Chapter 15

See Thomas Walsingham,Historia Anglicana, edited by H.T. Riley (London, 1863-1864); W. Stubbs,Constitutional History of England, vols. ii. and iii. (Oxford, 1895);The Paston Letters, edited by James Gairdner (London, 1904).

BEAUFORT, FRANÇOIS DE VENDÔME,Duc de(1616-1669), a picturesque figure in French history of the 17th century, was the second son of César de Vendôme, and grandson of Henry IV., by Gabrielle d’Estrées. He began his career in the army and served in the first campaigns of the Thirty Years’ War, but his ambitions and unscrupulous character soon found a more congenial field in the intrigues of the court. In 1642 he joined in the conspiracy of Cinq Mars against Richelieu, and upon its failure was obliged to live in exile in England until Richelieu’s death. Returning to France, he became the centre of a group, known as the “Importants,” in which court ladies predominated, especially the duchess of Chevreuse and the duchess of Montbazon. For an instant after the king’s death, this group seemed likely to prevail, and Beaufort to be the head of the new government. But Mazarin gained the office, and Beaufort, accused of a plot to murder Mazarin, was imprisoned in Vincennes, in September 1643. He escaped on the 31st of May 1648, just in time to join the Fronde, which began in August 1648. He was then with the parlement and the princes, against Mazarin. His personal appearance, his affectation of popular manners, his quality of grandson (legitimized), of Henry IV., rendered him a favourite of the Parisians, who acclaimed him everywhere. He was known as theRoi des Halles(“king of the markets”), and popular subscriptions were opened to pay his debts. He had hopes of becoming prime minister. But among the members of the parlement and the other leaders of the Fronde, he was regarded as merely a tool. His intelligence was but mediocre, and he showed no talent during the war. Mazarin, on his return to Paris, exiled him in October 1652; and he was only allowed to return in 1654, when the cardinal had no longer any reason to fear him. Henceforth Beaufort no longer intrigued. In 1658 he was named general superintendent of navigation, or chief of the naval army, and faithfully served the king in naval wars from that on. In 1664 he directed the expedition against the pirates of Algiers. In 1669 he led the French troops defending Candia against the Turks, and was killed in a night sortie, on the I5th of June 1669. His body was brought back to France with great pomp, and official honours rendered it.

See the memoirs of the time, notably those of La Rochefoucauld, the Cardinal de Retz, and Madame de Motteville. Also D’Avenel,Richelieu et la monarchic absolue(1884); Cheruel,La France sous le ministère Mazarin(1879); andLa France sous la minorité de Louis XIV(1882).

BEAUFORT, HENRY(c.1377-1447), English cardinal and bishop of Winchester, was the second son of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, by Catherine, wife of Sir Hugh Swynford. His parents were not married until 1396, and in 1397 King Richard II. declared the four children of this union to be legitimate. Henry spent some of his youth at Aix la-Chapelle, and having entered the church received various appointments, and was consecrated bishop of Lincoln in July 1398. When his half-brother became king as Henry IV. in 1399, Beaufort began to take a prominent place in public life; he was made chancellor in 1403, but he resigned this office in 1404, when he was translated from Lincoln to Winchester as the successor of William of Wykeham. He exercised considerable influence over the prince of Wales, afterwards King Henry V., and although he steadily supported the house of Lancaster he opposed the party led by Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury. A dispute over money left by John Beaufort, marquess of Dorset, caused or widened a breach in the royal family which reached a climax in 1411. The details are not quite clear, but it seems tolerably certain that the prince and the bishop, anxious to retain their power, sought to induce Henry IV. to abdicate in favour of his son. Angry at this request, the king dismissed his son from the council, and Beaufort appears to have shared his disgrace. When Henry V. ascended the throne in 1413 the bishop again became chancellor and took a leading part in the government until 1417, when he resigned his office, and proceeded to the council which was then sitting at Constance. His arrival had an important effect on the deliberations of this council, and the compromise which was subsequently made between the rival parties was largely his work. Grateful for Beaufort’s services, the new pope Martin V. offered him a cardinal’s hat which Henry V. refused to allow him to accept. Returning to England, he remained loyal to Henry; and after the king’s death in 1422 became a member of the council and was the chief opponent of the wild and selfish schemes of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester. In 1424 he became chancellor for the third time, and was mainly responsible for the conduct of affairs during Gloucester’s expedition to Hainaut. He was disliked by the citizens of London; and this ill-feeling was heightened when Gloucester, who was a favourite of the Londoners, returned to England and was doubtless reproached by Beaufort for the folly of his undertaking. A riot took place in London, and at the bishop’s entreaty, the protector, John, duke of Bedford, came back to England. As this dispute was still unsettled when the parliament met at Leicester in February 1426, Bedford and the lords undertook to arbitrate. Charged by Gloucester with treason against Henry IV. and his successors, Beaufort denied the accusations. But although a reconciliation was effected, the bishop evidently regarded this as a defeat; and having resigned the chancellorship his energies were diverted into another channel.

