11
That in the year between July 1449 and August 1450 the French won two victories, one military, the other moral, against the English was recognised by most contemporaries, and has been accepted by historians, indeed eagerly so by French historians, ever since. None would dispute the truth of the first statement; at first slow to gather momentum, the final expulsion of the English from northern France (Calais excepted), although greatly assisted by a lack of opposition on the part of the people of Normandy, was carried out, in the last analysis, by force of arms. More open to discussion, however, was the reaction to events in those areas newly recovered during the course of these decisive months. Was opinion always as wholeheartedly in favour of what had recently been done as men, both of the time and since, have seemed to think?1
1 Among the many accounts of the events of these months, the following may be noted: those of Robert Blondel and of Berry le Heraut (Narratives of the Expulsion of the English from Normandy MCCCCXLIX–MCCCCL, ed. J. Stevenson, (London, RS, 1863), pp. 120–142, 144–150, and 296–324; that of Thomas Basin (Histoire de Charles VII, ed. and trans. C. Samaran (2nd edn, 2 vols, Paris, 1965), ii, pp. 115–131; that of Jean Chartier (Chronique de Charles VII, ed. V. de Viriville (3 vols, Paris, 1858), ii, pp. 137–172; and that of Les Croniques de Normendie, 1223–1453, ed. A. Hellot (Rouen, 1881), pp. 123–139.
Every attempt was made to show contemporaries the significance of what was being achieved at this time. Documents emanating from Valois sources referred to the period of English rule in northern France as an ‘occupation’,2 necessarily implying usurpation,3 which had lasted over thirty years. Behind the use of such words lay the assumption that Normandy was French and that, in expelling the English, Charles le Tresvictorieux was bringing back under his effective control an area of the country which rightfully belonged to the crown of France. Hence the interest which lies in the choice of words and phrases used not only by those who wrote the king’s official letters4 but also by chroniclers who wrote of the ‘reduction’ or ‘recovery’5 of territory held under ‘detention’6 by the English, and of the desire of Normans to return to their ‘natural and ancient … rule’.7 These were the words which Thomas Basin used to express not only what had happened but also why it had happened. As the French herald pointed out, it was the intention of the people to show that Charles of Valois, rather than Henry of Lancaster, was their natural Lord; this made it possible for Charles VII to achieve in one year what two kings of England had signally failed to do in the space of thirty-three years.8 The point was to be further emphasised by a show of majesty which was an important element in the public manifestation of authority exercised by the French king.9 On 10 November 1449 Charles, both to reward the people of Rouen for their seemingly decisive efforts in bringing their city under Valois rule and to assert in person his claim over them, entered the capital of Normandy. His well-managed state entry is recorded in several contemporary chronicles and also in an eye-witness account: the main purpose of their respective authors was to recall an event of extraordinary importance, the final return into French hands of one of the kingdom’s largest provinces now (in November 1449) in the process of being recovered by force, and with the assistance of the people themselves, from the usurping English.10
2 For example, Ordonnances des rois de France de la troisième race (23 vols, Paris, 1733–1847), xiv, pp. 59, 60, 75; B.N., Ms fr. 5350, p. 44; Arch. Calvados, D 27; B.L. Add. Ch. 4069.3 Ordonnances, xiv, p. 65.4 For example, ‘recouvrement de nostre Seigneurie’; ‘remectre & redduire en nostre bonne & vraye obeissance comme a celle de leur Souverain naturel et droicturier Seigneur’ (Ordonnances, xiv, p. 60).5 ‘Reductio’ and ‘recouvrement’ were used by Blondel and Berry le Heraut.6 ‘Detencion’ (Ordonnances, xiv, p. 60).7 ‘… naturale et vetustissimum … regale’ (Basin, Histoire de Charles VII, ii, p. 107). The page merits close study.8 Le débat des hérauts d’armes de France et d’Angleterre, suivi de The Debate between the Heralds of England and France, by J. Coke, ed. L. Pannier (Paris, SATF, 1877), p. 24.9 M. G. A. Vale, Charles VII (London, 1974), ch. 7, and especially pp. 202–204.10 See the narratives in the chronicles: Blondel, De reductione Normanniae, pp. 144–150; Croniques de Normendie, pp. 136–139. The eye-witness account is printed in B. Guenée and F. Lehoux, Les entrées royales françaises de 1328 a 1515 (Paris, 1968), pp. 160–162, in which a miniature depicting the scene, taken from a manuscript of Monstrelet, appears as a frontispiece.
