SIRE, IT is with sentiments of the profoundest duty and veneration, that I presume to lay at your Majesty's feet, a HISTORY OF THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT. There is, Sire, I persuade myself, singular propriety in submitting a description of an event which forms so brilliant an epoch in English history, to the protection of your Majesty, under whose auspices, the splendour, even of that victory has been rivalled, if not eclipsed. That your Majesty may long continue to hold the sceptre of this Empire, and thus ensure its glory in science, in literature, and in arms, is the fervent prayer of, Sire, Your Majesty's Most humble, and dutiful Subject and Servant, NICHOLAS HARRIS NICOLAS. AN apology for the publication of a HisTORY OF THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT could scarcely be prefixed to it without conveying a tacit but severe reflection on the literary taste of the age, for if there be a subject that ought in an eminent degree to excite attention, it is a detailed account of an event which is identified with the military renown of this country, the imperishable glory of which, Englishmen are taught to appreciate almost as soon as they are taught to read. Two causes only could prevent a volume on the subject from being favorably received: either that no new information could be given, or that the attempt to supply it had entirely failed. In justification of a History of the Battle of Agincourt, it may be sufficient to cite the observation of the late Bishop Nicholson, the competency of whose judgment few will have the temerity to dispute. Speaking of Henry the Fifth in his "Historical Library," that learned prelate says, "His single victory at Agencourt might have afforded matter for more volumes than (as far as I can yet learn) have been written on his whole reign." Since that opinion was expressed, numerous historical documents of the first importance have been brought to light; and, as it will be seen by the following pages, many of them present highly valuable information on Henry's first invasion of France. But even if no other data had been found, Bishop Nicholson's remark would not be less just, for a concentration of all recorded facts relative to that expedition was a desideratum which could only be supplied by a writer making it the sole object of his attention. Dr. Lingard, and Mr. Sharon Turner, have done as much as could be expected in illustration of it, but no one can be ignorant of the difference between writing a history of a particular event, and the Herculean task of examining and relating every material transaction in the annals of this country, from the mmmm time of the Romans. In a panorama of the metropolis and its vicinity, whatever may be the extent of the painting or the skill of the artist, St. Paul's Church would become a trifling object, and the simile may perhaps be allowed to convey an accurate idea of the difference between the labours of the historian of England, and of even so splendid a part of it as the victory of Agincourt. The one can do little more than give a correct outline of the principal features, as they are presented to his notice, whilst it is the duty of the other to fill up the canvas with every thing by which it can be illustrated or embellished. Individual conduct, letters, and all the usual materials for biography not only demand the attention of the local historian, but require to be woven, either entire or in parts into his narrative. By these, and a critical examination of dates, can he alone hope to arrive at just conclusions; to reconcile conflicting testimony; or from the mass, sometimes of prejudiced, often of ignorant chroniclers to compose a true |