Chapter XXV: Book THE FIFTH (4)

In Germany you are well acquainted with the animosity that rages between the houses of Austria and Bavaria, and how the house of Bavaria is subdivided within itself. The house of Austria again has the Swiss for its enemy, upon the account only of a small village called Switz (not able to raise 600 men), but now the whole country takes its denomination from it, and is so increased in power and riches that two of the best towns belonging to the house of Austria are Zurich and Fribourg, both of which are in Switzerland. Besides, they have won several memorable battles, and slain several of the Dukes of Austria in the field. There are also many other factions and private animosities in Germany; the house of Cleves against the house of Guelders, and the Dukes of Guelders against, the Dukes of Juliers. The Easterlings (that remote people in the north) withstand the Kings of Denmark; and, to speak in general of all Germany, there are so many fortified places, and so many people in them ready for all manner of mischief (as plundering, robbing, and killing) upon every trivial occasion, that it is a wonder to think of it. A private person, with only one servant to wait on him, will defy a whole city, and declare war against a duke, that he may have a pretence to rob and plunder him; especially if he has a little castle, perched upon a rock, to retreat to, where he can keep twenty or thirty horse, to scour the country, and plunder according to his directions. Robbers of this kind are seldom punished by the German princes, who employ them upon all occasions; but the towns and free states punish them severely whenever they catch any of them, and have often besieged and blown up their castles, for which purpose they have generally a certain number of forces in pay, who are always in readiness to defend them. So that these princes and towns in Germany are placed in this opposition and discord, that no one may encroach upon his neighbour—which is absolutely necessary, not only in Germany, but all the world over.

I have spoken only of Europe, for of the affairs of Asia and Africa I am not sufficiently informed, though I have heard they are not exempted from factions and wars, which are carried on even more mechanically than ours; for I myself have known, that in some places in Africa they have sold one another to the Christians; as Portugal can witness, which has had, and still has, abundance of slaves of that nature. But I think, we have little reason to object on this account against the Saracens, for there are some places in Christendom where Christians practise the same thing, but they are either situated under the Turk’s dominion, or else bordering upon it, as in some parts of Greece.

It may seem, therefore, that these factions and parties which prevail everywhere, are necessary for the world, and that these contradictions and oppositions which God has set up against all states, and almost against every private person, are so many pricks and spurs to enforce them to be just. For my own part, it seems so to me (who am a person but of indifferent learning, and will not hold any opinion that is not obvious to every one’s capacity), and that chiefly upon account of the brutishness of some princes, and the wickedness of others, who have judgment and experience enough, but choose to pervert it; for a prince, or any man else, who has power and authority over those with whom he resides, and has seen or read more than other people, must of necessity be greatly improved, or rendered worse by his conversation with men and books; for wicked men grow the worse for their knowledge, but the good improve extremely. However, it is probable that learning does more good than harm to the persons that are possessed of it, for being conscious within themselves when they act contrary to their reason, it deters them from doing wrong, or at least from doing it so often as perhaps they otherwise would; and though they be not really good, it makes them unwilling to appear bad, or be thought to do injustice to any one. Of this I have seen many instances among great persons, where learning has restrained them from putting in practice their mischievous intentions; and sometimes men are deterred by the prospect and dread of God’s judgments, of which they have a greater idea than the ignorant, who have neither observed nor read anything. This, therefore, I will venture to say, that those princes who do not know themselves, and for want of a right education, or perhaps through some defect in their constitution, are indiscreet and rash, cannot have any true knowledge how far God has extended the power and dominion which He has given them over their subjects: for they have neither read nor learned it themselves, nor conversed with any but fawning sycophants, who know nothing of the matter, and if they did, would be afraid to instruct and admonish them, for fear they should incur their royal displeasure: and if any bold-spirited men venture to remonstrate, they are so far from being encouraged in it, that they are at best looked upon as fools, and many times their good intentions are misinterpreted.

It is therefore to be concluded, that neither natural reason, nor our own knowledge, nor the fear of God, nor love of our neighbour, nor anything else, is always sufficient to restrain us from doing violence to one another, or to withhold us from retaining what we have got already, or to hinder us from usurping the possessions of other people by all possible ways. For if great princes once get possession of any towns or castles, though they belong to their nearest relations or neighbours, all the reasons above mentioned will not prevail with them to restore them; and after they have once published some artful reasons or specious pretence for keeping them, everybody applauds their reasons, especially those who are nearest about them, and desirous of being in their favour. I am not speaking here of disputes between inferior persons, for they have superiors above them who sometimes do them justice; at least, if a man’s cause be at all good, his pockets full, and he willing to part with his money, and unless the court (that is the prince under whose authority he lives) opposes him. So that it would seem probable that God is as it were constrained to show many signs, and to chastise us with many rods for our indolence and perverseness; but the brutishness and ignorance of princes are very dangerous and dreadful, because the happiness or misery of their subjects depends wholly upon them. Wherefore, if a prince who is powerful and has a large standing army, by the help of which he can raise money to pay his troops, or to spend in a luxurious way of living, or in anything that does not directly tend to the advancement of the common good, and if he will not retrench his outrageous extravagances himself, and those courtiers that are about him rather endeavour to flatter and applaud him in everything he does, than to dissuade him from doing ill (for fear of incurring his displeasure), who can apply any remedy in this case but God alone?