For reasons which scarcely need explanation, the chroniclers were emphatic about the willingness of the Normans to become French again. The Chroniques de Normandie recalled how Charles VII was received with great joy by the people of Pont-de-l’Arche, the town, as Basin recalled with some satisfaction, having been captured by a ruse.11 From here, only a few miles upstream from Rouen, the French armies made sorties to the very walls of the Norman capital. Before long an agreement was reached that the citizens would give the king’s forces every help, the official principal of Rouen cathedral, followed soon afterwards by the archbishop, playing an important intermediary role in the negotiations. On Sunday, 19 October, the people rose against the English whose garrison at the Mont-Sainte-Catherine, just outside the city, quickly surrendered ‘when they realised that the city was against them and they felt the king of France approaching’. Shortly afterwards the count of Dunois, acting upon the request of the clergy, nobility and bourgeois that he should take possession, entered the city, his entry being ‘very fine to observe’. By the evening the white cross was everywhere to be seen.12 The honour which the churchmen, nobility and people of Rouen showed towards the crown and the ‘fleur de lys of France’ had ensured that Rouen was once again French.13
11 Croniques de Normendie, p. 123; Basin, Histoire de Charles VII, ii, pp. 79–83; Chartier, Chronique de Charles VII, ii, p. 137.12 Croniques de Normendie, pp. 123–131; Chartier, Chronique de Charles VII, ii, p. 154.13 ‘Par la bonne affection des gens deglise et des nobles et bourgeois dicelle et pour l’honneur que ils vouloient a la couronne et aux fleurs de lys de France’ (Journal pariisien deJean Maupoint, prieur de Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Couture, 1437–1469, ed. G. Fagniez (SHP, 1878), p. 37.
The people had to wait some three weeks before the king graced the streets with his presence.14 The event was intended to celebrate the recovery of Rouen, although military operations against the English in Normandy were to continue for at least another nine months. If the events of these weeks were of the greatest political significance to the crown, for the people of Rouen themselves they marked a change of allegiance which they hoped would improve their lot. All classes seemed ready to welcome the king. The clergy, led by the metropolitan chapter, displayed their best relics and sang the Te Deum; the people put out decorations in the royal colours and exhibited the royal arms; bonfires were lighted in the streets and tables covered with wine and meats were made freely available to all. Requests were made to the king that, in spite of the lateness of the season, he should not abandon his war against places in English hands, such as Harfleur and Honfleur, at the mouth of the Seine, since these could still do much material damage to all their interests.15 The city promised to help with men and money in the pursuit of this end. The king’s reply to this request, conveyed through his chancellor, Guillaume Jouvenel des Ursins, was such that the people ‘were well satisfied’.16
14 The national importance of these events is emphasised by the brief references made to them not only in the work cited in n. 13, but also by the compiler of the Journal d’un Bourgeois de Paris, 1405–1449, ed. A. Tuetey (Paris, SHP, 1881), p. 392; A Parisian Journal, 1405–1449, trans. J. Shirley (Oxford, 1968), pp. 371–372.15 Basin, Histoire de Charles VII, ii, p. 131; Chartier, Chronique de Charles VII, ii, pp. 170–171.16 Croniques de Normendie, p. 139.
Historians today have normally described events and feelings of the time as these were recorded by the chroniclers. Understandably enough, their accounts and commentaries have tended to favour the monarchy of Charles VII. The English, cast in the role of usurpers, were obliged to yield before the patriotic sentiments of the people of Rouen, who rallied to the emotive influence of the national colours worn by the king’s heralds.17 The moderation of the French king, rather than his desire for vengeance, has received emphasis. Thus his repeated pleas for reconciliation; thus, too, his recognition of the Church’s privileges, his maintenance of the Norman Echiquier, and his confirmation of local custom enshrined in that great symbol of local autonomy, the Charte aux Normands.18 The conditions and cir-cumstances under which Rouen returned to the French fold were made to contrast strikingly with those which had witnessed the capture of the city by the English, after a prolonged siege, in 1419, a whole generation earlier.
17 V. de Viriville, Histoire de Charles VII, roi de France, et de son époque (3 vols, Paris, 1862–5), iii, p. 159.18 Ibid, iii, 160; G. du Fresne de Beaucourt, Histoire de Charles VII (6 vols, Paris, 1881–91, v. 12.
Thus far chronicles and record sources are in broad agreement. From this moment onwards, however, the records assume greater importance since they provide testimony of a story which the chroniclers could not, or would not, tell in full. Just as the ‘Bourgeois de Paris’ reported that a certain disillusionment set in soon after the fall of Paris in April 1436 (the King did not appear in person and captains acting in his name continued to rob and pillage as before, so that there was little to choose between a French and an English soldier):19 just as, too, the inhabitants of Bordeaux were shortly to react against Valois fiscal measures,20 so in Rouen there are indications that doubts about the future under French rule existed from the very first moments. Too much may be read into the statement made by Basin immediately following his account of the surrender of Rouen, that French officers accepted bribes from high-born English prisoners who were thereby allowed to depart without paying their debts,21 were it not that the records of both the city council and the cathedral chapter in some measure reflect his unease. Neither set of records which report, albeit briefly, the discussions among the city’s civil and spiritual leaders tells of the change of government affected in the autumn of 1449, although it may readily be admitted that the chapter’s record for 1419 had made no reference to the fall of Rouen to the English army, either.22 Clearly, however, a need was felt to keep on the side of those who represented the French king. On 20 November 1449 a grant (or was it a bribe?) of 1,000 livres tournois a year was made by the city to its newly appointed captain, Pierre de Brézé, ‘as a matter of courtesy. … In order that the city shall not be subject to the captain except by its own choice’,23 while a few months later, on 20 March 1450, the chapter, in an attempt to please him, presented the Treasurer of France with a volume of chronicles belonging to the cathedral.24 Coupled with Basin’s comments, such evidence suggests misgivings on the part of the corporations of Rouen. The celebrations over, men were beginning to see more realistically what the future held in store.
