Chapter IX: Part 9

Several anathemas and excommunications were issued, as well by pope Eugenius as by pope Felix, which created many wounds and schisms in the church. When the king of France heard of these differences, being anxious to restore union and greatly hurt at the measures now passing, sent several embassies to Basil, to Rome, and to Savoy, to put an end to such shameful disputes. In like manner did duke Louis of Savoy, son to Amadeus now pope Felix, send several times to the king of France at Tours, to endeavour to bring about a reconciliation.

The king of France, in the month of November in the year 1447; seeing there was no end to these disputes deliberated with his council on the shortest means to stop this schism, and resolved that all the anathemas and censures that had been published respectively by each pope against the other should be considered as null and void; that pope Eugenius should be acknowledged as the true pope, as had been done before the commencement of these disputes; and that the lord Amadeus of Savoy, who had been styled Felix V. should remain with dignity and honour in the holy church; that those of his party in the council of Basil should be recommended to ecclesiastical dignities and honours, that peace might be universally restored, and a general council called for the strengthening of the union of our holy church, which could not take place until an end was put to these discords, nor could any solid judgments be given until such a happy pacification should take effect.

King Charles sent these resolutions, which had been concluded by himself and his council, to pope Eugenius by the archbishop of Aix in Provence, who was going to Rome on other matters. He sent likewise copies of them to Savoy and Basil, by master Helye de Pompadour, archdeacon of Carcassonne, who was afterward bishop of Alet in Languedoc.

It happened unfortunately, that before the king could receive an answer from eight of the parties, pope Eugenius died, namely, in the month of February following, and the archbishop found him dead on his arrival at Rome. Almost instantly on his decease, Thomas de Sarzana, bishop of Bologna, was elected pope and took the name of Nicholas V. At his election, every accustomed ceremony was observed.

Duke Louis of Savoy sent also to the king at Bourges, to urge him to cause pope Nicholas to be acknowledged, and to desire that he would in the first place have a general council assembled. In the mean time, the king, having received bulls from pope Nicholas to make him acquainted with his election, determined, after some deliberations in council to acknowledge him in the same manner as he had done pope Eugenius, but not to desist from the measures he was taking for the general union of the church.

The king in consequence, sent commissioners to Lyons, and told the ambassadors from the duke of Savoy, that he wished their lord to do the same,--and that the members of the council of Basil should also meet them, in order that there might be a numerous assembly, to consider on the means of restoring peace to the church.

In the ensuing month of July, the king's commissioners arrived at Lyons, where they met the archbishop of Treves and ministers from the archbishop of Cologne, from the duke of Saxony, one of the electors of the empire, who had waited on the king, respecting this matter of union. Thither came also the cardinal of Arles[142], the provost of Montieu, and many others, as well from the duke of Savoy as from the council at Basil.

After several conferences, it was the opinion of those who came from Basil, that the king's commissioners should go to Geneva, where pope Felix resided, to have a personal interview with him, who would gladly see them. While this matter was under discussion, the count de Dunois came to Lyons, sent thither by the king to escort the ambassadors from England. These ambassadors agreeing in the said proposal, they all set out together for Geneva, in the month of November, accompanied by the archbishop of Embrun, the lord de Malicorne, the bishop of Marseilles, the ambassador from the king of Sicily, who had come to Lyons to assist in promoting a general union of the church.

The ambassadors from the duke of Saxony went also with them to Geneva; but the archbishop of Treves had returned home, and the commissioners from the archbishop of Cologne had gone to Rome.

When they were all arrived at Geneva, they held many conferences with pope Felix, his cardinals and counsellors, and concluded on certain articles for a pacification, on condition that pope Nicholas would also agree to them. When this was done, the french commissioners returned with these articles to the king at Tours, and reported to him all that had passed. He approved of what had been done as a probable ground-work for an union of the church, and sent ambassadors to pope Nicholas to request that he would also approve of these articles or otherwise arrange matters for a general pacification.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 137: Guilledon. Guilledou.--MS. Du Cange.]

[Footnote 138: Dudley. Audley.--_MS. Du Cange._]

[Footnote 139: In the 'Art de Verifier les Dates' is a short account of the factions which prevailed in Genoa.

In 1448, Luigi Fregoso was elected doge: deposed in 1450. Peter Fregoso succeeded him. The Adorné, and other families whom he had exiled, made repeated attempts, with the aid of Alphonso king of Arragon, to re-enter their country and depose him. Fregoso, nearly overpowered, prevailed on the Genoese, in 1458, to submit themselves to the government of the king of France. Ambassadors were sent to negotiate this affair, which terminated happily.

John duke of Lorraine was sent by the king of France to Genoa, and took possession of the town the 11th of May, 1458. He received the oath of allegiance from the inhabitants,--and the principal forts were delivered up to him. The duke was soon after besieged in Genoa by the Adorné, and others of the discontented in league with Alphonso. An Arragonian fleet blockaded Genoa,--but the death of Alphonso put an end to the siege.

This extract will sufficiently show the inexactness of Monstrelet's account as to dates and names.]

[Footnote 140: Thomas de Sarzana, cardinal-bishop of Bologna, was elected pope the 6th March 1447, and took the name of Nicholas V. The king of France sent him a magnificent embassy, with many propositions respecting the general peace of the church. I cannot find that any council was held at Lyons this year: one was held at Lausanne in 1449.]

[Footnote 141: For a very particular history of the quarrel which took place between Eugenius and the council of Basil, see Shepherd's Life of Poggio Bracciolini.]

