Potter David. Henry VIII and Francis I
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
460 chapter ten
construction of ‘three very notable great, & sumptuous bancketing
houses’ in the park.
132
e visual programme for the celebrations was
overseen by Nicholas Bellin of Modena (Niccolo da Modena), Henry’s
stuccatore at Nonsuch, who had earlier worked on Fontainebleau
before he had been forced to ee France and who may have illumi-
nated Henry’s ratication of the treaty.
133
More serious political discussions saw Annebault’s attempt to
shorten the period of repayment swily brushed aside but more tell-
ing perhaps was the attempt made by the Admiral to open up the
idea of a religious alignment between France and England on the basis
of a common rejection of the papacy and a common liturgy of the
mass. It was even suggested that the Emperor should be exhorted to
do the same on pain of war. is account also tells us that Annebault
le early from these celebrations, summoned home urgently by his
master.
134
is demarche took Papal attempts at reconciliation with
England via the French in a completely new direction.
135
How far
either side took it seriously has always been dicult to judge. Henry
may have taken it up with momentary enthusiasm but for both parties
it was the implication of their reconciliation for an alliance with the
132
Council to Wotton, 31 August 1546, NA SP1/223, fo. 190 (L&P XXI, i, 1530).
£1614.11.6 was allocated for plate to be given to the French envoys with Annebault
(NA SP4/1, Sept. 1546, no. 11).
133
E.g. ‘To Nycholas Modena painter for viij garments of here upon lether for wild
men to serve for torchberers with theyr hed peces, showes and clubbes’ £15 (Folger
SL., Loseley, Lb5). M. Biddle, ‘Nicholas Bellin of Modena, an Italian articer at the
courts of Francis I and Henry VIII,’ Journal of the British Archaeological Associa-
tion, ser. 3, 29 (1966), 106–21. W.R. Streitberger, ‘Records of royal banqueting houses
and Henry VIII’s timber lodging, 1543–1559,’ Jour. Society of Archivists, 15 (1994),
187–202.
134
Ralph Morice, the secretary to whom Cranmer dictated his record: ‘If I should
tell what communication betwene the kynges hyghnes and the sayd Ambassadour was
had concernyng the establishyng of sincere Religion then, man would hardly haue
beleue it: nor I my self had thought the kynges hyghnes had bene so forwarde in
those matters . . . that the kynges Maieste and the Frenche kyng had bene at this pointe,
not onely within halfe a yeare aer to haue chaunged the Masse in both the realmes
into a communion, as we now vse it, but also vtterly to haue extirped and banished
the Byshop of Rome and his vsurped power, out of both their Realmes and domin-
ions.’ Foxe, Acts and Monuments. Book VIII, pp. 1426–1428 (1570 edition) Variorum
edition, http://www.hrionline.shef.ac.uk/foxe. is passage has been much discussed
among Reformation historians. It should be apparent that it does not allow us to know
on whose initiative the discussion began.
135
L&P, XXI, i, 1215, 1309 A papal servant, Guron Bertano, seems to have been
received some time in August at Francis I’s request and only dismissed in October for
fear of giving the impression that reconciliation with Rome was intended (Lefebvre-
Pontalis, nos. 39, 41).
the admirals
’
peace 461
Protestant princes of Germany that mattered. At all events, Annebault
le England loaded down with sumptuous presents of plate, one coer
of which was valued at 2000 marks.
136
At the end of their reigns, then,
Henry and Francis not only sought to outdo each other in ceremo-
nial but everything now seemed set for a re-orientation of English and
French policy towards an alliance against the Emperor.
One participant in the celebrations found the peace a mixed bless-
ing. Francesco Bernardo later claimed that he had sustained heavy
costs in the conclusion of the peace ‘per opera mia.’ He had also lost
his ships in the 1545 war for which his uncle Maeo lent him 1800
ducats in August 1546 to replace them but which he had to repay
in nine years. As was reasonable, he was awarded pensions both by
Henry and by Francis for his pains. Indeed, it was he who brought
the rather belated news of Henry’s death to the English ambassador
in Venice, Edmund Harvel. Unfortunately for him, he was ordered to
renounce these pensions in July 1547 as contrary to the laws of the
Republic and went on for several years unsuccessfully to contest this
until his death, of ‘inward sorrow’ in 1557.
