Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 8, 1545-1546. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1904.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
'Spain: September 1546, 1-15', in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 8, 1545-1546, (London, 1904) pp. 462-474. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol8/pp462-474 [accessed 24 April 2024]
September 1546, 1–15
| 3 Sept. Vienna. Imp. Arch. | 316. Van der Delft to the Queen Dowager. |
|---|---|
| Since my last letters, carried by one of my own people, I have received three letters from your Majesty: the first dated 16th ultimo, respecting the two points of the inclusion of the Scots, and the restitution of property situated in Boulogne belonging to subjects of the Emperor: the second dated the 17th, about the deliverance of Magnus David: and the third, dated 23rd, brought by my said servant on his return hither. | |
| As the Councillors have been fully occupied with the Admiral of France, I had no earlier opportunity of conferring with them; but on the morning of the day he left (Monday last) I sent to Hampton Court to learn when they would receive me. Paget returned a reply, saying that several of the Councillors had already left for London, and the King himself was starting on the following day for his progress. If, therefore, I had anything to communicate to the Council I could do so conveniently in London, but if I liked to go to Court I should give early notice in order that lodgings might be provided for me, as the King was going to houses of his away from populous places. | |
| As I wished first to hear what the Councillors would say about the two principal points, especially as I knew that the Bishop of Winchester and the Chancellor would be there, I sent to ask the latter when he would be at leisure to discuss them. He excused himself, on the ground of other occupations, and said that the Council was not meeting until Friday, which is to-day, but added that, if the matter was so pressing as to forbid delay, he would summon his colleagues earlier. I thought better, however, not to hurry them for the sake of a day or two; and consequently went to-day to dine with them at Westminster, laying before them the two statements about the Scots and Boulogne, in accordance with your Majesty's letter. | |
| As regards the Scots, they replied that they were only included in the peace in so far as was expressed in the extract which your Majesty sent to me. I observed, that, according to my reading of the extract, I could only understand it as including the Scots absolutely in the peace treaty with France; and, consequently, that in compliance with the provisions of the treaty of alliance (i.e. between Henry and the Emperor) the Emperor should be duly informed of the exact settlement arranged. By the same treaty (of alliance), I said, the Emperor's consent was necessary, 'and should be requested; since his Majesty had entered into war with the Scots, solely in fulfilment of the treaty. His Majesty had no wish to obstruct the peace with the Scots, but it was unreasonable that the English should be at peace with them, as the English ambassador asserted, whilst the Emperor remained at war with them. They (the Lords of the Council) replied that their ambassador had been instructed to hand to your Majesty an authentic copy of the agreement made, and they had no doubt that this had already been done. They had, they said, no peace with the Scots, who since the treaty with France had continued to do them (the English) great damage. The King had consequently been obliged to fit out some of his ships to ensure navigation from their attacks, upon both the English and ourselves (i.e. the subjects of the Emperor); and one of the principal armed ships of the Scots had already been captured. It is true that the King had sent to Scotland the clause by which the Scots were included; but they would only agree to it with such additional conditions and limitations as the King (of England) had not accepted, and never would accept. The Regent of Scotland had written to the King (of England) in the name of the Queen of Scotland, asking for safe-conduct for the Scottish Privy Seal, a great master, and a secretary, to come to England, accompanied by a train of 50 horsemen, to treat for peace. In showing me this letter, which they (the Councillors) had received this morning, they read it out to me, word for word, and also their draft reply, consenting to grant the safe-conduct requested; and they finally assured me that nothing whatever should be concluded with the Scots, without his Majesty, the Emperor, being informed thereof, in accordance with the treaty. | |
| This gave me an opportunity of introducing the subject of Magnus David, for whose deliverance I pressed. They raised great difficulties about this; but the Chancellor said that he had spoken to the King of the various requests I had made to that end; and although the King and his Council considered the charge against Magnus very suspicious, still, out of consideration for your Majesty, the King had consented to the man's surrender. When I spoke of his expenses they made light of them; but when the man is released I will insist upon this point. | |