[Footnote 142: Cardinal of Arles. See his life in Moreri.]

CHAP. LXXI.

THE DUKE OF ORLEANS RECEIVES FROM THE HANDS OF THE DUKE OF MILAN HIS UNCLE, THE COUNTY OF ASTI IN PIEDMONT.--THE KING OF FRANCE BESIEGES THE CITY OF MANS, WHICH SURRENDERS BY CAPITULATION.

In this year, the duke of Milan yielded up to the duke of Orleans, his nephew, the county of Asti,--and shortly after, the duke of Milan departed this life.

The king of France, at this period, laid siege to the city of Mans, because the king of England, on his marriage with the daughter of the king of Sicily had promised instantly to surrender that town, with all the other places he held in the county of Maine; and he had been deceived for three months by the specious promises of the english commissioners, who had not only refused to give it back but had introduced about fifteen hundred English into that town.

The king, therefore on being informed of this circumstance, ordered it to be besieged,--and sent thither a great force of men at arms and archers, to the amount of six or seven thousand combatants, under the command of the count de Dunois. The siege was pushed forward with such vigour that those in the town found resistance would be vain, as they had not sufficient forces to oppose their enemies on that side of the sea. It would have been taken by storm had not the bishop of Glocester, keeper of the privy seal, remonstrated with the king of France on the risk of the truces being broken between the two kingdoms were this to take place, and obtained a capitulation for them, by which they were to yield up the town, and march away in safety with their baggage and effects.

The king of France then resided at Lavardin, near to Vendôme, attended by some of the princes of the blood-royal, and a large company of men at arms to support, should there be occasion, the besieging army of Mans. After its surrender, the king went to celebrate his Easter in the city of Tours, and those before Mans returned to their quarters and garrisons, while, on the other hand, the English that had been in Mans retreated to Normandy.

[A.D. 1448.]

CHAP. LXXII.

THE KING OF FRANCE SENDS AMBASSADORS TO POPE NICHOLAS V.--THE TOWN OF FINAL[143] IS BESIEGED BY THE GENOESE.--IT IS REVICTUALLED BY SEA.--THE DUKE OF ORLEANS MAKES PREPARATIONS TO RAISE THIS SIEGE BY LAND.

In the year 1448, the king of France celebrated the feast of Easter in the city of Tours,--and immediately after, his ambassadors to pope Nicholas departed on their embassy. Some of them went by sea on board of vessels belonging to Jacques Coeur, master of the wardrobe to the king, and embarked at Marseilles. At the same time, a fleet of victuallers sailed from Marseilles, to the relief of the town and castle of Final, near to Genoa, then besieged by the Genoese. It was defended for the king by sir Galiot du Garet[144], lord of the place, who had made war on the Genoese, and they in return had besieged him. Notwithstanding their opposition, the town and castle were revictualled, and the vessels returned to Marseilles.

When this was done, Tanneguy and the master of the wardrobe, with three galleys, sailed for a port near Rome called Finette Vielle[145], where they arrived in safety, although pursued closely by a numerous fleet of the Genoese.

The duke of Orleans was at this time in his town of Asti, and having heard of the relief thrown into Final collected a large body of men to raise the siege: but when the Genoese learnt his intentions, they quitted their siege and marched away.

The french ambassadors met, by appointment in the city of Sienne; and, being all assembled, they set out for Rome, where they arrived on the 10th day of July in such grand magnificence that the like had not been seen or heard of before: with the king of France's ambassadors were those from the king of Sicily and the dauphin.

The english ambassadors had arrived at Rome long before them, and had laid before the pope the articles that had been agreed to at Geneva; but he had replied, that they were unworthy of his attention, and that he would not by any means consent to them. These ambassadors had on this left Rome for Viterbo, where they met the french embassy, to whom they related what had passed, and said that they would stay a short time at Viterbo, to learn from them whether it would be expedient for them to return to Rome,--as in fact they did, from the intelligence they received from the french ambassadors.

On the 12th day of July, the ambassadors from the kings of France, of Sicily, and from the dauphin, had an audience of the pope, on the matters they were come upon,--when the archbishop of Rheims, having declared the solemn obedience of their princes to the pope, explained the articles that had been agreed on as a ground-work for a general union of the church, reserving to himself to discuss them hereafter more fully in detail.

The pope made them a solemn answer, and from that day treated them with greater kindness and attention than ever any former embassy had experienced. They had several conferences with the pope and the cardinals on the articles of union,--to some of which the pope agreed, to others not.

When they had obtained all they could from the pope, they departed, and went to Lausanne, where pope Felix resided. Having explained to him all they had done at Rome, and what pope Nicholas was willing to agree to, they persuaded him to give peace to the church by renouncing his claims to the papacy. Pope Felix replied, that he would consult with the duke of Savoy his son who was on his road to Lausanne, and his principal counsellors, how he should act, and requested the ambassadors to wait the return of those he intended to send to the king of France in the city of Geneva, which, for the furtherance of peace, they assented to. They also, in compliance with the wishes of pope Felix, desired the lord de Tollette, ambassador from pope Nicholas, to come to Lausanne from Lyons, where he was waiting the effect of their conferences with pope Felix, with the bulls, to publish them, in case he should agree to the articles as settled at Rome.

