¹ Printed by Cosneau, E., Les grands traites de la guerre de Cent Ans (Paris, 1889), pp. 102–15.Google Scholar

² For England, Henry V renewed, in December 1420, the statute of 18 Edward III safeguarding common law against any rights which the crown might acquire abroad (Rotuli Parliamentorum, iv, 127b).Google Scholar

³ The four new baillis (Melun, 27 December 1420, Vermandois, Amiens and Meaux, 30 December 1420) besides taking the traditional oath also swore in the Parlement to keep and enforce by punishment the peace between the kings and kingdoms of France and England (Journal de Clément de Fauquembergue, greffier du Parlement de Paris, 1417–1435, ed. Tuetey, A., (SHF., 3 vols., Paris, 1903–1915), i, 390–1).Google Scholar

⁴ Cosneau, Grands traités, p. 105Google Scholar (article 8).

⁵ The confrontation between Paris and Rouen was first explored by Bossuat, A., ‘Le Parlement de Paris pendant l'occupation anglaise’, Revue Historique, 229 (1963), 19–40Google Scholar. The Gaucourt v Handford case (n⁰ III), utilized by Bossuat, emphasizes the treaty as the justification claimed by Paris for retaining the case.

⁶ The formula ‘union des deux royaumes’ was noted once by Bossuat in a pleading of 5 December 1424 (Bossuat, , ‘Parlement de Paris’, 25Google Scholar and n. 3).

⁷ On 11 April 1421, following the defeat at Baugé (Fauquembergue, ii, 14–15Google Scholar); on 19 November 1422, on the acceptance of Bedford as regent for Henry VI (ibid., ii, 72–5). On this occasion the oath was taken by all the notables of Paris, lay and clerical; but on 21 December Philippe de Morvilliers, first président, and Simon de Champluisant, also a président, were empowered to receive the oath from the lesser clergy, and in February the lower ranks of lay society were required to swear to the treaty (Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris, 1405–1449, ed. Tuetey, A., (Paris, 1881), pp. 182–3 and noteGoogle Scholar). On 26 August 1429, following the coronation of Charles VII at Reims, a large assembly of laymen swore the oath to the treaty before the dukes of Bedford and Burgundy within the Parlement (Fauquembergue, ii, 319–70Google Scholar; Bourgeois, p. 241Google Scholar). Finally, on 15 March 1436, this was done ‘a huis ouvers publiquernent’ so desperate was the situation (Fauquembergue, iii, 188–92).Google Scholar

⁸ A.M., X^1a 8302, fo. 127v.

⁹ See below, Gaucourt v. Handford (no III), p. 49.

¹⁰ Fauquembergue, i, 141, 372–3.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., 1, 374–5.

¹² Ibid., 1, 387.

¹³ Ibid., 1, 369.

¹⁴ On 5 October the court sent a delegation to Henry VI and his council complaining over the delay in paying wages; ‘et especialment pourront remonstrer comment le feu roy Henry, cui Dieu pardoint, estoit soingneux de leur paiement’ (ibid., ii, 365).

¹⁵ Ferguson, J., English Diplomacy, 1422–61 (Oxford, 1972), p. 230.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Fauquembergue, ii, 38–9.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Aubert, F., Histoire du Parlement de Paris de l'origine à François I^er, 1250–1515, (2 vols., Paris, 1886–1890), i, 143Google Scholar; Lefèvre, E., Les avocats du roi depuis les origines jusqu'à la Révolution (Paris, 1912), pp. 68–9Google Scholar. In the early fifteenth century the Parlement elected both the procureur and the avocat du roi (Aubert, , Histoire du Parlement, i, 143–4, 170Google Scholar) but Charles VII resumed complete control following the example of Henry V (Lot, F. & Fawtier, R., Histoire des institutions françaises au moyen âge, ii (Paris, 1958), 402).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Fauquembergue, ii, 67.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Since 9 November 1422 letters sent out by the chancery had been in the name of Henry, king of France and England, under the seal of the prévôt of Paris on white wax (ibid., ii, 70, 74).

²⁰ ‘… ledit regent avoit intention de faire reunir et revenir la duchié de Normendie à la couronne’ (ibid., ii, 74).

²¹ Ibid., ii, 75.

²² Ibid., iii, 26–9. The earl of Warwick announced the words of the boy king, presumably in French.