| We then came to the matter of the property owned by the subjects of the Emperor in the Boulognais, who had not served against the King of England, but of whom many had been on his side when he was before the town. Your Majesty, I said, was not satisfied with the reply given to you by the English Ambassador, or with that conveyed to me by Paget; and if they, the Councillors, thought they could give me no better reply now, I had decided to appeal to the King. They simply repeated the answer already given to your Majesty, and after some discussion between us on the matter they said that everything depended Upon the King's benignity; and therewith they made a move to go to dinner. But, as I saw that this was a good opportunity for speaking frankly; the only three Councillors present being attached to the Emperor's interests—namely the Bishop of Winchester, the Grand Master, Lord St. John, and the Chancellor—I pressed my answer to their question, as to how the Emperor's affairs were progressing. His Majesty, I said, was very well, and M. de Buren had already, as they knew, crossed the Rhine without opposition. His Majesty was so well armed that, with the help of God, I hoped that he would overcome his enemies, who in addition to their rebellious in-obedience, had invaded the Emperor's patrimonial territory in the Tyrol. News had arrived here yesterday that the enemy had taken the town of Ingolstadt, and had killed the Spaniards and Italians there, and the people who had received the news were very active in sending it to the King, but I thought that he (Henry) would not rejoice over it so much as they expected; believing, as I firmly did, that he desired nothing but the prosperity of the Emperor. Still, seeing that the Emperor's enemies, Sturmius and Dr. Brun, had obtained audience, and, as was asserted, had received aid in money here, I did not know what to think of it; except that everything in this world is mutable. I had even learnt that certain persons bad come into great favour with the King, who I wished were as far away as they were last year. I did not mention the names of those I had in my mind, who were the Earl of Hertford (Seymour) and the Lord Admiral (Dudley). The councillors returned no answer to this remark, but they displayed, as usual, their great devotion and goodwill towards the Emperor's interests; only expressing apprehension that, in case of his Majesty being victorious, he had made a treaty with the Pope against the King. I told them that they should not believe such a thing; the Emperor would never do anything contrary to his treaty of friendship with the King. They might, I said, be sure of that, for there was no sovereign in the world who more earnestly desired long life to the King than his imperial Majesty. They expressed pleasure at this, and then we went to dinner, after which, seeing how busy they were, I took my leave. | |
| It did not appear to me to be necessary to make any statement about what had happened with Duke Philip at Gravelines, as these three Councillors did not have much to do with his affairs. I 'cannot ascertain anything about these affairs, except that I hear that he does not appear so well pleased here as he was before. I will not fail to take the first opportunity of going to Court, to learn the King's final decision respecting the Boulognais property, for your Majesty's information. | |
| The Admiral of France was very magnificently treated here. He was met on his way to Hampton Court by the Prince (Edward) accompanied by more than 8 (80?) horsemen, most of them dressed in cloth of gold. (fn. 1) | |
| The present made to him here was a sideboard of gold plate, with other gifts, such as horses, dogs, silver cups, etc. The formal signature of the treaty was, I understand, publicly performed. At this assembly the French spread a rumour that the King of France was gathering an armed force to invade the country of Liège; others say Lorraine: but I hope there is nothing in this. | |
| London, 3 September, 1546. | |
| 3 Sep. Vienna. Imp. Arch. | 317. Van der Delft to Loys Scors. |
| The reason why I have asked for letters from the Queen (Dowager of Hungary) to explain the detention of Duke Philip was because those (of the Council) who are in chief authority, and are devoted to the Emperor's interests, were desirous of thus satisfying the King, in order to maintain their own influence, and be the better able to work for the continuance of friendly relations. The letters would also give me an opportunity for a conference with the King, during which I might ascertain better than by any other means what is going on. There are people here endeavouring to get into favour, and to obtain power in the Government; but as they are not such as will. suit our purposes I should like to be in a position to oppose them as much as possible. | |
| I have forgotten to mention in the letter to the Queen that M. de Morette who came with the Admiral of France remains here, it is said, for the purpose of arranging for the restitution by the English of the galley captured by them before peace was signed; (fn. 2) the French contention being that the promise given by the Lord Admiral when the peace treaty was signed, of full restitution, covers the return of the galley as it stood when it was Captured, whereas the Lord Admiral maintains that he only promised to restore the hull of the galley. The King, moreover, refuses to give back the slaves, to whom he has given their liberty. Nevertheless I do not know whether there is any other intrigue being conducted under this pretext. I will do my duty in trying to discover. | |
| London, 3 September, 1546. | |
| 12 Sep. Simancas. E. A. 642. | 318. The Emperor to Diego Hurtado de Mendoza |
| (In a letter mainly occupied by the details of proceedings in the Council of Trent and by the instructions for Mendoza's mission to the Pope the following passage occurs.) | |
