‘ 
1804.) Manuferipts in the Library ef the late King of France. - 92t 
purpofe, where there were fo many learn- 
‘ed men qualified to inveftigate and decide 
the matter. A letter was alfo written to 
the King of England, to the fame purport 
with thofe addrefled to the Duke of Bur- 
gundy and John de Luxemburg. 
“¢ Tt is impoffible (oblferves M. De 
L'Averdy,) to read thefe letters without 
horror, whether produced by intrigue, or 
the fuperftitious ignorance of the times, or 
the influence of both united ; particularly 
when we fee that Univerfity, which had at 
other times difplayed fo much zeal and 
firmnefs in the defence of our liberties and 
the Pragmatic San&tion, now call for and 
recognize the jurifdiction of the Inquifition 
to be added tothat of the Bifhops in mere 
matter of faith, and to make itfelf the 
moft aétive perfecutor of a woman who 
had faved the legitimate Monarch of 
France ; but at the fame time it would 
be difficult not to admit the force of that 
blind prejudice, which could make the 
conduét of Joan of Arc be locked upon as 
a denial of faith, as the confequence of in- 
fernal infpiration, and as the effect of ido- 
Jatry and witchcraft, in the mind of thofe- 
who, rejecting Charles VIE. could recog- 
Henry VI. of England.as the Monarch of 
France.” 
The Inguifition did not fail to profit by 
a conduét fo favourable to its with tor efa- 
blifhing its jurifdiction in France. On 
the 26th of May, 1430, Brother Martin, 
the Vicar General of the Inquiftor of 
Faith in France, wrote aletter tothe Duke 
of Burgundy, in which he does not merely 
content himfelf with intreating that Joan 
fhould be delivered to him, without tak- 
ing any notice of the Bifhop of Beauvais ; 
but. he has the boldnefs to demand, by 
virtue of his office, and the authority com- 
mitted to him by the fee of Rome, that 
the Duke fhould, under the heavieit pe- 
nalties, immediately produce the prifoner 
before him. This condu& of the Inqui- 
fitor fufficiently proves how entirely the 
Univerfity of Paris had abandoned: their 
old principles, in recognizing a joint-au- 
thority in the Inquifition with the bifhop 
of the diftri€&t where the priioner had been 
taken. The Inquifitor now took upon 
himfelf to be the arbiter between the King 
of England, the Duke of Burgundy, and 
John of Luxemburg. Underftanding that 
the Englifh King had confented to pay the 
ranfom for Joan, he fent in that King’s 
name, on the 14th of July, 1430, a requi- 
fition to the Duke of Burgundy and John 
of Luxemburg, which was delivered to 
them by the apoftolical notaries in the 
Duke's caitle, in the prefence of the no- 
bles and knights of ‘his Court, by which- 
he demanded, in his own and the Bifhop 
of Beauvais’s name, that the prifoner call+ 
ed Foan la Pucelle thould be forthwith 
fent to the King of England, to be deli- 
vered over to the Church, for the purpofe , 
of being proceeded againft for her nume- 
rouscrimes, which he defcribes to be for- 
cery, idolatry, invocation of infernal fpi- 
rits, and many others. The Bifhop of 
Beauvais being thus compelled to aé 
with the Inguifitor, France muft confe- 
quently have groaned under the monftrous 
laws of that eftablifhment, if the country 
had remained in pofieffion of the Englifh. 
This incident, fo extraordinary in itfelf, 
has more the appearance of magic and 
forcery than any other part of the affair, 
But the Inquifitor, not content with 
what he had done, determines to meddla 
fill more with what did act concern him 5 
for he goes on in his requifition to add, 
that, ** forafmuch as Joan could not be 
confidered according to the rules of war, 
yet neverthelefs, for the remuneration of 
thofe who had taken and detained her, 
the King would ranfom her at the price of 
fix thoufand francs ; and as to the Baffard 
de Vendome, who had firft taken her, 
would pay and allow him an annuity of 
two or three hundred livres.” 
After having thus fpoken in the cha- 
racters of a plenipotentiary and a church- 
man, he finifhes as a negociator, by pro- 
pofing that Joan fhould be delivered up 
on fecurity tor the amount of the ranfom 
being given. The negociation was much 
protracted, either from the hopes of thofe 
who were interelted to draw a greater fum 
from Charles VII. who could not, how- 
ever, have been admitted to ranfom her at 
any price according to the rules of war, 
or from fome relutance in the captors to 
dcliverup Joan, whom they did not think 
guilty, to the fury of the Inquilition ; er 
it might proceed from the inability of the 
King of England to pay fo confiderable a 
fum at the moment, or from fome tardi- 
nefs in the Privy Council of England to 
aflent to the mode of procedure, as ap» 
pears from the letters-patent pafled on the 
occafion. It was not in fact until the 
zoth of January, 1430, that the patent 
was palled, and the crimes of which Joan 
was accufed are thus ftated in them :—~ 
‘¢ That a woman calling herfelf the Pu- 
celle, laying afide the habit and dre!s of 
the female fex, a thing abaminable in the 
eyes of God, and contrary to all law hu~ 
man and divine, cloathed, drefled, and 
armed in the habit and manner of a man, 
had committed the cruel act of homicide ; 
and, 
