to the single views of rapine and plunder; for as yet they were not
fully convinced of their own strength, and the enfeebled condition of
their enemies. And perhaps they might have longer continued in this
ignorance, and within their former bounds, had it not been for an event
that happened about the year 370, the like to which hath several times
since changed the face of Asia. I mean a vast irruption of the Hunns, and
other Tartarian nations into the north of Europe. These people, whether
out of their natural desire of rambling, or pressed by a more potent
enemy, were determined on a general change of habitation; and, finding
the invasion of the Persian empire, which then was in its full grandeur,
an enterprize too difficult, they crossed the Tanais, and obliged the
Alans and Goths, who lived about the Borysthenes and the Danube, to seek
new quarters. The former fled westward to Germany, already overloaded
with inhabitants; and the latter begged an asylum from Valens in the
eastern empire, which was willingly accorded them. The countries south
of the Danube were before almost entirely depopulated by their frequent
ravages. Here, therefore, they were permitted to settle, on the condition
of embracing the Christian faith; and it was hoped they, in time, would
have proved a formidable barrier against the incroaching Hunns, and, by
a conformity of religion, be at length melted into one people with the
Romans. For the attaining this purpose, they were employed in the armies,
where, to their native fierceness and bravery, they added some knowledge
of discipline, the only thing they wanted; and many of their kings and
great men were in favour at court, and either supported by pensions, or
raised to employments in the state[81].
But the injudiciousness of this policy too soon appeared; and indeed it
was not to be expected that a people used entirely to war and rapine,
and unaccustomed to any other method of subsistance, could in a short
time be reduced to the arts of social life, and to the tillage of the
earth; or be retained in any moderate bounds, in time of peace, when,
by being admitted within the empire, they saw with their own eyes the
immense plunder that lay before them, and the inability of the Romans to
oppose their becoming masters of it. During the life of Theodosius they
remained in perfect quiet, awed by his power and reputation; but when he
left two weak minor princes under the guardianship of two interested and
odious regents, it was obvious they could not be bridled much longer.
Though, if we are to credit the Roman historians, their first irruption
was owning to the jealousy Ruffinus, the prime minister of Arcadius,
entertained of Stilicho, the guardian of Honorius. This latter, it is
said, ambitious of holding the reins of both empires, pretended, that
Theodosius had on his death-bed appointed him sole regent of both. For,
though Arcadius was now of sufficient age to govern of himself, he was,
in truth, for want of capacity, all his life a minor. Ruffinus, we are
told, conscious of his rival Stilicho’s superior talents and power,
resolved to sacrifice his master’s interest rather than submit to one he
so much hated; and, accordingly, by his private emissaries, stirred up
both Goths and Hunns, to fall at once on the eastern empire[82].
In the year 406, these nations, so long irreconcileable enemies to each
other, poured their swarms in concert into the defenceless dominions
of Arcadius. The Hunns passed by the Caspian sea, and with unrelenting
cruelty ravaged all Asia to the gates of Antioch; and at the same
time the Goths, under the so much dreaded Alarick, with no less fury,
committed the like devastations in Illyricum, Macedon, Greece, and
Peneloponnesus. Stilicho, thinking that his saving the eastern empire
would undoubtedly accomplish for him his long wished-for desire of
governing it in the name of Arcadius, as he did the western in that of
Honorius, hastened into Greece with a well-appointed army. But, when he
had the barbarous enemy cooped up, and, as it were, at his mercy, the
weak prince, instigated by his treacherous minister Ruffinus, sent him
orders to retire out of his dominions. The Goths returned unmolested to
the banks of the Danube, laden with plunder; and Stilicho went bank to
Italy boiling with rage and resentment, but he never had an opportunity
of wreaking his vengeance on his treacherous rival.
In the next year, Germany, surcharged with her own inhabitants, and the
nations who fled from the Hunns, and, perhaps, instigated by Ruffinus,
to find work for Stilicho at home, sent forth her multitudes across the
Rhine; and, for three successive years, the Suevians, Alans, Vandals, and
Burgundians, laid all the open country of Gaul waste; and, about the same
time, Constantine, a Roman Briton, assumed the imperial purple, and was
acknowledged by all the Romans of that island and Gaul.
