Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

taken at Montereau on the last occasion. The swearing was at Melun in July, and at Paris. But suppose we so read it; then it follows that the murder is laid as having been committed, notwithstanding the oaths taken by him and his accomplices—that is, by the Dauphin-for there is no other person mentioned to whom luy can apply. No doubt this being the charge, it is made against the whole, as it must have been; but the words non obstant, luy, and complices will bear no other meaning than direct charge against the Dauphin, as well as his servants, instead of "not so much as a suspicion being hinted against him." We are also to bear in mind that the requisition (requisitoire) or judicial demand of Philip's advocate, as given by Monstrelet, and which was the foundation of the whole proceeding, directly charges the murder on Charles by name, and adds the names of seven others-Louvet, Boutillier, De Loire, Layet, Tanneguy, Barbasan, and Narbonne (chap. ccxxxii.). The sentence is given, but in general terms, in chap. ccxxxix.

P. Griffet, the learned and diligent editor of P. Daniel, edition 1755, has a note upon the citation of the Dauphin before the Chambre de Marbre, and his condemnation by default to lose the succession to the crown, which P. Daniel, following Monstrelet and Juv. des Urs., had given as certain (vi. 554). President Hénault had denied this proceeding altogether, and regarded it as the same with the proceeding before the two Kings and part of the States at the instance of Philip, in which no forfeiture of the crown is denounced. P. Griffet says that the decree on th latter occasion does not pronounce against the Dauphin by name (nommément), which is true, but only under certain qualifications, as we have seen-for luy applies to him, and therefore he may be said to be named by reference. P. Griffet seems to think there may have been another proceeding, and that the decree is lost. His reason for so supposing is because of no forfeiture of the crown being decreed in the proceeding of which we have the particulars. But it is possible that Monstrelet and Juv. des Urs. may have regarded the general forfeiture as comprehending that of the Crown also; and certainly the words

appear to have been employed for the purpose of including the Dauphin's succession, some of them being peculiarly applicable to his case, as releasing all "people, vassals, subjects, and supporters from all oaths of fealty, promises and obligations of service," and declaring the forfeiture of all "future succession, direct and collateral, all dignities, honours, and prerogatives whatsoever" (Rym. x. 35).

NOTE XLIX. p. 217.

The distance at which this battle was fought from Rouen, an our having no account of what brought the English army to Beaugé, are circumstances that tend to perplex the historical inquirer. Nor is it easy to explain them by supposing a great reluctance to dwell upon the subject on the part of the English, to whom the particulars must have been known. It certainly appears that Clarence had before the battle pillaged Vendôme and Maine, and had encamped before Angers, when he heard of the Dauphin being between him and Beaugé. T. Walsingham (454) says that Clarence on finding or supposing the enemy unprepared to meet him was overjoyed, "secus quam tantum principem decuit." He says nothing of the Scots contributing to the defeat. T. Elm. (303) gives the most absurd and incredible account of the battle: first, he speaks of only a few of the principal English officers being engaged" paucissimum" and "manipulum;" and yet he describes the defeat as a great disaster, and with his wonted most execrable taste he puts a dialogue into the mouths of Moral Courage and Compassion as both in Henry's bosom and addressing him. T. Liv. is wholly silent on the subject, and does not even mention Clarence's death. His work was addressed to Henry VI., to whom he frequently speaks personally, calling Catherine "tua mater," and his birth "tua nativitas" (93). Indeed he also mentions, though this not in the second person, his having been begotten during his father's journey to England (91). P. de Fennin's account (485) has nothing remarkable, except that he admits the French to

have greatly outnumbered the English. Juv. des Urs. (389) makes the battle take place after a formal defiance and agreement to meet and fight on a given day and spot; but he says the English were craftily contriving to fight before the time, and failing to surprise their adversaries, were defeated. He absurdly gives the French loss at 25 or 30 men. The strange inaccuracy of this writer as to dates is exemplified in making the siege of Meaux take place before Henry went over the last time to England. Hall (107) ascribes the defeat to the treachery of a Lombard who deceived Clarence. Hardynge (384) reduces the disaster to nothing, and describes Umfraville as having had sharp words with Clarence, whom he counselled not to fight on Easter Eve, but was answered that if he did not like fighting, he might go and keep the churchyard.