| We have been informed that an Englishman and a Lutheran are in Venice endeavouring to negotiate with the Seigniory, to whom they are offering the county of Tyrol. God having granted us such signal advantages in the present war these intrigues do not disturb us much: it will, however, be well that you keep a vigilant watch. It would be well also if you could lay hold of the four men from Venice, Switzerland, and the Grisons, who went to solicit the County of Tyrol. The Lutheran has discovered what you had planned against him. Camp near Ingolstadt, 12 September, 1546. | |
| 12 Sep. Simancas. E. Milan. 1192. Italian. | 319. News from Piedmont enclosed in a letter from Fernando de Gonzaga to the Emperor. |
| A brother of Count Fiesco went some time since to the King of France, and was very graciously received, especially by the Admiral. It was generally asserted at the French Court that Fiesco had left and gone to the King of England. I am, however, of opinion that he is still in France, and that this false news is circulated in order to spread the belief that he has not been favourably entertained there. However that may be, it is quite evident that whatever Fiesco has done has been with the acquiescence of the King of France. | |
| 13 Sep. Vienna. Imp. Arch. | 320. Van der Delft to the Emperor. |
| The Admiral of France has left here, after having been very magnificently entertained by the King during the few-days of his stay. After his departure I went to the Lords of the Council, who were here in London, for the purpose of setting forth to them the instructions I had received from the Queen (Dowager); namely to press them for information as to the position of affairs between the English and the Scots, the latter of whom still continued to injure your Majesty's subjects; and also for the purpose of procuring the restitution of certain property in the Boulognais, which previous to the war was in possession of subjects of your Majesty. With regard to the first point they replied that they (the English) also were not at peace with the Scots, who had only accepted their inclusion in the peace treaty under great protests and conditions, which the King had considered altogether too prejudicial for him to concede, and he had consequently protested on his side. It is true that on the same day a letter had been received here from the Regent of Scotland in the name of the Queen, requesting safe-conducts for the Scottish Privy Seal, another great officer, and a secretary with a train of 40 horsemen, to come hither and treat for peace with the King. This letter the Lords of the Council read to me word for word, and also their draft reply; at the same time telling me that they would grant the safe-conducts requested, but would make no arrangement with the Scots without giving your Majesty due notice. I replied that this course was imperative upon them in fulfilment of the treaty of alliance. | |
| Touching the second point, they repeated what they had told me on other occasions, namely that the King had won Boulogne by the sword, and consequently that he was by all rules the sole lord and master thereof. I showed them how unreasonable it would be for the subjects of your Majesty to be deprived of their property, whilst the Emperor and the King were on terms of close friendship; many of such subjects, moreover, having been in the King's service during the campaign, and if they were thus deprived of their property, their services in aiding the King in his conquest would redound to their prejudice instead of to their advantage. After much discussion they (the Councillors) ended by saying that they had no authority to give any other reply than the above mentioned, and the matter depended upon the King. I can plainly see, therefore, that it will have to be urged upon him personally; and I should already have been to see him about it, only that he is taking his pleasure, travelling from one house to another with a very small train, in consequence of the lack of lodging accommodation. I understand, however, that he will be at Guildford in three days, and I will not fail to seek him there and urge the matter diligently. Finding myself in a position to converse freely with the Councillors, in consequence of there being present only the Bishop of Winchester, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord St. John, the Grand Master (of the Household), who are entirely devoted to your Majesty's interests, I took the opportunity of acquainting them with the fact that suspicions are being conveyed to us with regard to the coming and going of one Sturmius and Dr. Brun, who were considered to be your Majesty's enemies. Your Majesty, however, I said, had no distrust, but depended so entirely upon the King's friendship as to be sure that he would not lend ear to such apostles, or, indeed, to anything at all prejudicial to your Majesty. For my own part, seeing the diversity of sects that existed in this country, the Protestants themselves having their openly declared champions, I did not quite know what to think of it, but to suppose that all things in this world are mutable. I had even heard that some of them (i.e. the Protestants) had gained great favour with the King; and I could only wish that they were as far away from the Court as they were last year. I did not mention the names of those to whom I wished to refer; but they were the Earl of Hertford and the Lord Admiral. The Councillors made no reply, although they clearly showed that they understood me, and continued in their great devotion towards your Majesty and their ardent wishes for your welfare, notwithstanding that they heard that, in the event of your Majesty's being victorious, you had made a treaty with the Pope against the King, their master. I told them that they should not believe such a thing. Your Majesty would never do anything against the treaty and friendship now existing with the King; and of this they might rest assured. They seemed much pleased at this, and we parted. | |