Anxious to secure his aid for the crusade against the Hussites, Pope Martin again offered him a cardinal’s hat, which Beaufortaccepted. He went to France in 1427, and was then appointed papal legate for Germany, Hungary and Bohemia; and proceeding eastwards, he made a bold but futile effort to rally the crusaders at Tachau. Returning to England to raise money for a fresh crusade, he was received with great state in London; but his acceptance of the cardinalate had weakened his position and Gloucester refused to recognize his legatine commission. Beaufort gave way on this question, but an unsuccessful attempt was made in 1429 to deprive him of his see. Having raised some troops he set out for Bohemia; but owing to the disasters which had just attended the English arms in France, he was induced to allow these soldiers to serve in the French war; and in February 1431 the death of Martin V. ended his commission as legate. Meanwhile an attempt on the part of Gloucester to exclude the cardinal from the council had failed, and it was decided that his attendance was required except during the discussion of questions between the king and the papacy. He accompanied King Henry VI. to Normandy in April 1430, and in December 1431 crowned him king of France. About this time Gloucester made another attempt to deprive Beaufort of his see, and it was argued in the council that as a cardinal he could not hold an English bishopric. The general council was not inclined to press the case against him; but the privy council, more clerical and more hostile, sealed writs of praemunire and attachment against him, and some of his jewels were seized. On his return to England he attended the parliament in May 1432, and asked to hear the charges against him. The king declared him loyal, and a statute was passed freeing him from any penalties which he might have incurred under the Statute of Provisors or in other ways. He supported Bedford in his attempts to restore order to the finances. In August 1435 he attended the congress at Arras, but was unable to make peace with France; and after Bedford’s death his renewed efforts to this end were again opposed by Gloucester, who favoured a continuance of the war. On two occasions the council advised the king to refuse him permission to leave England, but in 1437 he obtained a full pardon for all his offences. In 1439 and 1440 he went to France on missions of peace, and apparently at his instigation the English council decided to release Charles, duke of Orleans. This step further irritated Gloucester, who drew up and presented to the king a long and serious list of charges against Beaufort; but the council defended the policy of the cardinal and ignored the personal accusations against him. Beaufort, however, gradually retired from public life, and after witnessing the conclusion of the treaty of Troyes died at Wolvesey palace, Winchester, on the 10th of April 1447. The “black despair” which Shakespeare has cast round his dying hours appears to be without historical foundation. He was buried in Winchester cathedral, the building of which he finished. He also refounded and enlarged the hospital of St Cross near Winchester.

Beaufort was a man of considerable wealth, and on several occasions he lent large sums of money to the king. He was the lover of Lady Alice Fitzalan, daughter of Richard, earl of Arundel, by whom he had a daughter, Joan, who married Sir Edward Stradling of St Donat’s in Glamorganshire. His interests were secular and he was certainly proud and ambitious; but Stubbs has pictured the fairer side of his character when he observes that Beaufort “was merciful in his political enmities, enlightened in his foreign policy; that he was devotedly faithful, and ready to sacrifice his wealth and labour for the king; that from the moment of his death everything began to go wrong, and went worse and worse until all was lost.”

SeeHistoriae Croylandensis continuatio, translated by H.T. Riley (London, 1854);Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, edited by N.H. Nicolas (London, 1834-1837); Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini,Historica Bohemica(Frankfort and Leipzig, 1707); W. Stubbs,Constitutional History, vol. iii. (Oxford, 1895): M. Creighton,A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation(London, 1897); and L.B. Radford,Henry Beaufort(1908).

BEAUFORT, LOUIS DE(d. 1795), French historian, of whose life little is known. In 1738 he published at Utrecht aDissertation sur l’incertitude des cinq premiers siècles de l’histoire romaine, in which he showed what untrustworthy guides even the historians of highest repute, such as Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, were for that period, and pointed out by what methods and by the aid of what documents truly scientific bases might be given to its history. This was an ingenious plea, bold for its time, against traditional history such as Rollin was writing at that very moment. A German, Christopher Saxius, endeavoured to refute it in a series of articles published in vols. i.-iii. of theMiscellanea Liviensia. Beaufort replied by some brief and ironicalRemarquesin the appendix to the second edition of hisDissertation(1750). Beaufort also wrote anHistoire de César Germanicus(Leyden, 1761), andLa République romaine, ou plan général de L’ancien gouvernement de Rome(The Hague, 1766, 2 vols. quarto). Though not a scholar of the first rank, Beaufort has at least the merit of having been a pioneer in raising the question, afterwards elaborated by Niebuhr, as to the credibility of early Roman history.

