ried a female slave, he incurred the same penalty; if unable to pay his debts, he became the bondsman of his creditors. The code of the Lombards in Italy seems, in some respects, to have been peculiarly rigorous. For him who slew his own slave no punishment was provided; but no composi tion would atone for the life of the slave who assassinated a freeman. If a slave presumed to marry a freewoman, the doom of both was death; but the freeman might marry his maiden, provided he previously enfranchised her. Such unions were, however, regarded as disgraceful. The slave had little hope of escape. Enfranchisement was far from frequent, and the libertus was as dependent on his patron, as the slave on his owner; neither could marry beyond his own caste without incurring the penalty of death; yet marriage was all but obligatory, that servitude might be perpetuated. Manumission generally took place in the churches, or by will, or by a written instrument; and these three modes were also common to the Romans; but there were other modes peculiar to certain nations. In France, it was effected by striking a denarius from the hands of the slave, or by opening the door for him to escape. The Lombards delivered him to one man, this man delivered him to a third, the third to a fourth, who told him he had leave to go east, west, north, or south. The owner might also deliver his slave to the king, that the king might deliver him to the priest, who might manumit him at the altar. Among the Lombards, the symbol was sometimes an arrow, which, being delivered to the slave, betokened that he was now privileged to bear arms, the distinguishing characteristic of freedom.* The condition of the liberti varied; those

* See Muratori's Ital. Scriptor. Rerum, Vol. I. Pars ii. p. 90.

who were emancipated before the altar were exempted from every species of dependence. The same may be said of the manumissio per denarium, per quartam manum, per portas patentes; but if per chartam, the libertus obtained a much less share of freedom; if he escaped from personal, he was still subject to other service, and to the jurisdiction of his late owner. The rustic freedman seldom possessed any land, and if he removed, as his new condition allowed him, to any city or town, he was still bound by an annual return to his patron. He could not depose in a court of justice to that patron's prejudice, nor marry without his consent. The ingenuus, who enjoyed freedom without any civil dignity, and who was privileged to carry arms, often engaged himself as the client of some chief, with whom he fought during war, and administered justice during peace ; if no client, he was still liable to military service, and to assist in the local courts. Among the Salian Franks, if a freeman married a slave, he became a slave. The Ripuarians were still more severe; the woman who had married a slave was offered, by the local judge or court, a sword and a spindle; if she took the former, she must kill her husband; if the latter, she must embrace servitude with him. Greater severity still was found among the Burgundians, Visigoths, and Lombards. Among the Saxons, says Adam of Bremen, it is commanded that no unequal marriages be contracted, that noble marry with noble, freeman with freewoman, freedman with freedwoman, slave with slave; for if any one should marry out of his condition, he is punished with death. A criminal leniency towards crimes committed against slaves, and great severity towards crimes committed by that unfortunate class, characterize more or less all the German codes. By the Lex

Saxonum, the mulct for the murder of a noble was 1440 sols to the kindred, besides a fine to the State; for that of a freedman, 120; for that of a slave by a noble, 36; but by a freedman an oath of compurgation sufficed.

The perpetual wars in which these nations were engaged, greatly increased the number of slaves. The Goth, the Burgundian, or the Frank, who returned from a successful expedition, dragged after him a long train of sheep, of oxen, and of human captives, whom he treated with the same brutal contempt. The youths of an elegant form were set apart for the domestic service; a doubtful situation, which alternately exposed them to the favorable or cruel impulse of passion. The useful smiths, carpenters, cooks, gardeners, etc. employed their skill for the benefit of their masters. But the Roman captives, who were destitute of art, but capable of labor, were condemned, without regard to their former condition, to tend the cattle, and cultivate the lands of the barbarians. The number of the hereditary bondsmen, who were attached to he Gallic estates, was continually increased by new supplies. When the masters gave their daughters in marriage, a train of useful servants, chained on the wagons to prevent their escape, was sent as a nuptial present into a distant country. The Roman laws protected the liberty of each citizen against the rash effects of his own distress or despair. But the subjects of the Merovingian kings might alienate their personal freedom.* From the reign of Clovis, during five successive centuries, the laws and manners of Gaul uniformly tended to promote the increase and to confirm the duration of personal servitude.

* "Licentiam habeatis mihi qualemcunque volueritis disciplinam ponere; vel venumdare, aut quod vobis placuerit de me facere."

In a later age, and during the prevalence of the feudal system, the lower class of the population may be considered under three divisions. 1. Freemen, distinguished among the writers of the Middle Ages as Arimanni, Conditionales, Originarii, Tributales, etc. These persons possessed some small allodial property of their own, and, besides that, cultivated some farm belonging to their more wealthy neighbors, for which they paid a fixed rent, and likewise bound themselves to perform several small services. These were properly free persons; yet such was the spirit of oppression cherished by the great landholders, that many freemen in despair renounced their liberty, and voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to their powerful masters. This they did in order that their masters might become more immediately interested to afford them protection, together with the means of subsisting themselves and their families. It was still more common for freemen to surrender their liberty to bishops or abbots, that they might partake of the security which the vassals and slaves of monasteries and churches enjoyed.

2. Villani. They were likewise adscripti gleba or villa, from which they derived their name. They differed from slaves in that they paid a fixed rent to their master for the land which they cultivated, and, after paying that, all the fruits of their labor and industry belonged to themselves in property. They were, however, precluded from selling the lands on which they dwelt. Their persons were bound, and their masters might reclaim them, at any time, in a court of law, if they strayed. In England, at least from the reign of Henry II., the villeins were incapable of holding property, and destitute of redress, except against the most outrageous injuries. Their tenure bound them to what were called villein-services, such as the felling of timber,

the carrying of manure, and the repairing of roads. But by the customs of France and Germany, persons in this abject state seem to have been serfs, and distinguished from villeins, who were only bound to fixed payments and duties.*

3. Servi. The masters of slaves had absolute power over their persons, and could inflict punishment when they pleased, without the intervention of a judge. They possessed this dangerous right, not only in the more early periods, when their manners were fierce, but it continued as late as the twelfth century. Even after this jurisdiction of masters came to be restrained, the life of a slave was deemed to be of so little value, that a very slight compensation atoned for taking it away. In cases where culprits who were freemen were punished by fine, slaves were punished corporeally. Slaves might be put to the rack on very slight occasions. During several centuries after the barbarous nations embraced Christianity, slaves who lived together as husband and wife were not joined together by any religious ceremony, and did not receive the nuptial benediction from a priest. When this connection came to be considered as lawful marriage, the slaves were not permitted to marry without the consent of their masters; and such as ventured to do so, without obtaining this consent, were punished with great severity, and sometimes were put to death. Afterwards, such delinquents were subjected only to a fine. All the children of slaves were in the same condition with their parents, and became the property of their masters. Slaves

* See Ducange on the words Villanus, Servus, Obnoxatio. Also Hallam's Middle Ages, Vol. I. p. 121, and a note in Vol. I. of Robertson's Charles V.