« ZurückWeiter »
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 Eng. land. 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. 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 error. Monstrelet (chap. ccxxxv.) speaks of the “countless sums” which he raised by 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 Gannt, 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," yet he honestly gives the Limoges massacre with fulness, and strongly reprobates it.
We cannot easily avoid noting, though assuredly no proof was required of it, Mr. Hume's carelessness in giving facts and referring to authorities which often do not bear him out. One instance occurs in the portion of his History to which we have been adverting. He places the march of Lancaster through France too early. He says it was “some time after Knollys's expedition.” It was three years after ; Knollys's being in 1370, Lancaster's in 1373. He says the Duke had 25,000 men with him, and he cites Froissart, who says 3000 horse and 10,000 archers (tom. i. fol. ccliv.). He also cites Walsingham, who says 30,000 horse (283), which is manifestly impossible ; if he were right, there must have been many more than 30,000 men, which number Barnes (857) appears to have taken from T. Walsingham, though he only refers to Froissart, who gives 13,000. Barnes confounds Lancaster's expedition with Knollys's in p. 800; for he says Knollys had 30,000 according to Mezeray, and only 12,000 according to Holinshed, and that he prefers the former authority. But Mezeray gives no number as to Knollys (i. 882), and as to Lancaster he gives not 30,000 but 40,000 (ib. 889). Hume gives Knollys 30,000, and refers to Walsingham and Froissart, neither of whom gives that amount. T. Walsingham (179) gives no number, and Froissart (i. fol. ccxxxi) gives only 5500 and 4000 Welsh. The Troubadour Chronicler of Bernard du Guesclin says 20,000 (ii. 131, ed. 1839). Dr. Lingard gives no particulars of either of these remarkable expeditions, des spatching each in a single sentence (iii. 103-4); but nothing can be more praiseworthy than the honest indignation which he expresses at the conduct of the Black Prince on the sacking of Limoges.
NOTE LII.—p. 238. The privilege of Parliament is sometimes said to have been extended by Henry VI. after Henry V. had resisted the claims and refused the prayer of the Commons. But this is not correct, both because Henry VI. can hardly be said to have extended the privilege, and because it was in 5 Henry IV. that the prayer referred to was refused. R. Chedder, Esquire, a servant (magneal) of T. Broke, Knight of the shire for Somerset, had been grievously assaulted and maimed, having come with him to Parliament; and the Commons prayed that it might be declared treason to slay a knight so come to Parliament, and mayhem with loss of the hand to wound him, and fine and ransom to assault him; and that the King would not pardon any such offender unless he made accord with the party aggrieved. The King refused this prayer ; but as to the case of Chedder and Broke, and as to all future cases of the same kind, ordered that proclamation should be made in the town where the offence was committed (that is evidently in the town where the Parliament was sitting), and if the party charged did not appear within a quarter of a year before the Justice to take his trial, then he should be held attainted of the offence, pay double damages to the party aggrieved, and make fine and ransom to the King ; and if he did appear, he should take his trial, and on conviction suffer the same punishment (Rot. Par. iii. 542; Stat. 5 Henry IV. c. 6). In 11 Henry VI. an assault and affray having been committed, but against a knight of the shire, and the Commons referring to the former statute, desired to have it re-enacted and applied to knights, citizens, and burgesses. The Act made on this extended also to Lords Spiritual and Temporal come to attend Parliament, and to Councillors come to attend the King's Council by his summons (Rot. Par. iv. 562; Stat. 11 Henry VI. c. 11). It is hard to see what better protection this act gave than the common law afforded, though it enables them to profit by the injury sustained ; for it merely re-enacts the Stat. 5 Henry IV. c. 6 as to all members of both Houses attending Parliament, and Privy Councillors. It certainly does not come within the description given of it by Dr. Lingard (iii. 498) of “a law for the personal security of all members of Parliament while attending their duty," the granting of which he says “former