Now Tacitus in his Life of Agricola, attributes, the Loss of this their so remarkable Valour, to the Loss of their Liberty. "Gallos in bellis floruisse accepimus, mox segnities cum otio intravit, amissa Virtute pariter ac Libertate—." And I hope the Reader will excuse me, if the Love of my Country makes me add that remarkable Testimony of the Valour of the Gauls, mentioned by Justin, lib. 24.—"The Gauls (says he) finding their Multitudes to increase so fast, that their Lands cou'd not afford them sufficient Sustenance, sent out Three hundred thousand Souls to seek for new Habitations. Part of these: seated themselves in Italy; who both took and burnt the City of Rome. Another part penetrated as far as the Shores of Dalmatia, destroying infinite Numbers of the Barbarians, and settled themselves at last in Pannonia. A hardy bold and warlike Nation; who ventured next after Hercules, (to whom the like Attempt gave a Reputation of extraordinary Valour, and a Title to Immortality) to cross those almost inaccessible Rocks of the Alps, and Places scarce passable by Reason of the Cold: Where after having totally subdued the Pannonians they waged War with the bordering Provinces for many Years.—And afterwards—being encouraged by their Success, subdivided their Parties; when some took their Way to Graecia some to Macedonia, destroying all before them with Fire and Sword. And so great was the Terror of the Name of the Gauls, that several Kings (not in the least threatned by them) of their own accord, purchased their Peace with large Sums of Money—. And in the following Book, he says,—So great was the Fruitfulness of the Gauls at that time, that like a Swarm they fill'd all Asia. So that none of the Eastern Kings either ventured to make War without a mercenary Army of Gauls, or fled for Refuge to other than the Gauls, when they were driven out of their Kingdoms." And thus much may suffice concerning their warlike Praises and Fortitude, which (as Tacitus tells us) was quite gone, as soon as they lost their Liberty. Yet some Cities, or Commonwealths, (as Phnius, lib. 4. cap. 11. tells us) were permitted to continue free, after the Romans had reduced Gallia to the Form of a Province. Such were the Nervii, Ulbanesses, Suessiones and Leuci. Also some of the Confederates: and among these he reckons the Lingones, Rhemi, Carnutes and AEdui.

But we may easily learn from these Words of Critegnatus the Arvernian, mentioned by Caesar, lib. 7. what the Condition was of those Commonwealths, which had the Misfortune to be reduced into the Form of a Province. "If" (says he) "you are ignorant after what manner far distant Nations are used by the Romans, you have no more to do, but to look at our neighbouring Gallia, now reduced into the Form of a Province: Which having its Laws and Customs chang'd, and being subjected to the Power of the Axes, is oppress'd with perpetual Slavery."

We are to understand, there were three kinds of Servitude, or Slavery. First, To have a Garison of Soldiers imposed upon them, to keep them in Awe; yet such Provinces as seemed peaceable and quiet, had no great Armies maintained in them. For Josephus writes in his 2d Book of the Hist. of the Jews, "That in the Emperor Titus's time, the Romans had but 1200 Soldiers in Garison in all Gaul, altho'" (says he) "they had fought with the Romans for their Liberty, almost 800 Years, and had near as many Cities, as the Romans had Garison-Soldiers." A Second Sort of Servitude was, when any Province was made Tributary, and compelled to pay Taxes; and to that End were forced to endure a Number of Tax-gatherers, that is, Harpies and Leeches, which suck'd out the very Blood of the Provincials. Eutropius tells us, in his 6th Book, That Caesar, as soon as he had subdued Gaul, impos'd a Tax upon it, by the Name of a Tribute, which amounted to H. S. Quadringenties: which is about a Million of our Crowns. A Third Sort of Servitude was, when the Provinces were not permitted to be govern'd by their own Laws; but had Magistrates and Judges, with full Power and Authority (cum imperio & securibus) over Life and Estate, sent them by the People of Rome. This Threefold Slavery not only our Gallia, but all the other Provinces, took most bitterly to heart; and therefore in Tiberius's Reign, not long after Caesar's Conquest, Tacitus tells us, That the Cities of Gaul rebell'd, because of the Continuance of Taxes, the Extortions of Usurers, and Insolence of the Soldiery. And afterwards in Nero's Reign, Suetonius writes, "That the Gauls being weary of his Tyranny, revolted. The World" (says he) "having for near 13 Years, endured such a Sort of Prince, at last shook him off: The Gauls beginning the Defection." Now all Gallia was divided by the Romans into 16 Provinces, viz. Viennensis, Narbonensis prima, Narbonensis secunda, Aquitania prima, Aquitania secunda, Novempopulana, Alpes maritimae, Belgica prima, Belgica secunda, Germania prima, Germania secunda, Lugdunensis prima, Lugdunensis secunda, Lugdunensis tertia, Maxima Sequanorum, & Alpes Graecas, as Antoninus in his Itinerary, and Sextus Rufus, give an Account of them. But Ammianus Marcellinus treats of them more particularly.

