Spain
December 1537

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

Pascual de Gayangos (editor)

Year published

1888

Pages

391-415

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'Spain: December 1537', Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 5 Part 2: 1536-1538 (1888), pp. 391-415. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=87986 Date accessed: 24 November 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

December 1537, 1-31

21 Dec.171. The High Commander to the Marquis de Aguilar.
S. E. Roma, L. 866,
f. 108.
B. M. Add. 28,590,
f. 46.
By the despatch, which at the Emperor's departure from Monçon was addressed to you, the suspension of arms agreed to by Mr. Velli (Velly), in the name of his master, the king of France, and the engagement taken by the Emperor, our master, of going to Barcelona at the same time that king Francis went to Montpellier, must already be known to you. The ministers of both monarchs were to go to Perpignan and Narbonne. From Monçon the Emperor went post to Valladolid to visit the Empress, whilst we ourselves came to this city to await the news of the accomplishment of the truce, as well as of other matters negociated with the French ambassador, Mr. de Belly (Velly). Three days ago there came to the latter a gentleman of the marquis del Gasto, accompanied by another of king Francis, to announce the acceptance publication, and execution of all and every condition stipulated by the said truce. The same gentleman brought news of king Francis having again recrossed the mountains, and being already at Besançon, in Burgundy, ready to march on Montpellier, whilst the Grand Master of France and the cardinal of Lorraine would also be at Narbonne at the time prescribed. I and my colleague (Mr. de Granvelle) intend to depart this very day in order to be at Perpignan on the 17th, the day fixed for the meeting.
The Emperor bids us give you all these details, as we will do in future, that you may in turn acquaint His Holiness with all the incidents of the negociation, which is to begin soon. The Emperor trusts sincerely on His Holiness, and would not for the World take one single step in the affair without consulting him. Your Signory, therefore, is to beg him to write to his Nuncio at the Imperial Court, and declare what his wishes and intentions are respecting a peace of this nature, principally based on three things, namely, the Council, as the remedy and settlement in matters of faith, the union of Christendom, and the defensive and offensive alliance against the Turk and all infidels. In all which, it is due to His Holiness to be the head and chief, &c.
His Majesty would also like to know His Holiness' opinion and will in other matters, and especially on the league about to be formed with the Republic of Venice, and on the participation to be given in it to king Francis, because, though fall powers were sent to you and to Lope de Soria at Venice to capitulate and treat of all matters appertaining to the said League, and oblige the French king to join it, it is very important to know how and in what way he (the Pope) is to contribute towards it, for since His Holiness, the Emperor, and Venice have already agreed to help respectively—and the Imperial ambassador (Lope de Soria) writes that Venice will readily contribute a third of the armament and expense, it stands to reason that such a stipulation must be modified by the admission of a fourth into the confederacy.—Barcelona, 21 (fn. 1) December 1537.
Spanish. Original draft. pp. 5.
P. Arc. de l'Emp.,
ol. D. 5. 20, 1 and
617, 20.
B. M. Add. 28,590,
f. 27.
172. The Articles discussed with His Majesty at Monçon, with regard to the Instructions to be given to Cobos and Granvelle for treating with the Grand Master of France (Montmorency).
As the king of France has made no special declaration to M. Cornelio Cepero (Cornelis Scepper) at his passage through or return from France, concerning the means he intends employing to bring about a peace; as Mr. de Bely (Vely) himself has made no declaration on that point, it seems very difficult, if not impossible, to frame a precise set of instructions as to the manner in which His Majesty's plenipotentiaries are to conduct the negociations for that peace. Yet the plenipotentiaries cannot go on their mission empty-handed, as it were, and unprovided with arguments to encounter those on the other side. It has, therefore, been deemed necessary and expedient by the Council to address the following "consulta" in order to ascertain by means of the present interrogatory what are His Majesty's intentions on that point:—
I. Is the peace between the Emperor and the king of France to be so understood as binding also on the heirs and successors of both, that the sons of France, and especially the Dauphin, shall be bound to keep it hereafter? As king Francis is known to be in delicate health owing to his last illness, from which he is still suffering, it would seem as if such precaution was recommended by prudence.
II. Will it be needful, in order to secure peace, to treat principally about the duchy of Milan, and agree to its final cession on the conditions and securities, and according to the resolution lately communicated to the marquis de Aguilar at Rome in answer to the proposal made by the Pope?
III. Are the plenipotentiaries to stipulate that the cession be made exclusively in favour of Angoulême, (fn. 2) for him and his descendants in the male line only to hold the Duchy, excluding the Dauphin, the daughters of king Francis and their descendants for ever, notwithstanding that, on the part of France, it may possibly be alleged that females ought also to succeed?
IV. Are the present revenues of the Duchy, with the charges on its treasury, to be given up in totality to the Sieur d'Orleans, (fn. 3) His Majesty's ministers receiving the same until the final delivery?
V. Should king Francis or his ministers propose that his son, the duke of Orleans (Charles) go to reside at Milan for any length of time, or for ever, would it be fit for the greater validity and security of the transaction to treat of a marriage between the said Sieur d'Orleans and the daughter of the king of the Romans, since there seems to be a strong desire for that union on the part of France?
VI. No objection, in our opinion, can be raised against a marriage which appears at once to be convenient and advantageous for both parties, and cannot fail to be agreeable also to the king of the Romans.
VII. What dowry is to be assigned to the daughter of the king of the Romans in case of her being married to the duke of Orleans? what will be the amount of it? when and how is it to be paid? what will be the wife's dotal rights, and on what fund or property is the dowry to be consigned? for though the daughter of the king of the Romans be of tender age—and it seems, "prima facie," that it would be enough to contract the marriage between the parties, leaving the settlements for after the signature of the peace—yet there is every reason to think that if king Francis is really in earnest and wishes for peace, he will insist upon the marriage being agreed upon and secured at the same time as the peace, and, if refused by the Emperor, he may suspect that there is no great desire on our part to have the marriage effected.
VIII. Is the dowry to be principally consigned on the Treasury of Milan, or will the heavy losses already sustained by His Majesty in defending that duchy against old and recent aggressions on the part of the French, be taken into account? For if the several alienations which His Majesty has already made in that duchy, and the impoverished state of its finances be considered, the French might complain of want of regard on our part, and say that the Princess' dotal rights are not sufficiently insured.
IX. Is there to be a clause in the treaty specifying that all previous donations and grants made by His Majesty in the Duchy shall be considered valid and continue so for ever?
X. What is to be done regarding the annual pension granted to Pier Luigi Farnese? Is it to be commuted or exchanged for an equal pension or income elsewhere, or is it to be capitalized?