BEAUFORT SCALE,a series of numbers from 0 to 12 arranged by Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort (1774-1857) in 1805, to indicate the strength of the wind from a calm, force 0, to a hurricane, force 12, with sailing directions such as “5, smacks shorten sails” for coast purposes, and “royals, &c., ‘full and by’” for the open sea. An exhaustive report was made in 1906 by the Meteorological Office on the relation between the estimates of wind-force according to Beaufort’s scale and the velocities recorded by anemometers belonging to the office, from which the following table is taken:—

BEAUFORT WEST,in Cape province, South Africa, the capital of a division of this name, 339 m. by rail N.E. of Cape Town. Pop.(1904) 5481. The largest town in the western part of the Great Karroo, it lies, at an elevation of 2792 ft., at the foot of the southern slopes of the Nieuwveld mountains. It has several fine public buildings and the streets are lined with avenues of pear trees, while an abundant supply of water, luxuriant orchards, fields and gardens give it the appearance of an oasis in the desert. It is a favourite resort of invalids. The town was founded in 1819, and in its early days was largely resorted to by Griquas and Bechuana for the sale of ivory, skins and cattle. The Beaufort West division has an area of 6374 sq. m. and a pop. (1904) of 10,762, 45% being whites. Sheep-farming is the principal industry.

BEAUGENCY,a town of central France, in the department of Loiret, 16 m. S.W. of Orleans on the Orleans railway, between that city and Blois. Pop. (1906) 2993. It is situated at the foot of vine-clad hills on the right bank of the Loire, to the left bank of which it is united by a bridge of twenty-six arches, many of them dating from the 13th century. The chief buildings are the château, mainly of the 15th century, of which the massive donjon of the 11th century known as the Tour de César is the oldest portion; and the abbey-church of Notre-Dame, a building in the Romanesque style of architecture, frequently restored. Some of the buildings of the Benedictine abbey, to which this church belonged, remain. The hôtel de ville, the façade of which is decorated with armorial bearings of Renaissance carving, and the church of St Étienne, an unblemished example of Romanesque architecture, are of interest. Several old houses, some remains of the medieval ramparts and the Tour de l’Horloge, an ancient gateway, are also preserved. The town carries on trade in grain, and has flour mills.

The lords of Beaugency attained considerable importance in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries; at the end of the 13th century the fief was sold to the crown, and afterwards passed to the house of Orleans, then to those of Dunois and Longueville andultimately again to that of Orleans. Joan of Arc defeated the English here in 1429. In 1567 the town was sacked and burned by the Protestants. On the 8th, 9th and 10th of December 1870 the German army, commanded by the grand-duke of Mecklenburg, defeated the French army of the Loire, under General Chanzy, in the battle of Beaugency (or Villorceau-Josnes), which was fought on the left bank of the Loire to the N.W. of Beaugency.

BEAUHARNAIS,the name of a French family, well known from the 15th century onward in Orléanais, where its members occupied honourable positions. One of them, Jean Jacques de Beauharnais, seigneur de Miramion, had for wife Marie Bonneau, who in 1661 founded a female charitable order, called after her the Miramiones. François de Beauharnais, marquis de la Ferté-Beauharnais, was a deputy in the states-general of 1789, and a devoted defender of the monarchy. He emigrated and served in Condé’s army. Later he gave his adherence to Napoleon, and became ambassador in Etruria and Spain; he died in 1823. His brother Alexandre, vicomte de Beauharnais, married Josephine Tascher de la Pagerie (afterwards the wife of Napoleon Bonaparte) and had two children by her—Eugène de Beauharnais (q.v.) and Hortense, who married Louis Bonaparte, king of Holland, and became mother of Napoleon III. Claude de Beauharnais, comte des Roches-Baritaud, uncle of the marquis and of the vicomte de Beauharnais, served in the navy and became a vice-admiral. He married Marie Anne Françoise (called Fanny) Mouchard, a woman of letters who had a celebrated salon. His son, also named Claude (d. 1819), was created a peer of France in 1814, and was the father of Stéphanie de Beauharnais, who married the grand-duke of Baden. The house of Beauharnais is still represented in Russia by the dukes of Leuchtenberg, descendants of Prince Eugène.

(M. P.*)

BEAUHARNAIS, EUGÈNE DE(1781-1824), step-son of Napoleon I., was born at Paris on the 3rd of September 1781. He was the son of the general Viscount Alexandre de Beauharnais (1760-1794) and Josephine Tascher de la Pagerie. The father, who was born in Martinique, and served in the American War of Independence, took part in the politics of the French Revolution, and in June-August 1793 commanded the army of the Rhine. His failure to fulfil the tasks imposed on him (especially that of the relief of Mainz) led to his being arrested, and he was guillotined (23rd June 1794) not long before the fall of Robespierre. The marriage of his widow Josephine to Napoleon Bonaparte in March 1796 was at first resented by Eugène and his sister Hortense; but their step-father proved to be no less kind than watchful over their interests. In the Italian campaigns of 1796-1797 Eugène served as aide-de-camp to Bonaparte, and accompanied him to Egypt in the same capacity. There he distinguished himself by his activity and bravery, and was wounded during the siege of Acre. Bonaparte brought him back to France in the autumn of 1799, and it is known that the intervention of Eugène and Hortense helped to bring about the reconciliation which then took place between Bonaparte and Josephine. The services rendered by Eugène at the time of thecoup d’étatof Brumaire (1799) and during the Consulate (1799-1804) served to establish his fortunes, despite the efforts of some of the Bonapartes to destroy the influence of the Beauharnais and bring about the divorce of Josephine.