The western empire was now utterly disqualified for defence: Stilicho,
the only man whose abilities and influence were capable of saving the
falling state, had been suspected of treason in aspiring to the diadem,
and was put to death; and Alarick, having before effectually plundered
Greece, was now acting the same part in Italy, while Honorius, shut up in
Ravenna, made but feeble efforts of resistance. Twice was Rome besieged,
once redeemed by an immense ransom, and the second time taken, plundered
and burnt. At length these calamities a little subsided; Constantine, the
British usurper of the empire, died; and all the western Romans again
acknowledged Honorius; but the western empire, though she lingered some
time, had received her mortal wound, and utterly perished in less than
fifty years. The distressed emperor Honorius granted to the Burgundians,
who were the most civilized of these barbarians, and had embraced the
Christian religion, the country they had possessed themselves of, namely,
Alsace and Burgundy. The Goths, who were already Christians, but of
the Arian persuasion, having by this time exhausted Italy, were easily
prevailed on, under Ataulphus, Alarick’s successor, to settle in the
south-west of Gaul, under a like grant; which country had been quitted
in the year 410 by the Sueves, Alans, and Vandals, who had over-run all
Spain, and divided it into three kingdoms. And thus were two kingdoms
formed in the south of Gaul, the new inhabitants of which coming by
compact, and under the title of the Roman emperor, behaved afterwards to
the subjected Romans and Gauls not in the light of brutal conquerors.
Though they themselves retained their own customs, they indulged these in
the use of the Roman laws, suffered them to enjoy a considerable portion
of the lands, and made no very afflicting distinctions between themselves
and their subjects.
The Burgundians, particularly, we are informed, took two thirds of the
lands, the pasturage and forests, with one third of the slaves to look
after their flocks, and left the remainder to the Romans, who were
skilled in agriculture. They also quartered themselves in the houses of
the Romans, which naturally produced an acquaintance and amity between
the two nations. But one great reason, as I apprehend, of the lenity of
these people to the vanished (and a similar one will account for the
Ostrogoths and Lombards in Italy, afterwards, following their example,
which likewise hath been taken notice of with wonder by some authors) was
their neighbourhood to the Roman empire, which still continued in name in
the west, and which they might well be afraid of seeing revived, under
a prince of ability, if their harsh treatment alienated the conquered
people’s affections from them[83].
But different was the treatment the conquered met with from the Franks,
who about this same time settled themselves at a greater distance from
Italy, namely, in Belgic Gaul. The Franks, above most of the other
German nations, had been for a considerable time attached to the Romans,
insomuch that if they did not receive their kings from them, as Claudian
tells us they did from Honorius, at least the kings received their
confirmation from the emperors; and they continued in this fidelity till
the year 407, when they fought a bloody battle with the Sueves, Vandals,
and Alans, to prevent their passing the Rhine, to invade the Roman
territories. But when they found the western empire already dismembered,
they thought it not convenient to lie still, and suffer other nations
to share the prey entirely amongst themselves. The Salians, therefore,
took possession of the present Netherlands, and the Ripuarians to their
original country of Mentz and Hesse, added Treves, Cologne, and Lorrain.
Some have thought these people had grants from the Roman emperor, in the
same manner as I have mentioned before concerning the Burgundians and
Visigoths; but I should, with others, apprehend this to be a mistake;
for Ætius the Roman general left the Goths and Burgundians in quiet
possession of their seats, but defeated, and obliged the Franks to repass
the Rhine, which made them, after the danger was over, return with double
fury; and for a long time after they treated the conquered Romans in the
stile of masters, and with many afflictive distinctions, unknown to their
neighbours the Goths and Burgundians[84].