Pope Felix, and his son the duke of Savoy, lost no time in dispatching ambassadors to king Charles, to solicit his interference with pope Nicholas, that he would consent to more of the original articles than he had done. The king on this, assembled his council, and, after mature deliberation, it was resolved to send other ambassadors with those from Savoy, to assist the archbishop of Rheims in the procuring a peace. He had with him the patriarch of Antioch, the bishop of Poitiers and the bishop of Alet, who, with sir John le Boursier, were to proceed to Rome to obtain certain letters, the form of which they were to draw up, for the more speedy accomplishment of union in the church.

After many persuasions, the above mentioned letters were obtained from pope Nicholas, and the ambassadors returned with them to Lausanne, when pope Felix V. relinquished all right or claim he might have to the papacy. He was after this, made perpetual legate of all Savoy. Those who had assembled at Lausanne, pretending to be the general council transferred from Basil, declared their submission to pope Nicholas as the true father of the church, and dissolved their assembly as a council.

This being done, the ambassadors returned to their respective princes. The patriarch of Antioch, the bishop of Alet, and sir John le Boursier, took the road to Rome, with the ambassadors from the pope, for the confirmation of all the acts done at Lausanne, and then returned to the king of France with the bulls of confirmation. Thus was this whole assembly broken up, and each went whithersoever he pleased,--and thus was healed that deep wound in the church, by the re-establishment of peace and union, through the indefatigable exertions of the king of France, who had taken great personal pains to bring it about, and had expended very large sums in sending embassies to the different kings in Christendom to unite them in so praiseworthy an object; for the kings of France would never support any schisms,--taking for their guide the holy scriptures, which have always led them in the right way.

At this time, the king of France ordered every parish throughout his realm to have one archer ready armed to march whithersoever he might be commanded, to make war, should there be occasion; and that they might the more readily obey this order, they would be relieved from paying any future subsidies. The bailiffs were commanded to select the most expert and able in all the parishes throughout their bailiwicks.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 143: Final,--a town on the western coast of Genoa.]

[Footnote 144: Sir Galiot du Garet. De Caretto.--MS. Du Cange.]

[Footnote 145: Finette Vielle. Q. Civita Vecchia?]

CHAP. LXIII.

SIR FRANCIS DE SURIENNE, CALLED THE ARRAGONIAN, TAKES THE TOWN AND CASTLE OF FOUGERES[146], BELONGING TO THE DUKE OF BRITTANY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE TRUCE BETWEEN THE KINGS OF FRANCE AND OF ENGLAND.--THE GREAT MISCHIEFS HE DOES THERE.

On the eve of the feast of our Lady in March in this year, sir Francis de Surienne, called the Arragonian, knight of the order of the Garter, and a great captain for the king of England in those parts of France under his dominion, took the town and castle of Fougeres, belonging to the duke of Brittany, situated on the borders of Normandy, notwithstanding the truces were not expired between the kings of England and France, and their allies. This town was of great antiquity, and full of people and wealth. Sir Francis had with him seven hundred men, as well English as from other countries, who committed every mischief by pillaging the houses, killing the inhabitants and ravishing the women. Not satisfied with this, he overran the adjacent parts of Brittany, making prisoners, and doing every exploit usual in war.

The duke of Brittany was very indignant when he heard of this conduct, and sent the bishop of Rennes to the king of France at Chinon, to complain that the English had, notwithstanding the truce, taken his town and castle of Fougeres, and had despoiled many other parts of his duchy, and requesting of him, as his relative, lord paramount and protector, that he would aid him by declaring war against England for that he was prepared to do so without any way sparing his own personal exertions.

The king replied, that he would never abandon him, but make common cause with him, as was just. In order, however, to have Heaven on their side, and to throw the blame wholly on their enemies, he would first demand reparation from the king of England, and also from the duke of Somerset his lieutenant-general on that side of the sea, for the wrongs that had been done him,--the duke having had full powers to make any reparation for evils that might ensue from the infringement of the truce. The king added, that he hoped the duke would make reparation, to avoid the inconveniences that must ensue from a renewal of war.

King Charles sent to England, to make this demand, his esquire-carver, Jean Havart, and master John Cousinot, one of the masters of requests of his household,--and to the duke of Somerset, Pierre de Fontenay, equerry of his stables. They brought answers from king Henry and the duke, that they disavowed what sir Francis de Surienne had done, although it had been currently reported that this capture had been made by their order and connivance.

The duke of Brittany, who was much interested in this capture of Fougeres, sent his herald at arms to demand a surrender of the place from the duke of Somerset,--that it should be completely repaired, and restitution be made for all the plunder of houses, jewels, and effects, amounting, in the whole, according to a valuation, to the sum of sixteen hundred thousand crowns. The duke of Somerset made answer, that he would no way avow any concern in the said capture.

When the duke of Brittany's herald was departed, the duke of Somerset, desirous of repairing the fault that had been done in those parts by sir Francis de Surienne, sent ambassadors to the king of France more amply to excuse himself from having been any party in the business, declaring his disavowal of it, and how very unpleasant it had been to him; which was frivolous, for he made no mention of any offer to repair the place, nor of making restitution for the wrong, but requested, for the general safety, that every thing might remain on its present footing.

The king replied, that if the duke of Somerset was so very much displeased at what had happened he should do his duty, according to the full powers vested in him, and make due restitution for the plunder so unjustly carried away, and restore the place in sufficiently good repair: and that if he would not do this, he might be assured that he would support his nephew of Brittany: that in regard to giving up to the English certain places as pledges for the maintenance of peace, he would do no such thing; adding, that his nephew of Brittany was allied to the greatest lords of his realm, and had many able commanders in his duchy, all of whom were very indignant at this capture of Fougeres, and who, it must be believed, would be eager to revenge it, by making conquests from the English: they would, therefore, attend to the guard of their own towns and castles: that for his part, he would take especial care to guard his own.