But to return to what we were speaking of: 'Tis not to be imagined how grievously, and with what Indignation the Gauls bore the Indecencies and Plunderings of the Romans; nor how frequently they revolted upon that Account and because they were not strong enough of themselves to shake off the Roman Tyranny, 'twas common Custom with them, to hire German Auxiliaries. These were the first beginnings of the Colonies of the Franks; For those Germans, whether they were beaten by the Romans, or (which is more likely) were bought off by them, began by little and little, to settle themselves in the borders of Gallia. This gave to Suetonius, in his Life of Augustus, to say,—"He drove the Germans beyond the River Elb; but the Suevi and Sicambri (submitting themselves); he transplanted into Gallia where he assign'd them Lands near the river Rhine."—Also in his Life of Therius,—"He brought (says he) forty thousand of those that had surrendred themselves in the German War, over into Gallia, and allotted them Settlements upon the Banks of the Rhine."—Neither must we omit what Flavius Vepiseus records, concerning the Reign of Probus the Emperor; in whose time almost all Gallia, that is, sixty Cities, revolted from the Romans; and with common Consent, took up Arms for the Recovery of' their Liberty:—"Having done these things (says he) he march'd with a vast Army into Gaul, which after Posthumus's Death was all in Commotion, and when Aurelianus was kill'd, was In a Manner possessed by the Germans; there he gain'd so many Victories, that he recover'd from the Barbarians sixty of the most noble Cities of Gallia: And whereas they had overspread all Gallia without Controul, he slew near four hundred thousand of those that had seated themselves within the Roman Territories, and transplanted the Remainders of them beyond the Rivers Neckar, and Elb."

But how cruel and inhuman the Domination of the Romans was in Gallia: How intolerable their Exactions were: What horrible and wicked Lives they led; and with how great Inveteracy and Bitterness they were hated upon that Account by the Gauls, (especially by the Christians) may best be learn'd from the Works of Salvianus, Bishop of Marseilles, which treat of Providence: Therefore 'tis incredible to tell, what Multitudes of Germans pour'd themselves into Gallia; the Gauls not only not hindring, but even favouring and calling them in. Latinus Pacatus, in his Speech to Theodesius, has this Passage; "From whence shou'd I begin my Discourse, but from thy Mischiefs, O Gallia! who may'st justly challenge a Superiority in Sufferings, above all the Nations of the Earth, that have been vexed with this Plague?"—Now 'tis most plain both from Sidonius Apollinaris, and especially from the above-mentioned Salvianus, in many Places of his Writings, that our Franks were a Part of those German Nations, who thus entred into Gallia.

* * * * *



CHAP. IV.

Of the Original of the Franks; who having possessed themselves of Gallia, changed its Name, into that of Francia, or Francogallia.

The Order of our Discourse requires, that we should now enquire into the Original of the Franks, and trace them from their first Habitations, or (as it were) their very Cradles: In which Disquisition 'tis very much to be admired, that no mention has been made of them by Ptolomy, Strabo, or even by Tacitus himself, who of all Writers was most accurate in describing the Names and Situations of all the German Nations: and 'tis plain, the Franks were a German People, who possessed most part of Europe for many Years, with great Reputation; of which we will quote but a few Instances out of many.

First, Joannes Nauclerus says thus,—"Charles the Great was call'd King of the Franks; which is as much as to say, King of Germany and France." Now 'tis demonstrable, that at that time all Gallia Transalpina, and all Germany from the Pyrenaeen Mountains, as far as Hungary, was called Francia: This last was called Eastern France, the former Western France; and in this all true Historians agree.

