Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

tainly does not contain all the Rolls extant. A remarkable instance of the omission of a statute clearly made in Parliament, but apparently to be found only in the Rot. Par., is given in a subsequent part of the text (p. 237).

NOTE XLVI.—p. 165.

Few things in Henry's history are more discreditable to him than the manner in which he conducted these negotiations. When the French offered a cession of districts of which he had just obtained possession by force, he always urged the objection that these he already held, and these he would keep. Surely it is no invention of modern times, that until the conquests obtained by the sword are ratified by treaty, the temporary possession during war does not permanently confer a rightful title, any more than it gives a permanent security.

But his duplicity, in treating both with the Dauphin and the Burgundian, is worse. While he had any prospect of attaining his object, he never thought of picking holes in the title of either. It was only when his unreasonable demands were refused that he bethought him of that resource, and he did so with respect to both. At Alençon the conference had gone on for about a fortnight; and the objection which, if it meant anything, went to deny the right of the Dauphin to treat at all, was never even alluded to till the day before the conference broke up, when the negotiation was at an end.

There is some mystery in the part borne by two persons named Severac and Guitard at Alençon. They were none of the French envoys, yet they appear to have been in communication with them, though fully more in connection with the English embassy. It was they who told the English envoys that the Dauphin had secretly instructed his representatives to make the offer of Anjou, Touraine, Artois, and Flanders (Rym. ix. 640). Juv. des Urs. (366) manifestly parades his chief's patriotism by suppressing all mention of this instruction, and making the proposal come from

Henry; and so far the protocol bears him out, that the Dauphin's envoys decline it when made. Possibly they set on these two individuals to beguile Henry into granting a truce, on which they seemed much bent, perhaps with a view to the siege of Rouen then going on. The English envoys affirm that they are aware of the Dauphin having given authority to insert a condition in the treaty binding him not to make peace with the Burgundian; and they add that the Dauphin had entreated Henry to come under a like obligation (Rym. ix. 644). He did give instructions to that effect, of which we have a copy in Rymer (646). They are dated the 14th November. Yet he had, as appears by the letter to him from the French King, written to that prince on the 26th October-that is, to the Burgundian himself—and had granted passports to his envoys 5th November (Id. 632). But it is a signal proof of the perfidy which marked this negotiation, that the general instructions to his envoys who were to treat with the Dauphin are dated the very same day (26th October) with his letter to the Burgundian; and that in those instructions distinct reference is made to joining the Dauphin with his forces against the Burgundian, part of whose dominions Henry contemplated obtaining (Rym. ix. 630). Juv. des Ursins' silence on the Burgundian's conduct in the negotiation proves that he thought it did him credit as a good Frenchman, and that he had refused dishonourable terms. His Armagnac prejudices appear to have so far biassed him to a suppression of the truth.

NOTE XLVII.—p. 189.

The account in the text follows that of Monstrelet rather than the statement of other writers. It is more circumstantial, and, except in one particular, seems quite consistent with probability. That particular is the representing so much urgency on the part of the Dauphin's adherents, and the reluctance of the Burgundian, after a considerable time, to go to Montereau, intimating a sus

picion very natural to be entertained, and yet overcome without any very apparent reason, and to go almost unattended. The nature of Jean-sans-Peur was not very much that of a person who would have a struggle with himself, and, having entertained suspicions, would ever dismiss them from his mind. The fact, however, of his going, and with a small force in comparison of the Dauphin's, is admitted on all hands; and this of itself makes the improbability greater. Indeed it is one of the grounds of the doubt: so that on any supposition it requires to be accounted for,. and the difficulty, in some degree, is common to all the accounts, though perhaps greater in that which describes the reluctance and the pressure most strongly. Juv. des Ursins (369) states that the advisers of both parties cautioned them against going to the meeting, and he gives their reasons. He mentions the warning of the Jew, Mousque, to the Burgundian; and he adds that the latter made a very noble reply, saying he would run all risks of his person for the great object of peace, and would avail himself of the Dauphin's able officers to fight the King of England withal; and so, he adds, " Hennete of Flanders would fight Henry of Lancaster" (p. 433 infra). He describes the Dauphin as waiting from the 26th of August to the 10th of September for the Duke. He then distinctly states that each party placed his guards at his own wicket, which is no doubt most likely; and in that case, if the shutting immediately after the Burgundian entered was done by the keeper of his wicket, he must have been gained by the Dauphin's party, which is not very easy to understand, as the person posted by the Duke's men was likely to be one of themselves, ordered at the moment and upon the spot. Juv. des Ursins gives both the Burgundian and Armagnac account. former makes the Dauphin give the signal for attack, against all probability: the latter is extremely difficult to believe, for it makes the Dauphin begin by urging angry complaints of the Burgundian not having performed what he had undertaken. against the English; and adds that, in answer to the proposal that he should go before the King at Troyes, he said he should go how and when he chose himself, and not as the Duke chose. The