That the defeat at Beaugé was of the greatest moment appears plainly from the manner of treating it when the Parliament met in May (1421). The Bishop's (Chancellor's) sermon was of a melancholy cast: he quoted the book of Job, "the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away," &c., and made no allusion to supplies (Rot. Par., iv. 129). P. Daniel (vi. 558), from an ancient document preserved in the Chamber of Accounts, gives 3000 as the number of English slain. A frequent error, as in Stow (381), is to confound the little river Le Loir with the great river La Loire, and so to conclude that Clarence had passed the latter.

One of the most gross mistakes committed by writers on this passage of history relates to James's liberation. Monstrelet (ccxxxv.) states that Henry liberated him before he returned to France in June, 1421. Goodwin (306) follows this account, and commits the further error of saying that James had been ten years a captive, whereas he had been nearly seventeen. In fact he was taken in 1405, and not liberated till spring 1424, above a year and a half after Henry's death, the treaty being made 4th of December, 1423, and the safe-conduct granted 28th of March, 1424 (Rym. x. 305. 332; Ford., Scot. Chr. ii. 474). Goodwin actually describes him as returning to Scotland in

1421, and holding a Parliament, obtaining supplies, and promising to improve his country. He makes him marry Anne, daughter of Clarence, whereas he married Joan Beaufort, Dorset's daughter. Holinshed (111) and Hall (119) give the facts correctly. Mezeray (i. 1028) represents James as having been delivered, and having returned to Scotland, all before the expedition. P. Daniel (vi. 556) states that the English and Scotch historians give different accounts of James's liberation, but that the treaties made by the court of France with Scotland, preserved in the archives, leave no doubt on the subject (see Note XXV. sup.).

NOTE L. p. 219.

error.

which he raised by

There is an unaccountable statement of the Chroniclers, as Hall, Holinshed, T. Walsingham, adopted by Goodwin in his History (302), that a fifteenth was granted by the Parliament of May. He states that the King represented to them what conquests he had made, and what supplies were wanted. Whitelocke (Mem. 130) falls into the same Monstrelet (chap. ccxxxv.) speaks of the "countless sums" setting forth, wherever he went in his progress, the extent of his conquests and the necessity of supplies. But the Parliament Roll is decisive, and gives the fact as it is stated in the text. The confounding of the Parliament in May with that which met in December cannot account for this error; for no such speech was made to the latter, as is described by those who have so misstated the fact; and the vote was not, as stated, of a fifteenth only, but of a tenth and a fifteenth together.

The force collected by Henry, and which he carried over the 1st of June, 1421, is variously stated, but generally as 24,000 archers and 4000 men-at-arms. If the proportion of attendants was the same as in his last expedition, his army must have amounted, not to 30,000, the largest number assigned by any writer (Monst. chap. ccxxxv.), but nearer 50,000. This force, and the addition he made to it in Normandy, must have

been exceedingly reduced in a few months by the military operations, the disease on his march from Berri, and the demands of the garrisons, if it be true, as T. Elm. represents, that he had but a handful of men left at the siege of Meaux.

NOTE LI. p. 235.

Mr. Hume suppresses all mention of Limoges, and pronounces the Black Prince a perfect character-one, he says, "to the hour of his death, unstained by any blameable action," ascribing to him particularly both "generosity" and "humanity" as his distinguishing qualities (Hist. ch. xvi.). But the massacre of Limoges is attested in detail by Froissart; in general terms by T. Walsingham; and Hume cites both writers in the page in which this extraordinary suppression is committed. Froissart's account of it is truly lamentable. "You would have seen pillagers active to do mischief, running through the town, slaying men, women, and children, according to their orders." [He had named the Black Prince, John of Gaunt, and others.] "It was a most melancholy business; for all ranks, ages, and sexes cast themselves on their knees before the Prince begging for mercy, but he was so influenced with passion and revenge, that he listened to none." (Frois., tom. i. fol. ccxxxv.) Yet five or six weeks had elapsed since the treachery of the town gave him offence. The poor, Froissart adds, were not spared, who could have had no hand in the transaction, though those were spared who had actually given up the place to the French. Indeed the Prince was so much delighted by a combat of some knights with his own officers, that "his heart was softened towards them." However, the place was "pillaged, burnt, and totally destroyed." (Frois.) T. Walsingham, though more general in his account, says (180), "Captam (urbem) solo tenus ferè destruxit, inventosque in eâ peremit, paucis captis et reservatis ad vitam." Though he extols the Prince's "clemency," and, like Hume, asserts that "no one could say anything against him,"

« ZurückWeiter »