19 Journal d’un Bourgeois de Paris, p. 327; Parisian Journal, p. 312.20 M. G. A. Vale, English Gascony, 1399–1453 (Oxford, 1970), p. 142.21 Basin, Histoire de Charles VII, ii, p. 129.22 Contrast this with the record of the deliberations of the cathedral chapter of Saint-André, Bordeaux, for 29 June 1451: ‘Civitas Burdegale est regni Francie’ (Cited in Y. Renouard, Bordeaux sous les rois d’Angleterre (Bordeaux, 1965), p. 513).23 ‘Par courtoisie. … non pas que la ville soit subiecte au capitaine, si non de voulente’(Bibl. Mun. Rouen, A.7 (Délibérations de la ville, 1447–53), fo. 60).24 Arch. Seine-Maritime, G. 2134, fo. 4v.
In this respect the chapter’s act book is most informative. As an influential ecclesiastical body whose wealth had been much reduced by the ravages of war, the chapter met on 20 November 1449, and expressed itself unwilling to give financial support towards the recovery of Harfleur which the king, at the behest of the city, which had requested its capture, was soon to invest.25 The reason for this opposition and unwillingness to cooperate which, in the long term, seems to have been against the chapter’s interests since the economic prosperity of Rouen depended so much upon easy access to the sea by river,26 appears to have been that the contribution was to be raised without proper consultation (‘sine expresso consensus eorum’). However discussions between representatives of the chapter, the archbishop, local abbots and royal officers took place a few days later, and on 1 December the king obtained an agreement that the clergy of the city and archdiocese of Rouen would contribute 4,000 livres tournois towards the costs of the recovery of Harfleur.27 Within a few days collectors of the tax had been appointed, and processions were soon to be held and Masses said for the success of the undertaking.28
25 Ibid, fo. 20. The siege of Harfleur lasted from 8 December 1449 until 1 January 1450.26 M. Mollat, Le Commerce maritime normand à la fin du Moyen Âge (Paris, 1952), pp. 9, 12ff, 44.27 Arch. Seine Maritime, G. 2134, fos. 20v–21v.28 Ibid, fos. 23v, 27v, 28v, 36v. When, on 18 April 1450, it was learnt that the French had defeated the English at Formigny three days earlier, the chapter ordered processions to be held to thank God for the victory which he had granted (fo. 46).
The episode suggests that the metropolitan chapter was less concerned with the change of allegiance and administration than with the due recognition and preservation of ecclesiastical privileges which it saw being further threatened by two consequences of the reconquest. The first concerned the terms accorded to Rouen at the time of its surrender. Had these terms affected the rights of individual clergy to be maintained in their benefices? Were the corporate rights of the cathedral chapter to be in any way limited? Was the reconquest to lead to a change of personnel among the cathedral clergy who had held their positions under the English, perhaps specifically by English favour? As the chapter’s record clearly shows, many outsiders hoped to take advantage of the uncertainty and confusion current at the time to further their own ambitions. On 8 November 1449, two days before the king’s formal entry into Rouen, Guillaume Morin appeared before the chapter to claim a canonry and prebend for which, he said, he had royal letters of presentation dated 1437. The members of the chapter, plainly unhappy about such developments, were determined enough to inform Morin that the offices which he was claiming had been occupied by the present incumbent for the past twenty-eight years, and that by the terms of surrender granted to Rouen, clergy, whether living in the kingdom of France or in the duchy of Normandy, were generally to remain possessed of their benefices. Morin appears to have accepted this decision for the time being, although he reiterated his claim in the following April, only to be told again that he would not be admitted under the terms of surrender of the previous autumn.29
29 Ibid, fos. 18, 45v. See L. Fallue, Histoire politique et religieuse de l’église métropolitaine de Rouen (4 vols, Rouen, 1850–51), ii, pp. 478–479.
