independency: they scorned to consider themselves as subjects; and a kingdom, considerable in name and extent, was often a mere shadow of monarchy, and really consisted of as many sparate principalities as it contained baronies. A thousand feuds and jealousies subsisted among the barons, and gave rise to as many wars'. Hence every country in Europe, wasted or kept in continual alarm by these internal hostilities, was filled with castles and places of strength, in order to protect the inhabitants from the fury of their fellow-subjects.

Kingdoms so divided, and torn by domestic broils, were little capable of any foreign effort. The wars of Europe, therefore during several centuries, as we shall have occasion to see, resembled more the wild and desultory incursions of pirates, or banditti, than the regular and concerted operations of national force. Happily, however, for posterity, the state of every kingdom was nearly the same; otherwise all must have fallen a prey to one: the independent spirit of the North might have been extinguished forever; and the present harmonious system of European policy, which so gloriously struggled from the chaos of anarchy, would have sunk in eternal night.

The particular manner in which the barbarians, or northern invaders, conducted their judicial proceedings, when they first settled in the provinces of the Roman empire, cannot now be distinctly ascertained: but their form of government, their manners, and a variety of other circumstances, lead us to believe it was nearly the same with that which prevailed in their original countries; where the authority of the magistrate was so limited, and the independency of individuals so great, that they seldom admitted any umpire but the sword".

Our most ancient historical records justify this opinion: they represent the exercise of justice in all the kingdoms of Europe, and the ideas of men with respect to

5. Id. ibid. 6. Ferguson, Essay on the Hist. of Civil Society, part ii, equity,

VOL. I.

H

equity, as little different from those which prevail in a state of nature, and deform the first stages of society in every country. Resentment was almost the sole motive for prosecuting crimes; and the gratification of that passion, more than any view to the prosperity and good order of society, was the end, and also the rule in punishing them. He that suffered the wrong, was the only person who had a right to pursue the aggressor; to demand or remit the punishment:-and he might accept of a compensation for any offence how heinous soever. The prosecution of criminals in the name, and by the authority of the community, in order to deter others from violating the laws, now justly deemed the great object of legislation, was a maxim of jurisprudence then little understood in theory, and still less regarded in practice. The civil and criminal judges could, in most cases, do no more than appoint the lists, and leave the parties to decide their cause by the sword. Fierce and haughty nobles, unused to the restraints of law, considered it as infamous to give up to another the right of determining what reparation they should accept of, or with what vengeance they should rest satisfied: they scorned to appeal to any tribunal but their own right-arm. And if men of inferior condition sometimes submitted to award or arbitration, it was only to that of the leader whose courage they respected, and whom in the field they had been accustomed to obey'. Hence every chieftain became the judge of his tribe in peace, as well as its general in war. The pernicious effects of this power upon gevernment and upon manners, and the many absurd modes of trial established before its abolition, we shall have

7. This subject has been finely illustrated by Dr. Robertson, (Introd. Hist. Charles V.) and by the president Montesquieu, (L'Esprit des Loix, liv. xviii.—xxxi.) who has written a philosophical commentary on the Laws of the Barbarians. It has also been treated, with much learning and ingenuity, by Dr. Stuart in his View of Society, and by Mr. Gibbon in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xxxviii.

frequent

frequent occasion to observe in the history of every modern kingdom.

The feudal system, however, with all its imperfections, and the disorders to which it gave birth, was by no means so debasing to humanity as the uniform pressure of Roman despotism. Very different from that dead calm which accompanies peaceful slavery, and in which every faculty of the soul sinks into a kind of somnolency, it kept the minds of men in continual ferment, and their hearts in agitation. If animosities were keen, friendships also were warm. The commonality were unfortunately degraded to the condition of slaves, but the nobility were exalted to the rank of princes. The gentry were their associates: and the king, without the form of compact, was in reality but chief magistrate, or head of the community, and could literally do no WRONG; or none, at least, with impunity.

LETTER III.