Many, in the first heat of victory, they reduced to slavery, to a
servitude very different from what had been before practised in Germany,
and nearly approaching to what was used by the Romans. For whatever
property was acquired by these slaves or servants, who in after ages were
called Villains, belonged to their masters, not absolutely, as at Rome;
but the masters claimed and took possession of it, and they (I mean in
France) for the enjoyment of what was permitted them, paid a stipulated
tax called _census_, which was the only tax used there in those ancient
times. However, they did not employ them in domestic drudgery, but
suffered them to live apart, as the proper German servants had done.
Their duties were uncertain, in this agreeing with those of the men of
war, and differing from those of the middle rank, which I shall hereafter
mention, and were of the most humiliating kind, they being obliged to
attend at their lord’s summons, to carry out dung, remove nuisances,
and do other mean and servile offices. The number of these slaves and
villains for centuries perpetually increased, from the many wars both
foreign and civil, these people were engaged in, and the _jus gentium_ of
those ages, by which all that were taken in war were reduced to slavery;
insomuch that, by the year 1000, the number of these villains was
immense, whole cities and regions being reduced to that state[85].
This introduction of a new order of men, unknown to the original German
policy, and inferior to all others, was of advantage to that which had
before been the lowest, I mean the _servants_, as they were called
in Germany, or _socage tenants_, as they were called in England; for
the duties they paid their lords were fixed at a certain rate, which
being performed, they were chargeable with no other burdens, and,
though no members of the body politic, as having no share in the public
deliberations, either in person or by representation, were in reality
free men. These, with the addition of several of the captive Romans, who
were most skilful in agriculture, were the successors of the old servants
in Germany; but their numbers, from the causes before-mentioned, the
perpetual wars, continually decreased, great multitudes of them being
reduced into the state of villainage[86].
The soldiers, who were really what composed the nation, continued
for a longer time pretty much in the same state as in Germany; for a
whole people do not part with their accustomed usages and practices on
a sudden. They changed their habitations as before, their manner of
judicature and administering justice continued the same, they met in
general assemblies as usual, but, as they were now dispersed over a
more extensive country, not so frequently as formerly. When they were
converted to Christianity, which happened under Clovis, who, by uniting
all the Franks, subduing the Alemans, and conquering considerable tracts
of country from both the Visigoths and Burgundians, first formed a
considerable kingdom, it was found exceedingly inconvenient to assemble
every month. Thrice in the year, namely on the three festivals, was
found sufficient, except on extraordinary occasions; and this method was
continued many ages in France and in England. For hundreds of years after
the conquest, these were the most usual and regular times of assembling
parliaments.
But though things, in general, wore the same face as when these people
remained at home, it will be necessary to observe, that a change was
insensibly introducing, the king and the chieftains were daily increasing
their privileges, at the expence of the common soldiers, an event
partly to be ascribed to the general assemblies being less frequent,
and consequently fewer opportunities occurring for the people at large
to exert their power; but principally to the many years they had spent
successively in camp, before they thought themselves secure enough to
disperse through the country. The strictness of military discipline, and
that prompt and unlimited obedience its laws require, habituated them to
a more implicit submission to their leaders, who, from the necessities
of war, were generally continued in command. And it is no wonder that
while the authority of the inferior lords was thus every day gaining
strength, that of the king should encrease more considerably. For,
probably, because he, as general, was the fittest person to distribute
the conquered lands to each according to his merits, he about this time
assumed to himself, and was quietly allowed the entire power of the
partition of lands. They were still, and for some considerable time
longer, assigned in the general assemblies, but according to his sole
will and pleasure, to the several lords, who afterwards subdivided
them to their followers in the same manner at their discretion; whence
it came, that these grants were called benefices, and are constantly
described by the old writers, as flowing from the pure bounty and
benevolence of the lord[87].