After the proclamation of the Empire, Eugène received the title of prince, with a yearly stipend of 200,000 francs, and became general of thechasseurs à chevalof the Guard. A year later, when the Italian republic became the kingdom of Italy, with Napoleon as king, Eugène received the title of viceroy, with large administrative powers. (SeeItaly.) Not long after the battle of Austerlitz (2nd December 1805) Napoleon dignified the elector of Bavaria with the title of king and arranged a marriage between Eugène and the princess Augusta Amelia of Bavaria. On the whole the government of Eugène gave general satisfaction in the kingdom of Italy; it comprised the districts between the Simplon Pass and Rimini, and also after the peace of Presburg (December 1805), Istria and Dalmatia. In 1808 (on the further partition of the papal states) the frontier of the kingdom was extended southwards to the borders of the kingdom of Naples, in the part known as the Abruzzi. In the campaign of 1809 Eugène commanded the army of Italy, with General (afterwards Marshal) Macdonald as hisadlatus. The battle of Sacile, where he fought against the Austrian army of the Archduke John, did not yield proofs of military talent on the part of Eugène or of Macdonald; but on the retreat of the enemy into Austrian territory (owing to the disasters of their main army on the Danube) Eugène’s forces pressed them vigorously and finally won an important victory at Raab in the heart of the Austrian empire. Then, joining the main army under Napoleon, in the island of Lobau in the Danube, near Vienna, Eugène and Macdonald acquitted themselves most creditably in the great battle of Wagram (6th July 1809). In 1810 Eugène received the title of grand-duke of Frankfort. Equally meritorious were his services and those of the large Italian contingent in the campaign of 1812 in Russia. He and they distinguished themselves especially at the battles of Borodino and Malojaroslavitz; and on several occasions during the disastrous retreat which ensued, Eugène’s soldierly constancy and devotion to Napoleon shone out conspicuously in 1813-1814, especially by contrast with the tergiversations of Murat. On the downfall of the Napoleonic régime Eugène retired to Munich, where he continued to reside, with the title duke of Leuchtenberg and prince of Eichstädt. He died in 1824, leaving two surviving sons and three daughters.

For further details concerning Eugène seeMémoires et correspondance politique et militaire du Prince Eugène, edited by Baron A. Ducasse (10 vols., Paris, 1858-1860); F.J.A. Schneidewind,Prinz Eugen, Herzog van Leuchtenberg in den Feldzügen seiner Zeit(Stockholm, 1857); A. Purlitzer,Une Idylle sous Napoléon Ier: le roman du Prince Eugène(Paris, 1895); F. Masson,Napoléon et sa famille(Paris, 1897-1900).

(J. Hl. R.)

BEAUJEU. The French province of Beaujolais was formed by the development of the ancient seigniory of Beaujeu (department of Rhône, arrondissement of Villefranche). The lords of Beaujeu held from the 10th century onwards a high rank in feudal society. In 1210 Guichard of Beaujeu was sent by Philip Augustus on an embassy to Pope Innocent III.; he was present at the French attack on Dover, where he died in 1216. His son Humbert took part in the wars against the Albigenses and became constable of France. Isabeau, daughter of this Humbert, married Renaud, count of Forez; and their second son, Louis, assumed the name and arms of Beaujeu. His son Guichard, called the Great, had a very warlike life, fighting for the king of France, for the count of Savoy and for his own hand. He was taken prisoner by the Dauphinois in 1325, thereby losing important estates. Guichard’s son, Edward of Beaujeu, marshal of France, fought at Crécy, and perished in the battle of Ardres in 1351. His son died without issue in 1374, and was succeeded by his cousin, Edward of Beaujeu, lord of Perreux, who gave his estates of Beaujolais and Dombes to Louis II., duke of Bourbon, in 1400. Pierre de Bourbon was lord of Beaujeu in 1474, when he married Anne of France, daughter of Louis XI., and this is why that princess retained the name of lady of Beaujeu. Louise of Savoy, mother of Francis I., got Beaujolais assigned to herself despite the claims of the constable de Bourbon. In 1531 the province was reunited to the crown; but Francis II. gave it back to the Montpensier branch of the Bourbons in 1560, from which house it passed to that of Orleans. The title of comte de Beaujolais was borne by a son of Philippe “Égalité,” duke of Orleans, born in 1779, died in 1808.

(M. P.*)

BEAULIEU,a village in the French department of Alpes-Maritimes. Pop. (1906) 1460. It is about 4 m. by rail E. of Nice (1¼ m. from Villefranche), and on the main line between Marseilles and Mentone; it is also connected with Nice and Mentone by an electric tramway. Of late years it has become a much frequented winter resort, and many handsome villas (among them that built by the 3rd marquess of Salisbury) have been constructed in the neighbourhood. The harbour has been extended and adapted for the reception of yachts.

(W. A. B. C.)