God indeed does not now converse with mankind after the same manner as He did of old, nor are there any prophets to declare His pleasure, but His word is sufficiently known and declared, and clear enough to any that are willing to understand it; so that there will be none excused for ignorance, especially if they have had time and natural sense to consider these matters. How, then, shall those great princes escape who keep their people in such subjection, that they raise what taxes they please by force, by which they compel their subjects to obedience, and enforce the least of their commands with penalty of life? Some of them punish under pretence of justice and have those about them who are always ready to comply with their wishes, and make a capital crime of what in itself is a venial offence. If they want sufficient evidence to condemn a man, they have ways of multiplying interrogatories, and falsifying the examinations of the witnesses, to weary the defendant, and destroy him with expenses, delaying his trial, and by that means giving encouragement to any that will bring a fresh information against him. If that will not do, and answers not their intentions, they have a shorter method, by stating the case as they please themselves, and giving out it was necessary the culprit should be made an example of. To others that are of a higher quality, and depend upon them, they say, “You have disobeyed and done contrary to the duty and allegiance you owe me:” and upon that bare pretence and allegation they proceed, if they can, to seize upon their estates by force, and reduce them to extreme poverty and distress. If they have a neighbour that is of a martial temper, they will be sure not to disturb him: but if his kingdom is in a poor weak condition, he will never be left at rest: they will assert he has assisted their enemies, or levied contributions on their countries; or else they will excite quarrels to give them occasion to ruin him. If that will not do, they will support their enemies secretly against him, and will supply them with troops. They think their own subjects live too long, though they have served their predecessors never so faithfully, and will displace[627] them to make room for new creatures of their own. They will molest and quarrel with the clergy upon the score of their benefices, in order to extort compositions for the enriching of some person recommended to them by such as are subservient to their looser pleasures, and who often have great influence upon them. They exhaust their nobility in preparations for war, which they undertake at their pleasure, without consulting their council, or such as they ought to advise with before they enter upon action, though they have employed both their persons and estates to enable them to undertake it. To the common people they leave little or nothing, though their taxes be greater than they ought; nor do they take any care to restrain the licentiousness of their soldiers, who are constantly quartered throughout the country without paying anything; and commit all manner of excesses and insolencies, as everybody knows; for not contented with the ordinary provisions for which they are paid, they beat and abuse the poor country people, and force them to buy bread, wine, and other dainties, on purpose for their eating; and if the good man’s wife or daughter happens to be handsome, his wisest course is to keep them out of their sight. And yet, where money is plenty, it would be no hard matter to prevent this disorder and confusion, by paying them every two months at farthest, which would obviate their pretence of want of pay, and leave them without excuse, and cause no inconvenience to the prince, because his money is raised punctually every year. I speak this in compassion to this kingdom, which certainly is more oppressed and harassed in quartering soldiers than any in all Europe; nor can anything but the wisdom of a king redress these injuries. But neighbouring countries have other modes of punishment.

CH. XIX.—On the Character of the French People, and the Government of their Kings, with Reflections on the Misfortunes which occur to both great and small.

But to proceed in my design. Is there any king or prince upon earth who has power to raise one penny of money, except on his own demesnes, without the consent of the poor subject who is to pay it, unless it be by tyranny and violence? It may be objected, that there are some times in which the assembling of great councils cannot be waited for, and that their debates would be too tedious. The preparations and beginnings of war are never so sudden but kings have time enough to consider of it; and when it is begun with the consent and concurrence of his subjects, the prince is always more strong and formidable to his enemy. If it be a defensive war, the storm is seen afar off, especially if it be an invasion, and then the good subject cannot complain, or refuse anything that is demanded: nor can any case happen so suddenly, but some important persons may be called together, to show the necessity of the war, which is much better than to commence hostilities arbitrarily and feignedly, with a design only to raise money. Money, I am sensible, is necessary at all times to secure the frontiers, in times of peace as well as war, that they may not be surprised; but all should be done with moderation, and depends much upon the wisdom of the prince; for if he be a good man he knows what God is, what the world is, what he ought to do, and what he ought to avoid. In my opinion, of all the countries in the world with which I was ever acquainted, the government is no where so well managed, the people no where less obnoxious to violence and oppression, nor their houses less liable to be destroyed and demolished by war than in England, for there the calamities fall only upon the authors of them.

Of all the kings in the world our sovereign has the least reason to use this expression, “I have the privilege to raise what money I please upon my subjects;” for that is a power neither he nor any prince else has; and they do him no honour who say so in order to make him appear greater, for they make him only more terrible and odious to his neighbours, who would never consent to live under his government. But, if our king or his courtiers, who are desirous of augmenting his reputation and grandeur, were to say thus: “My subjects are so good and loyal, that they refuse me nothing I ask them; I am the most feared, best obeyed, and best served by my subjects of any prince in the world; my subjects are the most patient under injury and affliction, and most forgetful of all past sufferings;” this, in my judgment, is more honourable (and I am sure it is true) than to say, “I take what I will; I have privilege to do it, and I will keep it.” Our late King Charles V. used no such expression; nor indeed did I ever hear it from any king; but I have heard it from their servants, who thought they had done their masters great service thereby; but they either mistook the interest of their master, or spoke thus to show their devotion to his power; if otherwise, they did not know what they said.