137
136
Wriothesley’s Chronicle, pp. 172–173.
137
‘An annuitie of a thousand crownes for Sr Fraunces Bernardo knight during his
lief’ (12 July 1546); denization (11 July), NA SP4/1, fo. 93v. CSP Venice, V, no. 480,
523, 525, 730, 731, 902.
CONCLUSION
THE END OF TWO REIGNS
Edward Hall astutely observed at the end of his chronicle that ‘Although
this peace pleased, both the Englysh and the French nacions, yet surely
both mistrusted, the continuance of the same, considering the old
Proverbe, that the iye seeth, the harte rueth, for the French men styll
longed for Bulleyn, and the Englyshmen minded not to geve it over.’
1
Can a balance sheet of advantages be drawn up and how was the treaty
viewed at the time? e Venetian ambassador Marino Cavalli thought
that Henry VIII had achieved a treaty more advantageous than his
predecessors’ and that Francis I had spent much more without return.
2
In part this was because he saw that Francis had committed himself
to payments without the immediate return of Boulogne. Saint-Mauris,
the Imperial ambassador in France, had been told the terms by Queen
Léonor by 4 June. He reported that ‘the people’ were ill-content with
the terms because the English retention of Boulogne would cause fur-
ther trouble. Public opinion, he thought, held that the King had agreed
to the treaty to counter Habsburg plans but also because of the dire
necessity to which the kingdom had been reduced.
3
A month later he
reported the ‘spin’ that was being put on the treaty in France: that
Henry was bound to aid Francis in any war with the Emperor and
that Scotland had been included unconditionally. Saint-Mauris com-
mented himself that the French did not consider themselves bound
to anything by the treaty and thought that if, aer eight years, France
had not promoted the marriage of Mary Stuart to prince Edward, the
English would not hand back Boulogne. ose around Annebault were
also hinting at a secret Anglo-French deal to help the Protestants and
1
Edward Hall, Henry VIII, ed. C. Whibley, II, p. 360.
2
Alberi, Relazioni, ser. I, vol. I, pp. 231–232.
3
Saint-Mauris to Prince Philip, 4 June 1546, AN K 1486 (microlm): ‘En conclu-
sion, Syre, la voz publica y segura opinion es que el Rey de Francia no ha tratado la
dicha paz sino par traversar a los negocios de Vuestra Alteza, con la pura necessitad,
constrenza a esto por que su reyno esta tan causado y el pueblo tan enpobrecido que
a penas se saben ella sostenar.’
the end of two reigns 463
that this was another ‘cut’ at the Pope.
4
Less than a year later, Saint-
Mauris speculated further along these lines that the French:
Do not want to maintain this amity with the English out of a consid-
ered good will but only, through it, to harm Your Majesty, which is
their main aim. ey are not content just to say this but repeat oen
that they would not have treated recently with the English as shamefully
as they did, had it not been in order to impede the objectives of Your
Majesty.
5
In England, e Earl of Hertford knew how to play on his master’s
susceptibilities when he reported to Henry that he had secured ‘not
only a jewel, but also as plesante and protable a countrey as I have
seen’ and mentioned nothing about its return to France.
6
When Van
der Del suggested to Henry that he could count on keeping Boulogne
since the French were unlikely ever to nd the 2 million écus, he noted
that the King simply smiled.
7
By August the English government was
encouraging colonisation.
8
John Leland, who had celebrated the cap-
ture of Boulogne in 1545 with his swaggering and triumphalist Bononia
Gallomastix now in 1546 published
ΕΓΚΩΜΙΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΗΣ
Laudatio Pacis, celebrating the arts of peace and praising extravagantly
not only the French and English Kings for their pacic achievements
but also those of their ministers. Leland’s work is fairly derivative and
drew on the well-worn Renaissance motifs used in France and else-
where to praise peace. Nevertheless, it was ambitious and, printed at
4
Saint-Mauris to Philip, 4 July 1546, CSP Spain, VIII, no. 289 (L&P, XXI, i, 1213).
