CHAP. VIII.: In what Manner the allodial Estates were changed into Fiefs.

THE manner of changing an allodial estate into a fief, may be seen in a formulary of Marculfus Book i. formulary 13. ^†1170. The owner of the land gave it to the king, who restored it to the donor by way of usufruit, or benefice, and then the latter nominated his heirs to the king.

In order to find out the reasons which induced them thus to change the nature of the allodia, I must trace the source of the ancient privileges of our nobility, a nobility who for these eleven centuries have been ready to undergo every hardship, and to spill their blood in their country’s service.

They who were seized of fiefs enjoyed very great advantages. The composition for the injuries done them was greater than that of freemen. It appears by the formularies of Marculfus, that it was a privilege belonging to the king’s vassal, that whoever killed him should pay a composition of six hundred sous. This privilege was established by the Salic law Tit. 44. See also the titles 66. sect. 3. and 4. and tit. 74. ^†1171, and by that of the Ripuarians Tit. 2. ^†1172; and while these two laws ordained a composition of six hundred sous for the murder of the king’s vassal, they gave but See also the law of the Ripuarians, tit. 7. and the Salic law, tit. 44. art. 1. and 4. ^†1173 two hundred sous for the murder of a person freeborn, if he was a Frank or Barbarian living under the Salic law; and only a hundred for a Roman.

This was not the only privilege belonging to the king’s vassals. When Salic law, tit. 59, and 76. ^†1174 a man was summoned in

court, and did not make his appearance, nor obey the judges orders, he was appealed before the king; and if he persisted in his contumacy, he was excluded from Extra sermonem regis. Salic law, tit. 59, and 76. ^†1175 the Royal protection, and no one was allowed to entertain him, or even to give him a morsel of bread. Now if he was a person of an ordinary condition, his goods Ibid. tit. 59. sect. 1. ^†1176 were confiscated; but if he was the king’s vassal, they were not Ibid. tit. 76. sect. 1. ^†1177. The first by his contumacy was deemed sufficiently convicted of the crime, the second was not; the former Ibid. tit. 56, and 59. ^†1178 for the smallest crimes was obliged to undergo the trial by boiling water, the latter Ibid. tit. 76. sect. 1. ^†1179 was condemned to this trial only in the case of murder: In fine, the king’s vassal Ibid. tit. 76. sect. 2. ^†1180 could not be compelled to swear in court against another vassal. These privileges augmented daily, and the capitulary of Carlomannus Apud Vernis Palatium, in the year 883. art. 4, and 11. ^†1181 does this honour to the king’s vassals, that they shall not be obliged to swear in person, but only by the mouth of their own vassals. Besides, when a person who had these honours did not repair to the army, his punishment was to abstain from flesh-meat and wine as long as he had been absent from the service; but a freeman Capitulary of Charlemaign, in the year 812. art. 1, and 3. ^†1182 who neglected to follow his count was fined Heribannum. ^†1183 sixty sous, and reduced to a state of servitude till he paid it.

It is very natural therefore to think that those Franks who were not the king’s vassals, and much more the Romans, became fond of entering into the state of vassalage; and that they might not be deprived of their demesnes, they devised the usage of giving

their allodium to the king, of receiving it from him afterwards as a fief, and of nominating their heirs. This usage was continued, and took place especially during the times of confusion under the second race, when every man being in want of a protector, was desirous to incorporate himself with Non infirmis reliquit hæredibus, says Lambert à Ardres, in Du Cange, on the word alodis. ^†1184 the other lords, and to enter as it were, into the feudal monarchy, because the political no longer existed.

This continued under the third race, as we find by several See those quoted by Du Cange, in the word alodis, and those produced by Galland, in his treatise of allodial lands, page 14. and the following. ^†1185 charters; whether they gave their allodium, and resumed it by the same act; or whether it was declared an allodium, and afterwards acknowledged as a fief. These were called fiefs of resumption.

This does not imply that those who were seized of fiefs administered them with prudence and economy; for though the freemen grew desirous of being possessed of fiefs, yet they managed this sort of estates as usufruits are managed in our days. This is what induced Charlemaign, the most vigilant and attentive prince we ever had, to make a great many regulations Second capitulary of the year 802, art. 10. and the 7th capitulary of the year 803. art. 3. the 1st capitulary incerti anni, art. 49. the 5th capitulary of the year 806. art. 7. the capitulary of the year 779. art. 29. and the capitulary of Lewis the Pious, in the year 829. art. 1. ^†1186, to hinder the fiefs from being degraded in favour of allodial estates. It proves only that in his time most benefices were still only for life, and consequently that they took more care of the allodia than of the benefices; but it is no argument that they did not chuse rather to be the king’s bondmen than freemen. They might have reasons for disposing of a particular portion of a fief, but they were not willing to be stripped even of their dignity.

I know likewise that Charlemaign complains in a certain capitulary The 5th of the year 806. art. 8. ^†1187 that in some places there were people who gave away their fiefs in property, and redeemed them afterwards in the same manner. But I do not say, that they were not fonder of the property than of the usufruit; I mean only, that when they could convert an allodium into a fief, which was to descend to their heirs, and is the case of the formulary above-mentioned, they had very great advantages in doing it.