‘The law says, ‘In confitentem nullæ sunt partes judicantis.’ And supposing, that according to some, a sentence is requisite, at least it is certain that no trial or examination of the cause is necessary, since this present case is extremely notorious. So has it formerly been determined by the sentence and judgment of the kings in times past, against several great lords of their day,—to wit, that when the facts were notorious, no other process or inquisition was required. And so shall it be determined, by the grace of God, in the present case,—for so reason demands.
‘Should it, however, be thought necessary to go into another trial, which, from all I have said, I cannot suppose, my lady of Orleans is ready prepared to bring forward the fullest proof of what I have advanced, and such as must convince all reasonable persons. But as my lady can now only offer civil conclusions, and would willingly propose criminal ones, but that it belongs to the king’s attorney-general according to the usage in France,—my lady, therefore, most earnestly supplicates the king’s attorney to join with her, and propose such sentence as the law in this case requires.’
These were the conclusions of my lady of Orleans and her sons,—after which, the council of the princes of the blood, and others of the king’s council, with the approbation of the duke of Acquitaine, made the chancellor reply to the duchess of Orleans, that the duke of Acquitaine, as lieutenant for the king, and representing his person, and the princes of the blood-royal were well satisfied with her conduct respecting her late lord the duke of Orleans: that they held him perfectly exculpated from all the charges that had been brought against him; and that, in regard to her requests, speedy and good justice should be done her, so that she should be reasonably contented therewith.
A few days after, the young duke of Orleans, Charles, did homage for the duchy of Orleans, and all his other possessions, to his uncle Charles king of France: then, taking leave of the queen and dauphin, and the princes of the blood who were in Paris, he departed with his men at arms for Blois, whence he had come. The duchess-dowager of Orleans remained in Paris.
CHAP. II.
GUYE DE ROVE, ARCHBISHOP OF RHEIMS, APPEALS FROM THE CONSTITUTIONS DRAWN UP BY THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS, WHICH ANGERS THAT BODY, AND THEY IMPRISON HIS COMMISSARY.
At this period, Guy de Roye[1], archbishop of Rheims, who had been summoned specially by the king to attend the meeting of the prelates at Paris, assembled to consider on the means of uniting the whole church, neither came himself nor sent any one in his behalf. He refused to agree to the decisions of this council, and sent a chaplain as his commissary, with letters signed with his name and seal, to confirm his opposition to all the statutes they had drawn up, as well for himself and his diocese as for all his subjects within the province.
The king and the clergy were much displeased at this conduct; and the university of Paris requested that the commissary should be confined in close imprisonment, where he remained for a long time.
The cardinal of Bordeaux came at this time to Paris, partly for the union of the church; and then also returned thither master Peter Paoul, and the patriarch of Alexandria, named master Symon Cramant, who had been sent by the king of France and the university of Paris, as ambassadors to the two rival popes.