BEAULY(pronouncedBewley; a corruption ofBeaulieu), a town of Inverness-shire, Scotland, on the Beauly, 10 m. W. ofInverness by the Highland railway. Pop. (1901) 855. Its chief interest is the beautiful remains of the Priory of St John, founded in 1230 by John Bisset of the Aird, for Cistercian monks. At the Reformation the buildings (except the church, now a ruin) passed into the possession of Lord Lovat. On the right bank of the river is the site of Lovat Castle, which once belonged to the Bissets, but was presented by James VI. to Hugh Fraser and afterwards demolished. To the south-east is the church of Kirkhill containing the vault of the Lovats. Three miles south of Beauly is Beaufort Castle, the chief seat of the Lovats, a fine modern mansion in the Scottish baronial style. It occupies the site of a fortress erected in the time of Alexander II., which was besieged in 1303 by Edward I. This was replaced by several castles in succession, of which one—Castle Dounie—was taken by Cromwell and burned by the duke of Cumberland in 1746, the conflagration being witnessed from a neighbouring hill by Simon, Lord Lovat, before his capture on Loch Morar. The land around Beauly is fertile and the town drives a brisk trade in coal, timber, lime, grain and fish.

BEAUMANOIR,a seigniory in what is now the department of Côtes-du-Nord, France, which gave its name to an illustrious family. Jean de Beaumanoir, marshal of Brittany for Charles of Blois, and captain of Josselin, is remembered for his share in the famous battle of the Thirty. This battle, sung by an unknown trouvère and retold with variations by Froissart, was an episode in the struggle for the succession to the duchy of Brittany between Charles of Blois, supported by the king of France, and John of Montfort, supported by the king of England. John Bramborough, the English captain of Ploërmel, having continued his ravages, in spite of a truce, in the district commanded by the captain of Josselin, Jean de Beaumanoir sent him a challenge, which resulted in a fight between thirty picked champions, knights and squires, on either side, which took place on the 25th of March 1351, near Ploërmel. Beaumanoir commanded thirty Bretons, Bramborough a mixed force of twenty Englishmen, six German mercenaries and four Breton partisans of Montfort. The battle, fought with swords, daggers and axes, was of the most desperate character, in its details very reminiscent of the last fight of the Burgundians in theNibelungenlied, especially in the celebrated advice of Geoffrey du Bois to his wounded leader, who was asking for water: “Drink your blood, Beaumanoir; that will quench your thirst!” In the end the victory was decided by Guillaume de Montauban, who mounted his horse and overthrew seven of the English champions, the rest being forced to surrender. All the combatants on either side were either dead or seriously wounded, Bramborough being among the slain. The prisoners were well treated and released on payment of a small ransom. (SeeLe Poème du combat des Trente, in thePanthéon littéraire; Froissart,Chroniques, ed. S. Luce, c. iv. pp. 45 and 110 ff., and pp. 338-340).

Jean de Beaumanoir(1551-1614), seigneur and afterwards marquis de Lavardin, count of Nègrepelisse by marriage, served first in the Protestant army, but turned Catholic after the massacre of St Bartholomew, in which his father had been killed, and then fought against Henry of Navarre. When that prince became king of France, Lavardin changed over to his side, and was made a marshal of France. He was governor of Maine, commanded an army in Burgundy in 1602, was ambassador extraordinary to England in 1612, and died in 1614. One of his descendants, Henry Charles, marquis de Lavardin (1643-1701), was sent as ambassador to Rome in 1689, on the occasion of a difference between Louis XIV. and Innocent XI.

BEAUMANOIR, PHILIPPE DE RÉMI,Sire de(c.1250-1296), French jurist, was born in the early part of the 13th century and died in 1296. The few facts known regarding his life are to be gathered from legal documents in which his name occurs. From these it appears that in 1273 he filled the post ofbailliat Senlis, and in 1280 held a similar office at Clermont. He is also occasionally referred to as presiding at the assizes held at various towns. His great work is entitledCoutumes de Beauvoisisand first appeared in 1690, a second edition with introduction by A.A. Beugnot being published in 1842. It is regarded as one of the best works bearing on old French law, and was frequently referred to with high admiration by Montesquieu. Beaumanoir also obtained fame as a poet, and left over 20,000 verses, the best known of his poems beingLa Manekine,Jehan et BlondeandSalut d’amour.

BEAUMARCHAIS, PIERRE AUGUSTIN CARON DE(1732-1799), French dramatist, was born in Paris on the 24th of January 1732. His father, a watchmaker named Caron, brought him up to the same trade. He was an unusually precocious and lively boy, shrewd, sagacious, passionately fond of music and imbued with a strong desire for rising in the world. At the age of twenty-one he invented a new escapement for watches, which was pirated by a rival maker. Young Caron at once published his grievance in theMercure, and had the matter referred to the Academy of Sciences, which decided in his favour. This affair brought him into notice at court; he was appointed, or at least called himself, watchmaker to the king, who ordered from him a watch similar to one he had made for Mme de Pompadour. His handsome figure and cool assurance enabled him to make his way at court. Mme Franquet, the wife of an old court official, persuaded her husband to make over his office to young Caron, and, on her husband’s death, a few months later, married the handsome watchmaker. Caron at the same time assumed the name Beaumarchais; and four years later, by purchasing the office of secretary to the king obtained a patent of nobility.