XI. Will it be stipulated that the dotal rights of the dowager duchess of Milan consigned on the Duchy are to be redeemed for an equivalent sum of money? This would be much to the advantage and profit of the duke of Orleans, as well as of his future wife, the Princess, at the same time as a relief to the Treasury, and a security and comfort to the dowager Duchess.
XII. It is natural enough that the French may wish to know where and at what time the marriage is to be consummated; who will bring the Princess to France; with what suite, and at whose expense.
XIII. Should the French stipulate that for the greater security of the peace and consequent marriage the Princess should, immediately after the swearing of the peace, be conducted to France, that she may be educated there near her aunt (queen Eleanor), are their wishes in that respect to be complied with, or are we to ask for further securities?
XIV. Will it be necessary to introduce a clause in the treaty purporting that, should the duke of Orleans come to inherit the crown, neither he nor his sons or descendants are to possess Milan conjointly with the kingdom of France, but that the Duchy is then to pass to his (the Duke's) second son, and so on to third or fourth, in such a manner that it may never come to form an integral part of the crown of France? In other words, should the Duke have only one natural and legitimate son, upon whom, in the course of time, the crown of France was to devolve, is not the duchy of Milan to return ipso facto to the Empire to be disposed of according to feudal law? If so, what provision is to be made in case of the Duke not having male children, though he may still be in hope of getting them, and what in the event of the Princess dying and the Duke taking another wife?
XV. In case of the Duke dying before his wife, the Princess, as aforesaid, without male children, is the Duchy, for the greater contentment and satisfaction of the said king of France, to be left in her hands as long as she lives, that being a thing which cannot fail to be agreeable to the king of the Romans?
XVI. Lastly, not to break off the negociations, and let things come to extremities, ought the commissioners to stipulate that, failing male or female heirs, the succession to the Duchy should pass to the Dauphin's sons, natural and legitimate, if any, always under the above-mentioned clause and condition of devolution to the Empire in case of such a successor being called to the crown of France for want of other male and legitimate heirs?
XVII. Ought the plenipotentiaries to persist in their demand that in case of the marriage being effected, the said duke of Orleans is to have and retain that portion of France which legitimately belongs to him as second son of king Francis?
XVIII. Are the plenipotentiaries to insist upon the securities offered by His Imperial Majesty for the delivery of the duchy of Milan being exactly those specified in the treaty, and that no more be granted? Should the French ask for further securities, are the plenipotentiaries to refer the case home for consultation, as one most substantial and important for the conclusion of peace?
XIX. Should the said duke of Orleans negociate another marriage elsewhere, as, for instance, that with the daughter of the queen of France, the infanta of Portugal (Maria), are the plenipotentiaries to avoid entering on the subject, especially since it is known that the king of the Romans has already been informed of the proposed marriage and approves entirely of it? Considering that the king and queen of France themselves have put forward the latter matrimonial alliance, which after all might turn out to be more advantageous and useful for the maintenance and support of the Duchy by the king of the Romans and his family are the plenipotenciaries to enter into discussion on such a point?
XX. With regard to the time of delivery of the Duchy, it is well worth inquiring, for the information of the plenipotentiaries, what date is to be fixed after the consummation of the marriage, and the fulfilment of the clauses and conditions stipulated in the treaty. As the time fixed for the consummation seems rather long to the French—and it must naturally be so owing to the tender age of the daughter of the king of the Romans—it seems necessary to instruct the plenipotentiaries how they are to treat of this matter, so that the time for the delivery of the Duchy may be fixed accordingly.
XXI. With regard to the Faith, every one agrees that the only true remedy for the evils and dangers by which Christendom is now beset, is, without dispute, the meeting of the General Council. It will, therefore, be important to know where and at what time that Council is to be held, since the longer the indecision and delay in this particular, the greater the inconveniences likely to arise. If it were possible not to change the place of meeting already designated, it would be better, though this may be said of it: should king Francis attend the Council in person, as he has promised, the change of one place to another, provided it were not much farther from Germany, would be of no consequence, as it would not prevent the meeting of that assembly.
XXII. It will also be important for the plenipotentiaries to know how and in what terms is this matter of the General Council to be discussed with His Holiness; when and where is the Council to be held; in what terms and language is the convocation to be made, and how to be published and notified to the parties, especially to the king of England, to the German princes, and to the Swiss cantons now separated from our Holy Faith, so that all may be invited to attend its celebration, and the parties to abide by the vote of the majority.
XXIII. In order to gain time, and give the Council a start (encaminarlo) that it may end the sooner, would it not be advisable to try beforehand some means of bringing the refractory parties to terms by making concessions toeach of them according to his quality and power?
XXIV. It is also important for the commissioners to know whether His Majesty, the Emperor, and the king of France are to attend the Council personally or by means of proxies.
XXV. In a like manner what is to be done in case of refusal, contradiction, or contumacy on the part of the Separatists, and how to proceed against them; for if it be particularly declared and specified in the treaty that in case of necessity violent measures and force will be used, there is danger of the present peace between the Empire and France never being concluded, or else remaining, as it were, unsettled, besides which the simple announcement of the measure to be enforced would of itself provoke the perpetual enmity of the said Separatists against the Emperor. Even if the measures of violent coercion were not mentioned in the treaty, it is to be believed that, without proper securities from the king of France, the Separatists will persist in their pertinacious obstinacy and not attend the Council. It is, therefore, well worthy of consideration that since one of the conditions for the delivery to France of the duchy of Milan is to be king Francis' unconditional acquiescence in the meeting of the Council, it must be his interest to advance or prolong the period of meeting, as it may be. Now, whether the discussion of such a point is to be deferred until His Majesty's interview with king Francis, or to be commenced at once is another serious question on the part of the plenipotentiaries. What is to be done in case of contravention or refusal by the said Separatists? Are they in the meanwhile to try and gain the goodwill of king Francis, and ascertain from him what his intentions are in case of that contravention or refusal, the plenipotentiaries taking care not to say, write, or speak anything in His Majesty's name out of which king Francis' ministers might hereafter make their profit should the peace not be concluded? There is still another consideration, namely, that it is important for the Pope to join the confederation and try to gain over other kings, princes, and powers, who still profess with sincerity our Holy Faith and religion.
XXVI. With regard to the Turk it is very uncertain when it will be possible for us to get rid of him. Whether an expedition is to be organised so as to attack him in his own territory, or whether, on the contrary, Christendom is merely to be on the defensive, it is important that whatever the stipulation of the powers to that effect it should have a permanent character. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain how the king of France intends helping in either case, in view of the engagements he has taken and promised to fulfil, decide when and how the formal delivery of the Duchy is to be made, at the same time taking into consideration the League already concluded against the Turk between His Holiness, the Pope, His Imperial Majesty, and the Venetians.