As an instance of the affections of the French to their prince, we need look no further back than our own times. At the meeting of the three Estates at Tours[628], upon the death of our good master Louis XI. (whom God pardon!), who died in 1483, that assembly in such a juncture might be thought dangerous; and some there were (but considerable neither for their quality nor virtue) who said then, and have often repeated it since, that it was a diminution of the king’s prerogative, and no less than treason against him to talk of assembling the Estates; but it is such as these who commit treason against God, the king, and their country; and those who use these expressions are in undeserved authority and reputation, and are wholly unfit for anything but flattery, whispering lies and stories into the ears of their masters, which make them afraid of these assemblies, lest they should take notice of them and their manners, and call them to an account for their villanous practices. This kingdom was at that time accounted very weak by all people, having endured for twenty years and upwards, such great and horrible taxes as exceeded all precedent by above 3,000,000 of francs per annum. For Charles VII. never in any one year raised above 1,800,000 francs; and his son, Louis XI., in the very year of his death, raised 4,700,000 francs, besides what was raised for the artillery and ammunition; and certainly it was a sad thing to see and hear of the poverty of the people. But one thing was very commendable in our master; he hoarded up none, but employed all he raised in building citadels, castles, or fortifications for the defence of his kingdom; which he performed with more judgment and profusion than any of his predecessors. He was likewise very liberal to the church, and in some respects more than was necessary; for he robbed the poor to give to the rich: but in this world no one can arrive at perfection.

And yet, in this weak, oppressed, and impoverished kingdom, upon the death of our king, was there any sedition among the people against the prince who now reigns? Did either nobles or commons take arms to oppose him? Was there any one else whom they desired to place on the throne? Did they endeavour either to deprive, or so much as to restrain him in his authority, that he should not have the power of a king? Not at all! and indeed if any had been so conceited as to say yes, they would have had none to help them, for his subjects acted quite contrary; and all the nobility, gentry, commons, and citizens, obeyed his summons, made their personal appearance before him, recognised his power, and swore allegiance to him. The princes and nobles delivered in their petitions humbly upon their knees, and a council of twelve were appointed to take them into consideration, and according to the advice of that council, the king (being then but thirteen years old) did either grant or refuse them. In the assembly of the Estates, the king and his council being present, some requests and remonstrances were made for the good of the kingdom, with all possible humility and deference to the good pleasure of the king and his council. Whatever was desired they granted; and whatever was made appear by written calculation to be necessary for the king’s expense, they complied with without the least opposition. The sum was 2,500,000 francs (enough in all conscience, and rather too much, unless some new occasion of expense happened); but, lest that should not be sufficient the Estates entreated, that at the end of two years they might be convened again, and in case he should be in want of money, they would furnish him with as much as he pleased; and if he were invaded, or in any way affronted, they would be ready with their lives, as well as fortunes, to support him, and would refuse nothing that he should demand.

Is it to such obedient subjects as these that the king should insist upon his prerogative, and take at his pleasure what they are so ready and liberal to give? Would it not be more just, both towards God and the world, to raise money this way, than by violence and disorder? For there is no prince who can raise money any other way, unless it be by tyranny, and contrary to the laws of the church; but many are so stupid as not to know what rights they have in this respect. On the other hand, there are people in the world who affront and provoke their princes, neither obeying their commands, nor supplying their wants, but mutinying, rebelling, and contemning their authority, wherein they act contrary to both their allegiance and their duty.

When I say kings and princes, I mean themselves or their deputies; when subjects, I mean such as are magistrates and bear any rule or authority under them.

