different from the imperialism of Caesar or Napoleon, since they relied on the support of nobles and municipalities more than on a standing army; yea, on votes and grants from parliaments to raise money to support the army,—­certainly in England, as in the time of Elizabeth.  The Bourbons, indeed, reigned without grants from the people or the nobility, and what was the logical result?—­a French Revolution!  Would a French Revolution have been possible under the Roman Caesars?

But I will not pursue this gradual development of constitutional government from the anarchies which arose out of the fall of the Roman Empire,—­just the reverse of what happened in the history of Rome; I say no more of the imperialism which Charlemagne sought to restore, but was not permitted by Providence, and which, after all, was the dream of his latter days, when, like Napoleon, he was intoxicated by power and brilliant conquests; and I turn to consider briefly his direct effects in civilization, which showed his great and enlightened mind, and on which his fame in no small degree rests.

Charlemagne was no insignificant legislator.  His Capitularies may not be equal to the laws of Justinian in natural justice, but were adapted to his times and circumstances.  He collected the scattered codes, so far as laws were codified, of the various Germanic nations, and modified them.  He introduced a great Christian element into his jurisprudence.  He made use of the canons of the Church.  His code is more ecclesiastical than that of Theodosius even, the last great Christian emperor.  But in his day the clergy wielded great power, and their ordinances and decisions were directed to society as it was.  The clergy were the great jurists of their day.  The spiritual courts decided matters of great importance, and took cognizance of cases which were out of the jurisdiction of temporal courts.  Charlemagne recognized the value of these spiritual courts, and aided them.  He had no quarrels with ecclesiastics, nor was he jealous of their power.  He allied himself with it.  He was a friend of the clergy.  One of the peculiarities of all the Germanic laws, seen especially in those of Ina and Alfred, was pecuniary compensation for crime:  fifty shillings, in England, would pay for the loss of a foot, and twenty for a nose and four for a tooth; thus recognizing a principle seen in our times in railroad accidents, though not recognized in our civil laws in reference to crimes.  This system of compensation Charlemagne retained, which perhaps answered for his day.

He was also a great administrator.  Nothing escaped his vigilance.  I do not read that he made many roads, or effected important internal improvements.  The age was too barbarous for the development of national industries,—­one of the main things which occupy modern statesmen and governments.  But whatever he did was wise and enlightened.  He rewarded merit; he made an alliance with learned men; he sought