Time was to show that many claimants were trying every legal trick of the trade to harass the chapter in the hope of ecclesiastical advancement; well might the canons come to fear this unwelcome consequence of the reconquest.30 On 10 November, two days after hearing Morin, and on the very day of Charles VII’s entry into Rouen, members of the chapter went before the royal lieutenant to remind him of the king’s expressed intention that those in possession of benefices should have peaceful use of them; two days later some canons discussed with Pierre de la Hazardière, one of their most senior colleagues and himself a man who had accepted ecclesiastical advancement from the English, the content of a sermon in which Hazardière expressly intended to remind the king that he had promised to maintain all clergy in their benefices.31 The need for a preacher to remind the king of his policy and of his undertaking (and, by implication, that neither was being fulfilled) stemmed from the state of uncertainty in which members of the chapter found themselves at this moment. It comes as a surprise to learn that the complete terms of surrender made between the city and the royal captain appear not to have been fully publicised or understood for some time after the actual date of surrender. At first, only their general intent appears to have been known, and each seems to have been at liberty to interpret them as he wished. Therein lay the danger for the chapter, and from it stemmed the need to recall, for the benefit of the king and his officers, that churchmen had a special place in the terms accorded to the city, a place which effectively prevented the chapter from accepting too many new members into its ranks too readily. When, on 20 November, the canons refused to admit one Jean Dubec, in spite of the physical presence of Jean Havart, bailli of Caux, in his support, they did so by reference to the terms of surrender which remained unpublished.32 A month after the surrender, on 11 December, the chapter still claimed that it did not know how long the terms accorded to the city would allow those absent on the day of surrender to return to claim their benefices before an automatic deprivation would apply.33 The inescapable conclusion conveyed to the reader of the chapter’s record is that the canons, fearing for their rights, were very soon on the defensive.
30 In the fifteen months or so following the recovery of Rouen, the chapter was kept busy considering the claims of many who hoped, by legal means or otherwise, to gain positions within the cathedral. The canons, who did not wish to admit most of them, used every means available to them to keep such suppliants out, in spite of sometimes heavy pressure being applied by royal officers (Arch. Seine-Maritime, G. 2134, fos. 19–100).31 Ibid, fos. 18, 18v.32 Cui Dubec fuit responsum quod domini de capitulo non poterant sibi dare responsum quousque litera composicionis ville Rotomag. super facto beneficiorum sit sigillata’ (Ibid, fo. 20).33 Ibid, fo. 23. The period granted to Rouen was ‘dedans six mois’, or three if the person lived in the English obedience (Ordonnances, xiv, p. 77). At Lisieux the period was three months for everybody (Ibid, xiv, p. 62).
The months which followed the reconquest witnessed the emergence of another problem which was to be of concern to the chapter: the possible application of the terms of the Pragmatic Section in Normandy, a region which, under English rule, had lived subject to a rather different regime regarding appointments to benefices. Within days of the city’s capitulation, in a case over a disputed prebend in the cathedral, the possibility arose that the Pragmatic Sanction would be invoked as the result of the threat from one claimant to have the dispute referred to Rome, and the angry assertion, made in reply, that it should be heard before the Parlement in Paris. On 30 July 1450, the royal authority and that of the Parlement were again invoked in another long drawn-out dispute over a canonry and prebend, a case in which the opponent of the chapter sought the support of the Parlement in an attempt to have the affair resolved in his favour. The fact that a fortnight earlier the canons had forbidden a claimant to an ecclesiastical office from taking his case outside the boundaries of the duchy of Normandy underlines how strongly and how soon the chapter was coming to fear the new legal influences to which it was having to submit.34
34 Arch. Seine-Maritime, G.2134, fos 22v, 63v, 61v. For the comparable situation in Gascony, see G. Hubrecht, ‘Juridictions et compétences en Guyenne recouvrée’, Annales de la Faculté de Droit de l’Université de Bordeaux, série juridique, iii (1952), 63–79; trans. in The Recovery of France in the Fifteenth Century, ed. P. S. Lewis (London, New York, and Toronto, 1971), pp. 82–101.
If the church very soon came to question some of the consequences of the city’s recovery by Charles VII, the secular authority appears to have been immediately less affected by those same events. The record of the council’s deliberations suggests that steps were taken to please the king, even to curry favour with him. By May 1450 some 30,000 livres tournois had been lent to the Crown, chiefly as a contribution towards the recapture of Harfleur, and in that month it was agreed that in spite of difficult financial conditions and of some criticism of the way the campaign had been managed, a force of 200 men, all wearing a jerkin with the towns colours (‘huque ou hoqueton d’une livree de la ville’) should be sent to assist at the siege of Caen.35
