the Dauphin; in which direction he had undertaken the siege of Cosne, when suddenly the death of the king of England took place. If the supposition of various writers is true, that Henry died of the attacks of a fistula,* the cure of which disorder was then unknown, Charles and his subjects were certainly indebted for their salvation to the ignorance of that age. It is merely necessary to compare the two rivals and their opposing forces,

difficulty that he was prevailed upon to abandon this courageous, but imprudent resolution, &c. This romantic assertion is, however, destroyed by the uniform testimonies of Saint Remi, 162; Monstrelet, i. fol. 320; Chron. Manuscr. 553; Chron. of France, 328; Pierre Defenin, in the fol. edit. of Juvenal, p. 493; and Choisy, 555.

* Villaret, xiv. page 157, follows the statement of the secretary of Henry V., who says that the king died of a pleurisy: an opinion that would not be very feasible unless the disorder was only of a few days' duration; whereas, on the contrary, we are well informed, that the malady continued for a month at least, because Henry was attacked a short time after his departure with the army, and died on the 31st of August; whereas he did not commence his route until the middle of July. On the 27th of July, as soon as he felt the attack, the duke of Bedford, whom he had sent forward, arrived with a powerful body of troops at Auxerre; from whence he proceeded on the 4th of August to Vezelay, which place had been appointed the general rendezvous of the army of the allies. Rapin and Smollett both speak of a dysentery; without, however, referring to any authority.

together with their respective auxiliaries of every description, to become fully convinced, that but for the sudden demise of Henry, France must have become a province of his empire.

Such a termination of affairs seemed highly probable; but the English cause was weakened by the loss of its most able leader, and obliged to confide the administration of France and that of England to two different rulers.* This circumstance gave rise to divisions; but although the allies were soon after deprived, by the death of Charles VI., of the semblance of regal authority which had marked their usurpations, still the affairs of Charles VII. did not assume a more favourable aspect: on the contrary, the king experienced additional defection and fresh reverses, and was ultimately saved by what may be almost regarded as a miracle.t

Bedford was regent under the title of Protector; but during his absence, his brother the duke of Gloucester enjoyed the same title and authority in England, being, however, regulated in his proceedings by a council chosen by the parliament. The duke of Bedford when in France enjoyed the title of Regent.

The allies opposed to Charles VII. conceived their triumph so certain, that by way of derision they designated him The King of Bourges, at which place he then resided, that being one of the few cities remaining subject to his authority. (See Thomassin, xci.; Daniel, vii. page 7; Lussan, ix. page 435; and Chron. of France, fol. 328.)

We should not feel surprised, if when reflecting upon the prodigious resources that France has of late years displayed, the question should be asked, how it was possible that the affairs of Charles VII. could become so desperate, especially as he had only the infant Henry VI. as a competitor? To this query, a very brief detail of the situation of both parties shall be our answer; and that will also serve to throw some light on the events that subsequently occurred.

Charles, it is true, was in possession of a part of the provinces of Orleans and Touraine,* the territory situated to the south of the Loire as well as Dauphiny; but Provence, Roussillon, and the counties of Foix and Navarre, had their distinct sovereigns. Guienne and Gascony belonged to the English. In the provinces subject to Charles there were many fortresses which had become the property of those adventurers of whom we have previously spoken, and the safeguard of which devolved to him who could afford to pay them the best. Numerous dependents of the Burgundian faction,†

The province of Anjou belonged to the king of Sicily; that of Maine to his brother Charles of Anjou: the county of Etampes was the property of Jean of Burgundy, count of Nevers, son of the third male heir of Philip le Hardi, and cousin-german of Philip le Bon.

+ Such also was the case with the duke of Savoy. Charles, on

such as the prince of Orange, had vassals of some importance in their territories; and all that had been exacted on the part of Brittany, was the maintenance of a species of neutrality.*

The English, independent of Guienne and Gascony, had conquered all the northern provinces ;+ to the east, their ally reigned over Burgundy and Franche Compté, and to the north the Low Countries were at his disposal; thus it is clearly demonstrated that the enemies of Charles, as respects territory, had the balance greatly in their favour.

The posture of affairs was the same in regard to the riches of their territory. The commerce of

the contrary, had been deprived, two years before, of the assistance of his most powerful supporter, Louis III., count of Provence, duke of Anjou, and king of Sicily. This prince, who had marched nearly all his forces to Naples, in 1420, did not return to France until 1429, after the expedition to Orleans had taken place, and during the coronation of Charles VII.-See Monstrelet, vol. i. folio 294; Villaret, xiv. page 114 and 412.

The duke of Brittany had certainly entered into an alliance with Charles VII. in 1421; but he only furnished a very mediocre supply after the ratification of the treaty, because he asserted that Charles had failed in fulfilling the stipulations.-See Morrice, History of Brittany, vol. i. page 486.

+Among these provinces, Normandy, in regard to the resources which it furnished, was considered, even under Louis XI., as equivalent to one-third of the whole monarchy.-See Villaret, xvii. page 170.

Belgium had long ranked as the most flourishing throughout Western Europe; the traffic of the cities belonging to Charles, with the exception of Lyons, might be considered as nothing. And, without taking the above city into the scale, he did not possess a single place that boasted great population, or was at all to be compared, in that respect, with Lille, Rouen, Bordeaux, Paris,* &c. Nearly the whole length of the coast was in possession of the allies; Charles having but one or two ports, through the medium of which he could receive succours, and he was bereft of a fleet to intercept such reinforcements as arrived from England.

In a military point of view, the opponents of the

The possession of the capital alone placed a great preponderance in the hands of the allies, because its population and its riches procured them continual resources, both in men and in money. Besides, the vast efforts uniformly made, during the lapse of thirty years, by the Armagnacs, the Burgundians, the English and the French, to occupy Paris, afford so many incontestible proofs of the vast importance attached to that city. See also Journal de Paris, page 170.

De la possession de cette ville, says the duke of Bedford, despend ceste seignourie.

During the period of the war carried on, for Le bien Public, as it was termed, in the year 1465, Louis X1. used to remark, that, "if he could enter the first, (into Paris,) he would save himself with his crown upon his head; but that if the enemy entered the first, he should find himself in danger."― See Villaret, xvii. page 82.