Eguinarthus, in his Life of Charlemain, says,—"The Banks of the River Sala, which divides the Taringi from the Sorabi, were afterwards inhabited by those called the Eastern Franks." Otto Frising. Chron. 5. cap. 4. speaking of King Dagaber's Reign, "The Bounds of the Franks Dominions reach'd now (says he) from Spain, as far as Hungary, being two most noble Dukedoms, Aquitania and Bavaria";—but much more at large, lib. 6. cap. 17. And after him Godfrey of Viterbo, in his Chronic. part. 17. sub Anno 881, "Arnulphus (says he) ruled all Eastern Francia, which is now called the Teutonick Kingdom, or Germany; that is to say, Bavaria, Suabia, Saxonia, Turingia, Frisia and Lotharingia; but Odo was king of Western France." Again, sub Anno 913. "It is apparent by the Authority of many Writers, that the Kingdom of Germany, which the Emperor Frederick at present holds, is part of the Kingdom of the Franks; for there (on both sides of the Rhine) the first Franks were seated; which as far as to the Limits of Bavaria, is now called Eastern France: But Western France is that Kingdom which lies on both Sides the Rivers Seine and Loire"—And again he says, "In the time of Charles the Great, King of the Franks, all Gallia, that is, Celtica, Belgica, and Lugdunensis and all Germany which reaches from the Rhine as far as Dalmatia, made but one Kingdom; which was called Francia"—Almost all which Quotations have been taken out of Otto, as I said before. 'Tis to be noted, that Rhegino writes thus, in Chron. anni 577.—"After the Death of King Pipin, Lewis his Son (who had been present at his Father's Decease and celebrated his Funerals) kept his Residence at Francfort, the principal Seat of the Eastern Kingdom." Luitprandus Ticinensis says, lib. 1. cap. 6.—"It was order'd that Wido shou'd have for his Share, that which Men call the Roman France, and Berengarius shou'd have Italy." And a little after,—"When he had march'd thro' the Territories of the Burgundians, he purposed to enter Roman France, &c." Now it was call'd Roman France, first, because the Franks had possessed themselves of that Gallia, which was under the Roman Obedience. Secondly, because the Roman Language prevail'd in that Country, as we formerly told you: Whence arose the Saying, Loqui Romanum, of such as used not the German or Frank; but the Latin Tongue. Otto Frisingius, chron. 4. cap. penult. says,—"It seems to me, that those Franks who dwell in Gallia, borrowed the Language, which they make use of to this Day, from the Romans; for the others who stay'd about the Rhine, and in Germany use the Teutonick Tongue."—And in Imitation of him, Godfridus, part. 17. cap. 1.—"The Franks (says he) seem to me to have learn'd the Language which they make use of to this Day, from the Romans, who formerly dwelt in those Parts."—From all these 'tis apparent, that the Reputation and Power of the Franks was extraordinary great; as 'twas fitting for such as were Masters of a great Part of Europe.

Moreover we find, that those Germans which were transplanted by the Emperor Frederick the IId, into the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, and establish'd there as a presidiary Colony, were called Franks. Petrus de Vineis, lib. epist. 6. cap. 25. [Footnote: These are only broken pieces of Sentences, to prove, that the Germans (establish'd in Naples and Sicily) were called, and actually were Franks.] —"Following (says he) the Law and Custom of the Franks, in this Instance, that the Eldest Brother to the Exclusion of all the Younger succeeds, even in the Camp it self." Imp. Freder. 2. Neapol. constit. lib. 2. tit. 32. speaking of those Franks, "who upon Occasion trusted the Fortune of their Lives, and of all their Estates, to the Event of a Duel, or single Combat." And again,—"The aforesaid manner of Proof, which all who observe the Rites of the Franks made use of"—. Also lib. 2. tit. 33.—"which Law, our Will is, shall in all Causes be common both to the Franks and Longobards."

Matters being thus plain, 'tis strange that Gregory Bishop of Tours (who writ concerning the Original of the Franks 800 Years ago) shou'd say, in the first Part of his History, That altho' he had made diligent Enquiry about the Rise and Beginning of the Franks, he could find nothing certain: notwithstanding he had seen an ancient Book of a certain Historian of theirs, called, Salpitius Alexander; who affirms nothing, either of their first Habitations, or the Beginnings of their Domination.