35 Bibl. Mun., Rouen, A.7, fos. 77–78.
It was not until the early months of 1451, with Normandy now completely recovered, that signs of opposition began to show themselves. On 1 March it was announced that Charles VII had, on the previous 28 October, reissued the terms of an earlier order, the so-called Edict of Compiegne, first promulgated in 1429, regarding the settlement of property in the newly recovered areas, and that the terms appeared to be incompatible with those granted to Rouen at the time of its capitulation, to the detriment of many inhabitants.36 The importance of this edict was that it attempted, in broad terms which did not always take into account particular local problems or conditions, to restore men deprived of their estates and property as a result of the English invasion, and that it did so having in mind principally the interests of those who had left Normandy rather than those who had remained behind, a decision which was bound to affect the people of Rouen, who had never been outstanding in their anti-English attitudes, more than many. The very next day it was decided to send spokesmen, armed with the text of the edict and its confirmation (criticised as being obscure and cryptic in meaning) to the king at Tours to seek elucidation and guidance over this complicated problem. On 6 April the spokesman reported to the city’s council on a number of important matters regarding Normandy and, more particularly, on the royal confirmation of the Edict of Compiegne. Whether, and how, the problem had been resolved is not known, the records being regrettably silent on this point. The feeling, however, which the negotiations provoked in the city is hinted at by the fact that on 8 April the spokesmen reported directly to a meeting of churchmen, nobility and bourgeois of Rouen which was attended by large numbers. The delegates were then thanked for their work.37
36 ‘Pour ce que len avoit eu en congnoissance que aujourdui matin, en lassise de Rouen, les avoit publie et leu certaines lettres roiaulx, donnees le xxviij jour doctobre derrain passe, de confirmacion dautres lettres roiaux de certain edit, loy et ordonnances pieca faictes et donne a Compiengne ou moiz daoust, le xxij joiur mil xxix, par le roy nostreseigneur, qui sembloient grandement preiudicier pluseurs de ceste ville, et quilz estoient directement contre aucunes choses accordees par ledit seigneur par le traictie, composicion [et] abolicion de ceste dicte ville de Rouen, puis naguere fait et donne par icellui seigneur.’ [It is decided that it is important to obtain the king’s opinion about this; spokesmen are sent to the king at Tours] ‘obtenir de par ceste dicte ville du roy nostredit seigneur ses lettres pour adnuler les autres dessusdictes dont cy dessus est faicte mention, se cestoit le bon plaisir dicellui seigneur, ou au moins obtenir lettres dudit seigneur comme il nentend les lettres dessusdictes preiudicier ou deroguer les lettres dabolicion ou composicion par lui naguere donnees a ceste dicte ville. Et se ainsi lesdis ambassadeurs ne povoient obtenir ce que dit est, requerir devers le roy nostredit seigneur son interpretacion desdictes lettres de confirmacion et mesmes linterpretacion de celles dudit edit, loy et ordonnance donneé a Compiegne, pource que lesdis leurs semblent bien obscures et criptueuses en ce quelles contiennent’ (Ibid, fo. 90v).37 Ibid, fos. 91 and 111; H. Prentout, Les États provinciaux de Normandie (3 vols, Caen, 1925–6), I, p. 158. On this general problem see C. T. Allmand, ‘The Aftermath of War in Fifteenth-century France’, History, lxi (1976), 344–357.
Reluctance to go along with such royal measures might have only a limited interest and little significance were it not that these complaints formed the essential background to demands which would be submitted, within about two years of the recovery of Normandy, for the formal recognition of the duchy’s liberties. Both the spiritual and the civil authorities in Rouen, as on more than one occasion in times past, were to take an active lead in the making of such demands. In the autumn of 1450 the chapter and the archbishop entered into discussions with royal officers regarding the terms of surrender (‘de materia composicionis’) and the Charte aux Normands, the chapter agreeing to lend its original of the Charte to an assembly of the provincial estates meeting in Rouen so that its text could, if necessary, be compared with others.38 If, before long, the canons were joined by the civil authority it was partly because of the unsatisfactory manner in which the terms of surrender had been made known, partly because even when they had become known the king had maladroitly appeared to nullify their effect by confirming an old order, made some twenty years earlier, which seemed to give undue advantage to those who had abandoned their lands out of loyalty to the Valois cause. It was the dismay and uncertainty provoked by this step, and a fear that the king was avenging himself on those who had remained in Normandy during the period of English rule, which brought civil and ecclesiastical leaders together in opposition to the king and to the authority of Paris.
38 Arch. Seine-Maritime, G. 2134, fos. 74 and 88.
The Charte was soon to be the focal point of a wider appeal to Norman separatism, inspired and led by Rouen.39 On 25 June 1451 the city’s council decided to make a stand for the rights and privileges of Rouen and Normandy against the pretensions of Paris; a demand was to be made for the renewal, in its entirety, of the Charte aux Normands, as well as for a confirmation of the validity of the duchy’s customs. The all too brief record refers to a meeting which was to take place with royal commissioners on 1 August at Vernon (almost on the boundary separating Normandy from France) for which the men of Paris were said to be making elaborate preparations, the Normans being urged to do likewise.40 Some while later it was reported that the Parlement was trying to have cases referred to itself, and that its officers (huissiers) had been active in Gisors in eastern Normandy and elsewhere contrary to the terms of the Charte. A decision was taken to send complaints to the king; the bailliage of Gisors was to be encouraged to do the same.41
39 ‘La grande préccupation de la province était de se faire confirmer toutes ses anciennes institutions’ (Prentout, Etats provinciaux, I, 161). See also A. Cheruel, Histoire de Rouen sous la domination anglaise au quinzième siècle (Rouen, 1840), ch. viii, and ‘Remonstrance des habitants de Rouen contre l’universite de Paris’ (pp. 167–184). Aspects of Breton separatism of a slightly earlier period are discussed by Michael Jones, ‘“Mon Pais et ma Nation”; Breton Identity in the Fourteenth Century’, War, Literature and Politics in the Late Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of G. W. Coopland, ed. C. T. Allmand (Liverpool, 1976), pp. 144–168.40 Bibl. Mun. Rouen, A. 7, fos. 95–95v. ‘Il sera question plus tard de l’appointement de Vernon’ (Prentout, Etats provinciaux, I, pp. 193–194).41 Bibl. Mun, Rouen, A. 7, fo. 110v.