XXVII. With respect to the League already concluded against the Turk, are the commissioners to make it the standing point in the present negociation with France so as not to wound the feelings of His Holiness and of the Venetians, or awake their jealousy? In that way might without suspicion or contradiction from other powers all princes in Christendom be induced to join the said League and contribute towards it.
XXVIII. What sort of aid and contribution in men, galleys, or money is to be asked from king Francis? This is a matter well worthy of consideration, inasmuch as an offensive league against the Turk is a most important undertaking, and the more men and ships, as well as money, the king of France will have to furnish for that purpose, the less will he have at his disposal should he show signs of his ill-will hereafter.
XXIX. In the opinion of the Council it is necessary above all things lo make sure of French assistance, and know beforehand what force the King is to raise, and what number of galleys to fit out, not only for the defence of Christendom at large, but also for an invasion of Turkish territory. Indeed, this is a matter which admits of no delay, for the Grand Turk (Solyman) is a powerful and most dangerous enemy, having a numerous and well-appointed army under his command, and we may be certain that, if attacked in any part whatsoever of his dominions, he will retaliate with a most formidable invasion along the Mediterranean coast, if not of those territories which Venice owns close upon his frontiers.
XXX. It seems likewise necessary that the League, if ratified, should be extended to the parts of Sclavonia, and become also a chief and express point in the negociation, inasmuch as a declaration of this kind is very important for the king of the Romans (Ferdinand), whose dominions, like those of the Signory, border on those of the Grand Turk; besides which, should the Sclavonians join the League, the Grand Turk will be more embarrassed in his attack, and any undertaking against him become easier.
XXXI. The more so that if military preparations are made in Germany, as well as in Italy, and if the Council gets into full operation, the German Lutherans and others might perhaps through kind admonition feel more inclined to return to their duty for fear of the Turkish forces being directed against them. Besides which, should the Council enter upon its functions without them, and in the meanwhile the forces of Christendom march against the Infidel, they (the Germans) might perhaps during that interval of time commit some violence.
XXXII. It is likewise to be considered that besides the formal engagement taken with the Signory of Venice to come to blows with the enemy and follow him up until his total expulsion from the Venetian territory—without giving him time to arm and strengthen himself, as there is every probability that he will do—there is another consideration to be particularly attended to, which is, that in all matters concerning the French the shortest road is always the best, for they are as a nation very hot and quick in all their first movements. To the above considerations may be added the wish expressed by the Signory of first attacking Barbarossa next summer, and possibly destroying him and his fleet of galleys.
XXXIII. It is also worthy of consideration to know how, and in what terms, are the kings, princes, and powers who have not yet joined the League, to be respectively invited to form part of it, for it seems as if their condition, quality, and faith are not the same. For example, are the States of the Empire, the Swiss Cantons, whether Catholic or Lutheran, and other powers, to be addressed in similar terms?
XXXIV. Should the king of France bring forward, as he has done many a time before, that he wishes to have his share of the honor as well as profit of the enterprise, and should he ask for a previous declaration in that sense, what answer is to be given to him or to his ministers?
XXXV. With regard to the restitution to the duke Carlo of Savoy of that part of his estate conquered by the French, there can be no doubt that it must take place as soon as possible. If the king of France, as it is said, wishes earnestly for peace, and Milan is not to be given over until the duke Carlo is fully restored, it will not be necessary to shorten the period of the delivery, but merely to stipulate that Milan shall not be made over to France until the duke Carlo has been re-established and secured in his dominions.
XXXVI. As in consequence of the war which king Francis has been carrying on in Italy, the Cantons of Berne and Friburg have likewise taken certain towns and castles belonging to the duke Carlo, it is important for the Imperial commissioners to know whether they are to insist upon the restitution thereof being made before the delivery of Milan, or only within the shortest possible period of time.
XXXVII. If so, how are the Cantons to be induced and persuaded to make the aforesaid restitution without provoking their enmity against His Majesty (the Emperor), and against the king of the Romans, his brother, and their respective dominions, especially those bordering upon or close to Switzerland, or without furnishing them an occasion to separate from what the hereditary league has amplified. (fn. 4) Certain it is that the best bargain to be made with the Swiss consists in having their war expenses paid, which expenses they are sure to rate at a very high sum. It is, therefore, well to consider whether the collection (cobranza) and the money itself ought not to be at the charge of king Francis, (fn. 5) who is the real cause of the war, inasmuch as the duke of Savoy is so much in debt, and his country so ruined by the French, that there is no appearance at all of his being able to pay any sum however small.
XXXVIII. It is also important to stipulate that once the said restitution of territory effected by the people of Berne and Friburg, they are not to proceed further in matters of Faith, but to withdraw their preachers, and leave the restored lands in peace, so that the inhabitants who may have been perverted may go back again to their old Church.
XXXIX. As it may be presumed that king Francis, for the sake of excusing and concealing the harm he has inflicted upon the duke of Savoy (Carlo III.), or for other motives of his own, will make most of his pretended rights and actions against him, and will ask that his titles to Savoy be carefully examined, and perhaps also refer the whole of his claims to the Emperor's judgment and arbitrage, as may be gathered from the words of Mr. de Bely, (fn. 6) in such an event it is worthy of consideration whether the said actions and rights, which that king is bringing against the Duke, will be put on one side so as to avoid any reference to the Emperor, as otherwise that might give king Francis hopes of some sort of indemnity, and the Emperor would thereby be embarrased. On the other hand, it would seem a rather harsh and crude measure to refuse entirely the amicable settlement of the said claims and actions against the Duke, especially after the full restoration of his estate, as stipulated.
XL. Should the king of France, under colour of the said pretensions and claims, demand the county of Asti—as he has done many a time before—principally in favor and furtherance of the said peace, and for the sake of the projected marriage of the duke of Orleans to the daughter of the king of the Romans (Ferdinand), what answer is to be made to such a request, or is the matter to be entirely dropped and excluded from the conferences?
XLI. With regard to the Duke's interests, which are great and almost vital, which will be the best way to bring them forward, and which are the points that the Emperor's commissioners are principally to dwell and insist upon?
XLII. Whatever may be decided on this last point, and on all others relating to the duke of Savoy, should king Francis agree entirely to the memorandum which Mr. de Bely took to France, the Duke must be at once informed of it, that he may send a gentleman of his court, or write to Mr. de Bellegarde telling him what his wishes are in that respect, and empowering him to treat and negociate in his name for that which may be most convenient and profitable to him.
XLIII. As to confirming and ratifying the treaties of Madrid and Cambray with regard to those articles which have not been changed or derogated from, the delay is of no consequence at all, for it is not likely that king Francis will object to that; neither is the confirmation and ratification of such articles necessary, considering king Francis' formal renunciation of his pretended rights to Naples, as well as to the sovereignty of Flanders; his reserved action on the duchy of Burgundy ; the marriage portion and rights of the queen of France, and other particulars concerning His Majesty the Emperor or his allies, vassals, or subjects, who, without the said reservation, would otherwise be obliged again to establish their respective claims, which would tell sadly against the honesty, equity, and reason under which the aforesaid treaties were made, concluded, and ratified.
XLIV. That the said king of France is to relinquish and abandon all his practices in Italy, Germany, and other parts directly or indirectly injurious or prejudicial to the Emperor, or to his brother, the king of the Romans, is of course a condition sine quâ non of the future treaty. There is nothing to be added to or taken away from such a clause; only to insist that it be inserted word for word as it is, the king of France binding himself in his own name and in that of his heirs and successors to fulfil the treaty in all its parts. This is a thing to which the King can make no objection whatever, if he intends proceeding in good faith to the negociations for peace.
XLV. All the above points and stipulations being settled and sufficiently declared, and king Francis enacting and fulfilling all and every one of them honestly and in a manner to satisfy the Emperor, what is to be done in the matter of the preconcerted marriage between the duke of Orleans (Charles) and the daughter of the king of the Romans? That Princess is very young and not yet marriageable. Now, experience shows that there is nothing more uncertain than marriages of this sort. Should the Duchy be delivered to the Duke after the fulfilment of all and every one of the conditions stipulated, and should the Princess die before the consummation of the marriage, what is to be done? Are securities to be taken against such a contingency, and which on the other hand are to be demanded for the accomplishment of the marriage?
XLVI. It is likewise to be considered that if, according to the terms and conditions above specified, the duchy of Milan should be granted to the above-named duke of Orleans and to his male heirs, or in their default to those of the Dauphin, it might possibly be asked on the part of France that were the said Duke or the Dauphin to die within the stipulated period of time, and before his marriage, and were the former to inherit the crown of France without legitimate sons, or any natural hope of them, or even if he had any, they were to die, what sort of indemnity is France to get for her losses? The commissioners wish to know whether, in case of such demand being made, a complete and unconditional refusal should at once be given, inasmuch as all the above-mentioned conditions aim either at securing the public welfare of Christendom, or the fulfilment of those engagements which king Francis is willing to take in return for the duchy of Milan. Should, however, the king of France, or his sons, during the specified interval of time redeem and discharge the debt weighing on the Duchy, it would seem equitable and just to allow some sort of compensation or indemnity, specially if the Duke or his heirs had not enjoyed the Duchy long.
XLVII. Is there to be a defensive league of all the Italian powers, which the duke of Orleans is also to join under the title of and as duke of Milan, king Francis expressly consenting to it, and the Swiss Cantons intervening, at his request, with such securities as may be deemed proper and sufficient for the purpose, and the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated concerning Milan?
XLVIII. Are all the stipulations relating to the duchy of Milan, its investiture or the reversion to the Empire for want of male heirs, to be authorized by the Electors at the express requisition of the said King and of his two sons, he and they promising to submit to the decision of the Diet, whatever it may be?
XLIX. Are the commissioners to claim anything for the expenses of the late war—an entirely aggressive one on the part of the French,—and if so, at what sum of money are the said expenses to be estimated?
Besides the above points, which as stated above, are set down as so many conditions respecting the duchy of Milan, and its delivery, it would also be requisite to know the Emperor's wishes on the following particulars concerning Italy in general.
L. Should king Francis make any proposals, or lay claims on Genoa—as he has already done at other times, and there is now every probability of his doing again at the very outset of the present negociations,—what are His Imperial Majesty's commissioners to do? Are they at once to reject and altogether discard such claims, basing their refusal to entertain such a proposal on the renunciation made again and again by king Francis and fully confirmed by the treaties of Madrid and Cambray; or shall they listen to what the French may have to say on that score, and then insist upon a fresh and explicit declaration respecting Genoa being inserted in the treaty without any reference whatsoever to the Republic itself, or to the question whether it is an Imperial city, or a fief of the Empire, and yet stipulating that the inhabitants are to enjoy fully the peace, amply declaring everything appertaining to the said peace, and stipulating also that the Geneose shall barter and trade freely and without impediment of any sort in the kingdom of France, as was once proposed at Rome?
LI. Whether it ought to be stipulated expressly for the greater satisfaction of the said Genoese that the duke of Orleans and his successors, who may hereafter be dukes and possessors of Milan, shall not directly or indirectly contravene the titles, privileges, and rights which the said Genoese hold and enjoy from His Imperial Majesty, but on the contrary inviolably keep and observe them in future?
LII. Whether, for the greater security of the above, it would be advisable to treat of a special understanding to be maintained between the duchy of Milan and the Signory of Genoa?
LIII. And as it is an understood thing that for many years past the Grand Master of France (Anne of Montmorency) has laid claim to the city of Saona (Savona) on the plea that it was once granted to him by his master, the king of France, should there be a question of this at the conference for the peace, is the application to be rejected entirely, or shall it be entertained in such wise that, without giving the Grand Master the faintest hope of it, the Signory of Genoa should make him a considerable present in money once for all, that he (the Grand Master) may be friendly and well-disposed during the negociations in everything concerning the trade with France, as in all other matters?
LIV. As it is also probable that on the part of France some claim or other will be set up in the name of Catherine de' Medici, the Dauphin's wife, not only as regards the government of Florence, but also respecting the property of her family in Rome, and other places, should the application be made, how is it to be received? With regard to the government of Florence, there is no question at all: the excuse is plausible enough, the answer must be peremptory: governments do not pass on to women, especially after such privileges as His Imperial Majesty did grant to the Florentines at the time that he conquered their city and put down their rebellion, during which they had expelled the Medici therefrom, and deprived them of all authority and power. And yet it is likely that the French will ask for some sort of indemnity, and would be offended if the affair were passed over lightly without some sort of compensation. As to the Medici inheritance, it will be hard for the French to see their claims rejected without Catherine's rights being first looked into and examined, and, although there may be a sufficient receipt (quitança) given for it, they are sure to look out for the means of impairing it hereafter.
LV. At any rate, and whatever may be the issue of the conferences on this particular matter, it is probable—nay almost certain—that the French commissioners will refuse any sort of renunciation of Catherine's rights, however frail they may be, and will, moreover, refuse to treat of securities to be given to Cosmo de' Medici for fear of causing displeasure to the Dauphin and his wife.
LVI. In the event of the French plenipotentiaries asking, as most probably they will, that the marquisate of Saluçio (Saluzzo), to which king Francis has for many years back laid claim on the plea that it is a fief of the Delphinado (Dauphinois); that their King (Francis) has never ceased before and since the liberation of his children, to claim it as his own, and, moreover, that his right to it was recognised by the treaty of Madrid; is their demand to be absolutely refused, or is it to be stipulated that henceforward the marquisate [of Saluzzo] will remain for ever attached to Milan, as a fief thereof, to be possessed by the duke of Orleans? Or else are the French to be put in possession of it at once, though under protest that the rights of the Empire over it must be safeguarded. Or again is an inquiry to be instituted for the purpose of ascertaining whose titles and rights to the possession are best, and whether those of the duke of Savoy, who also lays claim to it, are sounder than the rest?
LVII. Is the name of count Galeotto della Concordia to be mentioned at all in the treaty, asking king Francis to withdraw his protection and abandon him completely, so that he may be punished for his crimes and misdeeds, as well as his obstinate disobedience to the Imperial mandates, and the castle of La Mirandula restored to the son of the last count to whom it legitimately belongs?
LVIII. Will there be a stipulation to the effect that king Francis is not to help and assist in future, directly or indirectly, the Florentine cardinals and "fuorusciti," and that Laurencio (Lorenço) de Medici shall be exiled from France and its territory?
LIX. Is it to be stipulated that in future no king of France shall, under any excuse whatever, make acquisitions of territory in Italy, and, if necessary, with His Majesty's pleasure, are the plenipotentiaries to promise the same thing on Your Majesty's part, and that neither the Emperor, nor the kings of Spain, Naples, and Sicily, his successors, will make such acquisitions, so as to ensure the peace and welfare of Italy, and thus remove any causes of trouble or contention hereafter?
LX. Should there be a question at the conferences of making the cities of Parma and Piacenza dependent on the duchy of Milan,—to which they seem to have belonged originally,—shall the motion be rejected at once, or shall it be postponed until a better opportunity is offered, considering the state in which the affairs of Christendom, the negociations about the General Council, and the league against the Turk at present are, and considering also that most likely the French have not forgotten that when the duchy of Milan was conquered by them, the two above-named cities really made part of it; and besides that the question, if there be any, affects the rights of the Empire? (fn. 7)
LXI. Is it to be proposed that henceforward all the Italian States and their inhabitants may trade and negociate freely with France without being generally or individually molested in their commerce, and that they themselves shall not be proceeded against by retaliation or reprisals, (fn. 8) except in cases of notorious injustice?
LXII. If so, is this to be done by expressly naming every one of the kingdoms, republics, or powers into which Italy is now divided, or merely by mentioning the patrimonial estates, and vassals of each of the parties?
LXIII. Is Monago to be mentioned, or are the Imperial plenipotentiaries to abide by the general rule, namely, that no acquisition of territory in Italy is to be made by either of the contracting parties?
LXIV. With regard to matters privately concerning His Majesty, the Emperor, are fresh demands to be instituted with regard to the duchy of Burgundy, or shall the Imperial plenipotentiaries, for the sake of peace, content themselves with renewing the reserves contained in the treaty of Cambray?
LXV. Are they to insist particularly on the restoration of Edin (Hesdin), stipulating that it must be given up, with all the ordnance it may have at present, or, at least, with what it had at the time of its surrender?
LXVI. Are they to insist also upon St. Pol quitting that place and the whole province, and things remaining in the same state as when the late war commenced, without any change in the administration of justice, signory, feudal right, and other matters?
LXVII. The full and specific declaration of all matters concerning the superiority over Flanders, Artois, &c. must, of course, be made in conformity with the memoranda that the queen of Hungary (Mary) cannot fail to send, expressly annulling all proceedings and any other measures taken by king Francis since the treaties of Madrid and Cambray in contradiction to his own renunciations of his pretended rights as contained therein.
LXVIII. A similar declaration to be made respecting the county of Carolois, Gremiers de Sal, Chautçin, and La Prière, in the viscounty of Axona (Auxonne), as well as respecting the differences as to the limits of the county of Burgundy, the whole of this in conformity with the memoranda to be sent by the Marshal and President of Burgundy.
LXIX. And whereas the sovereignty over Charloes (Carolois) is only to last during His Imperial Majesty's life, is the indefinite prorogation thereof to be insisted upon, or is it to be during the life only of the Princes among the Emperor's children who may happen to inherit the said county of Burgundy?
LXX. Are the Emperor's plenipotentiaries to insist upon the treaty with the duke of Ghelders being ratified and approved of in the manner therein stipulated, and in such wise that His Imperial Majesty may be perfectly assured as to that, and a declaration concerning the said Duke introduced respecting the security of that estate, all in conformity with the memoranda and papers which no doubt exist on the subject, or which may be found hereafter, so that the duke of Ghelders may be dispossessed with the assistance of king Francis, who is on no account to assist or favor him, directly or indirectly, in any way whatever, whether he makes this agreement with His Majesty or otherwise. (fn. 9)
LXXI. In like manner His Majesty's plenipotentiaries inquire whether it will be fit and opportune to make some fresh stipulation concerning the sons and heirs of Mons. Roberto de la Marcha, similar to that of former treaties, or whether it will be sufficient to refer merely to the articles?
LXXII. Whether mention ought to be made in the future treaty of the bishopric of Liege in order to prevent king Francis from attempting some innovation, or preventing the coadjutorship now being negociated [at Rome], as otherwise he might say, one of these days, that not having been told beforehand, he is not to blame if he has thwarted the Emperor's plans in that respect.
LXXIII. Whether, besides the general stipulation that the subjects and vassals of each of the parties can and shall barter freely in all kinds of merchandise, another special one will not be required concerning His Majesty's subjects and vassals in these kingdoms of Spain, or each of them, and also respecting the kind of merchandise to be imported or exported?
LXXIV. Likewise one or more articles respecting the limits of pasturage, hunting, and fishing on the frontiers of Aragon, Navarre, and Catalonia.
LXXV. Whether some article ought not to be introduced concerning the Indies, to prevent king Francis from undertaking anything in that quarter?
LXXVI. Whether His Majesty's interest and the welfare of his subjects could not be efficiently promoted, here (in France) as well as there (in Spain) respectively, by some financial measure respecting currency and coinage? (fn. 10)
LXXVII. Whether it will be advisable to stipulate that the king of France do expel from his court and kingdom, and no longer shelter in his dominions, all the emigrants ("fuorusciti") from Naples, in conformity with the articles of the treaties of Madrid and Cambray? Should, moreover, the king of France agree to the article on condition of His Majesty pardoning the lives of those emigrants, since their property has already been confiscated and sold, are the plenipotentiaries to agree to it?
LXXVIII. Shall an article be introduced purporting that neither His Imperial Majesty nor the king of France is to acquire lands, actions, or disputed claims in each other's dominions?
The Empire.
LXXIX. With regard to the Empire, the Emperor's authority, and that of the king of the Romans.
If, in addition to the above articles, in which it is expressly said that the king of France shall not have understandings, treat or make alliances with the prince-electors or others in the Empire to His Majesty's prejudice, some further clause should be introduced stipulating that the said king of France shall be bound to support, uphold, and defend the authority and dignity of the said Majesties, as well as the election of the king of the Romans, or at least that he shall not permit or allow any one, directly or indirectly, to work against him under whatever pretence or excuse, and that neither he nor his successors to the French crown shall treat of, or do anything during the lifetime of the said Majesties [the Emperor and king of the Romans], that is offensive to their respective dignities.
LXXX. Whether it ought to be stipulated that the king of France shall in future forsake all alliances and understandings with those who have separated from the Faith, most particularly with the elector of Saxony, the lantzgraff (landgrave) of Hessen, and the duke of Virtemberg (Würtenberg). In case of this not being obtained, whether some clause ought not to be introduced providing that should king Francis not choose to enter into an agreement of that sort with His Majesty and with the king of the Romans, the plenipotentiaries are to insist upon the article being thus modified: in case of the said separatists undertaking, directly or indirectly, anything against the said Majesties? (fn. 11)
LXXXI.—Are the Imperial plenipotentiaries to insist upon the king of France dismissing count Guillaume de Furstenberg from his service, and what are they to say in case of its being suggested, on the part of the French, that for the sake of peace, and the better to reduce him to obedience, it would be advisable to grant him a full pardon? It is well worthy of consideration, firstly, that it is desirable that count Guillaume should be removed from the court of France. 2ndly, that he is troublesome, restless, and ill-inclined, and that were he to be pardoned that might encourage others to do as he has done.
LXXXII. Whether it should be stipulated that the king of France declare himself generally the enemy of those, of whatever rank and quality they may be in the Empire, who should hereafter revolt or rise in arms against the Imperial and Royal Majesties, and that he is not to shelter and receive within his kingdom any person or persons from Germany or Italy who may have been put under the ban of the Empire?
LXXXIII. Whether, in the article relating to the defensive and offensive alliance between His Majesty and the king of France, wherein it is said that both are to be friends of friends and enemies of enemies—the king of the Romans being also included—it is to be understood that the alliance is for their respective kingdoms and patrimonial estates only, as restricted at king Francis' request, by the treaty of Cambray; for although this seems reasonable enough, yet it must be borne in mind that the article was thus worded in order to gain and preserve the goodwill of the Electors and other Imperial princes.
The King of the Romans' Private Affairs.
LXXXIV. Whether it is to be brought forward and the Imperial plenipotentiaries are to persist in the king of France declaring himself enemy of the Bayboda (Vayvode), and helping the king of the Romans against him, not only owing to the Vayvode being the friend and ally of the Turk, and almost dependent on him, but on account of the matrimonial alliance now in contemplation between the duke of Orleans (Charles) and the daughter of the king of the Romans.
LXXXV. Whether some request should not be made concerning the duchy of Virtemberg (Würtenberg), which the king of the Romans lost entirely through the king of France. Whether some claim ought not to be instituted for its recovery, or, at any rate, for some compensation, or whether it will be better to keep to the letter of the treaty concluded with the duke of Virtemberg, and should the latter in any way contravene, directly or indirectly, to stipulate that the king of France declare against him?
Denmark.
LXXXVI. Ought the Imperial plenipotentiaries to stipulate with reference to Dignamarca (Denmark) that the king of France is to assist in the recovery of that kingdom, and not in anywise work against duke Frederic (fn. 12) and the Duchess, his wife, considering the past practices of France, (fn. 13) and that the duke of Holstan (Holstein) has forsaken his faith, and that it is highly important for the sake of the said Duke and Duchess, and also for the security of Flanders, that a remedy be applied.
What relates to the Christian Powers in General.
LXXXVII. It ought to be observed that on this particular point the negociations with the French plenipotentiaries are to be conducted with the utmost caution and reserve, so as not to be deceived by them and their fine words, of which they are very lavish indeed. With this maxim for our protection, it is necessary for us to know whether it would be advisable for Your Majesty to conclude some sort of secret treaty, besides the public one, for things and objects that may now be considered convenient or necessary, or become so hereafter, and whether in case of that secret treaty being made the king of France should be admitted to it, as he might make his profit out of the communication and reveal it to his friends; or whether the Imperial plenipotentiaries are to listen to anything the French may have to say on the subject of the secret treaty and postpone the answer till the interview, or at least till after the conclusion of the treaty of peace, for it must be considered that if the said treaty of peace is made to the satisfaction of the parties, there will still remain causes to make another secret treaty needful between His Imperial Majesty, his brother the king of the Romans, and the said king of France, individually or conjointly with the Pope and the Venetians, as it may be directed especially against the king of England and those German princes who have swerved from the Faith.
LXXXVIII. With respect to the Pope and the Holy Apostolic See, should king Francis' ministers persevere in showing their ill-content and displeasure—as the King himself has done by blaming Mr. Cornelio Sceppero, and discountenancing the Grand Master of France—are the Imperial plenipotentiariesto refuse absolutely to enter into the question for the sake of Papal authority, and considering how very necessary he (the Pope) is for the celebration of the General Council, the resistance against the Turk, and the league just concluded to that effect? For this reason, and considering the present state of our relations with His Holiness, at a moment when there is a talk of a matrimonial alliance between the Emperor's family and his own, are the plenipotentiaries to refuse altogether to entertain the subject, or will it be better for us all to hear what the French have to say on this matter, without, however, approving or rejecting any of their propositions, or speaking disparagingly of His Holiness, in order to ascertain what their real views are, what ground or appearance there may be to guess at their intentions, what direction the treaty of peace is likely to take, and whether there is or is not a chance of its being concluded, and the projected interview taking place?
LXXXIX. Whether, in order to secure the meeting of the Council, and the defence against the Turk, there ought to be a question in case of the present Pope dying, of some preventive measures being taken in order to oblige his successors in the Holy Apostolic See to the fulfilment of the one and the other of those covenants (that of the Council and that of the Turk), especially should the successors of the present Pope not work sincerely for the celebration of the Council, for that might be a case hard to digest for cardinal de Lorraine and other Freneh cardinals, especially if the thing went beyond the point of our Faith?
XC. Should the French at all mention the marriage alliances, now being negociated with the family of the Pope, how are the Imperial plenipotentiaries to answer their questions; are they to speak in general or special terms, just as they may guess whether king Francis will be pleased or displeased at it; and what reasons and considerations are to influence the Imperial plenipotentiaries to do one thing or the other whilst they wait for communications from Court or from the marquis de Aguilar?
XCI. With respect to the king of Portugal (Dom Joaõ), is he to be included in the future treaty of peace as principal contractant, or merely as ally? Are the plenipotentiaries to treat for him and in his name, respecting the different shades of the negociation, and others there might be in connexion with the king of France on account of the navigation, (fn. 14) and in case of king Francis reporting his agreement with the proposals sent to him through Mr. de Bely, (fn. 15) is a courier to be immediately dispatched to the said king of Portugal, acquainting him with the French king's answer, and asking, in the most courtly terms possible, what his intentions are with regard to the negociation?
XCII. Should the French plenipotentiaries speak of matrinial alliances, such as that of the Infanta, (fn. 16) daughter of the queen of France (Eleanor), with the duke of Orleans (Charles), or any other prince of the Royal family of France, what are the Imperials to answer? Will it be sufficient to reject altogether the offer of the said duke of Orleans, owing to the reasons above specified and alleged, inasmuch as, all things considered, it would seem as if the French were unable to bring forward on their side any match suitable to the Infanta's rank, and that at all events the principal object of the negociations is the treaty of peace between the Empire and France?
XCIII. Should the marriage of the infante Dom Luys with the daughter of France be mentioned by the French plenipotentiaries, in conformity with the conversations which king Francis has held with the Portuguese ambassador at his court and what king Dom Joaõ, himself, has said and written on the subject, what is to be answered thereupon, considering the overtures which have been made in England?
XCIV. As the best means of pleasing king Francis on that score, and rendering the Infante's marriage in England acceptable, would, in the opinion of the plenipotentiaries, be to procure a suitable marriage for Henry's daughter, would it not be advisable to look out for one among the reigning families of Europe? and if so, could not the prince of Piedmont do for the purpose? for although there is a difference in the ages, the thing has already been done in cases like that of the prince of Piedmont and the late queen of Scotland, in which a still greater disproportion existed.
XCV. It is also to be considered what answer is to be made in case the French, who are extremely fond of proposing inter-marriages of princes—whether they take effect or not— bringing forward that of the eldest son of the king of the Romans with the daughter of France? Are the plenipotentiaries to refuse absolutely to entertain the subject, or are they to ask time for consultation, though it must be owned that this last expedient might be dangerous, inasmuch as consultation at home, deliberation, and so forth, would give the French some hope of a future negociation.
XCVI. In like manner as there was once a talk of marrying the prince of Spain (Philip) to the youngest daughter of king Francis; should the French imagine that because that marriage was not rejected at first, but was for some time entertained, that of the infanta of Portugal to the duke of Orleans could not reasonably be refused, what is His Majesty's will in the matter? Are the Imperial plenipotentiaries to take into account former negociations carried on for the marriage of the Prince to the daughter of Albret, the objections stated at the time, and the late offers from Portugal?
England.
XCVII. With regard to the king of England, considering the doubtful terms of enmity or friendship, as it may be, on which we at present stand with him, and having regard to that common proverbial saying, "He who has offended once will never forgive," as well as to his complete alienation from the Roman Church; considering also that king Francis most likely will be better inclined to treat with him that he himself may be released from the payment of the heavy debt, and considerable pension besides, which he owes; it is important for the plenipotentiaries to know how they are to proceed in the matter so as not to give the said king of England reasonable cause for complaint and enmity, especially whilst no security exists of France accepting the treaty. On the other hand, the plenipotentiaries admit that it would be uusafe upon such faint hope as the sincerity of the English king can afford to discard entirely the offers of France and lean completely to England's side. (fn. 17)
XCVIII. Owing to the considerations above specified, the plenipotentiaries hold to their idea that the king of England ought to be included in the present treaty of peace, as he has been in former ones, were it for no other purpose than that of acting honestly in the matter and pleasing king Francis, who has always wished for that, (fn. 18) and removing, as aforesaid, all causes of discontent or resentment between those two kings [that of France and that of England]. It would be advisable to leave the settlement of all other matters for the secret treaty, if one should be made at all, as the king of England might hereafter join again the Roman Church, from which he has separated, and help likewise to resist the Turkish invasions. These being, in the opinion of the Imperial plenipotentiaries, the two principal grounds on which the whole treaty may be said to rest, they naturally wish to know whether matters are to be left as they are now, or whether a more binding and closer alliance should be made with the king of France in case of the Pope fulminating censures or invoking the help of the secular arm against the king of England. It is highly important for the plenipotentiaries to be enlightened as to these points.
XCIX. On the other hand, should the king of England return to the pale of the Roman Church, consent to the General Council, give assistance against the Turk, is he to be included in the treaty of peace as one of the contracting parties? Should the Pope and the king of France ask that he should be, what is to be answered?
C. Although the discussion of the above points concerning England might be left for a secret treaty with France, it is highly important to bear in mind that unless a specific declaration be made by the Emperor to the king of France as to what each of them is expected to do against the king of England, in case of his again incurring Papal censure, king Francis will think that the peace is not in earnest, and may temporize with England, and, therefore, neither will the Council be celebrated as it ought to be, nor the marriage between the infante Dom Luys and the princess of England made. From the above considerations the Imperial plenipotentiaries are inclined to think whether it would not be better at all events to hear first what France has to say on that score, and remit the resolution to the interview that is to take place, or till after the publication of the treaty, His Imperial Majesty being meanwhile informed what are king Francis' sentiments on the subject without approving or disapproving of them, or saying anything out of which the French might profit, since they well know the numerous causes of discontent which the Emperor has had, and has still, against the king of England.
Venice.
CI. Should the French plenipotentiaries show any discontent with the Venetians and try to negociate to their detriment, are the Imperial commissioners to refuse absolutely to hear of it, or will it be better for them to listen first to what the French may allege against them, excuse them, or ask time for consultation according to the importance of the complaints, without, however, giving hopes to the French of our deciding in their favor? for we have a separate treaty with the Signory (they themselves having joined the league against the Turk) and it is important for us to be on friendly terms with them, if Italy is to be secure and at peace, especially should the investiture of the duchy of Milan be given to the duke of Orleans. For these reasons and others the Imperial plenipotentiaries are of opinion that the Venetians ought to be written to as soon as the news of the meeting (ayuntamiento) comes, informing them of the probable action of the French, and assuring them that their interests shall be protected and looked into.