²³ Simon de Champluisant, previously prévôt of Paris, ‘fu par le conseil du roy, tenu par le duc de Bedford, fait quart president’ (ibid., ii, 76).

²⁴ ‘Ce jour ont esté publiees ceans les lettres de la commission pour congnoistre et ordonner des confiscacions et des biens des adversaires et absents … et a protesté le procureur du roi au giron de la court et au registre de debattre une clause desdictes lettres (A.N., X^1a 4793, fo. 160v). The commissioners were regularly mentioned in grants of confiscated property (e.g., in that made to Ralph Parker on 13 March 1425 (A.N., JJ 173. no 100)).

²⁵ See Gaucourt v. Handford (no III), p. 50.

²⁶ Fauquembergue, ii, 91–2.Google Scholar

²⁷ On 20 June 1424 an appeal was brought against a decision of the earl, on whose behalf it was stated that ‘l'appellacion n'est point recevable au regard de la commission du conte, duquel on ne pouvoit appeler veue la teneur de la commission et des lettres de son pouvoir’. The procureur du roi sided with the earl and demanded damages against the plaintiffs (A.N., X^1a 4793, fo. 440r).

²⁸ One of the four places mentioned (Fauquembergue, ii, 127Google Scholar, n. 1) was Passy-en-Valois, the capture of which gave rise to the Sauvage v. Fastolf suit (no II).

²⁹ Some came through the bailliage of Avranches; e.g., on 13 November 1424 (A.N., X^1a 4794, fo. 1r), and thereafter until November 1433 (A.N., X^1a 4797, fo. 117v).

³⁰ For this suit, see appendix I.

³¹ An exception was Gaston de Foix, captal de Buch, count of Longueville, who appealed against the Chambre des Comptes for restricting his exercise of ‘haute justice’ as count in April 1429 (A.N., X^1a 4796, fo. 81r).

³² Fauquembergue, ii, 186.Google Scholar

³³ Les arrêts et jugés du Parlement de Paris sur appels flamands conservés dans les registres du Parlement, ed. van Caenegem, R. C., I. Textes 1320–1453 (Brussels, 1966).Google Scholar

³⁴ D.K.R., xlviii, 242.Google Scholar

³⁵ Fauquembergue, ii, 170Google Scholar; iii, 161.

³⁶ Armstrong, C. A. J., ‘La double monarchie France-Angleterre et la maison de Bourgogne (1420 1435). Le déclin d'une alliance’, Annales de Bourgogne, xxxvii (1965), 81–112.Google Scholar

³⁷ Especially in times of crisis; e.g., October 1422 (Fauquembergue, ii, 67Google Scholar) and January 1436 (ibid., iii, 181).

³⁸ Ibid., ii, 294.

³⁹ Ibid., ii, 290.

⁴⁰ Ibid., iii, 30, 44 and n. 1, 132–3.

⁴¹ The procureur du roi was sometimes perplexed whether to retain a suit in Paris because it concerned the royal domain, or to send it back, in accordance with his own preference, to the bailliage. See Courcelles v. FitzWalter (no XVIII), pp. 211–12.

⁴² A.N., X^1a 4796, fo. 26v.

⁴³ An instance of the first is the suit involving Pierre Larchevesque and Thomas Harling in June 1435; of the second, the suit between Sir John Fastolf and Thomas Gerard in March 1436. For both, see appendix I.

⁴⁴ A tenant farmer had appealed against distraint made on him for a debt of 20 francs owed to the queen, 21 August 1432 (A.N., X^1a 4797, fos. 31v–32v, 34r).

⁴⁵ The suit between Jean du Puis and William Kirkeby, July September 1435. See appendix I.

⁴⁶ The bishop appealing from the bailli of Alençon, April 1431 (see appendix I). For the bishop's dauphinist sympathies, see Bourgeois, p. 225Google Scholar and n. 1.

⁴⁷ Écrits politiques de Jean Juvénal des Ursins, ed. Lewis, P. S., (SHF., Paris, 1978), i, 500.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See the evidence of the suit between Thomas Overton and Sir John Fastolf (no XX).

⁴⁹ Doucet, R., ‘Les finances anglaises en France à la fin de la guerre de Cent Ans’, Le Moyen Age, 2^e sér., xxvii (1926), 265–332.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Fauquembergue, ii, 220.Google Scholar

⁵¹ ibid., ii, 318.

⁵² ibid., iii, 40.

