'_As women succeeding to peerages_ had, notwithstanding their sex, the right to assist and give their votes in the causes that appertain to the jurisdiction of peers; so the ecclesiastical peers, _notwithstanding their profession_, were obliged to _assist our kings_ in their wars, not only with their friends and servants, but in their own persons. And he instances the Bishop of Beauvais, who took a gallant share in the battle of Bouvines, but did not think it _fit for him to participate in the fruit and glory of that violent and bloody trade_. He, with his own hand, reduced several of the enemy that day to his mercy, whom he delivered to the first gentleman he met, either to kill or to receive them to quarter, _referring that part to another hand_. As also did William, Earl of Salisbury, to Messire John de Neale, with a like subtlety of conscience to the other, he would KILL, _but_ NOT WOUND _him_, and _for that reason_, fought only with a _mace_. And a certain person in my time, being reproached by the king that he had _laid hands_ on a _priest_, stiffly and positively denied it. The case was, he had cudgelled and kicked him.' And there the author abruptly, for that time, leaves the matter without any allusion to the case of still another kind of combatants, who, fighting with another kind of weapon, might also, from similar subtleties of conscience, perhaps think fit to devolve on others the glory of their successes. But in a chapter on _names_, in which, if he has not told, he has _designed to tell all_; and what he could not express, he has at least pointed out with his finger, this subject is more fully developed. In this chapter, he regrets that such as write _chronicles in Latin_ do not leave our names as they find them, for in making of _Vaudemont_ VALLE-MONTANUS, and metamorphosing names to dress them out in Greek or Latin, we know not where we are, and with the _persons_ of _the men, lose_ the _benefit_ of the _story_: but one who tracks the inner thread of this apparently miscellaneous collection of items, need be at no such loss in this case. But at the conclusion of this apparently very trivial talk about _names_, he resumes his philosophic humour again, and the subsequent discourse on this subject, recalls once more, the considerations with which philosophy sets at nought the loss of fame, and forgets in the warmth that prompts to worthy deeds, the glory that should follow them.