A power so extraordinary in a king would tempt any one, at first view; to
think that he who had so unlimited a dominion over the landed property,
must be a most absolute monarch, and subject to no manner of controul
whatsoever. It will therefore be proper to make an observation or two, to
shew why, in fact, it was otherwise. First, then, the ascendant the lords
had gained over their followers, made it extremely dangerous for the king
to oppress the lords, lest it might occasion, if not a rebellion, at
least a desertion of them and their people. For the bonds of allegiance,
except among the companions of the king, as I observed before, were not
yet fully tied. On the other hand, the interest of the lords obliged them
to protect their inferiors from the regal power. Secondly, this power of
the king, and of his lords under him, was not unlimited in those times,
as it may appear to be at first sight, and as it became afterwards. For,
though he could assign what land he pleased to any of the Franks, he
could not assign any part to any other but a Frank, nor leave any one of
the Franks unprovided of a sufficient portion, unless his behaviour had
notoriously disqualified him[88].
But the strongest reason against this absolute power in those times,
is to be drawn from the common feelings of human nature. As absolute
monarchies are only to be supported by standing armies, so is an absolute
unlimited power over that army, who have constantly the sword in their
hands, a thing in itself impossible. The Grand Seignior is, indeed, the
uncontrouled lord of the bulk of his subjects, that is, of the unarmed;
but let him touch the meanest of the janizaries, in a point of common
interest, and he will find that neither the sacredness of the blood of
Ottoman, nor the religious doctrine of passive obedience, can secure his
throne. How then could an elective prince, in these northern regions,
exercise an uncontrouled dominion over a fierce people, bred up in the
highest notions of civil liberty and equality? One of their old maxims
they long religiously adhered to, that is, that, in consideration of
their lands, they were bound to serve only in defensive wars; so that
a king who had engaged in an offensive one, had every campaign a new
army to raise by the dint of largesses; which if he had no treasure left
him by his predecessor, as he frequently had, and which every king by
all means was diligent in amassing, he supplied from the profits of his
demesns, the _census_ on his villains, or else from foreign plunder[89].
But these people had not long been settled in their new seats, before the
encrease of their wealth, and the comfortableness of their habitations,
rendered a constant removal inconvenient, and made them desirous of more
settled assurance in their residence, than that of barely one year. Hence
it came, that many were, by the tacit permission of the king, or the
lord, allowed to hold after their term was expired, and to become what
our law calls _tenants by sufferance_, amoveable at any time, at the
pleasure of the superior; and afterwards, to remedy the uncertainty of
these tenures, grants for more years than one, but generally for a very
short term, were introduced. The books of the feudal law, written many
hundred years after, indeed, say that the first grants were at will,
then for one year, then for more; but I own I cannot bring myself to
believe that these conquerors, who were accustomed in Germany to yearly
grants, could be satisfied with a tenure so precarious as under that
of a year, in their new acquisitions. These grants at will, therefore,
which are mentioned in those books, I understand to be after their term
ended. I mean this only as to the warrior-Franks, for as to the socagers
and villains, I will readily allow that many of the former, and all the
latter, were originally at pleasure[90].
About this period, as I gather from the reason and circumstances of
the times, was introduced the tenure of castleguard, which was the
assignment of a castle, with a tract of country adjacent, on condition
of defending it from enemies and rebels. This tenure continued longer
in its original state than any other; for by the feudal law it could be
granted for no more than one year certain[91].
It is time now to take notice of such of the Romans as lived among
the Franks, and by them were not reduced to slavery. Clovis began his
conquests with reducing Soissons, where a Roman general had set himself
up with the title of a king; and after he had extended his conquests over
all the other states, the Franks, and some other German nations, the
Armorici, the inhabitants of Brittany, who, cut off from the body of the
empire, had for some time formed a separate state, submitted to him on
condition of retaining their estates, and the Roman laws. Their example
was soon followed by others. The Gauls who dwelt on the Loire, and the
Roman garrisons there, were taken into his service. Thus was the king of
France sovereign of two distinct nations, inhabiting the same country,
and governed by different laws. The Franks were ruled by their customs,
which Clovis and his successors reduced into writing; the Romans by the
Imperial law. The estates of the one were beneficiary and temporary;
those of the others were held _pleno jure_ and perpetual, and now, or
soon after, began to be called _allodial_. But these allodial estates
were not peculiar in after times to the Romans; for as these estates were
alienable, many of them were purchased by the Franks: So that we read,
that when Sunigisila and Callamon were deprived of the benefices they
held as Franks, they were permitted to enjoy their estates in propriety.
