calls this the Common Council of Græcia, Pliny calls it the Publick Council.

We find the like Wisdom in the Constitution of the German Empire, wherein the Emperor represents the Monarchical State, the Princes represent the Aristocratical, and the Deputies of the Cities the Democratical; neither can any Matter of Moment appertaining to the whole German Republick be firm and ratified, but what is first agreed upon in that great Convention of the Three Estates. To this End was framed that ancient and famous Law of the Lacedemonians, which joyned the Ephori to their Kings; "Who, as Plato writes, were designed to be like Bridles to the Kings, and the Kings were obliged to govern the Commonwealth by their Advice and Authority." Pliny, lib. 6. cap. 22. makes mention of the like Practice in the Island of Taprobana, where the King had thirty Advisers appointed by the People; by whose Counsel he was to be guided in the Government of the Commonwealth; "For fear (says he) lest the King if he had an unlimited Power should esteem his Subjects no otherwise than as his Slaves or his Cattel."

Furthermore, we find the very same Form of Administration of the Kingdom of England, in Polydore Virgil's History of England, lib. 11. where he has this Passage in the Life of Henry the First.—"Before this Time the Kings used to summon a publick Convention of the People in order to consult with them, but seldom: So that we may in some Manner say, that the Institution derived its Original from Henry: which took such deep Root, that it has always continued ever since, and still does so; viz. That whatever related to the Well governing or Conservation of the Commonwealth, ought to be debated and determin'd by the great Council. And that if either the King or the People shou'd act any thing alone, it shou'd be esteemed invalid, and as nothing, unless it were first approved and established by the Authority of that Council. And for fear this Council shou'd be cumbred with the Opinions of an unskilful Multitude, (whose Custom it is to distinguish nothing justly) it was at first establish'd by a certain Law, what Sort of Persons, and what Numbers either of the Priests or of the People shou'd be called to this Council, which, after a French Name, they commonly call A Parliament; which every King at the Beginning of his Reign uses to hold, and as often afterward as he pleases, or as Occasion requires." Thus far Polydore Virgil.

But among all the Laws and Customs of this Kind, there is none so remarkable as that of the Spaniards; who, when they elect a King in the Common-Council of Arragon, (in order to keep up a perpetual Remembrance of their Privileges) represent a Kind of Play, and introduce a certain Personage, whom they call by the Name of The Law of Arragon, [Footnote: La justitia di Arragon.] whom (by a publick Decree) they declare to be greater and more Powerful than their King; and afterwards they harangue the King (who is elected upon certain Terms and Conditions) in Words which (because of the remarkable Virtue and Fortitude of that Nation in repressing the unbridled Will of their Prince,) we will here set down at length.—"Nos que valemos tanto come vos, ii podemos mas que vos; vos elegimos Reii con estas ii estas Conditiones; intra vos ii nos un que manda mas que vos: That is, We, who are of as great Value as you, and can do more than you, do elect you to be our King, upon such and such Conditions: Between you and us there is one of greater Authority than you."

Seeing then that the Case is so, and that this has always been a constant and universal Law of all Nations, that are governed by a Kingly, and not by a Tyrannical Power: 'Tis very plain, that this most valuable Liberty of holding a Common-Council of the Nation, is not only a Part of the People's Right; but that all Kings, who by Evil Arts do oppress or take away this Sacred Right, ought to be esteemed Violators of the Laws of Nations; and being no better than Enemies of Human Society, must be consider'd not as Kings, but as Tyrants.

But to return to the Matter in Hand. Our Commonwealth being constituted by the Laws of our Ancestors, upon the Bottom above-mention'd, and participating of all the three Kinds of Government; it was ordain'd, that once every Year (and as much oftner as important Occasions should make it necessary) a Solemn General Council shou'd be held: Which for that Reason, was called a Parliament of the Three Estates. By that Word was meant a Convention or Meeting of Men out of several Parts of the Country to one Place, there to confer and deliberate concerning the Publick Welfare: And therefore all Conferences (tho' between Enemies) in order to a Peace or Truce are always in our Chronicles called by the Name of Parliaments. Now of this Council, the King sitting in his Golden Tribunnal, was chief; next to him were the Princes and Magistrates of the Kingdom; in the third Place were the Representatives of the several Towns and Provinces, commonly called the Deputies: For as soon as the Day prefix'd for this Assembly was come, the King was conducted to the Parliament House with a Sort of Pomp and Ceremony, more adapted to popular Moderation, than to Regal Magnificence: which I shall not scruple to give a just account of out of our own Publick Records; it being a Sort of Piety to be pleas'd with the Wisdom of our Ancestors; tho' in these most profligate Times, I doubt not but it wou'd appear ridiculous to our flattering Courtiers. The King then was seated in a Waggon, and drawn by Oxen, which a Waggoner drove with his Goad to the Place of Assembly: But as soon as he was arrived at the Court, or rather indeed the Venerable Palace of the Republick, the Nobles conducted the King to the Golden Throne; and the rest took their Places (as we said before) according to their Degrees. This State, and in this Place, was what was called Regia Majestas, Royal Majesty. Of which we may even at this Day observe a signal Remain in the King's Broad Seal, commonly called the Chancery Seal. Wherein the King is not represented in a military Posture a Horse-back, or in a Triumphant Manner drawn in his Chariot by Horses, but sitting in his Throne Robe'd and Crown'd, holding in his Right Hand the Royal Sceptre, in his Left the Sceptre of Justice, and presiding in his Solemn Council. And indeed, in that Place only it can be said that Royal Majesty does truly and properly reside, where the great Affairs of the Commonwealth are transacted; and not as the unskilful Vulgar use to profane the Word; and whether the King plays or dances, or prattles with his Women, always to stile him YOUR MAJESTY.