At court his musical talents brought him under the notice of the king’s sisters, who engaged him to teach them the harp. This position enabled him to confer a slight favour on the great banker Joseph Duverney, who testified his gratitude by giving Beaumarchais a share in his speculations. The latter turned the opportunity to good account, and soon realized a handsome fortune. In 1764 he took a journey to Spain, partly with commercial objects in view, but principally on account of the Clavijo affair. José Clavijo y Fajardo had twice promised to marry the sister of Beaumarchais, and had failed to keep his word. The adventure had not the tragic ending of Goethe’sClavigo, for Beaumarchais did not pursue his vengeance beyond words. Beaumarchais made his first essay as a writer for the stage with the sentimental dramaEugénie(1767), in which he drew largely on the Clavijo incident. This was followed after an interval of two years byLes Deux Amis, but neither play had more than moderate success. His first wife had died within a year of the marriage and in 1768 Beaumarchais married Mme Lévêque. Her death in 1771 was the signal for unfounded rumours of poisoning. Duverney died in 1770; but some time before his death a duplicate settlement of the affairs between him and Beaumarchais had been drawn up, in which the banker acknowledged himself debtor to Beaumarchais for 15,000 francs. Duverney’s heir, the comte de La Blache, denied the validity of the document though without directly stigmatizing it as a forgery. The matter was put to trial. Beaumarchais gained his cause, but his adversary at once carried the case before the parlement. In the meantime the duc de Chaulnes forced Beaumarchais into a quarrel over Mdlle Menard, an actress at the Comédie Italienne, which resulted in the imprisonment of both parties. This moment was chosen by La Blache to demand judgment from the parlement in the matter of the Duverney agreement. Beaumarchais was released from prison for three or four days to see his judges. He was, however, unable to obtain an interview with Goezman, the member of the parlement appointed to report on his case. At last, just before the day on which the report was to be given in, he was informed privately that, by presenting 200louisto Mme Goezman and 15 to her secretary, the desired interview might take place, if the result should prove unfavourable the money would be refunded. The money was sent and the interview obtained; but the decision was adverse, and 200louiswere returned, the 15 going as business expenses to the secretary. Beaumarchais, who had learned that there was no secretary save Mme Goezman herself, insisted on restitution of the 15louis, but the lady denied all knowledge of the affair. Her husband, who was probably not cognisant of the details of the transaction at first, doubtless thought the defeatedlitigant would be easily put down, and at once brought an accusation against him for an attempt to corrupt justice. The battle was fought chiefly through theMémoires, or reports published by the adverse parties, and in it Beaumarchais’s success was complete. For vivacity of style, fine satire and broad humour, his famousMémoireshave never been surpassed. Even Voltaire was constrained to envy them. Beaumarchais was skilful enough to make his particular case of universal application. He was attacking the parlement through one of its members, and the parlement was the universally detested body formed by the chancellor Maupeou. TheMémoireswere, therefore, hailed with general delight; and the author, from being perhaps the most unpopular man in France, became at once the idol of the people. The decision went against Beaumarchais. The parlement condemned both him and Mme Goezmanau blâme,i.e.to civic degradation, while the husband was obliged to abandon his position. Beaumarchais was reduced to great straits, but he obtained restitution of his rights within two years, and finally triumphed over his adversary La Blache.

During the next few years he was engaged in the king’s secret service. One of his missions was to England to destroy theMémoires secrets d’une femme publiquein which Charles Theveneau de Morande made an attack on Mme Du Barry. Beaumarchais secured this pamphlet, and burnt the whole impression in London. Another expedition to England and Holland to seize a pamphlet attacking Marie Antoinette led to a series of incidents more amazing than the intrigues in Beaumarchais’s own plays, but his own account must be received with caution. Beaumarchais pursued the libeller to Germany and overtook him in a wood near Neustadt. After a struggle he had gained possession of the document when he was attacked by brigands. Unfortunately the wound alleged to have been received in this fight was proved to be self-inflicted. The Austrian government regarded Beaumarchais with a suspicion justified by the circumstances. He was imprisoned for some time in Vienna, and only released on the receipt of explanations from Paris.

His various visits to England led him to take a deep interest in the impending struggle between the American colonies and the mother-country. His sympathies were entirely with the former; and by his unwearied exertions he succeeded in inducing the French government to give ample, though private, assistance in money and arms to the Americans. He himself, partly on his own account, but chiefly as the agent of the French and Spanish governments, carried on an enormous traffic with America. Under the name of Rodrigue Hortalez et Cie, he employed a fleet of forty vessels to provide help for the insurgents.