As the Romans were, before their submission, divided into three classes,
the nobles, the freemen, and the slaves, so they continued thus divided;
the nobles being dignified with the title of _convivæ regis_[92].
But as it was unsafe to trust the government of these new subjects in
the hands of one of their nation, the king appointed annually one of his
companions, or _comites_, for that purpose, in a certain district; and
this was the origin of counties, and counts. The business of these lords
was to take care of, and account for the profits of the king’s demesns,
to administer justice, and account for the profits of the courts;
which were very considerable, as the Roman laws about crimes being, by
degrees, superseded, and consequently capital punishment in most cases
abolished, all offences became fineable, a third of which they retained
to themselves. They also, in imitation of the lords of the Franks,
led their followers to the wars. For every free Roman, that held four
manors, was obliged to serve under his count; and those that had more
or less contributed in proportion. This military duty, together with an
obligation of furnishing the king with carriages and waggons, was all the
burden put upon them, instead of those heavy taxes and imposts they had
paid to their emperors; so that, in this instance, their situation was
much mended, though in other respects it was sufficiently mortifying[93].
The greatest among them was no member of the political body, and
incapable of the lowest office in the state; and as all offences were
now fineable, those committed against a Frank, or other Barbarian, were
estimated at double to the compensation of those committed against a
Roman or Gaul. No wonder, then, that _gentilis homo_, a term formerly of
reproach among the Romans, (for it signified a heathen and barbarian)
became now a name of honour, and a mark of nobility; and that the Romans
earnestly longed to turn their allodial estates into benefices, and to
quit their own law for the Salic. And when once they had obtained that
privilege, the Roman law insensibly disappeared, in the territories of
the Franks, the northern parts of modern France, which are still called
the _païs des coutumes_; whereas, in the southern parts, where no such
odious distinctions were made by the original conqueror, the Roman law
kept its ground, and is to this day almost entirely observed. These
countries are called by the French lawyers _païs de loi ecrite_, meaning
the Roman[94].
But we cannot have a compleat idea of the constitution of this nation,
without taking notice of the clergy, who now made a considerable figure
among them. Churchmen had, ever since the conversion of Constantine,
been of great consequence in the empire; but the influence they obtained
among the northern barbarians was much more extensive than what they had
in the Roman empire. The conversion of Clovis to the Christian religion
was owing to the earnest persuasions of his wife Clotildis, a zealous
Christian, and to a vow he made when pressed in battle, of embracing the
faith of Jesus Christ, if he obtained the victory. He and his people in
general accordingly turned Christians; and the respect and superstitious
regard they had in former times paid to their pagan priests, were now
transferred to their new instructors. The principal, therefore, of them
were admitted members of their general assemblies; where their advice and
votes had the greatest weight, as well as in the court of the prince;
as learning, or even an ability to read, was a matter of astonishment
to such an illiterate people, and it was natural in such a state they
should take those in a great measure as guides in their temporal affairs,
whom they looked on as their conductors to eternal happiness. As they
were the only Romans (for the churchmen were all of that nation) that
were admissible into honours, the most considerable of their countrymen
were fond of entering into this profession, and added a new weight to
it. But if the sacredness of their function gave them great influence,
their wealth and riches added not a little to it. Before the irruptions
of the barbarians, they had received large possessions from the bounty of
the Roman emperors, and the piety of particulars. These they were sure
to possess: but their subsequent acquisitions were much greater. Though
these kings and their people had imbibed the faith of Christ, they were
little disposed to follow its moral precepts. Montesquieu observes the
Franks bore with their kings of the first race, who were a set of brutal
murderers, because these Franks were murderers themselves. They were
not ignorant of the deformity of their crimes, but, instead of amending
their lives, they chose rather to make atonement for their offences, by
largesses to their clergy. Hence the more wicked the people, the more
that order encreased in wealth and power[95].