RISE OF THE FRENCH MONARCHY, AND THE HISTORY OF FRANCE UNDER THE KINGS OF THE FIRST RACE.

IN history, as in all other sciences, it is necessary to set certain limits to our inquiries, if we would proceed with certainty; and, where utility more than curiosity is our object, we must even contract these boundaries. We must not only confine ourselves to those periods where truth can be ascertained, but to those events chiefly which were followed by some civil or political consequence, which produced some alteration in the government or the manners of a people: and, even of such events, we should be more particularly attentive to those which continue to operate upon our present civil or political system.

In these few words, my dear Philip, in order to avoid egotism, I have indirectly given you an account of the manner in which I mean to conduct that History of Modern Europe, which is intended for your instruction. The first epochs of modern, as well as ancient history, are involved in fable; and the transactions of the immediately succeeding periods are handed down to us in harren chronicles, which convey no idea of the character of the agents, and consequently are destitute alike of instruction and amusement; while the events of latter ages are related with a copiousness so profuse and undistinguishing, that a selection becomes absolutely necessary, for such as would not willingly spend a lifetime in acquiring a knowledge of the transactions of those who have lived before them. And as I would rather have you acquainted with the character of one living, than of ten dead statesmen or heroes, I shall be as concise in my narration as is consistent with perspicuity, and as select in my matter as information will allow; yet always taking care to omit no anecdote which can throw light on the history of the human heart, nor any circumstance that marks the progress of civil society.

But,

Modern history is of little importance before the time of Charlemagne; and a late celebrated writer has fixed upon the coronation of that prince at Rome, in the year soo, as the proper æra of its commencement. for the sake of order, as well as to gratify the curiosity we naturally have to become acquainted with the origin of nations, I shall give you a short sketch of the state of modern Europe previous to that æra.

The French monarchy first claims our notice; not on account of its antiquity only, but because of its early and continued consequence. Gaul was shared by the Romans, the Visigoths, and the Burgundians, when Clovis king of the Franks, (son of Childeric, and grandson of Merovius, head of the Salian tribe) defeated Syagrius, a Roman usurper in that province, and established a new kingdom, to which he gave

A. D. 486.

the

the name of France, or the Land of Free Men 1. How ill applied in latter times!

Though Clovis was only nineteen years of age when he obtained this victory, his prudence appears to have been equal to his valour. And many circumstances conspired to his farther aggrandizement. The Gauls hated the dominion of the Romans, and were strongly attached to Christianity: Clovis gained on their piety, by favouring their bishops: and his marriage with Clotilda, niece to Gondebaud, king of Burgundy, made them hope that he would speedily embrace the faith. The attachment of his countrymen to their ancient worship was the sole objection: the pious exhortations of the queen had some effect; and the king having vanquished the Allemanni at Tolbiac, near Cologne, after an obstinate engagement, politically ascribed that victory to the God of Clotilda, whom he said he had invoked during the time of battle, under promise of becoming a Christian, if crowned with success. He was accordA. D. 496. ingly baptised by St. Remigius, bishop of Rheims, and almost the whole French nation followed his example2.

This was a grand circumstance in favour of Clovis: and he did not fail to take advantage of it. The Gauls were staunch Catholics, but the Visigoths and Burgundians were Arians. Clotilda, however, happily was a Catholic, though nursed in the bosom of Arianism; and

1. Gregor. Turon. lib. ii. cap. 27.

2. Gest. Franc. cap. xv. Greg.Turon. lib. ii. cap. 31. Of the miracle, said to have been wrought on the conversion of Clovis, the author of this work says nothing, as he would not wish to foster pious credulity; but the lovers of the marvellous will find sufficient food for their passion in Hincmar (Vit. St. Remig.) It may not, however, be improper to observe, that Clovis, when warmed with the eloquence of the bishop of Rheims, in describing the passion and death of Christ, started up, and seizing his spear, violently exclaimed, "Had I been there with the valiant Franks, I would have redressed his wrongs!" Fredig. Epitom.

cap. xxi.