The spirit of opposition of the immediate post-war period seems to have come to a head in the autumn of 1452, when some important formal demands were drawn up. On 7 October the city’s council decided to consult with the king’s advocates regarding a number of cases pending in the courts, including the Échiquier and elsewhere, concerning the rights and liberties of Rouen. Further, in accordance with the wishes of the Norman estates, it was decided to ask the king for the confirmation of the Charte aux Normands, for the restoration of the Chambre des Comptes and the Cour des Aides at Rouen, for the establishment of a chancellery (‘le seel du roy’) there, and for the re-establishment of the University of Caen.42
42 Ibid, fo. 134v; Prentout, États provinciaux, I, pp. 160–162.
A more comprehensive document survives which fully indicates what demands Rouen was making of the crown. Although it is dated 2 2 November 1452, it was directly based on demands drawn up for a meeting of 7 October or, possibly, much earlier, and is included at the end of a volume43 containing contemporary records of the deliberations of the chapter. Headed ‘The articles regarding which it seems reasonable that the three Estates of the duchy of Normandy should petition our lord the king’, the document summarises many earlier complaints. The effect of war upon the ability of the population to pay what was regarded as excessively high taxation was emphasised, accompanied with the threat that, unless taxes were lowered, people would be forced to leave the duchy to seek homes els e where;44 the Charte aux Normands should be confirmed and renewed as the last king, Charles VI, had done; a university with a complete range of faculties should be founded at Caen, and be given privileges;45 legal and financial institutions should be established in Rouen; and, in an important reference to a matter which had already given rise to the expression of considerable feeling, the king should be requested to confirm the terms of surrender granted to individual towns, and to allow all disputed cases arising from these to be heard in Normandy under the jurisdiction of the sovereign Échiquier, without interference from the Parlement or justices from outside the duchy, especially in cases which might be summoned to Paris by virtue of the privileges of its ancient university.46
43 The date of the document suggests that a meeting of the Estates took place in November, 1452; on this matter I am more convinced by the positive reasoning of C. Robillard de Beurepaire (‘Les États de Normandie sous le règne de Charles VII’, Précis des travaux de l’Académie des Sciences, Belles-Lettres et Arts de Rouen (1874–75), pp. 273–277) than by the rather too cautious point of view presented by Prentout (États provinciaux, iii, pp. 24–25). The demands which the document contains had, in all likelihood, been considered as early as December 1451, when they received the chapter’s approval (Ibid, iii, pp. 24 and 91). Prentout suggested that the history of these demands may have gone back to 1450 (Ibid, I, p. 162, n. 3).44 Taxation under the Valois soon became almost as high as it had been under the English, without the excuse of a local war to justify it (Mollat, Commerce maritime normand, p. 74).45 Charles VII had not originally confirmed the existence of the faculty of law, and would not do so until 30 October 1452 (A de Bourmont, Ls Fondation de l’Université de Caen, et son Organisation au XVe siècle (Caen, 1883), pp. 54 and 265–269).46 Arch. Seine-Maritime, G 2134, fos. 277–278. The text, a version of which was published by Beau-repaire (Les Etats de Normandie sous le règne de Charles VII, pp. 274–276), is printed below at the end of this paper.