| Since then I have received your Majesty's letters of 20th ultimo from Regensburg (Ratisbon), and the day after their receipt I was invited to dine with the Council. When I arrived they told me that they had written to the King an account of the conversation they had had with me, and his Majesty had replied to them without mentioning the two points referred to above, the consideration of which had been postponed until I appeared at Court. With regard, however, to Sturmius and Brun, they said that the King had not seen Sturmius for years, and did not know that he had been in England. It was true that Dr. Brun had been here, for the purpose of arranging with the King for the Strasburg people to hinder the passage of German troops for the service of the King of France, which was very convenient for them (i.e. the English) as they were at war with him. Dr. Brun had wished to place his son with the King, but the latter had declined, and certainly had no league or federation with these people to your Majesty's prejudice. The King, indeed, was much annoyed that suspicion should be cast upon him in this way, as he heard was the case, by words uttered at Venice by your ministers. Your Majesty, moreover, did not send him any information as to your affairs, which he was naturally anxious to know, as well as other people; especially as your Majesty had so great an enterprise in hand. He could hot understand how it was that your Majesty failed to send him any notice of your success, either by letter or otherwise. They seemed to take this to heart more than anything else; for the Councillors added that your Majesty had made two treaties with France, one of which was kept strictly secret, although the purport of it was known to them. They also repeated their remark about the treaty with the Pope, though they did not persist in that, and it seemed to me also quite inappropriate to the occasion. | |
| In the matter of Sturmius, I replied that my remarks on the subject were entirely unofficial, and were prompted solely by my devotion to the King, who, I thought, should be made acquainted with the stuff that these people were made of who were trying to draw him into their intrigues; they having first abandoned their schoolmaster's gowns, were now busying themselves in sowing trouble in Christendom. It was evident, I said, that these sects only tended to sedition, and to the abolition of superiors, both ecclesiastic and secular. They showed quite openly that all their plots were for the oppression of the goodly, and to bring confusion into the world. They (the English Councillors) were quite of the same opinion, saying amongst themselves in their own language that my words were true. With regard to the complaint as to the suspicion cast (upon the King), and the expressions said to have been used (in Venice) with regard to the King's inclinations; I said that they had been very ill-informed, as I was quite sure that your Majesty's ambassador in Venice (whom they had mentioned as Don Diego de Mendoza) or any other of your Majesty's ministers, would never say anything in derogation of the fair fame of the King; as it was perfectly certain that your Majesty had the most complete confidence in the King's friendship. It is true, I said, that their people (i.e. the English) in Venice had an understanding with your Majesty's enemies, and that a secretary who was with the English ambassador resident there, had solicited the post of ambassador of the Protestants to the Seigniory. This could be proved by certain intercepted letters, and your Majesty had caused a statement of the matter to be made to the English ambassador at the Imperial Court. They (the Councillors) expressed surprise at this and thanked me for the information. | |
| Touching their remarks about the paucity of news that had been conveyed to them as to your Majesty's affairs, I pointed out to them that I had not failed to inform the King from the commencement of your Majesty's undertaking, and of the just causes which moved your Majesty in your action. Whilst I was saying this the Chancellor interrupted me with the remark that, as the King is a true friend of the Emperor, the latter might occasionally write a word to promote the continuance of kindly feeling and amity; whereupon the whole of them together begged me to ask your Majesty to bear this in mind for the future. In the matter of the treaties with France, I told them that I only knew of one treaty; and the only mention I had ever heard of a secret treaty in addition was that made by the King last year to M. D'Eick and myself. If the French had started a fresh rumour to this effect they (the English) ought not to believe it, but just the contrary, knowing, as they did, that the French said anything to serve their own ends. This was the case, I said, with the statement that they made the English believe, of their (the French) intention to commence war against your Majesty in Italy, for which I thanked them for informing me through Secretary