portance. But only two courses now were open to him: either, relying on Louisa's past affection, to marry her, the rival heir, or, in case of a decision granted in her favour, to mutiny against the crown of France.
Charles of Bourbon, indignant, high-spirited, outraged, decided on the latter course. He was already regarded as the head of the popular party. The graver of the nobles were with him, Louis de Brézé, Seneschal of Normandy, St. Vallier, and many others. "All the great personages," says Charles V., "are for him." The Parliament, no less, saw in the Constable the advocate of its rights and privileges, persistently disregarded by the King. The lawyers were with him, and the Liberal bourgeois. He was supposed to be the great reformer, the man who had the wrongs of the country at heart. "This virtuous prince," writes Cardinal Wolsey, "seeing the ill-conduct of the King and the vast extent of abuses, wished to reform the kingdom and assuage the poor people." This, of course, is stating the case from the point of view of the enemies of France. Yet, if Bourbon had remained in his own provinces, there is no saying how his rebellion might have ended.
England and the Empire saw with delight this dissension between Francis and the greatest of his subjects. They each sent a secret envoy to the Constable; and it was privately agreed that, as soon as Francis should be gone to reconquer Milan, the English should invade Picardy, the Germans and Spaniards enter Guienne and Burgundy, while the Constable should seize the central provinces. The kingdom conquered, each should satisfy what he considered his just claims. Henry should take the North, and call himself
