but one conclusion, if, as is quite essential, he take into
consideration the unmistakable spirit of these writings, and if he
give a legitimate interpretation to the various terms employed. To
cite in direct proof any individual instance is, perhaps, impossible;
but indirect evidence is forthcoming in abundance, and of a character
to be, to me at least, entirely conclusive. The conclusion reached is,
then, that the king and the dukes were the successors of the old
_curia_ in the possession and the administration of all properties and
revenues, taxes and fines formerly belonging to the organized
corporations of the Roman municipalities, and that the _curtes regiae_
were the channel through which these were collected, divided and
expended.

The grounds on which this assertion is based are the continual
recurrence of examples of functions of a fiscal character being
exercised by the head of the _civitas_ and his officers, and by them
alone; and it appears to me that it could only be by a complete
misunderstanding of the spirit of the early writings, and by a
comprehensive misapplication of the terms used in them, that these
functions could be referred to any other power. These functions of the
administration may be grouped under three main heads, viz: 1. Fines
and forfeitures, which, of course, played a very prominent part under
the Teutonic system of composition for offenses of a criminal nature;
2. Taxes and privileges, by which is meant feudal rights, dues, etc.;
and 3. Buildings and lands belonging to the crown or to the head of
the _civitas_ as a public officer.

Of the fines and forfeitures paid into the _publicum_, we find that a
part went to the royal treasury and a part to the _judex_, and in some
cases to the informer or the prosecuting officer; and at different