It may be readily understood why the Normans were anxious to rid themselves of English rule and why, as at Rouen in November 1449, they cheered the arrival of Charles VII, and displayed on their balconies hangings bearing the fleur-de-lys. Yet they did not regard themselves as unquestioning subjects of the king of France.47 As the record shows, their doubts were largely prompted by the acts and attitudes of the king and his officers. They sought to limit domination by Parisian institutions, particularly as this was expressed by the domineering attitude of some royal officers. Rather, they favoured certain legal and institutional revivals attempted during the English occupation. The challenge to the authority of the Parlement of Paris to judge Norman cases was a challenge to central government, supported by both the encouragement given to the hearing of appeals and certain types of dispute, such as those arising out of royal land grants, by the council in Rouen, and by the revival of the Norman Echiquier as a sovereign court (‘cour souveraine’) as had been done in 1423, 1424, 1426 and, more recently, in 1448.48 Similar developments were the reintroduction of the office of seneschal, abolished by Philip Augustus;49 the creation between 1429 and 1449 of a Cour des Aides at Rouen, an institution closely linked to the Chambre des Comptes which, itself, had been established in the Norman capital after the fall of Paris in 1436;50 and, finally, the foundation, in the 1430s, of a university at Caen (whose very existence had been vigorously challenged by that of Paris) which saw the new studium, endowed with many privileges and liberties, as a rival to the political, social and intellectual hegemony of the Parisian institution in northern France.51
47 See the text of the ‘Remonstrance’ cited in n. 39, above. For reaction to not dissimilar events in the early thirteenth century, see M. Nortier, ‘Le Rattachement de la Normandie à la Couronne de France’, Positions des thèses de l’École des Chartes (1951), pp. 121–126. For the effects of the French reconquest of the Bordelais in these very same years, see A. Peyregne, ‘La Pénétration du régime français en Bordelais de 1453 a 1461 (Ibid, 1951, pp. 127–132; Bordeaux sous les rois d’Angltterre, ed. Renouard, pp. 505ff.48 The records of the Echiquier are kept at the Archives de la Seine-Maritime, Rouen.49 See R. A. Newhall, The English Conquest of Normandy, 1416–1424 (Yale, 1924), pp. 244–246; R. N. Sauvage, ‘Une Procédure devant la sénéchaussée de Normandie en 1423’, Mémoires de l’Académie nationale des sciences, arts et belles-lettres de Caen (1910), pp. 130–157; Prentout, États provinciaux, I, pp. 160–161.50 M. Le Pesant, ‘La Cour de Aides de Normandie, des origines à 1552’, Positions des thèses de l’École des Chartes (1936), pp. 107–115.51 Bourmont described the history of the university up to 1452 as ‘la période la plus brillante de notre universite’ (La Fondation…. p. 55). The founding of the university of Caen is traced in C. T. Allmand, Lancastrian Normandy, 1415–1450: The History of a Medieval Occupation (Oxford, 1983), pp. 105–121.
The period of the English occupation is so frequently regarded in negative and unproductive terms, particularly by French historians, that it may surprise some to learn that the period left a legacy which was promptly put to good political use by the Normans themselves. Under the Lancastrians, the English had always based their claim to the duchy upon the past; they had had a practical interest in reviving ‘old’, historic institutions – but they had done more, for the Cour des Aides, for example, was an institution with a ‘new’ role to fulfil. Thus the measure of the influence of the English occupation may to some extent be reflected in the future history of institutions, legal, financial and educational, revived or founded under their rule, which were sought in the demands of the estates of 1452. On 30 November of that year, the king authorised the foundation of an enlarged university at Caen, although proper recognition was not given, perhaps deliberately, to the part which the English had played in founding the studium almost twenty years earlier.52 Similarly, the Cour des Aides, although abolished by Charles VII, was re-established (although not with sovereign rights) sometime between 1453 and 1455, largely as a result of the demands of the estates of 1453; only in 1462, having first been abolished and then restored by Louis XI, was it to be given existence as a sovereign body.53 As for the Échiquier, it was to serve the future by providing the basis for the Parlement founded by Louis XII in 1499 which, in turn, was to become the Parlement de Rouen under Francis I. Only the legal existence of the duchy itself, to some extent encouraged by the English (Henry V had styled himself Duke of Normandy, and had appeared as such in Rouen wearing ceremonial robes) had a limited future. For although given a duke in the person of Charles de France, the king’s brother, in 1465, Normandy became an inalienable part of the French king’s domain by agreement reached with the Estates General meeting at Tours in 1468. On 9 November 1469 the ducal seal was formally broken at a sitting of the Échiquier. By this act the duchy of Normandy ceased to exist.54,55
52 Arch. Calvados, Caen, D. 28. ‘Ipse rex Karolus septimus eamdem Universitatem novam fecit, eamque de novo erexit atque creavit, non habendo respectum ad gesta per Anglos, multisque privilegiis eam dotavit’. (Caen, Musée des Beaux Arts, Coll. Mancel, D.64). No modern historian has denied the lasting importance for Normandy of the contribution of this institution, whose origins go back to the years of the English occupation. See n. 51 above.53 Le Resant, ‘Cour de Aides’, pp. 107–108.54 Prentout, États provinciaux, I, pp. 197–198.55 That is, ‘quatriemes’ (a tax).