The greatest misfortunes proceed from the most powerful; for those who are weak are patiently contented. When I speak of great powers, I mean women[629] as well as men; for sometimes they are placed in authority, either by the over-fondness of their husbands, or for the administration of their own or their children’s affairs, or when any territory accrues by them on their marriage. If I should treat of the inferior states and conditions of human life, I should be too tedious, and therefore I shall confine myself to the greater, since by those the power and justice of God are more visibly made known; for if calamities befall a poor man, they are imputed to his poverty and imprudence, and nobody cares about him; if he breaks his neck, or is drowned, it was because he had nobody with him, and none will give themselves any farther trouble about it. But when an accident happens to any great city it is otherwise; yet even that is not so much spoken of as anything which happens to princes. The reason therefore why the power of God is more conspicuous against princes and great men, is, because the poor and such as are in distress have enough to punish them whenever they offend; and are frequently chastised when they are innocent, either as a terror to other people, or for the forfeiture of their estates, or not improbably by the wickedness of the judge. But if the offenders are great, as princes, princesses, governors, or counsellors of any rebellious town or state, let their exorbitance be never so enormous, who will dare to inquire into their faults? who will inform against them? who will question them? who will punish them? I speak of the bad, not the good; for of good there are but few to be met with. And what are the motives that induce great persons to commit these enormities, and many more (which for brevity’s sake I have not mentioned) without the least regard or consideration of God’s divine power and justice? In men of learning it is want of faith, in ignorant persons, it is want of knowledge and faith also; but principally of faith, from whence (in my opinion) all the mischiefs that are incident to mankind do spring, and more especially the mischiefs of those who complain of being injured and oppressed by such as are powerful and strong; for whether a man be rich or poor, if he puts his trust in God, and is firmly convinced that the pains of hell are such as they really are; if he is conscious of any injury that he has done to his neighbour, or that his grandfather or father came wrongfully by anything that he now enjoys (let it be what it will, whether a duchy, a county, a town, a castle, moveable goods, a meadow, a pool, a mill, or anything else); and if he firmly believes, as we all ought to believe, “I shall never enter into Paradise, if I do not do what I ought, and restore all that I hold wrongfully from other people,” it is not to be supposed that any prince or princess, or in short, any person of what condition soever, would detain anything from his subject or neighbour, or condemn any innocent person to death, keep him in prison, or impoverish one to enrich another, or do anything dishonourable to their parents and relations, to gratify themselves in their pleasures with women or otherwise. Certainly not: it is incredible. If, therefore, men had firm faith, and believed what God and the church have commanded under pain of damnation, knowing that our life is but short, and the horrible pains of hell eternal and without intermission, they would never act as they do. We may safely conclude therefore, that the want of faith is the source of all mischiefs and villany.

But to illustrate this idea by an example:—When a king or prince happens to be taken prisoner, and is apprehensive of continuing so all the days of his life, is there any thing so dear to him in the world that he would not give to purchase his liberty? He will part not only with his own property, but that of his subjects too, for his redemption; as you may remember in the case of King John of France, who was taken prisoner by the Prince of Wales[630] at the battle of Poictiers. This King John paid 3,000,000 of francs, gave away all Aquitaine (at least all that he held of it), besides other territories and towns, to the extent of a third part of his dominions (by which means he so impoverished the kingdom, that for a long time after, the current coin of it was nothing but round bits of leather with a silver nail in the middle[631]); all which was given by King John and by his son Charles the Wise for the ransom of his father; though the English would not have put him to death if they had given nothing, but at worst would only have made his confinement more severe; but even if they had put him to death, the pains of the execution would not have been any way equal to the torments of hell. Why then did he yield what he did, to the ruin and impoverishment both of his children and subjects, unless because he believed what he saw, and imagined there was no other way of obtaining his liberty? But perhaps when he committed that sin which brought down this judgment upon himself, his children and subjects, he had no steadfast belief that the doing of it was an offence against God’s will and commandments. Now, though King John gave all these territories and towns to his enemies, to redeem himself from captivity; yet there is not one prince (or at least very few princes), who, having any town or province that belongs to their neighbours in their possession, will restore it upon consideration of God’s justice, or to avoid the torments of hell. I say, therefore, that it is want of faith.

I accordingly asked the question before, Who would inform against great persons? who would accuse them to the judge? and where would a judge be found to punish them? The information that will be brought against them shall be the cries and clamours of the people whom they have in so many ways injured and oppressed, without the least pity or compassion; and the mournful complaints of widows and orphans, whose husbands and parents they have unjustly put to death to their utter ruin and destruction: and in short, the lamentations of all those whom they have tortured or persecuted either in their persons or estates. These with their sighs, their piteous tears, and their groans, shall be an information against them before our Saviour, the true Judge of the world, who perhaps will not defer their punishment till the next world, but do them justice in this; which punishment, as I said before, will proceed from their want of faith, and a firm trust and belief in God’s commandments.

It must be acknowledged, therefore, that God is forced to show tokens and examples, that princes and the rest of the world may be convinced, that the enormity of their actions and the weakness of their faith have drawn those heavy judgments upon them; and that they may understand that it is God who exercises His power and justice to punish them, because their offences are above any other cognizance but His. But the judgments of God, at first, seldom produce any amendment, how great or how lasting soever they may be. However, they never fall upon any prince, minister of state, or magistrate, but the consequences are very dangerous and dreadful for the subject. When I speak of misfortunes, I mean only such as are detrimental to the subject; for, if a prince falls from his horse, breaks his leg, or falls into a violent fever, he is cured again, and it makes him wiser for the future. I call them misfortunes, when God is so highly provoked that He can endure no longer, but will manifest His Divine justice and power, and then His method is first to infatuate their understanding (which is a great punishment where it is inflicted), then He visits their family, and suffers murmurs and dissensions to arise in it; then the prince himself is so far abandoned and given over by God that, in the height of his indignation and folly, he shuns and despises the counsels and conversation of wise men, and consults none but irrational fiery upstarts without either merit, virtue, or estate, but who will flatter him and comply with whatever he says. If he proposes to raise one penny, they say two: if the prince threatens a man, they advise him to hang him; and so in everything else, spurring him still on to make himself feared, and behaving themselves in the meantime proudly and insolently, in hopes to strike awe and terror into the people, as if authority had been their inheritance. Those whom such princes, by the advice of such evil counsellors, have deprived of their posts and employments, after having served in them a long time, and contracted friendship and acquaintance in their dominions, are very much disgusted, and all their relations and well-wishers are equally dissatisfied; and perhaps they are pressed so far as to stand upon their defence, or else enter into the service of some neighbouring prince, who possibly may be at enmity with him that discarded them, by which means the dissatisfaction within the country may give opportunity to bring in a foreign army. Is there any plague or persecution so horrible as war between friends that are provoked? or is any hatred so mortal and pitiless? Foreign enemies are easily repelled when a nation is unanimous at home, because the invaders want intelligence and correspondence. Can you imagine that an imprudent prince, surrounded with such silly advisers, can foresee calamities that are remote, when he cannot discern domestic divisions, nor comprehend how they can hurt him, nor conceive they proceed from God? His table is as well served, he sleeps as well as ever in his bed, his stables and his wardrobe are the same, and the pomp and splendour of his court is much increased; for he attracts persons by promises, divides among them the spoils and estates of those whom he has banished, and lavishes away abundance of his own to increase his renown. But, when he thinks least of it, God will raise him up an enemy whom perhaps he never heard of: then melancholy thoughts will arise, and suspicions of those whom he has offended, and he will be afraid even of his very friends; yet will he not make God his refuge, but will have recourse to arms.