The ambassadors, having had this answer, requested the king to send to Louviers commissioners fully instructed: for that on their return to Rouen, they knew well the duke of Somerset would send persons properly authorised to meet them, and endeavour to bring about an accommodation. The king, ever wishing to avoid the effusion of human blood, and more desirous of employing gentle measures than force, complied with their request, and appointed commissioners accordingly.

The English now returned to the duke of Somerset, and told him all that had passed at the court of France, and that the king had sent to Louviers commissioners to settle the dispute respecting the capture of Fougeres. The duke immediately ordered thither commissioners to make up the dispute, if possible, with those of France.

This year, the English repaired the town of St James de Beuvron, which was what they ought not to have done; for by the articles of the truce, no places were to be repaired during its continuance, either by the French or English. In this year also, the English surrendered the towns and castles of Mayenne, and of Juliez in the county of Mayne, which they had promised to yield up when they marched away from Mans.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 146: Fougeres,--a town in Brittany, on the frontiers of Normandy, diocese of Rennes.]

CHAP. LXXIV.

THE POPULACE OF LONDON RISE AGAINST THE KING'S OFFICERS.--THEY INHUMANLY MURDER THE BISHOP OF GLOCESTER, AND IMPRISON THE MARQUIS OF SUFFOLK,--BUT THE KING SETS HIM AT LIBERTY.

About the end of Lent, in this year, there was a great commotion of the populace in the city of London, headed by the mayor of that city. Instigated by their evil inclinations, they inhumanly murdered the bishop of Glocester, keeper of the king's privy seal,--a good plain man, and very learned. They also arrested the marquis of Suffolk, who was a great lord, and imprisoned him in the tower of London. This mayor had great influence in the city; and, wherever he went, a sword was borne before him.

The king was, at the moment, three miles distant from London, at one of his palaces on the Thames, and greatly astonished when told what was going forward in London. He instantly sent for the lieutenant of the tower, who lost no time in obeying this order; and, after having heard a true account of what had been done by the mob, he commanded him to bring the marquis of Suffolk in safety to him, without delay, or that his own life should answer for it.

The lieutenant found means of delivering the marquis of Suffolk without the knowledge of the mayor or people, and of carrying him to the king's presence. After a short conversation, the king made the marquis mount his horse and fly toward the northern part of his kingdom, where he might find convenient means for passing over to France. He was, however, met by some of the duke of Somerset's men, who cut off his head, and sent it, with the body, to London.

In the mean time, the king summoned the mayor and townsmen of London before him. They were much discontented that he had set the marquis at liberty, and insisted that those of his council who had advised his deliverance should be given up to them, which was done for fear of enraging the populace still more, who instantly had them beheaded. Thus for some time were the citizens appeased[147].

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 147: I copy from Fabian what he says of this business.

'A.D. 1449.--Thomas Chalton, mayor.--And continuing the said parliament, the duke of Suffolk was arrested and sent as a prisoner (to content some minds) unto the tower, where he was kept at his pleasure a month, and after delivered at large,--the which discontented many men's minds; for to him was laid the charge of the delivery of Anjou and Maine, and the death of the noble prince Humphrey duke of Glocester,' &c. &c.--For further particulars, see the Chronicles of Fabian, Hollingshed, &c.

I suspect that Monstrelet has made a mistake of the bishop of Glocester being killed, for the murder of duke Humphrey of Glocester, which took place before. Suffolk was put to death by some pirates, and not by the duke of Somerset's men.]

[A.D. 1449.]

CHAP. LXXV.

THREE MALEFACTORS, TWO MEN AND ONE WOMAN, ARE CONDEMNED TO DEATH BY THE COURT OF PARLIAMENT AT PARIS.

On the 18th day of April in this year, three malefactors, two men and one woman, were condemned to be hanged. Two high gallows of wood were consequently erected, that the punishment for such evil deeds, as they had committed, might be exhibited to the public. They had confessed themselves guilty of thrusting out the eyes of a child of two years old, whom they had in wardship, of putting it to death by running thorns into its body, which was most cruel, and of being great thieves.

One gallows was erected without the gate of St James, on which one of the two men was hanged,--and another without the gate of St Denis, between the chapel and windmill, on which was hanged the other man, who had been a player on the hurdy-gurdy, as also the woman; and although they were both married, they had lived together in double adultery.

They were delivered to the executioner from the prison of the Conciergerie, but were attended by almost all the ushers of the parliament, because they had been sentenced by that court. Great multitudes assembled to see the execution, more especially women and girls, from the novelty of the fact; for this was the first instance of a woman being hanged in France. The woman was hanged, with her hair all dishevelled, in a long robe, having her two legs tied together below the knees. Some said, that she requested that it should be thus done, as it was the custom of her country,--while others said, that she was thus sentenced as a memorial for the longer remembrance of women, and that her crimes were so enormous she was deserving of a severer punishment.

Many prisoners were afterward hanged from the dungeons of the Châtelet, who had been therein detained some time until others of their gang could be apprehended. They had gone to different parts of the kingdom where pardons were obtained,--such as the dedication of Saint Denis, that of St Maur, of St Fiacre, of St Mathurin, and elsewhere,--and had attacked travellers in forests and on the high roads, under pretence of asking alms; but the greater part of them had been arrested, confronted with their companions, and executed by the king's officers of justice.

CHAP. LXXVI.

IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE CAPTURE OF FOUGERES, THE ALLIES OF THE DUKE OF BRITTANY GAIN THE TOWN AND CASTLE OF PONT DE L'ARCHE FROM THE ENGLISH.--GERBEROY IS AFTERWARDS TAKEN.

On the 16th day of May, in this year, while the commissioners from the king of France and the duke of Somerset were assembled, according to appointment, in the town of Louviers, some of the friends and allies of the duke of Brittany found means to gain the town and castle of Pont de l'Arche, on the river Seine, four leagues distant from Rouen.

This capture was owing to a travelling merchant from Louviers observing, in his frequent crossing of Pont de l'Arche, that it was but slightly guarded, and giving information thereof to the before mentioned friends of the duke of Brittany. He offered to take the place, if they would give him a sufficiency of men at arms,--and having explained his plans, which seemed feasible, they fixed on a day to meet him at a tavern in the suburbs of that town.

On the day appointed, several of those who had been ordered on this expedition, came to the said tavern, one after another, to avoid suspicion; two of whom were dressed as carpenters, each with his hatchet swung round his neck. Shortly after, the carrier arrived, with his cart laden with provisions. About midnight, they seized the tavern-keeper and his servants, and shut them up in a room, to prevent them from making any discovery, and then told their intentions, with which the master of the house seemed very well pleased, for he said he had been lately beaten by some of the garrison.

During the night, the lord de Brésé came thither with some men on foot, whom he placed in ambush near to the gate of St Ouen: he was followed by the bailiff of Evreux with four or five hundred horse, whom he posted in the wood on the side of Louviers.

When these measures had been taken, Jacques de Clermont and the carrier approached the drawbridge with his cart, and entreated the porter to let him pass, as he was in haste to get to Rouen, and return that night to Louviers, offering him at the same time, a present for so doing. The two pretended carpenters were with him, and the carrier pledged himself for them. The porter, through avarice, called to him another Englishman, and let down the bridge. When the carrier had his cart on the first bridge, he took out of his purse two bretons and a placque[148], to pay the Englishmen: but he let fall one breton to the ground, which the porter stooping to pick up, the carrier drew a dagger and stabbed him dead. In like manner, the two carpenters slew his companion on the second bridge.

On a signal that this was done, the ambuscade of horse and foot sallied forth, and, passing the bridges, entered the town, shouting, 'St Yves for Brittany! All the English were asleep when this happened, and were made prisoners, to the amount of a hundred or six score; among whom was the lord Falconbridge, an english knight, who had only arrived the preceding day, and his ransom was worth twenty thousand crowns. He was carried to Louviers for greater safety,--and the conquerors remained in the place for its guard, until other arrangements should be made.

When the English heard of this capture, they were much troubled and enraged. On its being told to king Charles, as he was desirous of the welfare of his nephew the duke of Brittany, he consented, after many conferences at Louviers, that mutual restitutions should take place, namely, that Fougeres should be given back to the duke of Brittany, with sixteen hundred thousand crowns, according to the estimate of damages done, and Pont de l'Arche yielded up to the English, together with the lord Falconbridge, who had been there made prisoner.

The English, however, peremptorily refused to agree to such terms, which was a most unreasonable conduct: and the king's commissioners employed apostolical and imperial notaries to draw up the offer they had made, and the english commissioners' refusal of it, that God and all the world might see how handsomely the king had acted, and that if a war should ensue, which God forbid! the blame could not fall on him. The english commissioners departed, on their return to the duke of Somerset, to relate what had been the result of these conferences.

The king of France, to proceed with greater security, sent the count de Dunois, and others, with ample powers to his nephew of Brittany, whom he met at Rennes, where he had assembled the greater part of his connexions, prelates, barons and knights of the duchy. A treaty was concluded, by which the duke promised to serve the king in person against the English, by sea and land, and never to make peace, or any alliance with them, but with the approbation of the king; in confirmation of which, he gave letters patent, signed with the hands and seals of himself and the barons of the duchy.

The said relatives and barons also promised, by putting their hands within the hands of the count de Dunois, punctually to maintain all the articles contained in the above-mentioned letters patent; and the count de Dunois engaged that the king should ratify the said treaty, which he afterwards did by letters to the duke. In these he promised to make the quarrel his own, and not to conclude any treaty with the enemy without comprehending him and his duchy, nor until the English should have restored what they had taken from him. In case the English should not, before the end of the ensuing month of July, surrender to the duke the town and castle of Fougeres, with an adequate sum for the plunder, the king would openly declare war against them.

At this time, the town of Gerberoy[149], in the Beauvoisis, was taken by scalado, by the lord de Mouy, governor of that country; and all the English within it, to the number of thirty, were put to the sword. Their captain was John Harper, who that day had gone to Gournay[150]. Thus was the place reduced under the obedience of the king of France.

A short time after this, the town of Conches[151] was won by Robert de Flocques, called Flocquet, bailiff of Evreux. About the same period, a gascon gentleman called Verdun, by the advice and consent of the duke of Brittany, took by storm the towns of Coignac[152] and St Maigrin[153], under the command of an esquire, called Mondoch de Lansac, for the king of England. He himself was made prisoner, as he was coming from Bordeaux to Coignac,--for he imagined that it was still under his command as before. In both towns many prisoners were taken.