During the same period he produced his two famous comedies. The earlier,Le Barbier de Seville, after a prohibition of two years, was put on the stage in 1775. The first representation was a complete failure. Beaumarchais had overloaded the last scene with allusions to the facts of his own case and the whole action of the piece was laboured and heavy. But he cut down and remodelled the piece in time for the second representation, when it achieved a complete success. The intrigues which were necessary in order to obtain a licence for the second and more famous comedy,Le Mariage de Figaro, are highly amusing, and throw much light on the unsettled state of public sentiment at the time. The play was completed in 1778, but the opposition of Louis XVI., who alone saw its dangerous tendencies, was not overcome till 1784. The comedy had an unprecedented success. The principal character in both plays, Figaro, is a completely original conception; in fact Beaumarchais drew a portrait of himself in the resourceful adventurer, who, for mingled wit, shrewdness, gaiety and philosophic reflection, may not unjustly be ranked with Tartuffe. To English readers the Figaro plays are generally known through the adaptations of them in the grand opera of Mozart and Rossini; but in France they long retained popularity as acting pieces. The success ofLe Mariage de Figarowas helped on by the methods of self-advertisement so well understood by Beaumarchais. The proceeds of the fiftieth performance were devoted to a charity, the choice of which provoked numerous epigrams. Beaumarchais had the imprudence to retaliate by personalities that were reported by his enemies to be dedicated against the king and queen. Beaumarchais was imprisoned for a short time by royal order in the prison of St Lazare. Brilliant pamphleteer as he was, Beaumarchais was at last to meet more than his match. He undertook to defend the company of the “Eaux de Paris,” in which he had a large interest, against Mirabeau, and brought down on himself an invective to which he could offer no reply. His real influence was gone from that date (1785-1786). Shortly afterwards he was violently attacked by Nicolas Bergasse, whom he sued for defamation of character. He gained his case, but his reputation had suffered in the pamphlet war. Beaumarchais’s later productions, the bombastic operaTarare(1787) and the dramaLa Mère coupable(1792), which was very popular, are in no way worthy of his genius.

By his writings Beaumarchais contributed greatly, though quite unconsciously, to hurry on the events that led to the Revolution. At heart he hardly seems to have been a republican, and the new state of affairs did not benefit him. The astonishing thing is that the society travestied inLe Mariage de Figarowas the most vehement in its applause. The court looked on at a play justly characterized by Napoleon as the “revolution already in action” apparently without a suspicion of its real character. His popularity had been destroyed by the Mirabeau and Bergasse affairs, and his great wealth exposed him to the enmity of the envious. A speculation into which he entered, to supply the Convention with muskets from Holland, proved a ruinous failure. He was accused of concealing arms and corn in his house, but when his house was searched nothing was discovered but some thousands of copies of the edition (1783-1790) of the works of Voltaire which he had had printed at his private press at Kehl, in Baden. He was charged with treason to the republic and was imprisoned in the Abbaye on the 20th of August 1792. A week later he was released at the intercession of Mme Houret de la Marinière, who had been his mistress. He took refuge in Holland and England. His memoirs entitled,Mes six époques, detailing his sufferings under the republic, are not unworthy of the Goezman period. His courage and happy disposition never deserted him, although he was hunted as an agent of the Convention in Holland and England, while in Paris he was proscribed as anémigré. He returned to Paris in 1796, and died there, suddenly, on the 18th of May 1799.

Gudin de la Brenellerie’sHistoire de Beaumarchais(1809) was edited by M. Maurice Tourneux in 1888. See also L. de Loménie,Beaumarchais et son temps(1855), Eng. trans. by H.S. Edwards, (4. vols., 1856); A. Hallay’sBeaumarchais(1897); M. de Lescure,Éloge de Beaumarchais(1886); and Sainte-Beuve,Causeries du lundi, vol. vi. Beaumarchais’s works have been edited by Gudin (7 vols., 1809); by Furne (6 vols., 1827); and by É. Fournier (1876). A variorum edition of hisThéâtre completwas published by MM. d’Heylli and de Marescot (4 vols., 1869-1875); and aBibliographie des œuvres de Beaumarchais, by H. Cordier in 1883.

BEAUMARIS,a market town and municipal borough, and the county town of Anglesey, N. Wales, situated on the Bay of Beaumaris, not far from Penmon, the northern entrance of the Menai Strait. Pop. (1901) 2326. It has but one considerable street. The large castle chapel, dedicated to the Virgin, has some fine monuments. David Hughes, of Jesus College, Oxford, founded the free grammar school in 1603. Buildings include town-hall and county-hall, with St Mary’s church of the 13th century, with chancel of the 16th. Practically without trade and with no manufactures, Beaumaris is principally noted as a bathing-place. Its earliest charter dates from 1283 and was revised under Elizabeth. The town was formerly called Barnover and, still earlier, Rhosfair, and bears its present name of French origin since Edward I. built its castle in 1293. This extensive building was erected on low ground, so that the fosse might communicate with the sea, and vessels might unload under its walls. The castle capitulated, after siege, to General Mytton (1646).

