In the distribution of land among the victorious Franks, unequal shares were received by different parties, according to their rank or merit; but the chief, or leader of the army, had not the power of supreme disposal, and did not, as some seem to suppose, divide among his followers the conquered lands, to be held on condition of their rendering him service. Too proud a spirit of independence reigned among those fierce warriors to admit of any such arrangement. Each soldier felt his individual importance, and, when an enemy was subdued, looked for the share of the spoil that might fall to him, not as a gift from his leader, but as his own indefeasible right. Nay, he watched with the greatest jealousy the claims of his sovereign, of which a proof is given in the following well-known story. Clovis, king of the Franks, when plundering a church at Soissons of its rich utensils, appropriated to himself a splendid vase, over and above what fell to his share; but one of his soldiers, dashing it in pieces with his battle-axe, exclaimed, "You shall have nothing here but what falls to you by lot." The existence of a spirit like this was quite inconsistent with the supposition, that the leaders of the army established themselves at once, as the paramount lords of the soil, in the countries they conquered, and divided it among their followers, as among so many beneficiaries, who were bound to render service in return. The property acquired in the first instance by the followers, as well as the chief, was _allodial_, that is, independent--absolute. It was, to all intents and purposes a freehold, burdened with no other obligation than the duty of the owner to appear in defence of the commonwealth. But though the barbarian kings were not the sovereign lords of the whole soil, yet they received a much larger share than any of their officers. Fiscal lands, or royal demesnes, were appropriated to them for their own use, and for the maintenance of their proper dignity. These were, in many cases, granted to their favourites, to be held under certain conditions. It is said that no obligations of military service were expressly annexed to these grants; but there cannot be the shadow of a doubt that some substantial return of that kind was expected from the persons thus favoured by their chieftain. Indeed, a positive proof that such was the case, is found in the fact, that under Charlemagne, the possessors of these estates were required to take the field in person, while the holders of allodial property were only required to furnish soldiers, at the rate of one for every three farms.