When the English heard of these towns being lost, the archbishop of Bordeaux and the magistrates sent a pursuivant at arms to the king of France at Chinon, to request that Coignac and St Maigrin might be restored, and that he would send them passports, pretending that they would come to him; but nothing was done, for reasons known to the king and his council. In like manner, the duke of Somerset and lord Talbot sent to the king at Chinon, to require that the towns of Pont de l'Arche, Conches, Coignac and St Maigrin should be restored; to which the king answered, that if they would restore to his nephew of Brittany his town of Fougeres, and the effects taken away from thence, he would exert his endeavours that the duke of Brittany should give back the places that had been won by him, or by those who had taken them on his advice.

The english ambassadors said that they had no powers to interfere in the surrender of Fougeres, and therefore returned to the duke of Somerset at Rouen without effecting any thing.

Soon afterwards, another conference was holden at the abbey of Bonport[154], when the commissioners from France made offer to those on the part of England, that if they would, on a day to be appointed, surrender, for the duke of Brittany, the town and castle of Fougeres into the hands of the king of France, and pay the sum of sixteen hundred thousand crowns, the estimated value of the damages, all places that had been taken from the English should be restored, and even the lord Falconbridge, who had been made prisoner at Pont de l'Arche, and that all hostilities should cease on both sides. This the English refused; and the french commissioners returned to their king as before.

King Charles, having heard the report of all that had passed, and examined the instruments drawn up by the apostolical notaries, stating the damages the English had done to his relative the duke of Brittany: that they had very frequently infringed the truce, without making any reparations of restitution of places or effects, and their peremptory refusal of all the offers he had made them for the preservation of peace and the satisfaction of his conscience; resolved, after mature deliberation, that having done his duty most loyally, and the English obstinately refusing all his offers for peace, he was fully justified in taking every proper step for the defence of his country and of his allies, as well as for the recovery of such places as had been conquered from him or from his predecessors, the possession of which the English had so long usurped. He was advised to declare war against them, which would be just in the eyes of God, of reason, and of his conscience, otherwise he would not do his duty. It was concluded, that he should send ambassadors to the duke of Brittany, to concert measures accordingly.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 148: Two bretons and a placque,--small coins of Brittany and France.]

[Footnote 149: Gerberoy,--a town in the isle of France, four leagues from Beauvais.]

[Footnote 150: Gournay,--a town in the isle of France, on the Marne, three leagues from Paris.]

[Footnote 151: Conches,--a market-town in Normandy four leagues from Evreux, sixteen from Rouen.]

[Footnote 152: Coignac,--a town of the Angoumois, on the Charente, seven leagues and a half from Saintes.]

[Footnote 153: St Maigrin,--a town in Saintonge, near Grolle.]

[Footnote 154: Bonport,--an abbey founded by Richard I. king of England, in the diocese of Evreux, in Normandy.]

END OF VOL. VIII.

H. Bryer, Printer, Bridge-street,
Blackfriars, London.

NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.

Page 11. line 12. _Lord de Fontaines_.] The family of this nobleman (who has been often mentioned before) was of high estimation among those of Flanders, and is derived from the ancient counts of Alsace and Kyburg, the progenitors of some of the earls of Flanders, and (on the mother's side) of the illustrious house of Hapsburgh. Simon (the brother of Thierry of Alsace count of Flanders,) married the heiress of the Flemish family of Henninius--(I adopt the Latin termination of Pontus Heuterus, not knowing the true name)--and Baldwin, his son, was the first who styled himself by the surname of his mother. Baldwin III, his grandson, was the first lord of Fontaines. John II, lord of Fontaines, (who was killed at Agincourt) was a descendant in the fifth generation; and Baldwin IX, his son was the lord here named. Baldwin X, the next successor, married a daughter of the vidâme of Amiens, so repeatedly noticed in this history. [P. Heuter. Gen. Tables.]

Page 25. line 4. from the bottom. _Sir Jacques d'Anjou_] Qu. Charles d'Anjou? The third son of Louis II, king of Naples, of this name, was count of Maine, and in 1443 married Isabel de Luxembourg, daughter of Peter II, count of St Pol.

Page 25. line 3 from the bottom. _Count de Perdiac._] Bernard second son of the constable d'Armagnac, was count of Perdiac, and known by that name till his marriage with Eleanor de Bourbon, daughter and heiress of James II, count of la Marche (the husband of Joan of Naples) after which he assumed the more noble title of his wife. His son James was the unfortunate duke of Nemours beheaded by order of Louis XI.

Page 25. line 3 from the bottom. _Count de Vendôme._] Louis de Bourbon, brother of James count of la Marche above mentioned, count of Vendôme in right of his mother (the heiress of that ancient house) who died in 1446.

Page 27. line 3 from the bottom. _Bastard de Beaumanoir._] The bastard son of John de Beaumanoir, lord of Lavardin.

Page 28. line 9. _Sir James de Chabannes._] James lord de la Palice often before mentioned.

Page 30. line 6. _James de Harcourt._] William son of James lord de Montgomery (often mentioned in the early part of this history) and Margaret de Melun, countess of Tancarville. He married 1st Petronille d'Amboise, and 2ndly, Yoland de Laval, and dying in the year 1487, left only two daughters.

Page 30. line 7. _Lord de Moreul._] Should be Mareuil, Robert II, son of Robert I, killed at Agincourt. He married Michéle d'Estouteville, and died in 1476.

Page 92. line 17. _Marquis du Pont._] Louis marquis of Pont-a-Mousson, second son of Renè king of Sicily and Naples. He died at an early age.

Page 93. line 3. _Count de Blamont._] Isabel, daughter of Frederic, and sister of Anthony, counts de Vaudemont married Henry count de Blamont, whose son must have been the count de Blamont here meant.