5
Saint-Mauris to Charles V, 17 March 1547, HHSA, Frankreich 14, Berichte S-M
an Karl, 1547, III, fo. 53r: ‘Ne desirent pas d’entretenir l’amitié avecq l’Anglois par
charité bien ordonnee ains seullement pour, avec ceste occasion, pouvoir nuyre aux
aaires de vostre Majesté qu’est seullement le but principal où ilz visent; et ne se
peuvent contenir de ainsi le dire, voire repetent ilz souvent qu’ilz n’eussent traicté
dernierement avec l’Anglois si honteusement comme ilz feyrent n’eust esté le respect
de vostre Majesté et pour empescher les dessaings d’icelle.’
6
Hertford to Henry VIII, 13 June 1546, NA SP1/220, fo. 94 (L&P, XXI, i, 1055).
7
Van der Del to Charles V, 14 June 1546, L&P XXI, i, 1058. e point was
repeated by Saint-Mauris to Mary of Hungary, Poissy, 20 May 1547, HHSA, Frank-
reich 15, berichte, 1547, V, (no fol.): in pondering the La Garde treaty, thought that
the new English Council had oered to hand back Boulogne in return for an early
payment in order to have peace ‘bien aussi considerans qu’il leur seroit impossible
de jamais mectre lesd. deniers ensemble ny avoir moyen de les leur rendre’ and they
had been able to make this oer, seeing Francis ‘du tout animé lors, à entreprendre
guerre contre l’empereur.’
8
7 Aug. 1546, Hughes and Larkin, I, no. 273, pp. 376–377.
464 conclusion
the time, a testament to contemporary views.
9
One other Latin poem,
by Walter Haddon, probably commemorates the treaty.
10
Admiral d’Annebault had his hands full in justifying the terms
he had negotiated. e peace was proclaimed at Paris, as it was in
London, on 13 June, the day the Admiral arrived and was kept in
private conclave by Francis for three hours. Marguerite of Navarre
declared her pleasure at the peace and the King rewarded his minister
nancially.
11
By arguing that the 2 million crowns to which France was
obliged included only 800,000 for the recovery of Boulogne (the rest
for arrears), it seems that he was able to claim that he had got a good
bargain and that the fortications to be acquired could not have been
constructed for twice the sum.
12
e line pushed in France, reected by
Martin du Bellay writing a decade or so later, was that Francis would
have to pay only 800,000 écus ‘both for the arrears and the cost of
war,’ in return for which Henry would in eight years have to return all
the old as well as the new fortications.
13
Guillaume Paradin, writing
four years later, expressed the view that the peace had been concluded
because Henry VIII could not continue the war and, even though it
was unlikely that the English were genuine, the treaty had been con-
cluded ‘to the great joy and contentment of the poor people, who were
tired of so many wars.’
14
As Jean Bouchet had pointed out in August
1545, no sooner had the peace been concluded with the Emperor than
a solde had been promulgated for an extra 800,000 lt. on top of the
taille and, from his vantage point at Poitiers, the end of the Imperial
War had simply meant the ravages of demobilised soldiers.
15
9
John Leland, Bononia Gallomastix (London: John Meyler, 1545) 8pp; idem.,
ΕΓΚΩΜΙΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΗΣ
Laudatio Pacis (London,: Reyner Wolf, 1546), 16pp. See
J. Hutton, ‘John Leland’s Laudatio Pacis,’ Studies in Philology, 58 (1961), 616–626.
10
First printed in a collection of 1567, it can be found in Walter Haddon, Poema-
tum, (London: Serres, 1576), 2 vols. II, no pag.: e.g. ‘Si tu maiestas, rex inuictissime,
salua/Cuius inest omnis nostra salute salus./Gallia te, nostra causa, conspexit in armis,/
Anglia te laetum, est laeta sequunta ducem.’
11
CSP Spain, VIII, no. 279 (L&P XXI, i, 1083); Nawrocki, II, p. 375; G. Génin, Let-
tres de Marguerite d’Angoulême, sœur de François Ier, reign de Navarre 2 vols. (Paris,
1841–1842) II Nouvelles lettres, pp. 256–258, no. 142, early June 1546.
12
Nawrocki, II, p. 372, citing the letter of Saint-Mauris to the grand commander of
Leon, Melun, 4 July 1546, Simancas K 1486 (AN microlm).