⁵³ ibid., iii, 30–1.

⁵⁴ ibid., iii, 21.

⁵⁵ ibid., iii, 84, 87; Bourgeois, p. 292Google Scholar and n. 3.

⁵⁶ Fauquembergue., iii, 84–5.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The index to Piedefer is perhaps the best evidence of this (ibid., iii, 276–8). See the plea made by Jean Juvénal des Ursins that in future ‘on fist les presidens et conseilliers par election’ (Écrits politiques, i, 542).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ ‘Hic et sepius istis temporibus defecit pergamentum pro registris curie’ (A.N., X^1a 4796, fo. 324v). By 24 March 1432 shortage of parchment, which had been noted more than a year earlier (Fauquembergue, iii, 1Google Scholar) was so serious that it stopped the regular writing-up of the pleadings delivered to the court.

⁵⁸ Fauquembergue, iii, 70–1Google Scholar. The situation was already acute on 25 January 1430 (ibid., ii, 333–4).

⁶⁰ It had done so most vehemently on 10 November 1432, but the court opened two days later (ibid., iii, 72, 74). See also iii, 85–7.

⁶¹ The strike lasted from December 1441 to 19 February 1442, when the demands of the court were granted (A.N., X^1a 1482, fo. 49v).

⁶² Cases from A.N., X^1a 4797 and 8302 (Les arrêts … sur appels flamands, ed. van Caenegem, , i, 340–83).Google Scholar

⁶³ Aubert, , Histoire du Parlement, i, 184Google Scholar, n. 2.

⁶⁴ See Les arrêts … sur appels flamands, ed. van Caenegem, , i, 383Google Scholar. On 28 November 1435 Jean Damon, pursuivant ‘Zuillant’ to the duke of Burgundy, started an important suit (A.N., X^1a 4797, fos. 302v–303r).

⁶⁵ E.g., the first président, Robert Piedefer, and conseillers such as Jean Vivian, Hue de Dicy, Barthelemi le Viste and Thomas de la Marche (Maugis, E., Histoire du Parlement de Paris de l'avènement des rois Valois à la mart d'Henri IV (3 vols., Paris, 1913–1916), iii, 61–4)Google Scholar. See Favier, Jean, Nouvelle Histoire de Paris: Paris au xv^e siècle (Paris, 1974), p. 238.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Already mentioned in a suit on 31 July 1414: ‘avant les divisions qui sont en ce royaume’ (Journal de Nicolas de Baye, greffier du Parlement de Paris, 1400–1417, ed. Tuetey, A. (SHF., 2 vols., Paris, 1885–1888), ii, 189)Google Scholar and not infrequently afterwards; e.g., on 1 June 1428 it was stated on behalf of Jean de Paris that Jean de Bantalu ‘trespassa … par avant cez divisions’ (Paris v. Huytin, no X, p. 139).

⁶⁷ Fauquembergue, ii, 372 (1430)Google Scholar; iii, 26 (1431).

⁶⁸ The restored Valois Parlement was also to be erratic, and the 1438–39 sitting did not start until 12 January 1439 (Aubert, , Histoire du Parlement, i, 178Google Scholar, n. 1).

⁶⁹ See Richard Heron's case (SirFortescue, John, De Laudibus Legum Anglie, ed. Chrimes, S. B. (Cambridge, 1942), pp. 132, 207–10).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ He entered office on 27 January 1417 and fled to Cambrai on 3 October 1435 (Fauquembergue, i, 1Google Scholar; iii, 166).

⁷¹ ‘Nota quod invenies residuum registri in principio registri subsequentis’ (A.N., X^la 4796, fo.324v). The beginning of X^la 4797 is also missing. Bibliothèque Sainte-Géneviève, Paris, MSS 14 and 15 contain seventeenth-century transcripts including extracts from the matinées missing from this register; but none of the material applies to this edition.

⁷² A.N., X^1a 8302.

⁷³ In the case involving William Zeman (no XXI).

⁷⁴ A.N., X^1a 4793–97.

⁷⁵ A.N., X^1a 8302.

⁷⁶ A.N., X^1a 8303.

⁷⁷ A.N., X^1a 1480–81. The first was begun on 12 November 1414 under the supervision of the greffier, Nicolas de Baye; the first entry after the treaty of Troyes was dated 31 May 1421 (fo. 215r), and the volume was closed on 1 October 1428 (fo. 413r); the second volume was begun on 12 November 1428 and was closed on 18 April 1436, six days after the recapture of Paris by the armies of Charles VII. It contains 121 folios.