Paget (as I wrote to your Majesty). It was quite evident now, I said, that what the French had then told them in apparent confidence had no object but to mislead and deceive them (the English), whilst they (the French) constructed a fort which might command the entrance into Boulogne harbour, at which task over the three thousand men were set to work on the very day that the Admiral of France left England. They (the Councillors) appeared very much displeased at this, though they tried to convince me that the work in question would not be so prejudicial to them as I supposed. We then spoke of the treaty with the Pope, and I repeated what I had previously said about it, adding that I was quite sure that none of those present, who knew well your Majesty's loyalty and virtue, could be of opinion that you would abuse your treaties or break your promise to anyone in the world, and least of all to their King, with whom your friendship and alliance were so ancient and so close. They admitted this warmly, but repeated to me that an occasional letter from your Majesty would do a great deal of good. I can see from this, Sire, that those who, with Secretary Paget, are most in favour would much like some confirmation or proof in support of their views, in order the better to rebut those who seek to bring about a change in religion and to incline the King to innovations disadvantageous to your Majesty. | |
| After finishing this conversation I exhibited to them the contents of the Imperial ban against the Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse, which they (the English Councillors) considered good and reasonable. Whilst we were in discourse about German affairs I divulged to them something of the acts, life and conduct of the Protestants, and their objects. The efforts they (the Protestants) were making here, I said, to obtain an alliance or assistance, were only for the purpose of submitting this King and his realm to servitude and subjection to them, as I had told them on previous occasions; and if I had thought that the King was attached to the Protestants I should not have failed to intervene, moved by my affection for this country, although I had no authority to do so. But I should have given my opinion about it to the King, who I did not think would have taken it in evil part. They (the Councillors) thanked me, and said that anything proceeding from such good intentions could not be otherwise than agreeable to the King. With this we went to dinner, and the Chancellor asked me to mention the purport of our conversation to the King as soon as I had an opportunity. I will do so, Sire, to the best of my ability. I understand that two thousand men are to be sent from here across the sea. It is said also that the French, in addition to their sappers, have a good number of troops to assist and defend them. They (the sappers) are working continuously, according to French reports, constructing a haven where small boats may enter; but the English fear that their object may be to build a fort. Opinions vary on the subject, and many people think it may cause a re-commencement of the war. The Duke Philip, Count Palatine, and the Rhingrave are still here, but they do not seem to be made so much of as formerly. I hear, also, that they themselves are not so well pleased as they were, recognising perhaps that their marriage plans will not succeed. | |
| Great activity is still displayed here in the inquisition against the sectarians, but the results are not so satisfactory as at first. (fn. 3) | |
| London, 13 September, 1546. | |
| 13 Sep. Vienna. Imp. Arch. | 321. Van der Delft to the Queen Dowager. |
| I am now writing to the Emperor a portion of what I recently wrote to your Majesty, and also full particulars of what has since passed between me and the Lords of the Council, as your Majesty will see by the duplicates herewith. | |
| Two days ago the Chancellor sent begging me to write to your Majesty, asking you to be pleased to allow the rest of the cannon powder that the King has at Antwerp in the hands of one of his officers, named Mr. Dammesel [sic], and Erasmus Schetz to be sent hither without hindrance. This powder is only the remains of the parcel of which the rest has already been received, and the Chancellor trusts that your Majesty will raise no difficulty. I have encouraged this hope in him and refer the matter to your Majesty's judgment. | |
| London, 18 September, 1546. | |
| 14 Sep. Vienna. Imp. Arch. | 322. Soepperus to the Queen Dowager. |
| I received yesterday your Majesty's letter of the 11th instant, and with regard to the Scottish affair, as soon as the States of Zeeland are assembled here in Walcheren, M. de Béures (fn. 4) and myself will use our best efforts to induce and persuade them to undertake the arming and equipment of some ships of war, to oppose the attacks of the Admiral of Scotland and his adherents; hoping that the storm which constantly rages at sea will prevent the Scots from carrying out their designs. We have thoroughly examined this island and all the approaches to it. M. Donas proposes that a bulwark should be constructed on a commanding point between Middleburg and Flushing. The point is called Blanckartshoek . . . . . . . (Further details of the proposed fortification of Walcheren.) | |
| Veere, 14 September, 1546. | |
| 14 Sep. Vienna. Imp. Arch. | 323. The Queen Dowager to Van der Delft. |