But we have found out, that these People originally came from that Country which lies between the Rhine and the Elb, and is bounded on the West by the Sea, almost in the same Tract where the greater and the lesser Chauci dwelt. "A People (says Tacitus) the most noble among all the Germans, who founded their Greatness and maintained it by Justice." These were next Neighbours to the Batavians; for 'tis agreed on all Hands, that the Franks had their first Seats near the Sea-shore, in very marshy Grounds; and were the most skilful People in Navigation, and Sea-fights, known at that time: Whereof we have the following Testimonies. First, in Claudian, who congratulating Stilicon's Victory, writes thus;

—Ut jam trans fluvium non indignante Chayco Paseat Belga pecus, mediumque ingressa per Albin Gallica Francorum montes armenta pererrent.

In which Place he makes use of a Poetical License, and calls those People Chayci, which the Geographers call Chauci. Now that they were seated near the Sea, that Panegyrical Oration made to Constantine the Great, is a Testimony: "Quid loquar rursus, &c. What should I speak more of those remote Nations of the Franks, transplanted not from Places which the Romans of old invaded; but plucked from their very original Habitations, and their farthest Barbarous Shores, to be planted in the waste Places of Gallia; where with their Husbandry, they may help the Roman Empire in time of Peace; and with their Bodies, supply its Armies in time of War—." And in another Panegyrick, by Eumenius the Rhetorician, we find this Passage, "Aut haec ipsa, &c. Or this Country, which was once overspread with the Fierceness of the Franks, more than if the Waters of their Rivers, or their Sea, had cover'd it;" but now ceases to be barbarous, and is civilized. To the same Purpose is Procopius Testimony, in his first Book of the Gothick War; for where he describes the place where the Rhine falls into the Ocean; "In these Parts (says he) there are great Marshes, where of old the Germans dwelt; a barbarous People, and at that time of small Reputation, which now are called Franks—." And Zonaras, in the 3d Tome of his Annals, quotes this very Passage of Procopius. Also Flavius Vopiscus, in his Life of Probus, tells us, That the Franks were discomfited by Probus in their inaccessible Marshes.—Testes sunt Franci inviis strati paludibus. Also Sidonius Apollinaris says thus;

"Francorum & penitissimas paludes, Intrares venerantibus Sicambris."

Now what we have said concerning the Neighbourhood of the Franks to the Chauci, may be plainly proved by comparing of Places, and the Descriptions of their particular Seats. Those of the Chauci are described by Pliny, lib. 16. cap. 1. Those of the Franks by the Rhetorician Panegyrist, above mentioned: For Pliny says thus, "We have seen in the Northern parts the Nations of the Chauci, called Majores & Minores, where twice every 24 Hours the Ocean is forcibly driven in a great way over the Land; thro' a vast Passage which is there, making it a perpetual Controversy of Nature; and a Doubt, whether it ought to be reckon'd part of the Land or of the Sea."

The Panegyrist speaks in these Terms, "—Quanquam illa Regio, &c. When thy noble Expeditions, O Caesar, have proceeded so far, as to clear and conquer that Country, which the Rhine runs through, with his cunning Maeanders or Windings, [Meatibus callidis, for so it must be read, and not Scaldis, as in some Copies,] and embraces in his Arms a Region, which I can scarce call Land; 'tis so soak'd with Water, that not only the Marshy part of it gives way, but even that which seems more firm, shakes when trod upon, and trembles at a Distance under the Weight of the Foot."

We think therefore we have made it plain from what Seats the Nation of the Franks first came into Gallia; that is to say, from that marshy Country which lies upon the Ocean, between the Rivers Elb and Rhine: which may be further confirm'd by this Argument. That the Franks were very well skill'd in maritime affairs, and sail'd far and near all about those Coasts; For so says Eutropius, lib. 9. where he gives a short History of the Emperor Galienus. "After this time, when Carausius had in charge to scour the Sea-coasts of Belgia and Armorica, then infested by the Franks and Saxons, &c." The very same thing Paulus Orosius mentions, lib. 7. Also what the Panegyrist, before cited, says in a certain Place, has Reference to this.—"The Franks (says he) are cruel above all others; the tide of whose warlike Fury surmounting that of their very Ocean it self, carried them to the Sea-coasts of Spain, which they very much infested with their Depredations." And therefore the Emperor Justinian, when he explains to the General Governor of Africk the duty of his Office, makes mention of those Franks which were seated in a certain part of Gallia, bordering upon Spain.