CH. XX.—Examples of Misfortunes that have happened to Princes, and Revolutions that have been brought to pass in States by the Judgment of God.

Have we not seen in our own days such examples among our neighbours? Have we not seen King Edward IV. of England, the head of the house of York, supplant the house of Lancaster, under which his father and he had lived a long time; and though he had actually sworn allegiance to Henry VI., who was of the Lancastrian line, yet afterwards this Edward kept King Henry a prisoner for many years in the Tower of London (the metropolis of that kingdom), and at last put him to death?

Have we not seen the Earl of Warwick, the chief manager of all King Edward’s affairs (after having put all his adversaries to death, and particularly the Dukes of Somerset), at length turn rebel against his master King Edward, marry his daughter to the Prince of Wales, son to King Henry VI.; endeavour to restore the house of Lancaster; and return into England, where he was defeated, and slain in battle himself, his brothers, and relations; besides many others of the nobility of England, who not long before had vanquished and put to death their adversaries? Afterwards, times changed, and the children revenged the destruction of their parents. It is not to be imagined that such judgments proceeded from anything but the Divine justice. But (as I observed before) England enjoyed this peculiar mercy above all other kingdoms, that neither the country, nor the people, nor the houses, were wasted, destroyed, or demolished; but the calamities and misfortunes of the war fell only upon the soldiers, and especially on the nobility, of whom they are more than ordinarily jealous; for nothing is perfect in this world.

As soon as King Edward had settled his affairs in this kingdom, he received of our master 50,000 crowns a year[632], constantly paid him in the Tower of London, and was grown as rich as his ambition could desire, on a sudden he died[633] (and as was supposed) of melancholy for our present king’s[634] marriage with Margaret[635], the Duke of Austria’s daughter (his distemper seizing him upon the news of it), for then he found himself outwitted as to his own daughter[636], to whom he had given the title of Dauphiness. Upon this marriage the pension, which he called tribute, was stopped, though indeed it was neither pension nor tribute, as I have declared before. King Edward left his wife with two sons (one called the Prince of Wales, and the other the Duke of York) and two daughters. The Duke of Gloucester, King Edward’s brother, took upon him the protectorship of his nephew, the Prince of Wales (who was then about ten years old), swore allegiance to him as his sovereign, and brought him to London, pretending to crown him; but his design was only to entice the Duke of York out of the sanctuary[637], where he was at that time with his mother, who had conceived some suspicion of his intentions. In short, the conclusion was this; by the assistance of the Bishop of Bath[638], (who had been formerly King Edward’s chancellor, but falling afterwards into disgrace, had been removed from his place, thrown into prison, and paid a round sum for his ransom), he executed his designs, as you shall hear by and by.

This bishop discovered to the Duke of Gloucester that; his brother King Edward had been formerly in love with a beautiful young lady[639], and had promised her marriage, upon condition he might lie with her; the lady consented, and, as the bishop affirmed, he married them when nobody was present but they two and himself. His fortune depending upon the court, he did not discover it, and persuaded the lady likewise to conceal it, which she did, and the matter remained a secret. After this King Edward married the daughter of an English gentleman, called the Lord Rivers; this lady was a widow, and had two sons. The Bishop of Bath, as I said before, discovered this matter to the Duke of Gloucester, and gave his assistance in the execution of the barbarous designs of the duke, who murdered his two nephews, and made himself king, by the name of Richard III.[640] He caused the two daughters to be declared illegitimate by parliament[641], took their coats of arms from them, and put all his brother’s faithful servants to death, at least all he could get into his power. But his cruel reign did not last long; for, being at the height of his pride, in greater pomp and authority than any King of England for a hundred years before, when he had beheaded the Duke of Buckingham[642], and assembled a numerous army under his own command, God Almighty raised him up an enemy that destroyed him, and that was the Earl of Richmond, a person of no power, and one who had been long prisoner in Bretagne; but he is now King of England, and is of the house of Lancaster, though, as I am informed, not the next heir to the crown.