| We have learned by your letter of 3rd instant what had passed between you and the English Council respecting the two points discussed in previous letters, the inclusion of the Scots and the restitution of estates in the Boulognais to the Emperor's subjects. We have already informed you of the despatch of Secretary Strick to Scotland, for the purpose of claiming the restitution of the ships captured by the Scots since the conclusion of the peace treaty between England and France; and to learn how the Scots intended to behave towards the Emperor's subjects for the future. The Secretary has now given us an account of his negotiations, as you will see by copies enclosed: and he writes that the Scots consider that their inclusion in the treaty makes them at peace with England on their fulfilment of the conditions governing the inclusion. Having regard to the state of their affairs and the trouble still existing in their country, the Scots will not at present raise any difficulty in complying with the conditions; but they say, nevertheless, that they still remain at war with the Emperor and his subjects because, in the clause of the peace treaty providing for the inclusion of the Scots, no mention is made of the war between the Emperor and them. They say that, even if the Emperor be included in the treaty generally, he is not so in regard to the Scots, with whom his Majesty has come to no agreement, but only in regard to the two directly contracting parties, England and France, now both allies of the Emperor; and consequently that all captures made by the Scots from the Emperor's subjects are fair prizes. To tell the pure truth, we do not consider this contention altogether unreasonable; and by the same rule the English ought to admit that in consenting to the inclusion of the Scots on certain conditions to be fulfilled by the latter they (the English) were violating the terms of their treaty of alliance with the Emperor; inasmuch as they were making peace with the Scots and leaving the Emperor at war, whilst neglecting to inform the latter of their inclusion of the Scots in their treaty. This is in direct violation of clause 13 of the alliance treaty, as interpreted and agreed upon recently at Utrecht. You will accordingly declare to the English Council that, having regard to the contention advanced by the Scots to the Secretary from here (Strick), the inclusion of the Scots in the peace treaty with France is a contravention of the treaty of alliance between the Emperor and the King of England, and that we have no doubt that the King will prefer to stand by the latter rather than by the former. That being the case, the English ought not, and and indeed cannot by the terms of the alliance, admit the Scots to the benefit of their inclusion in the peace treaty until the Emperor has negotiated a peace with them. You will keep a sharp look out when the Scottish ambassadors arrive, that you may be fully informed of their dealings; and if you find that the commissioners appointed on the English side to negotiate with them do not give you an account of their proceedings you will insist strongly upon your being kept informed from day to day of what is done: and you can make this demand boldly without dissimulation. You will give us prompt notice of the coming of the Scots, in order that we may send you instructions as to the conditions we must obtain from them before we consent to a peace treaty. | |
| We may inform you that we have heard that the dispatch of this Scottish mission to the King of England is mainly for the purpose of temporising and gaining time, and so preventing the King of England from sending succour to those who are holding the castle of St. Andrews; and you may, as if of your own motion, communicate this confidentially to some of the members of the Council who side with the Emperor; so that they may know how to deal with the Scots if they see that the latter are more inclined to drag matters out than to come to a settlement. | |
| The Secretary (Strick) writes that the Scots are boasting that, now that they are at peace with the English, they want no peace with the Emperor; but you will take care to avoid all reference to such an attitude in conversation with the English: and will, on the contrary, say that the Scots are only too desirous of treating with us, as representing his Imperial Majesty, and if we liked to deal with them without the English, peace would already have been made; the reason that no better reply was given in Scotland to the Secretary having been simply this. | |
| With reference to the restitution to the Emperor's subjects of their estates in the Boulognais; as the English Councillors will give no other reply than that already sent, we are sending you letters of credence for the King. In virtue of them you will, if you have not already done so, lay before him the facts of the case; and state what has passed in regard to it between you and the Council, with the reply they gave you, and that presented to us, by their orders, by the English ambassador here. Our duty towards the Emperor's subjects will not allow us to be satisfied with these replies; and as we cannot believe that it is the King's wish to treat these subjects worse than they are treated by the King of France, who has made no difficulty in restoring to such subjects the estates they possessed in that part of the Boulognais retained by him, the King of England should raise no difficulty. And especially considering that these subjects took no part against him; but many of them, on the contrary, were in his service under Count de Buren. They do not therefore deserve to be deprived of their properly; and if this injustice is done the King will lose the adhesion of many good gentlemen, who only desire to do him faithful service when an opportunity may arise. | |