13
Du Bellay, Mémoires, IV, p. 330: ‘tant pour les arrerages de sa pension et pour
les frais de la guerre.’
14
Paradin, Histoire de Nostre Temps, p. 465: ‘à grand ioye & contentement du
poure peuple qui s’ennuyoit merueilleusement de tant de guerres.’
15
Jean Bouchet, Annales d’Aquitaine (Poitiers, 1545), fos. 243v, 244v–245r.
the end of two reigns 465
Unlike in England, literary eusions in France were muted. Gilles
Corrozet had published the usual poetical encomium for the Treaty of
Crépy in 1544 in the form of Le Retour de la paix. e only surviving
publication of the 1546 peace was printed in Rouen and used François
Sagon’s earlier Chant de la paix written for the Truce of 1538 as its
celebratory poem.
16
ough Ronsard was to publish a celebrated Ode
to peace in 1559, his short ode on the treaty of 1546, dedicated to his
friend Maclou de la Haie, poet of Montreuil, is decidedly downbeat
in celebrating the peace with the island people (‘ce peuple que la mer
baigne’) with their archers (‘ses eches en l’air volantes’):
Now is the time to drink,
And by sweet forgetful wine,
Make us forget
e cares of our repining ease.
at it was forbidden
Before now to enjoy.
But now peace has returned
And repose to be enjoyed!
17
We are still le to explain why Francis was prepared to accept the
deal. Marguerite of Navarre congratulated her brother shortly before
the conclusion of peace ‘as for something most needful for you and
all yours,’ noting that the King’s enemies in Spain would not welcome
the treaty but that neither would some of his own subjects ‘for they
take pleasure only in crying war.’
18
Necessity there certainly was, born
of a combination of fears concerning the Emperor’s intentions and
16
La Publication du traité de la paix faicte et accordee entre Françoys, roy de France
et Henry, roy d’Angleterre . . . chanté par les trois Estatz (Rouen: N. Le Roux, 13 June
1546) BnF Rés. 8–Lg 6–28.
17
My rather dull translation of Pierre de Ronsard, Oeuvres complètes, ed.
G. Cohen, 2 vols. (Paris, 1950), II, p. 710:
Il est maintenant tens de boire,
Et d’un dous vin oblivieus
Faire assoupir en la memoire
Le Soin de nostre aise envieus.
Que c’estoit chose deendue
Au paravant de s’esjouir,
Ains que la Paix nous fust rendue
Et le repos pour en jouir!,
published in Livre III of the Odes of 1550 and suppressed in the edition of
1553.
18
Marguerite of Navarre to Francis I, early June 1546, Génin, Lettres de Marguerite
d’Anglouême, II, no. 142, pp. 256–258: ‘comme d’une chose très necessaire pour vous
et tous les vostres’ . . . ‘car ils n’ont plesir que de crier la guerre.’
466 conclusion
shortage of money. Within days of the treaty, the King had ordered
the entire gendarmerie (heavy cavalry) to stand down to spare his
people the heavy cost of supporting them.
19
But the Treaty was a
compromise which the French in particular could not tolerate in the
long run. Scotland was a problem swept under the carpet rather than
solved. e ambiguities of the border agreement alone were bound to
cause problems, while disputes over whether various fortications at
Boulogne had been begun before or aer the Treaty became increas-
ingly acrimonious. Bernardo’s services were still in demand for sooth-
ing rued feathers.
20
e French could present the treaty as a good bargain but the recov-
ery of Boulogne was put o and part of the price was the restoration
of the vexatious English pension arrangement that had been in abey-
ance since 1535. e rst term of the resumed life pension was paid
in November 1546. e banker Antonio Bonacorsi had been commis-
sioned on 30 June to make the payments but did not receive royal
authorisation for the rst half-year payment of 53,000 écus until 13
October. He had then had to ride to Lyon to collect the gold and trans-
port it to Calais by 1 November. is was the last such payment ever
made.
21
e provision in the Treaty for negotiations on the debt of
512,000 crowns under the obligation of 1529 led to a stalemate by the
end of September, when commissioners met in the same place as the
treaty had been signed. By this time, it was clear that the French had
decided not to pay it.