⁷⁸ It may be emphasized that most of the material in Fauquembergue is taken from these two registers.

⁷⁹ ‘If … a judgement had been framed in the chambre des enquêtes, it was technically termed ajugé (iudicium); if in the grand’ chambre—whether proceeding from an inquest or not—it was termed an arrêt (arrestum).’ (Richardson, H. G., ‘Illustrations of English history in the mediaeval registers of the Parlement of Paris’, T.R.Hist.S., Fourth series, x (1927), 81Google Scholar). Only the conseil, in session in the grând’ chambre, could pronounce arrêts.

⁸⁰ They merit a separate study. The most famous is that of Joan of Arc (A.N., X^la 1481, fo. 12r).

⁸¹ Fauquembergue, i, 327Google Scholar; ii, 217, 372; iii, 136. At his death, Fauquembergue possessed a manuscript copy of the Aeneid valued at 6 sols parisis (ibid., iii, p. lxxxvii).

⁸² A.N., X^1a 63–68 cover the years 1420 to 1436. Arrêts were published by being read out to the public, and ‘leakage’ of their contents prior to publication was regarded as a most serious matter (Fauquembergue, ii, 195).

⁸³ Charles VII none the less acknowledged the validity ot enactments by Lancastrian courts (Allmand, C. T., ‘The aftermath of war in fifteenth-century France’, History, ixi (1976), 346).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ A.N., X^2a 20 covers the period 31 July to 19 September 1433. Within this register only folios 111r–209v (November 1425 to September 1433) belong to Paris, the rest of the material being from the Parlement of Poitiers. X^2a 18, 19 and 21, which cover the period March 1423 to November 1436, are exclusively from Poitiers.

⁸⁵ Letters of remission to William Wastwood (A.N., JJ 173, no 565); to Thomas Kirkby (ibid., 172, no 492); and to John Harduit and his wife, native of Normandy (ibid., 173, no 656).

⁸⁶ Sir John Handford's signature is preserved (see below, p. 61); but there are no English seals. The series of accords (X^1c.) contains relatively few made by Englishmen. But in addition to those listed in appendix I Thomas Maisterson, chamberlain to the duke of Bedford, concluded such an agreement with Jean Dole, royal councillor, on 29 April 1427 (A.N., X^1a 4795, fo. 85v), and William Zeman with Pierre Pitouette, referred to on 6 September 1434 (no XXI, p. 275); neither has been found in the appropriate files.

⁸⁷ Fauquembergue, iii, 61–3.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Letters and Papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry the sixth, king of England, ed. Stevenson, J. (RS., 2 vols in 3, London, 1861–1864).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Timbal, P.-C., La Guerre de Cent ans vue à travers les registres du Parlemenl (1337–1361)), (Paris, 1961).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Keen, M. H., The laws of war in the late middle ages (London, 1965).Google Scholar

⁹¹ See, for instance, his article cited p. 1, n. 5, above.

⁹² Autrand, F., Naissance d'un grand corps de l'Etat: les gens du Parlement de Paris, 1345–1454 (Paris, 1981).Google Scholar

⁹³ Cosneau, Grands traités, pp. 105–6, 108–9Google Scholar (articles 9 and 17).

⁹⁴ It is quite clear from a brief, but undated document concerning one John Malton, to whom a claim for arrears had been made in these circumstances, that Englishmen could inherit very considerable legal difficulties with the land grants which were made to them (B.N., MS fr. 26063/3267).

⁹⁵ See Allmand, C. T., ‘Alan Kirketon: a clerical royal councillor in Normandy during the English occupation in the fifteenth century’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xv (1964), 33–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Some effects of the last phase of the Hundred Years War upon the maintenance of clergy’, Studies in Church History, ed. Cuming, G. J. (Leiden, 1966), iii, 179–90Google Scholar, and Appendix I.

⁹⁶ Arch. Orne, A 416.

⁹⁷ Rowe, B. J. H., ‘Discipline in the Norman garrisons under Bedford, 1422–35’, E.H.R., xlvi (1931), 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁸ Autrand, F., ‘L'image de la noblesse en France à la fin du moyen âge. Tradition et nouveauté’, Comptes-rendus de l'Académic des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1979), 340–54.Google Scholar