| It is possible that the English may justly contend that in conquering the Boulognais they conquered all the lands appertaining to French subjects within it. This may be, but it cannot be held equitably that they have conquered the lands of their own allies, who were never in arms against them or aided their enemies in any way, but, on the contrary, fought by the side of the English. The English have no right to depend upon the fact that these subjects were vassals of the King of France, in regard to the lands they held in the Boulognais, since they declined to side with him in the war, and prepared to abandon their estates rather than be obliged to serve him. For this reason the English cannot allege conquest over them; the right of conquest only existing over enemies, and not over allies. These should be allowed to retain their properties, as if they were the King of England's own subjects. With these and other arguments that will occur to you you will endeavour to persuade the King, as gently and kindly as you can, to make the restoration requested of him. | |
| If the King remains firm and insists that he is not bound to restore these estates, but will consent to do so as a matter of grace and favour, you will not debate the point further, but will accept the concession as a favour; and will thank him from us so warmly as to ensure the concession being absolute, so that the claimants may be restored to the enjoyment of their properties in the same way as before the war, on condition of their taking a similar oath of fidelity to him as they formerly took to the King of France. If, however, the King offers to re-instate the claimants conditionally, either during his pleasure or on their taking an oath different from that which they are accustomed to take, you will not accept the offer, but will communicate it to us for our decision. If you find the King inclined to make the restitution in question you may say that we do not solicit it for the subjects of France but only for those who during the war have resided in these dominions as neutral subjects. You will use every possible effort in this matter, as it is of great importance, and may give rise at some future time to other difficulties unless a favourable settlement be arrived at. You will, however, deal with the King very gently, and employ the sweetest words you can, showing no signs of annoyance, until you receive further orders from us after we have learnt the King's final decision. We have managed to obtain from a trustworthy source the copy of the late peace treaty between England and France, of which we send you a transcript. As we are uncertain whether the copy is exactly in accord with the original, you will do well to take an opportunity of speaking to Secretary Paget about it, letting him know that you possess the copy, though begging him to keep the fact secret. By this means you may be able to draw from him whether the copy is in exact conformity with the original treaty or not. We believe that it is; because the clause relating to the inclusion of the Scots which was furnished to us by the English ambassador precisely agrees with our copy. You may also assure the Councillors that his Imperial Majesty has made no arrangement with the Pope to the prejudice of the King, and has no intention of doing anything of the sort, although perhaps there be certain persons who would like to persuade him to do so. We, however, consider the King to be so prudent and experienced as to refuse to credit such statements from them, knowing, as he does, that they bring them forward to serve their own ends, and with the hope of inducing the King to act in opposition to the Emperor. Some of the Protestants have even published an alleged treaty between the Pope and the Emperor to serve their own purposes, and quite different from the genuine treaty, hoping by this means to obtain assistance in money and otherwise. Touching the news of the capture of the town of Ingolstadt, of which some rumours have also been current here, we do not believe a word of it. According to the intelligence we have the enemies have never laid siege to the place, and if they had done so the Emperor had well provided for its defence, the fortress itself being naturally very strong. The people who first set this news afloat have since received contrary information, saying that when the rumour was spread nothing of the sort had happened. Subsequently the Emperor took the field not far from the enemies' quarters, and the enemies have now something to think of very different from capturing towns. His Majesty in the meanwhile is awaiting the arrival of the Count de Buren, who, as you will have learnt, has already crossed the Rhine; and since then has gone past Frankfort and the Meuse, in spite of the enemy, who endeavoured to stop him. His way is now clear to join the Emperor, unless, indeed, he has already effected a junction, as we have no news of him since the 28th ultimo. We are anxiously expecting the settlement of the affairs about which M. Adrien Van der Burgh was sent to England. His stay there has been quite long enough to have concluded the matters in question; and if you see no appearance of a prompt settlement it will be best for him to say that he has been recalled, as he has been unable to carry through his mission, and must return to his duties here. | |
| Brussels, 14 September, 1546. | |