The Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy

days1. A month later the Lancastrian envoys were stilldetained in Normandy2. Afterwards their prospects improved.Somerset was released at the special intercessjonof Charles the Bold, who, in opposition to his father,favoured the Lancastrian cause. He was present at theinterview of Charles and Louis XI at Tours, Nov.-Dec.1461, and received some help in money from the latter.Thence he had intended to return to Scotland, but hearingthat Edward was on the look-out for him, he retired toRruges3.I,nncas- Early in the following year the air was full of rumours oftrian Plots. intended invasions of England in the Lancastrian interest4.It was in connexion with these plots that the Earl ofOxford and his son lost their heads in Feb. 1462. Thismust have disconcerted the arrangements. In March,Somerset and Hungerford returned to Scotland instead ofinvading England ; the idea of an invasion was not howevergiven up, and a fleet of French, Breton, and Spanishships was assembling in the SeineG.The Idan- On their arrival in Scotland the royal fugitives had beencnstrians inScotland. received first in the palace of Linlithgow; thence they proceededto Edinburgh, where they were lodged in theconvent of the Dominican Friars. They seem to havebeen in great poverty. We find Margaret borrowingmoney of the Queen Dowager of Scotland, and pledgingto her a gold cup7; while from a subsequent letter ofPaston Letters, ii. 45-7.lb. 52.S Chastellain, U. S., pp. 66-9 ;hlonstrelet, U. S., f. 91 a.In Feb. 1462 secret intelligencehad been received in Norfolk ofan intended threefold invasion ofEngland ; Paston Letters, ii. 91.1 am inclined to think that thisis the same conspiracy as the onementioned in Three Fifteenth Cent.Chron. p. I 58 ; but the chronologythere is very confused ; cf. ib. 17 j ;and the account has been grosslyexaggerated either by Yorkist fearsor Lancastrian hopes. Nine powersare represented as engaged in thescheme, and the continental forcesto be employed amount to over300,000 men. Fortescue is expresslynamed as one of the partywhich was to land at Sandwich.Somerset was to be accompaniedby Henry (read joktz) of Calabria,Margaret's brother, which is notimprobable."aston Letters, ii. 93 ; Will.Worcester, p. 779.g Paston Letters, ii. 93-4.' Burnett, Exchequer Rolls ofScotland, VII. xxxvi f., and the referencesthere given. ChastellainHenry V1 it would seem as if Fortescue hinlself hadministered to the necessities of his master at his ownexpense1. Later in the year 1461 Henry seems to havegone to Kirkcudbright, leaving Margaret and her son withFortescue and others at Edinburgh2; .while early in 1462the prince paid a visit to the Queen Dowager at Falkland5.In April, Margzret with her son and others set out for the XrargaretShe PCStotheContinelit.Continent, in order to plead her cause in person.embarked at Kirkcudbright, and landed in Brittany, whereshe was well received by the Duke, who gave her 12,000crowns4. Thence she went to her father Rene in Anjou,and from him to the court of Louis at Chinon5. Here a Treat),\\rithtreaty was negotiated between Louis and Margaret, whichwas signed at Tours, June 28th, 1462~. In July Louis andMargaret seem to have had another meeting at Rouen7.By this time Margaret had got together a ,considerableforce, intending to return to Scotland and invade Englandfrom thence.Rut meanwhile things were going badly there. A Affairs inparty among the Scotch lords, strongly opposed to the Scotland.Lancastrian policy of Bishop Kennedy of St. Andrew's,makes hlargaret say : ' Donc . . . dated Edinburgh, April 10.me suis fu~e en Escoche, lh oh Whether Fortescue went to Francevivant d'emprunt et resue soubs nithRlargaret,or remained in Scotpromessede secours, portant land with Henry, I have not beenlnainte estroite povretC honteuse, able to- determine with certainty.Escochois en fin m'ont laidement If Mdlle. Dupont is correct indCq~e,' &c. ; VII. I03 ; of. ib. iv. assigning Henry's letter of cre-297. dence for Fortescue to Louis XI,'A ses despens nous a tou- cited above, to the year 1462, thejours entretenu notre estat.' In question 11ould be settled in favourWaurin, 6d. Dupont, iii. 169 f. of the former view. But it isPrinted imperfectly and with a against this that his name doesdifferent date in Family History, not occur among the negotia-P. p . tors or signataries of the treatyPaston Letters, ii. 46. I do uith Louis XI, though less imnotkno\v \thy hlr. Burnett (U. S.) portant men are mentioned. Forshould doubt this.other schemes of hfargaret at this"xch. Rolls, U. S. p. 85. tlme, see an interesting paper in' Vid. Commynes, Cd. Lenglet- Uupont's CVaurin, iii. 178-181.I)ufresnoy, ii. 372.It is there said that many in WalesWill. Worcester, pp. 779 f. ; and in the South and West ofcf. Chastellain, vii. 10;.England were ready to rise in"ee Commynes, U. S., ii. 367- Henry's favour.373. Xlargaret's commission is Commynes, U. S., ii. 12.