Armagnac account then states that Novailles, one of the Duke's ten followers, came up to him, and then the Duke became red, and said to the Dauphin, "Quelque voulez vous?-vous viendrez à présent à votre père?" laying one hand on the Dauphin, and drawing his sword with the other. This seems quite impossible in the relative position of the parties. The account goes on to state that Tanneguy du Chastel immediately carried off the Dauphin, and had no hand in the murder which followed. Juv. des Ursins (373) adds that Batailles, Lore, and Narbonne confessed having attacked the Burgundian; and that Batailles said. to the Burgundian, "You cut off the hand of my master, and I will cut off yours." He had been with Orleans at his assassination.

It is very probable that the conspiracy against the Burgundian originated with the followers of Orleans and Tanneguy du Chastel. The account in Monstrelet and in the text does not gainsay that supposition; but it seems very difficult to acquit the Dauphin of all previous knowledge, and hardly possible that he should not have been drawn in to being a passive spectator, and even conniving at it. The Burgundian being induced to go first from Troyes, and then from Bray, where he had stopped for days, is probably explicable by supposing that Tanneguy du Chastel had made large professions of altered sentiments and of attachment to him, and also that the woman Giac had joined in deceiving and persuading him. She and her husband remained with the Dauphin ever after, which plainly shows that they had been gained over. The giving the castle, a place of strength, to the Duke, while the Dauphin only took up his quarters in the town, was probably one of the measures employed to allay his suspicions. Juv. des Ursins, we must always bear in mind, was an avowed and a very warm adherent of the Armagnac faction. He and his family were great sufferers by the violence of the Burgundians, as he himself relates (340). He was made Archbishop of Rheims by Charles VII. (the Dauphin); and though he affects in one place to be a Burgundian, this is admitted to be a fraud, and it is not calculated to increase his credit. Monstrelet may have

had Burgundian leanings, but so far were these from being strong, that it was long a question whether he had any such partiality at all; and the arguments against Legendre and others, adunced to disprove it by M. Dacier (Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscr. xliii. 535), appear very difficult to resist. He shows that Monstrelet is more severe against Jean-sans-Peur than Juv. des Ursins himself. Pierre de Fennin (473) confirms Monstrelet much more than he does Juv. des Ursins. He was at one time in Charles VI.'s household, when that prince was under Burgundian influence, and so may be supposed to favour the party; but this bias does not appear in his History. T. Elm. (235) and T. Liv. (78) content themselves with shortly stating that the Duke was perfidiously slain by order of the Dauphin; and T. Walsingham (449), following the same course, declares the assassination to have been done by the Dauphin and his accomplices.

NOTE XLVIII.—p. 211.

It is singular that Dr. Lingard (iii. 375) should represent this proceeding as only indirectly implicating the Dauphin. "The young prince," says he, "is indeed mentioned by the designation of Charles, styling himself Dauphin;' but not so much as a suspicion is hinted that he was either the author or an abettor of the crime." Charles is no doubt so named, but that is not all. The preamble of the decree distinctly sets forth that Charles and Duke John had, with their servants, sworn peace on the gospel and cross, and in the hands of the Legate; that John had gone to Montereau, "at the request of the Armagnac," to keep the said peace; and then it proceeds to state that he had been "meurtrez et tué au dit lieu de Montereau, mauvaisement, traitreusement, et dampnablement, non obstant les dites promesses et seremens ainsi feas et renouvellé au dit lieu de Montereau par luy et ses complices" (Rym. x. 34). Now though the par luy may mean that the oaths had been renewed at Montereau, this is not quite certain, for there was never said to have been any oaths

« ZurückWeiter »