CHAP. II.: How the civil Government was reformed.

HITHERTO the nation had given marks of impatience and levity, with regard to the choice or conduct of her masters; she had regulated their differences, and obliged them to come to an agreement

amongst themselves. But now she did what before was quite unexampled; she cast her eyes on her actual situation, examined the laws coolly, provided against their insufficiency, repressed violence, and moderated the regal power.

The bold and insolent regencies of Fredegunda and Brunechild, had less surprised than roused the nation. Fredegunda had defended her horrid cruelties, her poisonings and assassinations, by a repetition of the same crimes; and had behaved in such a manner that her outrages were rather of a private than public nature. Fredegunda did more mischief: Brunechild threatened more. In this crisis, the nation was not satisfied with rectifying the feudal system; she was also determined to secure her civil government. For the latter was rather more corrupt than the former; a corruption the more dangerous as it was more inveterate, and connected rather with the abuse of manners than with that of laws.

The history of Gregory of Tours exhibits, on the one hand, a fierce and barbarous nation; and on the other, kings remarkable for the same ferocity of temper. Those princes were bloody, iniquitous, and cruel, because such was the character of the whole nation. If Christianity appeared sometimes to soften their manners, it was only by the circumstances of terror with which this religion alarms the sinner: the church supported herself against them by the miraculous operations of her saints. The kings would not commit sacrilege, because they dreaded the punishments inflicted on that species of guilt; but this excepted, either in the riot of passion, or in the coolness of deliberation, they perpetrated the most horrid crimes and barbarities, where the divine vengeance did not appear so immediately to overtake the criminal. The Franks, as I have already observed, bore with cruel kings, because they were of the

same disposition themselves; they were not shocked at the iniquity and extortions of their princes, because this was the national characteristic. There had been many laws established, but it was usual for the king to defeat them all, by a kind of letters called precepts They were orders which the king sent to the judges, to do or to tolerate things contrary to law. ^†1127, which rendered them of no effect; they were somewhat similar to the rescripts of the Roman emperors, whether it be that our kings borrowed this usage of those princes, or whether it was owing to their own natural temper. We see in Gregory of Tours, how they perpetrated murder in cool blood, and put the accused to death, unheard; how they gave precepts See Gregory of Tours, book iv. page 227. Both our history and the charters are full of this; and the extent of these abuses appears especially in Clotharius’s constitution, inserted in the edition of the capitularies made to reform them. Baluzius’s edition, page 7. ^†1128 for illicit marriages; for transfering successions; for depriving relations of their right; and in fine, marrying consecrated virgins. They did not indeed assume the whole legislative power, but they dispensed with the execution of the laws.

Clotharius’s constitution redressed all these grievances; no one Art. 22. ^†1129 could any longer be condemned without being heard; relations Ibid. art. 6. ^†1130 were made to succeed according to the order established by law; all precepts for marrying religious women were declared null; Ibid. ^†1131 and those who had obtained and made use of them, were severely punished. We might know perhaps more exactly his determination with regard to these precepts, if the thirteenth and the two next articles of this decree had not been lost through the injuries of time. We have only the first words of this thirteenth article, ordaining that the precepts shall be observed, which cannot be understood of those he had just abolished by the same law. We have another constitution In Baluzius’s edition of the capitularies, tom. i. page 7. ^†1132 by

the same prince, which is relative to his decree, and corrects in the same manner, every article of the abuses of the precepts.

True it is that Baluzius finding this constitution without date, and without the name of the place where it was given, attributes it to Clotharius I. But I say it belongs to Clotharius II, for three reasons; 1. It says that the king will preserve the immunities In the preceding book I have made mention of these immunities, which were grants of judicial rights, and contained prohibitions to the regal juges to perform any function in the territory, and were equivalent to the erection or grant of a fief. ^†1133 granted to the churches, by his father and grandfather. What immunities could the churches receive from Childeric, grandfather of Clotharius I. who was not a Christian, and who lived even before the foundation of the monarchy? But if we attribute this decree to Clotharius II. we shall find his grandfather to have been this very Clotharius I. who made immense donations to the church, with a view of expiating the murder of his son Cramne, whom he had ordered to be burnt, together with his wife and children.

2. The abuses redressed by this constitution, were still subsisting after the death of Clotharius I. and were even carried to the highest extravagance during the weak reign of Gontram, the cruel administration of Chilperic, and the execrable regencies of Fredegunda and Brunechild. Now can we imagine that the nation would have borne with grievances so solemnly proscribed, without complaining of their continual repetition? Can we imagine she would not have taken the same step as she did afterwards under Childeric II. He began to reign towards the year 670. ^†1134when upon a repetition of the old grievances, she pressed See the life of S. Leger. ^†1135 him to ordain that the law and customs in regard to judicial proceedings, should be complied with as formerly.

In fine, as this constitution was made to redress

grievances, it cannot relate to Clotharius I. since there were no complaints of that kind in his reign, and his authority was perfectly established throughout the kingdom, especially at the time in which they place this constitution; whereas it agrees extremely well with the events that happened during the reign of Clotharius II. which produced a revolution in the political state of the kingdom. History must be illustrated by the laws, and the laws by history,