The demands of 1452 form a remarkable comment upon the previous thirty or forty years of Norman history. They suggest that historians have too readily interpreted the recovery of the duchy and the short-term enthusiasm of its people, as recorded by contemporary chronicles, as a necessary part of Normandy’s predetermined movement along the road to assimilation into the French kingdom a generation later. What emerges from the evidence here presented is that the demands of 1452, which led to the concessions made by Charles VII later in the 1450s, far from being the romantic expression of a provincialism which would soon no longer have proper legal foundation, in fact formed a protest against maladroit attempts to impose measures which appeared to act contrary to both the immediate material interests of many Normans, laymen as well as clergy, and the duchy’s historical tradition of independence, the protest being expressed in terms of what was clearly regarded as having been best, most useful and most likely to be lasting in the legacy which the English had left behind them. What the Valois monarchy lacked most of all, at this stage, was ‘political tact’, which may have caused doubts to form in the minds of independently minded Normans. Ironical as it may seem, it was the lead provided by their erstwhile political masters, the English, whom they themselves had so recently helped to expel, which showed the Normans how best to assert their self-respect and their independence of their new, French, masters.
The articles
Articles containing requests to be made to the king, Charles VII, on behalf of the Estates of Normandy, approved by the chapter of Rouen cathedral on 22 November, 1452 (Archives de la Seine-Maritime, Rouen, G. 2134, fos. 277v–78).
[fo. 277v] Sensuient les articles qui semblent estre raisonnables a requerir au roy nostre seigneur par les troiz estas du pays et duchie de normemdie.
Premierement, que en consideracion a ce que ses treshumbles subgiez de Normendie ont continuelment este en guerre depuis plus de xxxij ans enca audevant de la reduction de ce pais de Normendie, et par ce a este et encores est ledit pais depopule et evacue de peuple. biens et chevance, et aussi que depuis icelle reduction on este et sont de jour en jour cueillies en icelui pais tresgrans et excessives finances, tant par moien de tailles, impositions, iiijes, 5 gabelles et autres aides plus grans et excessives que oncques ne furent de memoire de homme, et lesquelles sont importables audit pais a soustenir et continuer; il plaise au roy, nostredit seigneur, en aiant regart a leurs bonnes loyautez, sur ce pourveoir a sesdiz treshumbles subgiez de Normendie, et faire cesser lesdictes charges ou au moins les moderer tellement que ilz puissent vivre et passer le demourant de leurs jours en paix soubz sa tresnoble seigneurie et royal maieste. Car autrement sesdis treshumbles subgiez, qui lesdictes charges ne peuent plus porter ne soustenir, seroient en necessite de wider et aler ailleurs demourer pour icelles charges eschiver, et trouver moyen de vivre plus paisiblement et a mendre charge, ainsi que desia sen est parti et encore fait chacun jour dudit pais grant nombre et quantite, et encore plus feroit se de sa tresnoble grace ny estoit remedie et pourveu en brief.
Item, que les loys, coustumes et usages dudit pais de Normendie et la chartre aux normans soient confermez, ainsi quilz furent par le roy Charles [VI] derrain trespasse selon sa chartre sur ce faicte.
Item, quil plaise au roy nostredit seigneur creer et erigier universite en la ville de Caen en toutes facultez, et la douer a son bon plaisir des privileges qui par les estas dudit pais de Normendie lui seront baillez par supplicacion.
Item, quil plaise au roy nostredit seigneur ordonner en la ville de Rouen seel de chancellerie, chambre de comptes et de generaulx sur le fait de la justice des aides pour le bien dudit pais de Normendie.
Item, que les composicions et concessions octroiees par le roy nostredit seigneur aux citez, villes, forteresses et pais de Normendie en faisant ou par le moien de ladicte reduction dicelles en lobaissance du roy nostredit seigneur, soient aussi par lui auctorisees, confermees, entretenues et gardees selon leur fourme et teneur, et que se aucuns debatz et process se [fo. 278] meuvent touchant lesdictes composicions et concessions ou les deppendences dicelles, les juges ordinaires, tant ecclesiastiques que seculiers, dudit pais de Normendie, chacun en son regart, en aient la congnoissance et decision soubz le ressort, cestassavoir de leschiquier, court souveraine en Normendie; quant aux juges seculiers, et au regart des juges ecclesiastiques, soubz le ressort des greigneurs ou souverains juges a qui ordinairement il appatient, sans ce que la court de parlement ne autres juges en aient la congnoissance, ne que, par quelxconques previlleges de universitez ou autrement, puissent les habitans dudit pais estre ailleurs convenus es cas dessusdis et leurs deppendences. Et se aucunes causes en estoient ja meues et pendentes devant aucuns juges, quilz soient renvoiees devant lesdis juges ordinaires de Normendie pour en congnoistre et decider, comme dit est.
Chapitre de Rouen donne adhesion aux estas de Normendie a poursuir devers le roy nostre seigneur les articles dessusdis, et sont dacort que len y envoie de par lestat de leglise ung, deux ou troiz clers notables pour les poursuir, desquelz clers ils commettent lelection a maistres Guillaume Dudesert et Jehan de Gouvys, chanoines dicelle eglise, selon ce quilz verront estre a faire par ladviz et opinion des autres prelas et seigneurs deglise de Normendie qui sur ce seront assemblez. Ce fut fait et passe en chapitre lan mil iiijc lij, le xxij jour de novembre.
J. Des Essars