He was

govern in his name, with the advice of his four uncles. crowned 3rd of November, and the four princes signed an act that Anjou should be Regent, but do no grosses et pesantes besognes" without the consent of a council of twelve, of which he should be president, "selon son degré d'aînesse." The guardianship was to be in Burgundy and Bourbon, but all offices about his person to be filled with the consent of Anjou and Berri. This instrument, as well as the award, was registered.

In 1393 Charles VI. made two Ordonnances, one giving to his brother Orleans the Regency in case he should die before his son was of age; the other giving the Guardianship to the Queenmother, along with his paternal uncles Burgundy and Berri, his maternal uncle Bourbon, and the Duke of Bavaria, his wife's brother, and appointing each in succession Guardian in the event of the Queen-mother's decease or marriage. The Ordonnances of 1403 and 1407 are mentioned in the text, as is the Dauphin's (Charles VII.) proceeding on his father's death. His proclamation says," Connu assez qu'il a plû à Dieu nous laisser seul fils de Monseigneur, son vraie héritier et successeur de sa couronne, et par ce ayons pris comme il nous appartenoit et appartient, et à nul autre, attendû les notoires exoines et empêchemens de mon dit Seigneur, la régence et administration du Royaume."

Louis XI. died in 1483, his son Charles VIII. being thirteen years and two months old. He was therefore, by the Ordonnance of 1374, of age, and there ought to have been no Regency; still less by the more authoritative law of 1407, declaring the majority of the King at any age. But Louis wholly disregarded both the one and the other, and appointed his eldest daughter, Anne, wife of Pierre de Bourbon-Beaujeu (who was in her twenty-third year), to administer the government, having first exacted an oath from his son Charles, and his son-in-law d'Orléans, that they would submit to her. D'Orléans, however, disputed her title, and the States-General, in their great meeting at Tours, 1484, after long and violent debates, determined that she and her husband should remain about the King's person, and that he should conduct the

government, but with the advice of the Council, which was to be composed of the princes of the blood, with twelve members of the States, chosen by the King and those princes. It was urged in the debate, by the d'Orléans party, that the Regency and Guardianship were matters, from the nature of monarchical government, wholly beyond the cognizance of the States, who could only make representation of grievances and discuss the imposition of taxes; while others, with the concurrence of the Bourbon or Beaujeu party, asserted the right of the States to the fullest extent, and some even denied that the constitution recognised any such body as princes of the blood.

These frequent appeals to the States on the subjects of Succession and Regency in times of difficulty, owing to the suspension of the royal authority, are remarkable, and illustrate the proposition that in all periods of the French history the popular element existed in the government.

The valuable paper of M. Oudart de Brequigny, Recherches sur les Régences en France (Acad. des Inser. L. 520), deserves to be consulted on this subject, because it brings together all the facts, but it gives nothing beyond a summary of them. It begins with the death of Louis X. (Hutin) in 1316; it is therefore deficient as to the preceding history; and it gives an imperfect, indeed an inaccurate, account of the proceedings in 1484, probably from Masselin's full account of that meeting not having then been published. An extract of it, taken from Garnier's publication, is given in Col. des Et. Gén. X.

NOTE LXXIII.—p. 350.

The references in this book are to the quarto edition of Monstrelet, in three volumes, Paris, 1512, Petit and Michel. The first volume is divided into chapters, the second and third are not, but must be cited by the folio. The third begins with the year 1445, and, consequently, according to M. Dacier, is not Monstrelet's; for he proves pretty clearly that, beside deducting the last thirteen

years from 1453, when Monstrelet died, the nine preceding years cannot be by him. This, therefore, would confine his work to the first two volumes (Mém. Ac. d'Inscriptions, xliii. p. 535).

Johnes's translation is from another edition, possibly the folio one, and is divided into volumes and chapters of each volume. The quarto edition here referred to has 268 chapters in vol. I. By a mistake Chapter 113 succeeds Chapter 111; and therefore Chapter 116, instead of 115, answers to Chapter 115, Vol. I. of Johnes. Making this correction, the reader can easily refer from the chapters cited here to those in Johnes. There are very few references to the second volume of the quarto edition.— The references to Froissart are to the quarto edition, of which the first and second volumes, printed by Regnault, have no date; the third and fourth, by Verendaux, have the date 1518. The whole four are without chapters, and only referred to by the folio.

It is much to be lamented by the inquirers into the history of Charles VI. and Charles VII., that there should be so few papers on this period of French history to be found in that invaluable repository of antiquarian learning, the Mém. de l'Académie des Inscriptions;' but some there are of considerable interest. M. Bonamy's two Mémoires in tom. xx. throw great light on the history and treatment of Jacques Cœur. M. Oudart de Brequigny's 'Recherches sur les Régences en France' (tom. li. 520) has already been referred to (Note LXXII.). The memoir of M. Boivin (Sur la Bibliothèque du Louvre) has also been already referred to (Note LXI.).

6

Two memoirs, Sur la Noblesse Française,' by M. Desormeaux (tom. xlvi. 632 et 657), deserve to be consulted, as does M.

Sibert's Sur les Cours Plénières' (tom. xli. 583).

LONDON PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET.