Chapter 14: If a Soldier has taken a Prisoner whose Prisoner should he be, the Soldier's or his Lord's?

But with regard to the matters dealt with above, it must be understood that I have spoken only of the duke or marshal when taken in battle. I ask now, if a soldier has captured him, to whom should he belong as prisoner, to the soldier, or to that soldier's lord for according to these laws it would appear that he is the soldier's prisoner because the laws say that the captive is at the disposal of the captor.  I assert, however, the contrary; for, if it is the, case that the soldier is in the king's pay, or in that of another lord, the prisoners or other possessions acquired should be the lord's in whose pay the soldier is. And with regard to this the decretal says that all the booty should be at the king's disposal, and he should dispose of it at his pleasure to those who, according to his estimation, have helped him to win.  And, if anyone said the contrary, he could not maintain it according to written law, for if a prisoner must belong to him who has taken and conquered him, by similar reasoning every strong castle and fortified town should be his if he took them.  And it would not be reasonable that at the kingís cost and expense he should gain land, for he does all that he does as a deputy of the king or of the lord in whose pay he is.  Therefore what he conquers should be his lordís; for what he does he does not by his own industry or his own initiative.

Chapter 93: Whether an old man can lawfully be imprisoned or put to ransom

Let us now consider another question. A French knight with his company has advanced to the city of Bordeaux.  He encounters a citizen of the city, coming to hear mass in a little chapel about a league from the city, where dwells a worthy hermit.  And the citizen comes along comfortably enough, with a stick in his hand, for he is a hundred years old. Thereupon the knight asks him: "My good man, where do you come from?"

"I belong to that city," says he.

"By my faith," says the knight, "you are my prisoner."

"Oh," he says, ìand why?"

"Because," says the knight, " I am the man of the King of France, who is making war against your master's towns and lands."

"Sir," says the citizen, "Mercy, for the love of God. Take me to the King and if I must be prisoner by judgment of court let me be so, and if not, let me go free."

To this the knight agrees, and they come into the King's presence, and the knight explains that he has captured this citizen, who can very well pay ten thousand francs.

"Sire," says this citizen to the King, "you and my lord the King of England have had many great wars together which have already lasted long, for they began when I was still very young in years. And now that I am very old they are not yet finished; but I swear to you by my faith that never in my fife have I armed myself against the French, nor have I carried sword or knife or other weapon. If you demand to be further informed on this matter you will find, in truth, that he case is so.  And what is still stronger, at no time did I ever rejoice in this war, and continually have I remonstrated with my lord of England, and admonished him to make good peace with you. Of all this I can fully inform you when it shall please your high Lordship and Majesty to hear it.  Further, my lord, I add that, according to the arguments of written law, a man as old as myself cannot be compelled to go to war and cannot be made prisoner, and the reason is this: you could not, according to law, capture the goods, or imprison the persons, of the men of England unless the men of that kingdom were aiding their King, and furnishing help to him for the purpose of carrying on this war against you of their own free will; for if he took the goods of his men by force, then in law they would be, held blameless.  And since it is the case that I have never given aid to the King of England against you, unless he has taken my goods by force and violence, you cannot consider me .as your enemy, and consequently I can by no means be made prisoner."

            Now without more words let us see what is the law of the matter. And I think, since an old man is privileged, that according to law he is never required to go to war, and that for good reason he cannot be a prisoner, unless he has given counsel and help for the conduct of the war; for sometimes an old man will be of, more avail by his counsel than ten soldiers. On the other hand I am far from denying that his goods can freely be taken if he has willingly aided his lord with his possessions to carry on the war; otherwise not, according to right reason.
Chapter 94: Whether a child should be made prisoner and put to ransom

The preceding matters bring me to another question. We suppose that a French soldier has captured an English child, and someone complains to the King of France, demanding that he should return the child. How should the King decide?

At first it would seem that the child should pay ransom, for according to law he- who is capable of doing the greatest thing may well do the smallest, and according to law the soldier could quite well capture the father who is of greater honour and importance than the son. Hence he may lawfully capture the son. Further, it is certain that the soldier can capture the father's goods. But the son is a part of the father's goods, for he is in his power, and the father can sell or pledge him if need arise, and for this reason he can be made prisoner.

            But something must be said on the other side. The first thing is that neither justice nor reason can agree that either innocence or ignorance should be oppressed. It is clear that this child is innocent of the war and that neither by person nor, counsel can he render help or succour in it.  If this is so, on what grounds should he be made prisoner?  Again, I have said above that a man may very well be taken prisoner, in his lord's war, if he helps in that war either by his person or his goods.  And the fact is that the child can help just as little with his person as with his possessions, for he has nothing of his own in his father's lifetime, and why, then, should he pay ransom, seeing that the law states that he who has nothing can pay nothing?  So that, although the matter has been in great debate, and is hard to determine on account of the conflicting customs that soldiers have used in these latter days, I hold firmly, according to ancient law, and according to the ancient customs of good warriors; that it is an unworthy thing to imprison either old men taking no part in the war, or women, or innocent children.  Certainly it is a very bad custom to put them to ransom as it is common knowledge that they can have no part in war, for the former lack strength, the others knowledge. And in truth to capture them would show no great courage, for all gentlemen should keep them from harm, and all knights and men-at-arms are bound to; do so, and whoever does the contrary deserves the name of pillager. And if the King found a remedy for this I think that God would help, him, and would the sooner give him peace and victory over his enemies; and may He, by His grace, grant this in spite of all.
Chapter 95: Whether a blind man can be taken prisoner and put to ransom

While we are on the subject let us consider another matter. A pillager has captured a blind man, and wants ransom for him, and the blind man demands justice from the King and asks if, according to the laws, he can be made prisoner. And on this matter we make a remark at this point.

I say, on this question, that if a blind man, in his folly or insolence, put himself with the soldiery, and was taken prisoner, he would be worthy to receive worse treatment than another, both in body and goods.  And this is well signified to us in the Holy Scripture, for we read how Cain in his malice killed his brother Abel, the good and just, but a little while after a blind man named Lameth took a bow and arrow and went off through the fields to hunt. He heard something move, and thinking it was some beast he aimed his bow and tried to kill it. But it was Cain whom he struck, with such force that he killed him. Then our Lord said that the sin of Cain would be punished once but the sin of Lameth would be punished seventy-six times.   And the reason is that he was meddling in a business with which he had no concern, and one unsuitable to his condition and nature.

But truly, if a blind man is captured, he should be at once freed and delivered by the lord if he has enough possessions, for he is privileged as far as imprisonment is concerned. But if the soldiers have taken his goods from him I think he should lose them, except by the King's grace, because he is rich and would pay the King of England aids and taxes to support the war. But if another blind man who formerly had seen and followed war gave counsel to the King of England and to the English as to making battle, escalading a walled town or fortress, or setting an ambush, then as long as he interferes in such matters, if he is taken prisoner, he ought, in my opinion, to pay ransom.  And what I have said about a blind man I say similarly of those deaf or dumb. For, if such people do not lend themselves to the making or conduct of war, certainly, in my opinion, their persons should not be imprisoned.  And this is the plain truth, for the Scripture and the laws call them miserable persons; that is to say that mercy is their due.