This Earl of Richmond told me, not long before his departure from this kingdom, that from the time he was five years old he had been always a fugitive or a prisoner. He had endured an imprisonment of fifteen years or thereabouts in Bretagne, by the command of the late Duke Francis, into whose hands he fell by extremity of weather, as he was escaping out of France with his uncle the Earl of Pembroke.[643] I was at Duke Francis’s court at the time when they were seized; the duke treated them very handsomely for prisoners, and at King Edward’s death, supplied the Earl of Richmond liberally both with men and ships; and having intelligence with the Duke of Buckingham (who died for it afterwards) he sent him to land his forces in England; but, meeting with foul weather and contrary winds, he was driven into Dieppe, and from thence went back by land into Bretagne. Being returned into Bretagne, he was afraid, having 500 English in his train, of becoming burdensome to the duke, and feared he might thereby induce him to make some agreement with King Richard[644], to his prejudice and disadvantage, for he had some intimation that there were secret practices on foot to that purpose; and therefore, he and his whole retinue went away privately, without taking leave of the duke. Not long after, our present king paid for the passage of 3000 or 4000 men, gave him and his companions a considerable sum of money, and some pieces of artillery, and sent him out of Normandy to land in some part of Wales, where he was born. King Richard marched immediately to fight him, but an English gentleman, called the Lord Stanley, who had married the Earl of Richmond’s mother, joined the earl with 26,000 men. They came to a battle[645], and the issue was, King Richard was slain, and the Earl of Richmond crowned King of England on the field of battle, with the crown that King Richard had brought along with him. Will you say this is fortune? Certainly it is the just judgment of God. But, to make it the more evident, not long after the murder of his nephews, as you have heard, he lost his wife[646], (some say he made her away); he had but one son, and he died presently after. This would have come in more properly hereafter when I shall have to speak of King Edward’s death (for he was alive at the time of the occurrences of this chapter), yet I thought it not unseasonable here, as being pertinent to my discourse.

In like manner, it is not many years since we have seen as strange revolutions in Spain, upon the death of the late King Henry of that kingdom, who was married to the late King of Portugal’s sister, and by her had a beautiful daughter; yet that daughter was not suffered to succeed to the throne, but was deprived of the crown under pretence of illegitimacy. But this business did not pass over without controversy and blood; for the King of Portugal, assisted by several of the nobility of Castile, took part with his niece: but King Henry’s sister carried the kingdom in spite of all their opposition, and enjoys it to this very day, having married the son of John, King of Arragon; so that this judgment and decree was made in heaven, where many of the same nature are undoubtedly made.

You have seen likewise, not many years since, the King of Scotland[647] at war with his son[648], who was not above thirteen or fourteen years of age. The son won the battle, and the king was killed upon the spot. This king was accused of having caused the death of his brother and several other persons of quality. You see also the duchy of Guelders out of the right line, and you have heard of the late duke’s unnatural usage of his father. I could instance many other cases of the like nature, that might easily be known to be Divine chastisements, which are the sources of war, and from whence proceed mortality and famine; and all evils arise from want of faith. It must therefore be acknowledged (considering the wickedness of mankind, and especially of great persons, who neither know themselves, nor believe there is a God) that there is a necessity that every prince or great lord should have an adversary to restrain and keep him in humility and fear, or else there would be no living under them, nor near them.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

LONDON:
A. and G. A. SPOTTISWOODE,
New-street-Square.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Lectures on Modern History, pp. 117-119.

[2] Stephen’s Lectures on the History of France, vol ii., pp. 221-223.

[3] Angelo Cato, born at Sopino, in the diocese of Benevento, was “a person of exemplary life, great learning, extreme modesty, and wonderful knowledge of mathematics.” In his youth, he entered the service of the princes of Anjou; but, being sent by them on a mission to the Duke of Burgundy, he transferred his allegiance to that prince, at whose court he began his life-long friendship with Commines. Cato was a skilful astrologer, and predicted to Charles the Bold that he would lose the battles of Granson and Morat. After the fulfilment of his predictions, he took leave of the duke, and was immediately taken into the service of Louis XI., who appointed him his physician and almoner, and made him Archbishop of Vienne in 1482.

[4] Louis XI., son of Charles VII. and Mary of Anjou, was born on the 3rd of July, 1423; consecrated and crowned on the 15th of August, 1461; he was married, first, to Margaret of Scotland, and, secondly, to Charlotte of Savoy; and he died on the 30th of August, 1483.

[5] Imbert de Batornay, knight, Count du Bouchage, and Lord of Ornaciuex, was one of the councillors and chamberlains of Louis XI. He died on the 12th of May, 1523.

[6] Commines died in 1511, at the age of sixty-four; so that he was about seventeen years old when he entered the service of the Duke of Burgundy.

[7] Charles, Count of Charolois, and afterwards Duke of Burgundy, was the son of Philip the Good and Isabella of Portugal. He was born on the 10th of November, 1433, and married 1. Catherine, the daughter of King Charles VII. of France; 2. Isabella of Bourbon; and 3. Margaret of York, sister of Edward IV., King of England. He was killed at the battle of Nancy, on the 5th of January, 1477.