Of all these Matters, we shall give only a few Proofs, out of many which we could produce. First, out of Eginarthus, who was Chancellor to Charles the Great, and wrote his Life. These are his Words: "Wherever he went (speaking of Charlemagn) about the publick Affairs: he was drawn in a Waggon by a Pair of Oxen, which an ordinary Waggoner drove after his rustical Manner. Thus he went to the Courts of Justice, thus to the Place of the Publick Convention of his People, which every Year was celebrated for the Good of the Realm; and thus he used to return Home again."

Joannes Nauclerus gives us an Account of the very same Thing, in almost the same Words, in Chron. Generat. 26. So does the Author of the Great Chronicle, in the Beginning of his Life of Charlemagn, Fol. 77. Neither ought this to seem so great a Wonder to any, who considers it was the Fashion in those Days for our Kings and Queens, and the Royal Family, to be drawn by Oxen; of which we have one Instance in Greg. Turon. lib. 3. cap. 26. "Deuteria, (says he) Wife of King Childebert, seeing her Daughter by a former Husband grown to Woman's Estate, and fearing lest the King (being in Love with her) should lye with her, caused her to be put into a Sort of Litter with untamed Oxen, and thrown Headlong off a Bridge." Aimoinus, lib. 4. cap. 30. makes mention of the Golden Throne, where he speaks of King Dagobert: "He proclaimed, says he, Generale PLACITUM in loco nuncupato Bigargio, a Great Council in a Place named Bigargium: To which all the Great Men of France assembling with great Diligence on the Kalends of May, the King thus began his Speech to them, sitting on his Golden Throne." Also in his 41st Chapter, speaking of King Clodoveus—Sitting in the midst of them, on his Golden Throne, he spoke in this Manner, &c. Sigebertus in Chron. Anni 662.—"'Tis the Ancient Custom (says he) of the Kings of the Franks, every Kalends of May, to preside in a Convention of all the People, to salute and be saluted, to receive Homage, and give and take Presents." Georgius Cedrenus expresses this in almost the same Words: καττά δὲ τὸν Μάῖον μῆνα προκαιθέσεσαι ἐπὶ παντὸς τοῦ ἔθνους καὶ προσκυνῑν αὐτοῑς καὶ ἀντιπροσκυνῑσθαι ὑπ' αὐτῶ, δωροϕορεῖσθαί τε καττὰ συνήϕειαν καὶ ἀντιδιδόναι αὐτοῑς.

Now, concerning the Authority of the People, who were thus gather'd together at the Great Council, we have many Testimonies, Aimoinus, lib. 4. cap. 41. speaking of Clodoveus the Second; "Altho' (says that King in his Speech) the Care of our Earthly Principality obliges us to call you together Francigenæ cives, and to consult you in Affairs relating to the Publick, &c."—Also in his 74th Chapter of the same Book—"In the Beginning of the Year he went into Saxony, and there he held a General Convention every Year, as he used to do every Year in France also."—Again, lib. 4. cap. 13. where he speaks of Charles the Great—"When the Hunting near Aix la Chapelle was ended, as soon as he return'd, he held a General Convention of his People, according to usual Custom, &c. Cap. 116. The Emperor having held Two Conventions, one at Nimeguen, the other at Compiegn, wherein he receiv'd the Annual Presents, &c. Again, Cap. 117. In the Month of August he came to Wormes, and holding there the General Convention according to constant Practice, he received the Yearly Gifts which were offer'd him, and gave Audience to several Ambassadors, &c. Again, Lib. 5. cap. 31. The General Placitum was held on the Ides of June, in the Town Dusiacum."

And this may suffice touching this solemn General Council, which both French and German Historians, thro' a deprav'd Custom of the Latin Tongue, called by different Names; sometimes Curia, sometimes Conventus Generalis, but for the most Part Placitum. Gregorius, lib. 7 cap. 14 says thus:—"Therefore when the Time of the Placitum approached, they were directed by King Childebert, &c. Aimoinus, lib. 4. cap. 109. In the middle of the Month he held the General Convention at Thionville, where there was a very great Appearance of the People of the Franks; and in this Placitum, the singular Compassion of the most Pious Emperor eminently show'd it self, &c."

Now it was the Custom in that Council to send Presents from all Parts to the King; as may appear from many Places which might be quoted, wherein that Council is called Conventus Generalis. Aimoinus, lib. 4. cap. 64. speaking of King Pipin—"He compell'd them (says he) to promise they would obey all his Commands, and to send him every Year at the Time of the General Convention, Three Hundred Horses, as a Gift and Token of Respect. Item, cap. 85. Not forgetting the Perfidy of the Saxons, he held the General Convention beyond the Rhine, in the Town of Kufftein, according to the usual Custom."

This Council was sometimes called by another Name, Curia, the Court; from whence proceeded the common Saying, when People went to the King's Hall or Palace, we are going to Court; because they seldom approach'd the King, but upon great Occasions, and when a Council was call'd. Aimoinus, lib. 5. cap. 50. "Charles, (says he) the Son of the Danish King, sued (or prosecuted) several Noblemen of Flanders very conveniently at this Curia, or Court. Item, cap. sequenti; Henry King of the Romans being dead, at that Great and General Court, Curia, held at Mentz. &c. Also Otto Frising. Lib. Frideric. I. cap. 40. After these Things, the Prince enter'd Bavaria, and there celebrated a General Curia, Court, in the Month of February. Item, cap. 43. Conrade King of the Romans, calling the Princes together at Francfort, a City of East France, celebrated there a General Court."