But we find a very memorable Passage; which highly sets forth the great Glory of their war-like Atchievements, in another place of that Panegyrick; viz. That a small Body of Franks, which Probus, the Emperor had overcome and carried captive into Pontus, seiz'd on some Ships, wandred all about the Sea-coasts of Graecia and Asia, invaded Sicily, took Syracusa, and afterwards laden with Booty, return'd into the Ocean thro' the Streights of Gibraltar. "Recursabat in animos sub Divo Probo & paucorum ex Francis Captivorum incredibilis audacia, & indigna foelicitas: qui a Ponto usque correptis navibus, Graeciam Asiamque populati, nec impune plerisque Lybiae littoribus appulsi, ipsas postremo navalibus quondam victoriis nobiles ceperant Syracusas: & immenso itinere permensi, Oceanum, qua terras rupit intraverant: atque ita eventu temeritatis, offenderant, nihil esse clausum piraticae desperationi quo navigiis pateret accessus."

And, as farther Arguments of what I have been proving, may be added all those Places in several Authors, which inform us that the Habitations of the Franks were Bordering upon the Batavians. The same Rhetorician, in his Speeches to Maximianus and Constantine, says,—"Many thousand Franks, who had crossed the Rhine, and invaded Batavia, with other Countries on this Side, were slain, driven out, or carried away captive."

Besides there is a notable Instance in Corn. Tacitus, lib. 20. where speaking of the Neighbourhood of Frisia and Batavia to each other, he mixes the Caninesates among them, whose Custom in Electing their Kings was, (as I shall hereafter shew) the very same with that of the Franks.—"Ambassadors (says he) were sent to the Caninesates, to persuade them to enter into the Confederacy: That People inhabit one part of the Island, equal as to their Descent, Laws and Valour, to the Batavians; but inferior in Number.—And again—Brinnio being set upon a Shield (according to the Custom of the Country) and hoisted up on Men's Shoulders, was chosen their Commander." Which Words will prove of no small Authority for us, when we come hereafter to that Part of the Controversy.

The Case being so; I cannot forbear wondring at the Opinion of the Learned Andreas Tarnebus, who despising the Authority of so many grave and ancient Writers, says, that he thinks the Franks were originally of Scandinavia: because in Ptolomy he finds the Phirassi seated in that Peninsula, which Word he will needs suppose to be corrupted; and that, instead of it, the Word Franci ought to be there: but brings no Reason for his Opinion more than his own mere guess, tho' this Opinion differs manifestly from all other ancient Authors.

As to all those who are pleas'd with Fables, and have deduced the Original of the Franks from the Trojans, and from one Francion, a Son of Priam, we can only say, that they furnish Materials for Poets rather than Historians: And among such, William Bellay deserves the first Place; who, tho' he was a Person of singular Learning and extraordinary Ingenuity; yet in his Book, which treats of the Antiquities of Gallia and France, seems rather to have design'd a Romance, like that of Amadis, than a true History of the Francogallican Affairs.

* * * * *



CHAP. V.

Of the Name of the Franks, and their sundry Excursions; and what time they first began to establish a Kingdom in Gallia.

But I think it requisite that we should enquire a little more carefully into this Name of Franks; which, as we told you before, is not to be found in any of the ancient Descriptions of Germany. That I may no longer detain the Reader in Suspence, it must needs be, that either the Nation of the Franks, by which such mighty things were done, was at first very obscure and mean, (as we see in Switz, an ordinary Village) yet because the first beginning of the Liberty of those Countries proceeded from thence, gave the name of Switzers to all the rest of the Cantons: Or (which seems to me most probable) this Appellation had its Original from the Occasion; viz. When those that set up for the prime Leaders and Beginners, in recovering the publick Liberty, called themselves Franks; by which name the Germans understood such as were Free, and under no Servitude; as the Writers of that Nation do unanimously hold: And therefore in ordinary Speech, by a Frank was meant a Freeman, by a Franchise, an Asylum, or Place of Refuge; and Francisare signified to restore to liberty and freedom. The first Proof we shall give of this, is, what Procopius in his first Book of the Gothick Wars relates. The Franks (says he) were anciently by a general name call'd Germans; but after they exceeded their Limits, they obtain'd the name of Franks: Of the same Opinion I find Gregory of Tours, the Abbot of Ursperg; Sigibertus and Ado of Vienne, and Godfrey of Viterbo to have been, viz. That they had the Name of Franks from their freedom, and from their ferocity, (alluding to the sound, of the words Francos Feroces), because they refused to serve as Soldier under Valentinian the Emperor, and to pay Tribute as other Nations did. A second Proof may be that of Cornelius Tacitus, who in his 20th Book, speaking of the Caninesates, whom we have formerly demonstrated to have been the very-next Neighbours, if not the true Franks themselves, and, of their Victory over the Romans, he has this expression: Clara ea victoria, &c. "That Victory (says he) was of great Reputation to them immediately after it, and of great Profit in the Sequel; for having by that Means got both Weapons and Ships into their Possession, which before they were in great want of; their Fame was spread over all Germany and Gaul, as being the first beginners of liberty;" Libertatis Auctores celebrabantur. For the Germans thereupon sent Ambassadors, offering their Assistance. May the Omen prove lucky! and may the Franks truly and properly deserve that name; who after having shaken off that Yoke of Slavery, imposed upon them by Tyrants, have thought fit to preserve to themselves a commendable liberty even under the Domination of Kings: For to obey a King is not servitude: neither are all who are govern'd by Kings, presently for that Reason to be counted Slaves, but such as submit themselves to the unbounded Will of a Tyrant, a Thief, and Executioner, as Sheep resign themselves to the Knife of the Butcher. Such as these deserve to be called by the vile names of Servants and Slaves.

