to most of whom the arts of war were, in those days, perfectly familiar. At all events, between these two pursuits men were all divided; the only avocations were war and theology; and if you refused to enter the Church, you were bound to do military duty.

"As a natural consequence, everything of real importance was altogether neglected. There were, indeed, many priests and many warriors, many sermons aud many battles; but on the other hand, there was neither trade, nor commerce, nor manufactures; there was no science, no literature; the useful arts were entirely unknown, and even the highest ranks of society were unacquainted, not only with the most ordinary comforts, but with the commonest decencies of civilized life.

"But so soon as gunpowder came into use, there was laid the foundation of a great change. According to the old system, a man had only to possess what he generally inherited from his father, either a sword or a bow, and he was ready equipped for the field. According to the new system, very different weapons were required, and the equipment became more costly and more difficult.

"First, there was the supply of gunpowder, then there was the possession of muskets, which were expensive articles, and considered difficult to manage. Then, too, there were other contrivances to which gunpowder naturally gave rise, such as pistols, bombs, mortars, shells, mines, and the like. All these things, by increasing the complication of the military art, increased the necessity of discipline and practice, whilst, at the same time, the change that was effected in the ordinary weapons deprived a great majority of men of the possibility of procuring them.

"To suit the altered circumstances, a new system was organized, and it was found advisable to train up bodies of men for the sole purpose of war, and to separate them, as much as possible, from those other employments in which, previously, all soldiers occasionally engaged. Thus it was that there arose

standing armies.”

The above quotation is more applicable to the "Dark Ages" than even to the early part of the "Middle Ages." From the fifth to the tenth centuries, it is true enough that the only avocations were War and Theology; that all men were divided between these two professions; and that, if any one refused to enter the Church, he was enrolled in the rude and barbarous Militia. But the condition of men had improved by the end of the tenth and beginning of the eleventh centuries; for feudal life, with its baronial castles and gorgeous trappings, had rapidly developed; and it is hardly correct to say of this period that "the highest ranks were unacquainted, not only with the most ordinary comfort, but with the commonest decencies of civilized life."

There is a more important point, however, than this. What was the date of standing armies in Europe? On this point the statements of Buckle are contradictory. He begins by telling us that standing armies were formed almost immediately after gunpowder was invented. If this be so, it is easy to find the date when standing armies arose; for "cannons," says he, "were certainly used in war before the middle of the fourteenth century." If standing armies followed immediately the invention of gunpowder, then they must have come into existence by the middle of the fourteenth century, or soon after, for cannons were

then in use. Yet we are informed by Buckle that the "first standing armies were formed in the middle of the fifteenth century "-a whole century, that is, after the invention of gunpowder. In fixing the rise of standing armies at this date, Buckle probably followed the authority of Hallam, who states that "Charles VII. of France raised the first standing army in Europe, and levied a poll-tax in 1444 to defray the expenditure." French authorities assert that Philip IV., who died in the beginning of the fourteenth century, was the first to raise a standing army; and that Charles VII., who lived over a century later, provided for its regular payment by creating a tax.

The object of this digression on gunpowder is to show the reader what an immense advantage was gained by the Kings of France in their struggle with the feudal Lords, when they had a standing army at their command.

Various causes-the victorious assaults of successive Kings, continual conflicts with each other, their expenditure in the Crusades-gradually weakened that powerful body of Nobles, who once exercised Sovereign Power in their respective domains, and brought them more and more under the control of the Royal Power. In 1465, a formidable League, with Charles the Bold of Burgundy and the Duke of Brittany at its head, was organized against Louis XI.; but this adroit and able Monarch managed to dissolve and overcome it. By stratagem and force Louis inflicted many damaging blows on the feudal Nobility, wresting from them, and adding to the Crown, numerous fiefs, such as Picardy, Burgundy, Franche-Comté, &c. Few did more than Louis XI. for the territorial unity of France.

The partiality he displayed to the Middle Class

-who at this time began to be called the Bourgeoisie, from living in Bourgs, or walled townswas as remarkable as the hostility he displayed to the Nobility. He granted to various towns, as Bordeaux, Dijon, &c., parlements, that is, Courts of Justice of the highest jurisdiction.

*

In 1484, during the Regency of Anne, the daughter of Louis XI., the States General were called together, when the Nobility revolted and took the field. They were beaten by the Royal troops in 1488.

From that period, for over a hundred years, down to Louis XIII. in 1610, there were frequent conflicts between the Royal Power and the feudal Nobility; which tended steadily to diminish the ascendency the latter once possessed. Their doom was sealed when Cardinal Richelieu was invested with supreme power in 1623.

This extraordinary man had early resolved on three great projects: to suppress the Protestant faction; to end the predominance of Austria; and, above all, to break down the feudal Nobility, destroy their factious spirit, and reduce them to subordination. He accomplished the first in taking La Rochelle, the headquarters of the Protestants, after a siege of thirteen months. He succeeded in the second by repeated victories over Austria, which ended in the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648. His greatest, and most difficult feat, however, was the overthrow of the great Nobles, who still wielded immense influence, though no longer at the head of armies of vassals as in the old days of Feudality two hundred years before.

Perceiving the purpose of Richelieu, the Noblet

Louis XI. introduced printing into France from Mayence, where Guttenburg invented it in 1442.

resorted first to intrigue to deprive him of power. Uniting with the brother of the King, Gaston Duke of Orleans, they succeeded in inducing Louis to sign a decree ejecting Richelieu from office. The Cardinal, however, hearing of the conspiracy, flew to Versailles the same day, and regained his position with the King. To escape a similar danger, he resorted to the most rigorous measures. He seized all the conspirators within his reach: exiled some, imprisoned others, and condemned Marshal Marillac to death.

The more powerful adopted the old tactics, and defied the stern Cardinal in the field. The Duke of Montmorency, Hereditary Governor of Languedoc, raised an insurrection; and having met the troops dispatched by Richelieu at Castelnaudary, 1632, was defeated, made prisoner, and executed. Rather than yield to their implacable enemy, some of the most resolute of the Nobility, in utrumque parati, had recourse to foreign aid, and applied to Austria and Spain. The Dukes of Bouillon and Guise, with the Count of Soissons, encountered the army of Richelieu at Mariée, 1641, and were defeated. The Count perished in the combat, but the others escaped. † The Marquis of Cinq Mars, who had, conjointly with the Duke of Orleans, negotiated with Spain to obtain troops and money, was arrested at Narbonne, tried and executed at Lyons with his accomplice De Thou, 1642. By this relentless policy Richelieu gave a deathblow to Feudality in France.

* Marie de Medicis, mother of the King, and the Duchess de Chevreuse, the confidant of the Queen, Anne of Austria, were among the exiled. Even the Queen herself was assigned for some time to a

convent at Paris.

The Duke de Bouillon was afterwards compelled, for this act of tr ason, to give up his principality of Sedan, which was annexed to the

crown.