« PreviousContinue »
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 ) fome Counties on his Brother Gri"fon, 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, accord“ ing to the Rites of the Franks ) who spoke “ these words to the King, Gondobaldus says, " he is a Son of King Clotharius, and has senc. “ 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 faid before ) the Kingdom was not hereditary. 'Tis true, that in many Noble Patrimonies there was what we call Fiefs, Feuda ; as Otto Frifing. 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 al“ ways falls to the Elder Brother, and his “ Children, whether Male or Female; the
“ others looking on him as their Lord-----· And that the fame was practised among the whole Nation of the Franks, Petrus de Vineis, 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 bestow'd by the People on any one of his Sons, but divided into convenient Parcels, and a part afsigned 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 Agatbius, lib. hist. I. Greg. Turon. lib. 3. cap. I. Aimoinus lib. 2. cap. 1. Rbegino 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 : Guntránus, 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. s. 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 afligned to his Brother Heribert Tome 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 al.. lotted him. --" The Extent of the King“ dom 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 havethought. For, as Justin tells us, lib. 21. “ That King“ dom will be much more potent, which re" mains under the Domination of one Person, E 2
" than when 'tis divided among many Bro
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 Eguia marthus, in his Life of Charlemagn, writes thus, " ---After King Pipin's Death, the Franks ha“ ving 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 Car“ loman over the other part which their Uncle “ held.
Also the Abbot of Ursperg fays, ----“ When « Pipin was dead, his two Sons Charles and Car
« loman, by the Consent of all the Franks, were .“ created Kings, upon Condition, that they
“ shou'd divide the whole body of the King“ dom equally between them---. The same Method in dividing the Kingdom, was practi. sed after the Death of Charlemagn, as 'tis manifest by his last Will and Testament, recorded bp Joannes Nauclerus, and Eguinarthus's History of his Life. Wherein we find almost all Europe so divided among his threé Şons, 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 Frifingenfis, 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 22d 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 sc Sons (says he) of Lewis, late King of the « Franks, met at Amiens, and divided their “ Fathers. Kingdom beţween 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 in Francogallia touching this Matter ; but the whole Power of disposing of it was lodged in the Publick Council of the Nation. Indeed af. terwards 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 Controverfies 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 Gouncil of the Nation : that according to the Number of Children, some particular Lordships or Territories, may (by its Authority ) be assigned for their Maintenance.
CHA P. VIII Of the Salick Law, and rehat Right
Women had in the King's their Father's Inheritance,
DEcause we have undertaken to give an ac
D count of the Law and Right of Regal Inberitance, we must not omit making mention of the Salick Law; which is both daily discours' 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 fome Months after was born) Edward King of England (Son of Isabella, the Daughter of Philip the Fair, and Siffer to Charles, lately dead) claimed the. Inheritance of his Grandfather's Kingdom as his Right. : But PhiLip of Valois, Cousin-german 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 à most famous Law, even to his time. For in his Life of Philip of Valois ; 5 The Salick Law (says he was a Bar to Ed“ward's Title; which Law being first given
by Pharamond to the Franks, has been relia giously observed, even to those days. By