The Lord of Albret and his Estate.
CII. With regard to the lordship of Albret, should anything be said by the French concerning the pretensions of that family and their claims on Navarre, what is to be the plenipotentiaries' answer? Inasmuch as by the convention of Madrid, and subsequent treaty of Cambray, king Francis engaged to try and put an end to the said pretensions, and if he could not prevail on the parties to desist from the matter, and not have anything to do with them; considering also that were king Francis to reject entirely the titles of the parties as set down in preceding treaties, the lady D'Albret, who happens to be his sister (fn. 19) and, as it is said, enjoys great favor with him, might interfere (atravesarse) in the affair, the plenipotentiaries wish to know how they are to meet the French should the point come to be discussed.
CIII. Should there be any talk on the part of the French plenipotentiaries respecting the marriage of the prince of Spain (Philip) and the daughter of Mr. D'Albret, as Mr. De Vely has already hinted, what are the Imperial plenipotentiaries to say? It would appear that by alluding, as that ambassador did, to the said marriage, he merely wished to ascertain what our views on the subject were that he might guide his conduct for the future. If so two cardinal points ought to be considered: one is the honesty and at the same time the desire there might be of concealing our real intentions (fn. 20) ; the other, not to contravene but what has been said on the subject on previous occasions, enable us to give a satisfactory answer to the French plenipotentiaries as the case may be, having also regard to what has been said on former occasions respecting the marriage of the Prince to the second daughter of France.
Duke of Urbino.
CIV. It is also important to know whether the Imperial commissioners are to try and procure that neither king Francis, nor his son the Dauphin, nor the wife of this latter lay any claims or pretensions to the duchy of Urbino, but on the contrary renounce all those they may have, since it appears that shortly after her marriage the wife of the Dauphin assumed the title and arms of that Duchy as if in reality it belonged to her. As the settlement of this point touches in a great measure on the tranquillity and peace of Italy, as well on the satisfaction of the Venetians, and the Duke's interests; as on the other hand should the French plenipotentiaries insist upon the right and titles of the Dauphin's wife to the said duchy, it would be very hard and impolitic, in the opinion of the plenipotentiaries, to reject the Princess' claims entirely. It might after all be a point difficult to settle, and which, if brought forward and contested, might efficiently impede the negociations, so that it would be better not to mention it at all. (fn. 21)
Bourbon.
CV. What is to be done in favor of the heirs of the late Constable Charles de Bourbon, considering that this is a morsel of very hard digestion for the French in whatever way it may be brought forward, and likewise very important, owing to the Emperor's obligations.
CVI. Other particular affairs of vassals and subjects of the Emperor will be attended to according to the memorials that may come, and will be promoted to the best of our power.
CVII. It is important above all to decide which are to be in the treaty the principal contracting parties, and which the allies and confederates.
CVIII. Should the conferences begin and go on smoothly on both sides, will it be necessary to write to all the Imperial ministers, as well as to the Papal Nuncio and other ambassadors residing at the Emperor's court, that they may repair to the place of the conferences, and if so how and in what manner are they to intervene?

Footnotes

1 The copy from Simancas has xi, but as both the 12th and the 17th are mentioned in the letter I have not hesitated to change it into xxi, and calendar the letter here.
2 Charles de Valois, Francis' second son at the time. The eldest, Francis, having died, Charles, formerly the third, became the second of the King's sons; but then he was no longer duke of Angoulême as in the text. See above 389 and 391 notes.
3 "Sy se otorgaran las rentas del dicho estado de Milan con los cargos que tienen al dicho Sr. de Orliens." By the death of Francis, the Dauphin, the duke of Orleans (Henri) inherited the title as presumptive heir to the crown of France, whilst the duke of Angoulême, Francis' third son, became duke of Orleans.
4 "para no les dar ocasion de se apartar de lo que ha ampliado la liga hereditaria."
5 "En que la cobranza y lo que se habrá de pagar será á costa del dicho Rey."
6 Claude Dodieu, sieur de Velly. See above, pp. 382, 391. Spaniards made then no distinction between the letters b and v, which were then, and are still now, pronounced in the same way.
7 "Que es verisimile que los franceses no lo han olvidado, especialmente attendido que lo han posseydo con el dicho estado de Milan, y que esto toca al derecho del Imperio."
8 "Sin ser en ello impedidos general ni particularmente por qualquier causa, y que contra ellos no sea procedido por marchas ni represalias sino en caso de notoria y inescusable denegacion de justiçia."
9 "Y de manera que Su Md Imperial sea enteramente assegurado, declarando todo lo que concierne al dicho duque de Gheldres, y la seguridad del dicho estado segun los memoriales que havrá, y que parescerá conveniente por quedar, çierto de hechar (sic echar?) el dicho duque de Gheldres de todo con razonable assistensia del rey de Francia, y que él no se sirva dél ni le favorezca directe ni indirectamente en alguna mancra, como quier que se concertare a satisfaccion de su Magad o otramente."
10 "Tanto de la parte de acá como de la de allá sobre el trato y curso de la moneda."
11 "Y sino se pudiere acabar, sy se persistirá que á lo menos se haga en caso que no se concierte con su Magd y el dicho señor rey de Romanos, y que agan o emprendan cosa alguna directamente ó indirecta contra sus dichas magestades."
12 Frederic, the count palatine, at this time aspiring to the throne of Denmark. He had married in 1535 Dorothea, daughter of Kristiern II.
13 Attendido las practicas passadas en Francia.
14 "Tanto por las diferencias de la contrataçion quanto otras que puede haver con el dicho rey de Francia y por lo que toca á la navegacion. &c."
15 Claude Dodieu de Velly.
16 Doña Maria, daughter of Dom Manocl de Portugal and Eleanor, the Emperor's sister, and queen of Francis I. since 1527.
17 "Y mayormente sin ser bien assegurado de la parte de Francia, y assi mesmo no bechar (?) de[l]todo al dicho rey de Francia á tener dubda o desconfianza de lo que toca á esta parte."
18 "Por solo mirar la honestidad, como el dicho Rey de Francia mismo ha siempre mostrado de lo desear."
19 Margaret, the widow of Alençon.
20 "tanto segun paresce para entender lo que podria ser, como para saber ciertamente como se guiará, y viniendo á ponderar estos dos puntos solamente por la honestidad y no mas adelante y encubrir la platica que conviene, quanto por no yr contra lo que se ha respondido."
21 "Y por lo dicho será cosa que mas empachará y menos convenible [será] meterlo en terminos sin effecto que de dexarlo."