decreed the division of the empire among his three sons, one of whom, however, was to bear the title of emperor and exercise a supervision over the other two. This was a compromise between the unity of the indivisible imperial power and the received principles of heredity.

The greatest advocates of unity had been the clergy, who looked upon the original establishment of the empire as the work of their head, the pope. It was, therefore, from them that the greatest opposition came when, twelve years later, a new son having in the meantime been born to him, Louis tried to nullify the document here given and to undo his own work. Again and again did the luckless emperor have to suffer for trying to disregard an agreement, drawn up and sanctioned, as this had been, by the nobles, the higher clergy and the pope. It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader of how the latter used his personal influence in favour of the elder sons, and of how on the Field of Lies, he successfully exercised his powers of seduction on the troops of the emperor.

After Louis's death the principles of heredity conquered at last the spirit of unity. By the treaty of Verdun (843)— of which unfortunately no authentic document remainsthe three separate kingdoms were called into being which afterwards developed into France, Italy and Germany. The empire waned away, but did not die, although for a time the emperors were little more than petty local potenIt was reserved for Otto the Great to restore it to its pristine glory.

tates.

No. IV. is a treaty, entered into in 870, regarding the subdivision of the central one of the three kingdoms founded by the treaty of Verdun. It is given here as showing the beginning of the thousand years' struggle between France and Germany for the possession of the border provinces. It was preliminary to the treaty of Mersen.

No. V. is the so-called Truce of God (Treuga Dei) puh

lished by the emperor Henry IV. in 1085 to put bounds to the numerous feuds which were looked upon-much as the duel is still looked upon by the German nobility—as the only possible means for wiping away the shame of certain real or fancied wrongs. To forbid such feuds absolutely was not feasible; no attempt was made to do so until the year 1495. The present effort to restrict them met with no success-certainly not in the reign of the unfortunate monarch who made it, and who was finally deposed, ostensibly because he was unable to restore peace and quiet to his land.

No. VI. is a similar document issued eighty years later by Frederick Barbarossa. It will be seen from § 10 that knights of good family might still engage in wager of battle against their equals, although, in other respects a breach of the peace was to be severely punished.

No. VII. concerns the establishment of the Duchy of Austria in 1156. Austria had hitherto been simply a margravate and been comprised in the duchy of Bavaria. The act was performed by Fred. Barbarossa as a compromise. There were two claimants for Bavaria-one the son of that Henry the Proud who had expected to be made king in 1137, and who had been rejected for the apparently paradoxical reason that he already was the most powerful noble in Germany. Conrad III. had been made king in his stead and had soon found cause to quarrel with his powerful rival, conferring Bavaria on his own half brother the margrave Liutpold. After the death of Henry the Proud there had been concessions and reconciliations with regard to Bavaria-but at the end of Conrad's reign the young Henry the Lion still considered himself the heir, while the duchy was actually held by the king's brother Henry of Austria. Frederick Barbarossa in 1156, intent on the Italian expedition which was to gain him the imperial crown, hastened to heal the discord between his

two powerful subjects. Henry the Lion received Bavaria, and, in order to appease Henry Jasomirgott, a new duchy was carved out for him. As will be seen from the charter it was enriched with almost unheard of privileges. But great as these were they did not satisfy one of the later dukes of Austria; and some of the most successful of mediæval forgeries distorted in the 14th century the original terms of Frederick's grant.

No. VIII. is the charter issued by Frederick Barbarossa at Gelnhausen in 1180. It commemorates a most important event in German constitutional history. The partition of Saxony was a death blow to the old ducal influence in Germany. There was, henceforth to be a new nobility, basing its claims on its services to the crown and not on its hereditary territorial power.

No. IX. is an interesting decision of a Nuremburg diet rendered in the year 1274. The election of Rudolf of Hapsburg after the long interregnum signified a renewal of the empire even though Rudolf never bore any title but king of the Romans. But how curtailed were his prerogatives compared to those of his predecessors! Future candidates were to be bound more and more by engagements and promises, to submit more and more to the arrogant assumptions of the electoral college. And in certain questions the Count Palatine of the Rhine, and not the King of the Romans was to speak the decisive word.

No. X., the Golden Bull of 1356, was issued for the purpose of determining the form for the election and coronation of the emperor, and also of regulating the duties, rights and privileges of the elector princes. It distinctly defines to whom the electoral rights belong. There had been no doubt about the three archbishoprics or about Bohemia, but disputes had arisen between rival lines both in Saxony and Brandenburg, and the seventh vote was claimed alike by Bavaria and by the Palatinate.

To the electors the Golden Bull gave sovereign rights within their districts. No one could appeal from their decisions; tolls, coinage and treasure trove were to be their perquisites, and offences against their persons were to be punished as high treason. They were to have an important share in the government of the empire.

The Golden Bull is not a law which introduced new features into the constitution. It determined, however, e number of questions that had long been wavering and became an unquestioned authority that was appealed to for centuries. The election of an emperor took place according to its articles so long as the empire lasted. It is important to note that nothing is said concerning the right of the pope, which had been recognized by Louis of Bavaria, to confirm the election.

The Golden Bull was oppressive to the lesser nobility as well as to the cities. The princes who were not electors were now only of secondary rank, and it was probably at this time that one of them, Rudolf IVth, Duke of Austria, took the opportunity of forging privileges to raise his sinking prestige (see above, No. VII.). The regulations concerning Pfalburgers and confederations were a severe blow to civic pride-however expedient they may have been,-and the cities were driven into permanent opposition to the Thus the Golden Bull served to further a process of disintegration which was to lead almost to anarchy and to deaden all feeling of loyalty for the empire.

crown.

No. VI. is the formal charter which commemorates the founding of Heidelberg. The Elector of the Palatinate, Ruprecht I., had sent large sums of money to Rome to induce the Pope to confirm the foundation. This papal confirmation was not received until 1385 although the actual work of founding the university had long been in progress. It was the pope who commanded that the arrangement should be that of the Paris university, also that the

chancellor should regularly be the prevost of the cathedral at Worms.

Ruprecht was unwearying in his care for his new creation and often spoke of it as his "beloved daughter." The university was consecrated on the 18th of October 1386, and, on the 19th, Marsilius began to lecture on logic, Reginald on the epistle to Titus, Heilmann on the natural philosophy of Aristotle.

Up to the year 1390, when Ruprecht died, 1050 students had attended the university.

I.

THE SALIC LAW.

(Gengler, "Germanische Rechtsdenkmaeler," p. 267.) Title I. Concerning Summonses.

1. If any one be summoned before the "Thing" by the king's law, and do not come, he shall be sentenced to 600 denars, which make 15 shillings (solidi).

2. But he who summons another, and does not come himself, shall, if a lawful impediment have not delayed him, be sentenced to 15 shillings, to be paid to him whom he summoned.

3. And he who summons another shall walk with witnesses to the home of that man, and, if he be not at home, shall bid the wife or any one of the family to make known to him that he has been summoned to court.

4. But if he be occupied in the king's service he can not summon him.

5. But if he shall be inside the hundred seeing about his own affairs, he can summon him in the manner explained above.