[8] Charles of Artois, Count d’Eu, was the son of Philip of Artois and Mary of Berry. He was taken prisoner at the battle of Agincourt, and remained for twenty-three years in captivity in England. He died on the 25th of July, 1472, at about seventy-eight years of age.

[9] Pierre de Morvilliers, knight, Lord of Clary, was the son of Philip de Morvilliers and Jeanne du Drac. Though created Chancellor of France on the 3rd of September, 1461, he did not begin to discharge the duties of his office until November, 1465. He died on the 15th of December, 1476.

[10] Antoine du Bec Crespin was appointed Bishop of Laon on the 3rd of March, 1449, and translated to the Archbishopric of Narbonne on the 18th of January, 1460. He died at Rouen on the 15th of October, 1472.

[11] According to documents discovered by Mdlle. Dupont, the Seigneur de Rambures was also a member of this embassy.

[12] Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, son of John the Fearless and Margaret of Bavaria, was born on the 30th of June, 1396. He married 1. Michelle, daughter of Charles VII. of France; 2. Bona of Artois; and 3. Isabella of Portugal. He died on the 15th of June, 1467.

[13] This took place on the 6th of November, 1464.

[14] The natural son of Antony, Lord of Rubempré, in Picardy.

[15] Oliver de la Marche, councillor, chamberlain, and captain of the guard of Charles, Duke of Burgundy, and chief steward of the household of the Archduke of Austria, was the son of Philip de la Marche and Jeanne Bouton. He was born in 1426, married Isabeau Machefrin, and made his will at Brussels, on the 8th of October, 1501. He is the author of some valuable memoirs relating to the times in which he lived, and also of several poetical works.

[16] Isabella, daughter of John I., King of Portugal, and Philippa of Lancaster, married the Duke of Burgundy on the 10th of January, 1430. She died on the 17th of December, 1472, and was buried in the Carthusian convent of Gosnay-les-Béthunes.

[17] Francis, son of Richard, Count d’Estampes, and Margaret of Orleans, succeeded his uncle Arthur, Duke of Bretagne, in 1458. He married, 1. Margaret of Bretagne, and 2. Margaret de Foix. He died on the 9th of September, 1488.

[18] The Count of Charolois paid Louis XI. a visit at Tours in 1461. He arrived there on the 22nd of October, and left the king on the 11th of December following.

[19] Tanneguy du Chastel, Viscount de la Bellière, filled the office of Grand Ecuyer of France until the death of Charles VII., on the 21st of July, 1461; upon which he withdrew to the Duke of Bretagne, who had him appointed Governor of Roussillon, in 1472. He afterwards entered the service of Louis XI. He was the son of Oliver, Seigneur du Chastel, and Jeanne de Ploeuc; he married Jeanne de Raguenal, Viscountess de la Bellière, in 1462; and he died in consequence of a wound received at the siege of Bouchain in 1477.

[20] Chastellain relates that when the Count of Charolois visited Louis XI. at Tours, “the king, after having treated him handsomely, appointed and constituted him Governor of Normandy, with a pension of thirty-six thousand francs.”

[21] The duke’s answer is given in full by Monstrelet, vol. ii. pp. 303-304 (Bohn’s edition.)

[22] Charles VII., King of France, son of Charles VI. and Isabel of Bavaria, was born on the 22nd of February, 1402, married Mary of Anjou in 1422, and died on the 22nd of July, 1461.

[23] The treaty of Arras was concluded on the 21st of September, 1435. It is given in full in Monstrelet, vol. ii. pp. 9-17.

[24] The sum was paid in two instalments; the first receipt of Philip the Good is dated at Hesdin, on the 12th of September, 1463, and the second on the 8th of October following.

[25] Antony, Lord of Croy, Count of Porcean, first chamberlain to Philip the Good, and Knight of the Golden Fleece, became lord steward to Louis XI., on the accession of that prince to the throne. He was the son of John of Croy and Margaret of Craon; and he died in 1475.

[26] John of Croy, Lord of La Tour-sur-Marne, Count of Chimay, Knight of the Golden Fleece, and High Bailiff of Hainault, married Marie de Lallain, Lady of Quiévrain, and died at Valenciennes in 1472.

[27] John II., Duke of Bourbon and Auvergne, Count of Clermont, peer, constable, and chamberlain of France, was the son of Charles I., Duke of Bourbon, and Agnes of Burgundy; he married Jeanne, daughter of Charles VII. of France, and died on the 1st of April, 1488. He arrived at Lisle on the 14th of October, 1464.

[28] Agnes of Burgundy, married on the 17th of September, 1425, to Charles I., Duke of Bourbon. She became a widow on the 4th of December, 1456, and died on the 1st of December, 1476.

[29] These princesses were, 1. Catherine, who married Adolphus of Egmont, Duke of Guelders, on the 18th of December, 1463; 2. Margaret, who married Philip II., Duke of Savoy, on the 6th of April, 1472. The third was probably Isabella, Countess of Charolois. The son was John, Duke of Bourbon, named above.

