benefices under a pretext of disorderly conduct or infidelity to the trust reposed; accordingly all the protestations that were made, and all the treaties that were enforced, were designed to oppose such a procedure. Thus we find, from the fifth to the tenth century: _First_, numerous examples of benefices being arbitrarily taken away; this was the practice of the giver, when his power corresponded to his desire. _Secondly_, benefices taken away on account of unfaithfulness, disorder, treachery; this was a right. The Precaria. II. As to benefices granted for a limited time, Montesquieu affirms, after the _Book of Fiefs_, that they were at first granted for one year. I have not been able to find any positive example of this. It is not however impossible that there may have been such, similar to the _precaria_ belonging to churches. _Precarium_, among the Romans, signified a grant of property on the tenure of usufruct for a limited time, which was generally pretty short. Under the monarchy of the Franks, we have seen that the churches often consolidated their wealth in this way, in order to secure a permanent revenue. Charles the Bald decreed that the _precaria_ should be held for five years and renewed every five years. Seizure Of Church Property. The only benefices which appear to me to have been granted for a time, ostensibly so at least, are those which arose out of the ecclesiastical wealth taken by Charles Martel (about A.D. 720), and which were then possessed under the designation _precarious_. {118} Before this period we find kings and mayors interposing their authority in order to obtain, under the title of _precarious_, the enjoyment of certain church wealth for certain persons. It appears that Charles Martel did more at that time than grant or cause the retention of church property, under the title of _precaria_,--he also completely stripped the churches, in order to confer their wealth as benefices. But, after him, Pepin and Carloman, his sons, while they also took the wealth of churches in order to confer them on their vassals, only took it on the title of _precaria_. The ecclesiastics protested vigorously against the spoliation of Charles Martel, and it was upon their protestations that Pepin ordained that the wealth which could be restored should be actually returned, and that what could not be so restored, should be held under the title _precaria_, at fixed rentals, till they could again be transferred to the church. Pepin and Charlemagne used rigorous measures to secure that the holders, _in precario_, of church wealth should fulfil their obligations to its primitive proprietors; and we may gather, from the frequency of their orders, that these orders were often treated with contempt. It is nevertheless evident that the practice of taking the goods of the church, and placing them in other hands, whether absolutely, or under the title of precarious, continued under even the most