66

bac, the homestead.

Hence the law of the

Franks, that regulated the course of descent, "was called the Salic law;"* and the usage which gave rise to it is almost exactly paralleled by an ancient Hindoo rite.

SECTION XVIII.

Changes which occurred in landed tenures after the irruption of the Northern barbarians into the Southern and Western countries of Europe. State of the Saxon barons of England compared with the ancient landlords of India, and with institutions still in force in Rajasthan.

IN In process of time these barbarous warriors over-ran, and mastered, the provinces of the Roman empire. One object of conquest being plunder, and, in these poor times, there being no property to seize but land, which in the Roman provinces was all possessed and occupied by individuals, the invaders took to themselves as much of these lands as they chose to appropriate; expelling the ancient proprietors, and leaving others where the whole were not, as in some instance, exterminated in the possession of their allodial rights.

From the earliest times of land becoming

Murph. Tac. vol. iv. p. 237 and 251.

private property among the German and Northern nations, there seems to be no proof of its having any other character than that of pure allodiality. It is also the most reasonable conclusion. When the barbarians settled themselves in new conquests, the lands which they thought proper to seize, and other booty, being divided among the captors by lot, as the recompense due to their valour, and acquired by their own sword, it is not likely that men, like the Huns, Alans, Goths, &c., living in a degree of freedom and independence scarcely compatible with a state of civil union-who acknowledged no superior lord who followed a leader to war and plunder from choice, not constraint-and who considered conquests as common property, in which all had an equal title to share —would subject themselves to subordination, and conditions, in regard to land, from which in all other respects they were wholly free. We may, therefore, reasonably conclude that property, in these early times, was much in the same predicament as it is found among other barbarous nations in a like state of society; and in which it is still found among the uncivilized tribes of India.

When the conquerors settled in their new acquisitions, and agricultural habits had led

to improved degrees of civilization, landed property became more and more precious in the estimation of its haughty and independent possessors. In times of so much anarchy and violence, it was, however, necessary to guard it against attacks from surrounding foes, and from invasion by fresh hordes pouring in from the Northern hive. For this purpose every landlord, or free man, had an obvious interest to concur in a general compact to bear arms, and to do military service for the common defence, or common benefit. A tacit compact to this effect existed from the earliest times of which we have any knowledge of the barbarous invaders. Laws were subsequently enacted, making the duty imperative. In the reign of Chilperic, King of the Franks, and in the subsequent reign of Childebert,* laws are quoted to this effect, with heavy penalties attaching to disobedience, or refusal to comply therewith. Even the Capitulars of Charlemagne, quoted by Dr. Robertson, are of the same tenor; every free man-“liber homo"-who possessed land in allodial property, being bound to take arms "in defence of the community."

Chilperic began his reign A. D. 562; and Childebert

A. D. 576.

With property, civil government came to be established; and, naturally, as in all other barbarous and ignorant societies, assumed the monarchical form. A successful conqueror, holding kingly power, could never want the means of rewarding his favourites, and followers, from forfeited or confiscated lands; or from lands seized as public property ;* or from what remained, after partition, which were considered as belonging to the community, and denominated the “lands "of the fisc;" or finally from his own portion, which must always have been the largest allotment. Grants from these sources were common, binding the grantee, however, to nothing more, at first, than fidelity, without any obligation of military service, or attendance in the court of his superior. Subsequent grants involve a promise of protection, with certain castles or lands to the grantee, who, on the other hand, engages to defend the

66

"Under the Romans, when cities enjoyed municipal privileges and jurisdictions, the circumjacent lands belonged "to each town, and were the property of the community. "When these lands were seized and shared among the con"querors, the barons to whom they were granted erected "their castles almost at the gates of the city," &c.— Rob. Char. V. vol. i. p. 296.

grantor, and to assist him in defending his property whenever he shall be summoned to do so. These grants appear to be rather a mutual contract between equals, than the engagement of a vassal to perform services to a superior lord; but contracts of this description were soon converted into rights, and imposed on the grantee a positive obligation of personal service and fidelity to him from whom he had received his lands. They were termed Beneficia, held originally during pleasure, or for the life of the grantee, and ultimately made hereditary. But these grants were not exclusively acts of royal munificence. They were at all times bestowed by individual proprietors as well as by kings.* In process of

* Without meaning to controvert the opinions of learned and profound writers on this subject, I would merely observe, that a close inspection of Du Cange, and other ancient authors, will, I think, be found to confirm the view given in the text of the course of landed tenures in Europe. It is at all events a natural and consistent progress; but a question hence arises, that if these were the only grants known previous to the ninth or tenth century, and that they were the acts of individual proprietors as well as kings, how came such individuals to have the requisite dominion over the property so granted? If all land were originally crown property, and private estates no other than beneficiary tenures, it is clear that a beneficiary could not bestow any portion of that