[30] Louis de Luxembourg, Count of St. Paul, was created Constable of France on the 5th of October, 1465, and took the oaths on the 12th of the same month. He was the son of Pierre de Luxembourg, Count of Couversan, and Margaret de Baux. He married, 1. Jeanne de Bar, on the 16th of July, 1435; and 2. Mary of Savoy, on the 1st of August, 1466. He was beheaded on the 19th of December, 1475.

[31] Thibault IX., Lord of Neufchâtel and Blamont, and Marshal of Burgundy, was the son of Thibault, Lord of Neufchâtel, and Agnes de Montbéliard. In reward for his services, the king bestowed the town of Espinal upon him in 1463. He died about 1470.

[32] John, Bastard of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambray in 1440, was a natural son of John, Duke of Burgundy, and Agnes de Croy. He died in 1479.

[33] The manifesto of the Count of Charolois against the Lords of Croy will be found in M. Gachard’s _Collection de Documents Inédits_, vol. i. p. 132. It is dated Brussels, March 12th, 1464, (O. S.).

[34] Philip of Croy, son of Antony, Lord of Croy, and Margaret of Lorraine, was first Hereditary Chamberlain of Brabant. Having joined the Duke of Burgundy, who created him a Knight of the Golden Fleece, his estates were confiscated by Louis XI. in 1476. He married Jacqueline de Luxembourg, daughter of the Count of St. Paul, in 1455; and he died in 1511.

[35] Philip of Croy, Count of Chimay, Baron of Quiévrain, and Knight of the Golden Fleece, was son of John of Croy, Lord of La Tour-sur-Marne, and Mary de Lalain, Lady of Quiévrain. He married Walpurge de Mœurs; and died on the 8th of September, 1482. Du Clercq says, “He was reputed to be a very wise young man, and a great _historian_.”

[36] According to Du Clercq, he threw himself at the duke’s feet, “thanking him for the favours he had bestowed upon him, and begging him to think with favour of his services; beseeching him to give him leave to quit his court, and in great terror telling him that his life was in danger.... When the duke had heard this, he was greatly troubled, and forbade him to depart, and very angrily took a truncheon or spear in his hand, and went out of his chamber, saying that he would see whether his son would kill his servants.”

[37] Adolphus of Cleves, Lord of Ravestain, was the son of Adolphus, Duke of Cleves, and Mary of Burgundy, sister of Philip the Good. He married, 1. Beatrice of Portugal; and 2. Anne of Burgundy, bastard daughter of Duke Philip. He died on the 18th of September, 1493.

[38] John I., Duke of Cleves, was born on the 10th of January, 1419; married Elizabeth, daughter of John of Burgundy, Count of Nevers; and died on the 5th of September, 1481.

[39] Anthony, Bastard of Burgundy, surnamed the Great Bastard, Lord of Beures, in Flanders, Count of La Roche, in Ardennes, and knight of the orders of the Golden Fleece and of St. Michael, was the son of Philip the Good and Jeanne de Prelle. He was legitimated in January, 1485. He died in 1504, at the age of eighty-three. He was for some time first chamberlain to his half-brother, Duke Charles.

[40] John, surnamed Hennequin, Bastard of St. Paul, Lord of Haut-Bourdin, Knight of the Golden Fleece, councillor and chamberlain of Charles, Duke of Burgundy, was the son of Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of St. Paul, and Agnes de Brie. He was legitimated on the 19th of February, 1436; and he died on the 28th of July, 1466, at about sixty-six years of age. He was the second cousin, and not the brother of Louis, Constable of St. Paul.

[41] Henry V., son of Henry IV. and Mary of Hereford, was born in 1388; crowned on the 9th of April, 1413; married Catherine, daughter of Charles VI., on the 2nd of June, 1420; and died at Vincennes on the 31st of August, 1422.

[42] William le Jeune, Lord of Contay, Governor of Arras, was the son of Robert le Jeune and Jeanne de Beauvoir, Lady of Laignicourt. He married Margaret de Sully; and died in 1468. He was a councillor, chamberlain, and chief steward of Duke Philip the Good.

[43] Philip de Lallain, knight, chamberlain of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, was the son of William de Lallain and Jeanne de Créqui. He was killed in the battle of Montlhery, on the 16th of July, 1465.

[44] As the treaty of Arras was concluded on the 21st of September, 1435, peace had lasted only twenty-nine years.

[45] The attack began on the 7th of June, 1465.

[46] Joachim Rouault, Lord of Boismenart, a councillor and chamberlain of Louis XI., and created Marshal of France in 1461, was the son of John de Rouault and Jeanne du Bellay. He died on the 7th of August, 1478.

[47] On Friday, the 5th of July: he remained there until the 10th.

[48] John de Rouville, doctor of laws, Vice-chancellor of Bretagne, was the son of Pierre Gougeul, Lord of Rouville, and Aldonce de Braquemont. He was still living in February, 1476.

[49] On the 8th of July.

[50] Charles de Melun, knight, Lord of Nantouillet and Normanville, and Grand Master of France, was the son of Philip de Melun and Jeanne de Nantouillet. After having for some time enjoyed the favour of King Louis XI., he fell into disgrace, was accused of treason, and beheaded on Saturday, the 20th of August, 1468.