Therefore the Franks had always Kings, even at that very time when they profess'd themselves the vindicators and assertors of the publick liberty: And when they constituted Kings, they never intended they shou'd be Tyrants or Executioners, but keepers of their Liberties, Protectors, Governors and Tutors. Such, in short, as we shall describe hereafter, when we come to give an Account of the Francogallican Government.

For, as to what a certain, foolish and ignorant Monk, called John Turpin, has wrote (in his Life, or rather Romance of Charlemagn) concerning the Origins of the Word Frank, viz. That whoever contributed Money towards the Building of St. Denis's Church, should be called Francus, that is, a freeman, is not worthy of being remembred, no more than all the rest of his trifling Works; stuft'd full of old Wives Tales, and meer Impertinencies.

But this may be truly affirm'd, that this name of Franks, or (as Corn. Tacitus interprets it) Authors of Liberty, was an Omen so lucky and fortunate to them, that through it they gain'd almost innumerable Victories. For after the Franks had quitted their ancient Seats upon that glorious Design, they deliver'd not only Germany, their common Country, but also France from the Tyranny and Oppression of the Romans; and at last (crossing the Alps) even a great part of Italy itself.

The first mention made of this illustrious name, we find in Trebellius Pollios Life of the Emperor Gallienus, about the 260th Year after Christ. His Words are these: "Cum, &c. Whilst Gallienus spent his time in nothing but Gluttony and shameful Practices, and govern'd the Commonwealth after so ridiculous a manner, that it was like Boys play, when they set up Kings in jest among themselves; the Gauls, who naturally hate luxurious Princes, elected Posthumus for their Emperor, who at that time was Gallienus's Lieutenant in Gaul with imperial Authority. Gallienus thereupon commenced a War with Posthumus; and Posthumus being assisted by many Auxiliaries, both of the Celtae and the Franks, took the Field along with Victorinus—." By which Words we may plainly perceive, that the Gauls crav'd the Assistance of the Franks; that is, of these Authors or Beginners of liberty, to enable them to shake off the Tyrant Gallienus's Yoke: Which same thing Zonaras hints at in his Life of Gallienus, when he says, [Greek: epolemise de phrangois], &c.—We find another mention made of the same People in Flavius Vopiscus's Life of Aurelian, in these Words:—"At Mentz the Tribune of the 6th Legion discomfited the Franks, who had made Incursions, and overspread all Gallia; he slew 700, and sold 300 Captives for Slaves."—For you must not expect that our Franks, any more than other Nations in their Wars, were constantly victorious, and crown'd with Success. On the contrary, we read that Constantine, afterwards call'd the Great, took Prisoners two of their Kings, and exposed them to the Wild Beasts at the publick shews. Which Story both Eutropius in his 9th Book, and the Rhetorician in that Panegyrick so often quoted, make mention of.

