than on the protection of the state. Enfranchisement. Many learned men also think that the practice of enfranchisement which prevailed at this period created many free men--as completely so, as if they had inherited their freedom as a birthright. This also is, I think, a mistake. Enfranchisement was frequent, but it conferred complete freedom on very few; it transformed many into cultivators and tributaries, or placed them in other analogous positions, which however did not insure entire liberty. In order to be convinced of this, we have only to examine the acts of enfranchisement themselves. There were several kinds, and each was attended with different consequences. We find, _First_, the _denariales_, or enfranchised with respect to the king; although their life was valued at 200 _solidi_, like the life of a Frank, yet their liberty was incomplete; they could not bequeath property to others than their children; the composition for their lives was paid to the king, not to their relatives, which plainly shows that the king regarded them, as _homines regii_. _Second_, those enfranchised with respect to the church, or _tribularii_. {147} Those thus enfranchised became _homines ecclesiastici;_ they could not become _denariales_ according to the laws of the Ripuarians, and their property went to the church if they died without issue. _Third_, those enfranchised _per chartam, chartulari_i. The expressions of the charter which gave them their liberty seem to be completely unambiguous; but it is doubtful whether the results were similarly unambiguous, since the _denariales_ themselves remained, in certain respects, in an inferior condition. The statutes of Charlemagne, which provide that the terms of composition for the _denariales_ should be paid to the king, and that they should not possess their liberty as a heritage till after the third generation, apply the same conditions also to the _chartularii_, and even to those who were enfranchised to the church, the _tabularii_.