Page 97. line. 6. _Duke of Burgundy._] Charles prince of Viana, only son of John king of Arragon, by his marriage with Blanche the daughter and heiress of Charles III, king of Navarre, was born at Pennafiel in the year 1421, and died in 1461 before his father. In his time the fatal feuds of the houses of Grammont and Beaumont which distracted the Kingdom of Navarre for nearly half a century, had their commencement.

Agnes sixth daughter of Adolphus duke of Cleves.

There was no issue of this marriage; and the prince left none but illegitimate children, in consequence of which the crown of Navarre passed into the house of Foix.

Page 116. line 6. _Lord d'Albreth._] Charles II, eldest son and successor of the constable, count of Dreux, &c. married Anne of Armagnac, and died in 1471.

Page 117. line 8 from the bottom. _Roderigo de Villandras._] Don Roderigo de Villandrado, first count of Ribadeo, was a Castilian by birth, of the town of Valladolid. He married Margaret a natural daughter of John duke of Bourbon. Returning to Spain in this year, he performed some essential services for the king of Castille, who, in recompense, accorded to him and his descendants, the valuable privilege of eating at the king's table on new year's day, and of having the robe worn by the king on that day. La Mayerne, hist. d'Espagne. Liv. 19.

Page 152. line 17. _Jacotin de Bethune._] James third son of John I. de Bethune lord of Moreuil, was nicknamed Jacotin. From him, according to Du Cange, the lords of Belfour in Scotland were descended, their family name being corrupted to Beatoun.

Page 175. line 6 from the bottom. _Lord de Beaujeu_] Philip, 2nd son of Charles II. duke of Bourbon, was called lord of Beaujeu, and died young. The title then passed to the fourth son, Peter, who married Anne daughter of Louis XI, the celebrated dame de Beaujeu, regent of France.

Page 177. line 5. _Bastard of Bourbon._] Alexander son of the duke. See the account of his death in p. 2.

Page 188. line 4. from the bottom. _La Praguerie._] "The horrors perpetrated by the Hussites at Prague gave occasion to the dread of similar consequences from the civil war kindled in France, and gave this faction the name of _La Praguerie_." Du Clos, hist. de Louis onze.

Page 190. line 4. _De Chaumont._] William V, lord and count of Chaumont, who died in 1445, leaving by his wife Jane de Mello, lady of Rigni le Feron, only one surviving son, Anthony lord of Chaumont.

Page 190. line 4. _De Prie._] Antoine de Prie, lord of Buzençais, &c. was grand Queux, in 1431, and married Magdalen, daughter of Hugh d'Amboise lord of Chaumont.

Page 202. line 2 from the bottom. _Sir Giles de St Simon._] Giles de Rouvray, lord of Plessier Choiseul, Precy sur Oise, &c., second son of Matthew II. lord of St Simon, killed at Agincourt, and brother of Gaucher, lord of St Simon. He was greatly distinguished in most of the military exploits in Picardy, Flanders, &c. and died in 1477.

Page 211. line 3 from the bottom. _Lord of Retz_] Giles de Laval, lord of Retz, descended in the fourth degree from Fulk Laval second son of Guy VIII. lord of Laval, who married the heiress of the ancient house of Retz. Giles was a marshal of France in 1429, and a man of distinguished valour, but of a heart and mind depraved to an incredible degree. Some historians however alledge that reasons of state precipitated, if they did not occasion his downfall, and that duke Francis was too well pleased with the opportunity of getting rid of a dangerous enemy, to examine very carefully into the truth of the articles preferred against him. He suffered at Nantes on the 23d of December 1440, the duke himself attending at his execution. By his wife Catherine de Thouars, he left but one daughter Mary, who married, first, the admiral de Coetivy, 2ndly the marshal de Lohèac.

Page 220. line 2 from the bottom. _The lords de Lannoy and de Maingoval, nephews to the lord de Croy_] John I, lord of Lannoy (a noble and ancient house of Flanders) married Jane daughter of John, and sister of Anthony lords de Croy; by whom he had the two sons here mentioned, viz. John II, lord of Lannoy knight of the golden fleece, who died in 1492; 2ndly, Anthony, lord of Maingoval, who was ancestor to the famous Charles de Lannoy, prince of Sulmone and count of Asti, one of Charles the fifth's greatest generals.

Page 221. line 5 from the bottom. _Du Cange._] Q. Renty?

Page 223. line 12 from the bottom. _Duke._] Charles duke of Orleans had been twice married before, 1st to Isabel his first cousin, daughter of Charles VI, and widow of Richard II, king of England, by whom he had a daughter married to John duke of Alençon; 2ndly, to Bona the daughter of Bernard constable d'Armagnac by whom he had no issue. His third wife was Mary, sixth daughter of Adolph duke of Cleves, who died in 1487, and brought him three children, Liewis afterwards king of France; Mary, married to the viscount of Narbonne; and Anne, abbess of Fontevrault.

Page 253. last line. _Montgaugier._] John II, de Sainte Maure, lord of Montgaugier and Nesle, married Louise de Rochechouart, daughter to John lord Mortemart, and died 1463.

Page 255. line 11. _Bastard of Bourbon._] Alexander, a natural son of John I, duke of Bourbon, and brother of Charles I, the then duke.

Page 258. line 5. _Lord de Dours._] _Dours_ Qu. _Douars_. Peter lord of Douars, youngest son to Guy V, lord of la Trimouille, and uncle to George count of Guisnes, left issue a son, John lord of Douars, in whose son, John, this branch of the house Trimouille terminated.