And because the same Rhetorician in another place speaks of those Wars in the Confines of the Batavi, which we have shewn not to be far distant from the Franks, I will set down his Words at Length. Multa Francorum millia, &c. "He slew, drove out, and took Prisoners many thousand Franks, who had invaded Batavia, and other Territories on this side the Rhine." And in another Place says, "He clear'd the Country of the Batavians, which had before been possess'd by several Nations and Kings of the Franks; and not satisfied with only overcoming them, he transplanted them into the Roman Territories, and forced them to lay aside their Fierceness as well as their Weapons." From which place we are given to understand, not obscurely, that Constantine, (being constrain'd to do so by the Franks) granted them Lands within the Bounds of the Roman Empire. Ammianus, lib. 15. writes, that the Franks, during the Civil Wars between Constantine and Licinius, sided with Constantine, and fought very valiantly for him. And in other places of the same Book he records, that during the Reign of Constantine, the Son of Constantine, great numbers of Franks were at that Court in high favour and authority, with Caesar. "Afterwards, says he, Malarichus on a sudden got power, having gained the Franks; whereof at that time great numbers flourish'd at Court."—During the Reign of Julian, call'd the Apostate, the same Franks endeavour'd to restore the City of Cologne (which was grievously oppress'd by Roman Slavery) to its liberty: and forced it, after a long Siege, to surrender thro' Famine; as the same Ammianus tells us, lib. 12. And because one Band of those Franks fix'd their Habitations upon the Banks of the River Sala, they were thereupon called Salii; concerning whom he writes in the same Book,—"Having prepar'd there things, he first of all march'd towards the Franks; I mean those Franks which were commonly called Salii, who had formerly with great boldness fix'd their Habitations within the Roman Territories, near a place called Toxiandria." Again, in his 20th Book he makes mention of that Country possess'd by the Franks beyond the Rhine, and called Francia.—"Having on a sudden pass'd the Rhine, he enter'd the Country of those Franks called Attuarii, a turbulent sort of People, who at that time made great Havock on the Frontiers of Gallia."—And in his 30th Book, where he speaks of King Macrianus, with whom Valentinian the Emperor had lately made a Peace on the Banks of the Rhine, in the Territory of Mentz,—"He died, says he, in Francia, whilst he was utterly wasting with Fire and Sword all before him, being kill'd in an Ambush laid for him by that valiant King Mellobandes." Now of this Mellobandes, King of the Franks, the same Author in his following Book gives this Character; "That he was brave and valiant, and upon the score of his Military Virtue constituted great Master of the Houshold by the Emperor Gratianus, and Lieutenant-General (in conjunction with Nannienus) of that Army which was sent against the Lentiates, a People of Germany." Afterwards, by virtue of a Treaty concluded between the Franks and the Emperor Honorius, they defended the Frontiers of the Roman Gallia against Stilicon: For Orosius tells us in his last Book, "That the Nations of the Alani, Suevi and Vandali, being (together with many others) encouraged by Stilicon; pass'd the Rhine, wasted the Territories of the Franks, and invaded Gallia."

After the Emperor Honorius's time, we have very little in History extant concerning the Frank's Warlike Deeds. For to those Times must be apply'd what St. Ambrose writes in his Letter (the 29th) to Theodesius the Emperor: That the Franks both in Sicily and many other Places, had overthrown Maximus the Roman General. "He (says he, speaking of Maximus) was presently beaten by the Franks and Saxons in all places of the Earth." But in the Reign of Valentinian the 3d, that is, about the 450th Year of Christ, 'tis plain, by the consent of all Writers, that Childeric, the Son of Meroveus, King of the Franks, compleated the Deliverance of Gallia from the Roman Tyranny, after a continued Struggle of more than 200 Years; and was the first that established in Gallia a firm and certain Seat of Empire: For altho' some reckon Pharamond and Clodio-crinitus as the first Kings of the Franks, yet without doubt there were many before them, who (like them) had cross'd the Rhine, and made Irruptions into Gallia: but none had been able to settle any peaceable Dominion within the Limits of Gallia. Now Meroveus, who is commonly reckon'd the 3d King; tho' he was indeed King of the Franks, yet he was a Stranger and a Foreigner, not created King in Gallia, not King of the Francogalli; that is to say, not elected by the joint Suffrages of both Nations united: In short, all these were Kings of the Franci, and not of the Francogalli. But Childeric, the Son of Meroveus, was (as we said before) the first that was elected by the publick Council of the associated Franks and Gauls, and he was created King; of Francogallia presently after his Father Meroveus had been kill'd in a Battel against Attila, during the Reign of Valentinian the Third, a dissolute and profligate Prince. At which time the Angli and Scoti took Possession of Great Britain; the Burgundians of Burgundy, Savoy and Dauphine; the Goths of Aquitain: the Vandals of Africk and Italy, nay of Rome it self; the Hanni under their Leader Attila wasted Gallia with Fire and Sword. This Attila having an Army of about Five hundred thousand Men, over-ran all Gallia as far as Thoulouse. AEtius was at that time Governor of Gallia, who fearing the Power of Attila, made a League with the Goths, and by their assistance defeated Attila in a Battel; wherein, 'tis said, they slew no fewer than a Hundred and eighty thousand Men. But the Conqueror AEtius being suspected by Valentinian of aspiring to the Empire, was afterwards, by his Command, put to Death; and within a little while after, he himself was slain by Maximus before-mention'd.

