Sir，But to resume the comparison of other constitutions of government with our own，I say，that if the Gothic constitution in Spain，either by original defects，or by deviating from，and not being reduced again in time to its first principles，was destroyed through the corruption of parliaments，and by the force of an army，one of which betrayed，and the other conquered the commons of Castile；the commons of France seem either not to have had，or to have lost，in the dark beginnings of that monarchy，all share in the supreme，legislative power.The great，original defect of having but two estates to share the supreme power，is an objection common to the Roman，and to the French constitution，with this difference：of the three simple forms of government，the monarchical，the aristocratical，and the democratical，Rome wanted the first，and France hath always wanted the last.Rome had a nobility and a commonalty，but no magistracy fitted by its institution to answer the purposes of that supreme magistrate，who is called king even in limited monarchies.France hath always had a king and a nobility，and hath felt in their turns all the evils of monarchical and aristocratical tyranny.
But the people have not had，I presume，since the government of the Franks was fully established on this side of the Rhine，and the form of their monarchy settled，any share in the supreme power，either collectively or representatively，how much soever a contrary notion may have been countenanced by some writers，and have been generally entertained，at least in other countries.
There is no nation in the world，says Mézeray，more illustrious，nor any whose original is more obscure than that of the French.They who would dispute the first，could hardly dispute the last；and it is no business of mine to controvert either.As dark as their original is，we may discover enough to establish what hath been said，and to carry on the comparison we are making.
The Franks were a nation of Germany，seated at one time between the Elbe，Rhine and Neckar，and at another，that is，in the reign of Theodosius the younger，extending themselves on the German side of the Rhine，from Cologne down to Nijmegen，and still lower.What is known therefore of the government of the ancient Germans，either from Tacitus，or any other good authority，may be properly applied to their government，whilst they continued in Germany，and even after they settled in Gaul，till such times as we find，by relations more modern，that a different form of government prevailed amongst them.
Now it seems to me extremely plain，that a different form of government did prevail amongst them even from the time of Clovis，the conqueror of Gaul.
Thus，for instance，that passage in Tacitus，where he says 'that the ancient Germans took their kings on account of nobility，and their generals on account of valour；that the power of their kings was not absolute and unlimited；and that their generals commanded by the authority which their example，rather than their power gave them'；that passage，I say，is properly enough applied to the Franks before，and perhaps during the conquest of Gaul；but very improperly afterwards，when Clovis，both king and general of that people，had founded the monarchy which he transmitted to his posterity.That the nation of the Franks was divided into several tribes，or clans，and that these were governed by several little princes，cannot be doubted.Habebat quot pagos，tot paene duces.That a general was chosen to command the whole with sovereign authority，but according to certain rules made by common consent，whenever any great enterprise was undertaken，and that Clovis himself，though he succeeded his father Childeric in commanding over a part of the Franks，was chosen in this manner，and for this purpose，is certain.In his first expedition，he led an army of free-booters，and was obliged by compact to divide the spoil by lots amongst them.The story，which so many authors have told，after Gregory of Tours，of a private soldier，who refused to leave to his disposition a vessel of gold，that had been taken out of a church at Rheims，and broke it before his face，is a proof that he was nothing more at first than I have represented him，the head of a troop of adventurers，who chose him to lead them，but made their conditions with him.The Franks therefore might be at this time，in some sense，'all free，perfectly equal，and independent'；but will it follow from hence that they continued to be so，in any sense，after Clovis had founded their monarchy；had destroyed all their little kings；united in one body，and under his own domination，all their little states，and changed the form of their government，by appointing dukes，earls，vicars，and other magistrates，to govern under him，according to the model of government in the latter Roman empire？Certainly not.However this change was brought about，and to whatever it was owing，the monarchy of the Franks in Gaul was built on the ruins of their former government.This Boulainvilliers himself confesses，when he says (though not very accurately nor consistently，as I imagine，in calling their former government a kind of aristocracy)that 'the principle of union，which founded the monarchy on the ruins of a kind of aristocracy，was the mistaken ambition of particular men.'In short，proofs enough may be collected out of this very author，to show that the government of the Franks，even under the first race of their kings，was not only different from the German government，but in some respects founded on quite opposite principles.One of these respects，which is immediately to my purpose，Ishall mention.