Page 258. line 5. _Lord de Contay._] Qu. Conti? Ferry de Mailly (often before-mentioned) was lord of Conti by descent from Isabel, heiress of that house, who married Colard de Mailly surnamed "Le Jeune."

Page 263. line 10 from the bottom. _Joachim Rohault._] Joachim de Rouault lord of Boisemenard, Gamaches, &c. marshal of France in 1461. The son of John lord of Gamaches, &c. who was killed at the battle of Verneuil in 1424, and of Jane du Bellay. He was distinguished in all the great actions of his time, was made constable of Bordeaux, and died in 1478. He was usually styled the marshal de Gamaches.

Page 270. line 8 from the bottom. _Jeanne de Bethune._] Daughter and heir of Robert I. (viscount of Meaux in right of his mother Jane, heiress of the great house of Coucy)--she married first Robert de Bar count of Soissons mentioned in a former volume, and 2ndly John de Luxembourg count de Ligny, of whom such frequent mention has been made.

Page 278. line 12. _Marshal of France._] Peter de Rieux, lord of Rochefort, third son of John II, marshal de Rieux, succeeded to his father's military dignities in 1417. The ensuing year he was deprived by the duke of Burgundy, and thereupon threw himself into the arms of the dauphin, whom he served with fidelity and great success for many years after. He was made prisoner (with some circumstances of treachery) by William de Flavy lord of Assy, at his town of Compiègne, and died of want and misery in a dungeon when only 48 years old, leaving no issue. This William de Flavy had been also principally instrumental to the capture of the Pucelle d'Orleans; and not long after the death of the marshal de Rieux, suffered in common (says Matthieu de Coucy) with all those who had any concern in Joan's captivity or death, a violent and untimely end. His throat was cut in the night time at his castle of Nesle, by the bastard d'Orbendas, at the instigation (as it is added) of his own wife; A.D. 1448. The punishment of his cruelty to the marshal de Rieux, in 1509, compelled the daughter of William de Flavy, with her husband, to pay 10,000 livres parisis for the masses for the soul of his unfortunate ancestor.

Page 284. line 6. _Lord de la Suze._] Renè de Laval, lord de la Suze, younger brother to the infamous marshal de Retz, whose execution is mentioned in p. 211.

Page 284. line 9. _Olivier de Cointiny._] Should be Coetivy. This Oliver, 4th son of Alan III. lord of Coetivy, and brother of the Admiral, was lord of Taillebourg and seneschal of Guienne &c. He married Mary, one of the natural daughters of Charles VII, in 1458, with a portion of 12,000 crowns of gold. His descendants were counts of Taillebourg and princes of Mortagne and Gironde.

Page 284. line 13. _Lord de Graville._] John Malet V. lord de Graville, grand pannetier of France.

Page 297. line 9 _Two brothers of Lord Stafford._] They were half-brothers by the same mother.

Eleanor, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock duke of Glocester, married two husbands--first Edmund earl of Stafford, (by whom she had Humphry, afterwards duke of Buckingham,) and, secondly, William lord Bouchier, created for his services earl of Eu in Normandy, whose two sons, here mentioned were Henry earl of Eu, married to Isabel sister of Richard duke of York; and William lord Fitzwarin. There were two younger sons, besides these, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, and John lord Berners, ancestor to the translator of Froissart.

Page 334. line 3 from the bottom. _Count de Foix._] Archambaud de Greilly, Captal de Buche, who became count de Foix (as before mentioned) in right of his wife Isabel, sister and heir to Matthew de Chateaubon, died in 1412, leaving five sons, of whom John, the eldest was count de Foix, and died in 1437, leaving Gaston IV, his successor, and Peter, lord of Lautrec and Villemur, his two sons. Gaston IV. (the count of Foix here mentioned) had for his mother a daughter of the count d'Albret, and marrying Eleanor, daughter of John king of Arragon by his first wife the queen of Navarre, transmitted to his grandson Francis Phœbus, the title to that kingdom. Of the four remaining sons of count Archambaud, Peter was a cardinal; Archambaud was lord of Noailles, killed by the dauphin at Montereau, in company with John duke of Burgundy; Gaston was Captal de Buche, count of Longueville and Benanges; and Matthew was count of Comminges in right of his wife, Margaret the heiress of that county. This Matthew died in 1453, leaving by his second wife, Catherine de Coras, two daughters only. The title of Comminges was then given by Louis XI, (who claimed it as a male fief) to the bastard of Armagnac commonly called De Lescun.

Page 335. line 1. _Lords de Lohéac._] Andrew de Laval, lord de Lohèac, second son of Guy XIII, and brother of Guy XIV, lord of Laval. He was admiral of France after Louis de Culant, but resigned that office to be made a marechal in 1439. He married Mary de Laval, lady of Retz, widow of the admiral de Coetivy, by whom he had no issue, and died in 1486.

Page 335. line 2. _Jaloignes._] Philip de Culant, lord of Jaloignes, seneschal of the Limousin, created a marshal of France the year before, on occasion of the siege of Pontoise. He died in 1454 without issue. He was nephew to Louis lord de Culant, admiral of France, and younger brother to Charles de Culant, lord of Chateauneuf, &c. grand master in 1449.

Page 335. line 5. _Lord de Mongascon._] Godfrey, second son of Bertrand de la Tour IV. count of Auvergne and Boulogne, bore the title of Montgascon. He was betrothed to Jane de Brezè, daughter of Peter count de Maulevrier; but afterwards married Anne de Beaufort daughter of the marquis de Canillac.