During these Transactions, Meroveus, King of the Franks, taking his Opportunity, pass'd the Rhine, with a great Army; and joyning in Confederacy with many Cities, who assisted in the common Cause of the publick Liberty, possess'd himself at length of the innermost Cities belonging to the Celtae, between the Seine and the Garonne. He being dead, and both Nations (the Gauls and Franks) united into one Commonwealth; they unanimously elected Childeric, the Son of Meroveus, for their King, placing him upon a Shield according to ancient Custom; and carrying him upon their Shoulders thrice round the place of Assembly, with great Acclamations of Joy, and universal Congratulation, saluted him King of Francogallia. Of all which particulars, Sidonius Apollinaris, Gregorius Turonensis, Otto Frising, Aimoinus and others are Witnesses; whose Testimonies we shall further produce, when we come to treat of the Manner of the Inauguration of the King.

The Words of the same Otto, in the last Chapter but one of his 4th Book concerning their taking possession of several Cities, are these.—"The Franks, after having pass'd the Rhine, in the first place put to flight the Romans, who dwelt thereabouts; afterwards they took Tournay and Cambray, Cities of Gallia; and from thence gaining ground, by degrees they subdued Rheims, Soissons, Orleans, Cologne and Triers." And thus much may briefly be said touching the first King of Francogallia. To which we shall only subjoin this Remark: [Footnote: Hotoman's Francogallia was written Anno 1573.] That altho' the Francogallican Kingdom has lasted from that time to this, almost One thousand two hundred Years; yet during so long a space, there are but three Families reckon'd to have possess'd the Throne, viz. the Merovingians; who beginning from Meroveus, continued it to their Posterity two hundred eighty three Years. The Carlovingians, who drawing their Original from Charles the Great, enjoy'd it 337 Years: And lastly, the Capevignians, who being descended from Hugh Capet, now rule the Kingdom, and have done so for Five hundred and eighty Years past.

* * * * *



CHAP. VI.

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. 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.

* * * * *



CHAP. IX.

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 Caesar, and several others. Aimoinus lib. I 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 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.

Inde truces flavo comitantur vertice Galli Quos Rhodanus velox, Araris quos tardior ambit, Et quos nascentes explorat gurgite Rhenus.

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.

Et vos Crinigeros bellis arcere Chaycos Opposui, petitis Roman, &c.

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, [Greek: trichorachaton] of which Georgius Cedrenus writes thus in his History, [Greek: "Helegonto de hoi ek tou genous hekenou katagomenoi kristatoi ho hermeneuetai trichorachai heichon gar kata tes racheos auton trichas ekphuomenas hos choiroi"] 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 [Greek: kristatoi], ought to be [Greek: setatoi], 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 [Greek: trichocharaktoi], as being remarkable for their large Heads of Hair.

* * * * *



CHAP. X.

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 Caesar 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 Jonvillaeus, 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 Republica) 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 Republica; which, because of its singular Elegancy, we shall here insert at length.

"Ut in fidibus (inquit) ac tibiis, atque cantu ipso, ac vocibus, tenendus est quidam concentus ex distinctis sonis, quem immutatum ac discrepantem aures eruditae ferre non possunt; isque concentus ex dissimillimarium vocum moderatione concors tamen efficitur, & congruens; Sic ex summis, & mediis, & infimis interjectis ordinibus, ut sonis, moderata ratione civitas, consensu dissimillimorum concinit, & quae harmonia a musicis dicitur in cantu, ea est in Civitate concordia: arctissimum atq; optimum in Repub. vinculum incolumitatis, quae fine justitia 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 Suidai 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 Thermopylae, and deliberate concerning all the weighty Affairs of the Kingdom and Commonwealth: For which Reason, Cicero calls this the Common Council of Graecia, Pliny calls it the Publick Council.