Proofs of the co-existence of various modes of conferring benefices, from the fifth to the tenth century. Of benefices that were absolutely and arbitrarily revocable. Of benefices conceded for a limited time; the_precaria_. Of benefices granted for life. Of benefices granted hereditarily. General character of the concession of benefices. Their tendency to become hereditary. Its prevalence under Charles the Bald. Military service. Judicial and domestic service. Origin, meaning, and vicissitudes of the fidelity due by the vassal to his lord. Transference Of Benefices. From the time of the invasion of the Gauls by the Franks up to the moment when the feudal system was definitely constituted, we find during the whole course of this epoch: I. That benefices were revoked, not only as a consequence of legal condemnation, but also by the arbitrary will of the donor. The power of absolute and arbitrary transference of benefices was practically in existence under the Merovingian kings. It is however very doubtful whether this has ever been recognised as the right of the donors. Such an act possessed a character of suddenness and violence which gave a shock to ideas of natural justice. Few men would consent to receive a favour of which they might legally have been deprived at the first moment of caprice. Montesquieu affirms that benefices were first held on an entirely uncertain tenure. The proofs which he gives are but of little weight. _First_, the clause contained in the treaty concluded at Andely, in 587, between the two monarchs, Gontran and Childebert, proves the fact but not the right. _Secondly_, the formula of Marculf again does not prove anything more than a common practice. Besides, the giver of the benefice presents a motive in this formula, namely, the necessity of the exchange. _Thirdly_, the law of the Lombards merely characterises the benefice as a precarious property, which it indubitably was. _Fourthly_, the _Book of Fiefs_ compiled in the twelfth century, probably converted the fact into a right. _Fifthly_, the letter of the bishops to Louis the Germanic also proves merely the fact. {117} It is evident that the right has always been contested, and that attempts have always been made to prevent the permanency of benefices is a fact also. "Charlemagne," says Eginhard, "did not suffer that every noble should take away from his vassal the benefices which he had granted to him upon any outburst of anger." The capitulary of Louis the Debonnair, which allows a year to the rejected incumbent whose benefice is in a bad condition before it can be finally taken from him, proves likewise that certain forms were observed with this view, and protests against a purely arbitrary disposition. That the patron had a right to take away the benefice, when the occupant had failed to discharge his obligations, is an indisputable fact. Now it would be very easy to abuse this principle of taking away