BEAUMONT,Belmont, orBellomont, the name of a Norman and English family, taken from Beaumont-le-Roger inNormandy. Early in the 11th century Roger de Beaumont, a kinsman of the dukes of Normandy, married a daughter of Waleran, count of Meulan, and their son,Robert de Beaumont(d. 1118), became count of Meulan or Mellent about 1080. Before this date, however, he had fought at Hastings, and had added large estates in Warwickshire to the Norman fiefs of Beaumont and Pont Audemer, which he received when his father entered the abbey of St Peter at Préaux. It was during the reigns of William II. and Henry I. that the count rose to eminence, and under the latter monarch he became “the first among the counsellors of the king.” A “strenuous and sagacious man” he rendered valuable service to both kings in their Norman wars, and Henry I. was largely indebted to him for the English crown. He obtained lands in Leicestershire, and it has been said he was created earl of Leicester; this statement, however, is an error, although he exercised some of the privileges of an earl. His abilities as a counsellor, statesman and diplomatist gained him the admiration of his contemporaries, and Henry of Huntingdon describes him as “the wisest man between this and Jerusalem.” He seems to have been a man of independent character, for he assisted Anselm against William Rufus, although he supported Henry I. in his quarrel with Pope Paschal II. When Robert died on the 5th of June 1118 his lands appear to have been divided between his twin sons, Robert and Waleran, while a third son, Hugh, became earl of Bedford in 1138.

Robert de Beaumont(1104-1168), justiciar of England, married a granddaughter of Ralph Guader, earl of Norfolk, and receiving his father’s English fiefs in 1118 became earl of Leicester. He and his brother, Waleran, were the chief advisers of Stephen, and helped this king to seize the bishops of Salisbury and Lincoln in 1139; later, however, Robert made his peace with Henry II., and became chief justiciar of England. First among the lay nobles he signed the Constitutions of Clarendon, he sought to reconcile Henry and Archbishop Becket, and was twice in charge of the kingdom during the king’s absences in France. The earl founded the abbey of St Mary de Pré at Leicester and other religious houses, and by a charter confirmed the burgesses of Leicester in the possession of their merchant-gild and customs. His son, Robert, succeeded to the earldom of Leicester, and with other English barons assisted prince Henry in his revolt against his father the king in 1173. For this participation, and also on a later occasion, he was imprisoned; but he enjoyed the favour of Richard I., and died in Greece when returning from a pilgrimage in 1190. His son and heir, Robert, died childless in 1204.

Waleran de Beaumont(1104-1166) obtained his father’s French fiefs and the title of count of Meulan in 1118. After being imprisoned for five years by Henry I. he spent some time in England, and during the civil war between Stephen and the empress Matilda he fought for the former until about 1150, when he deserted the king and assisted the empress. His later history appears to have been uneventful. The county of Meulan remained in possession of the Beaumont family until 1204, when it was united with the royal domain.

Another member of the Beaumont family, possibly a relative of the earlier Beaumonts, wasLouis de Beaumont(d. 1333), bishop of Durham from 1317 until his death. This prelate was related to the English king, Edward II., and after a life spent in strife and ostentation, he died on the 24th of September 1333.John Beaumont, master of the rolls under Edward VI., was probably a member of the same family. A dishonest and corrupt judge, he was deprived of his office and imprisoned in 1552.

The barony of Beaumont dates from 1309, whenHenry Beaumont(d. 1340), who was constable of England in 1322, was summoned to parliament under this title. It was retained by his descendants until the death of William, the 7th baron and the 2nd viscount,1in 1507, when it fell into abeyance. In 1840 the barony was revived in favour of Miles Thomas Stapleton (1805-1854), a descendant of Joan, Baroness Lovel, a daughter of the 6th baron, and it has since been retained by his descendants.

In 1906Wentworth Blackett Beaumont(1829-1907), the head of a family well known in the north of England, was created Baron Allendale.

1His father John (d. 1460), the 6th baron, great chamberlain and constable of England, was the first person advanced to the dignity of a viscount in England.

BEAUMONT, CHRISTOPHE DE(1703-1781), French ecclesiastic and archbishop of Paris, was a cadet of the Les Adrets and Saint-Quentin branch of the illustrious Dauphiné family of Beaumont. He became bishop of Bayonne in 1741, then archbishop of Vienne in 1743, and in 1746, at the age of forty-three, archbishop of Paris. Beaumont is noted for his struggle with the Jansenists. To force them to accept the bullUnigenituswhich condemned their doctrines, he ordered the priests of his diocese to refuse absolution to those who would not recognize the bull, and to deny funeral rites to those who had confessed to a Jansenist priest. While other bishops sent Beaumont their adhesion to his crusade, the parlement of Paris threatened to confiscate his temporalities. The king forbade the parlement to interfere in these spiritual questions, and upon its proving obdurate it was exiled (September 18, 1753). The “royal chamber,” which was substituted, having failed to carry on the administration of justice properly, the king was obliged to recall the parlement, and the archbishop was sent into honourable exile (August 1754). An effort was made to induce him to resign the active duties of his see to a coadjutor, but in spite of the most tempting offers—including a cardinal’s hat—he refused. On the contrary, to his polemic against the Jansenists he added an attack on thephilosophes, and issued a formal mandatory letter condemning Rousseau’sÉmile. Rousseau replied in his masterlyLettre à M. de Beaumont(1762), in which he insists that freedom of discussion in religious matters is essentially more religious than the attempt to impose belief by force.

Back to Index Next