22
ese, together with disputes over fortications
around Boulogne, plagued Anglo-French relations for several months,
until the conclusion of La Garde’s Treaty.
e celebrations of the summer of 1546 could not conceal the real-
ity from William Paget. In his masterly tour d’horizon of international
aairs, Paget asserted that the Emperor and Francis were still only ‘our
dissembling freendes,’ the one never likely to give up his allegiance to
the Pope and the other determined to recover Boulogne. If Francis
could be assured that Henry was not a threat, he would concentrate on
19
Francis I to Jean d’Annebault sr de La Hunaudaye, Paris, crs. Bayard, 16 June
1546, Archives Départementales, Puy-de-Dôme, 3E 113, fonds 2, EE 7, no. 44 (copy)
20
L&P, XXI, ii, 145, 189.
21
BnF fr. 10375, fos. 29–39, account of Bonacorsi submitted to Chambre des
Comptes.
22
e English negotiators were Peter and Dr. May, Dean of London. L&P, XXI, i,
1395, 1515; ii, 9, 25, 29, 47, 48, 65, 133, 137, 142, 153, 160; Petre and Maye to Henry
VIII, 25 Sept. 1546, St.P., XI, pp. 312–314.
the end of two reigns 467
recovering Milan and then return to Boulogne. As for the Protestant
alliance, this would be costly and might allow France and the Emperor
to coalesce. e main objective should be to prevent France and the
Emperor from co-operating and so the best way to achieve this was to
encourage peace between the Emperor and the Protestants – ‘tagree
themperour and thalmaynes by all meanes possible.’ It is clear, then,
that Paget saw the long-term interests of England and France as con-
tradictory.
23
Not surprisingly, Annebault was distrustful of him and
suspected him of working against Anglo-French peace.
24
Immediately aer the treaty, du Biez’s army dissolved ‘for lack of
bredde,’ having begun work at the fortress of Mont Saint Etienne to
face the one the English had started at Boulogneberg (Mont Lambert);
there was an understandable rush to begin work before the prohibition
enjoined in the treaty came into force.
25
is was an element of the treaty
which was rapidly to give rise to conict: which works had been begun
before the treaty? Moreover, the treaty had been necessarily vague about
the line delimiting English-occupied territory; it simply specied the
river Liane and le it up to commissioners to settle which of its many
tributaries was the true source.
26
Very soon aer the treaty, du Biez was complaining about continu-
ing work at Boulogneberg. For their part, the English had diculty in
asserting their authority in the localities which they deemed to be north
of the Liane and therefore in their territory: villages like Brunembert,
Boursin and Bournonville. ere was reluctance to come in and take the
oath, while as late as May 1547, Jean Pocques, the captain of Monthulin,
was trying to assert his authority there.
27
Anomalies like the château of
Fiennes remained to confuse matters; the English claimed it as part
of the Boulonnais, the French as part of the bailliage of Ardres, while
its owner, the Burgundian countess of Gavre, wanted possession. e
23
BL Cotton, Titus B II, fos. 79–82, undated but likely from internal evidence to
be August 1546.
24
Wotton to Paget, Beaune, 22 Sept. 1546, L&P, XXI, ii, 145.
25
Hertford to Council, 16 June 1546, NA SP1/220, fos. 141 (144) (L&P, XXI, i,
1074).
26
Hertford to du Biez, 11 July 1546; Du Biez to Hertford, 13 July, Potter, pp. 218–
220.
27
Hertford to du Biez, 4 July 1546 Potter, p. 218. e sr. de Boursin and his family
had been instructed not to take the oath by the authorities at Ardres until a new treaty
(Grey to Council, 26 Dec. 1546). In January 1547 the English seized the church (Grey
to Council, 1, 3 Jan. 1547, Council to Grey, 21 May 1547, APC I, pp. 478–479.
468 conclusion
people of Fiennes, in fact, were in a sort of no-man’s-land without any
recognised jurisdiction.
28
e whole peace nearly collapsed in August when, claiming that their
works had been begun before the treaty, the French began to build a fort
on the hill above Le Portel to secure a harbour for the fort of Outreau.
29
is led to some high-handed action by Grey against the French,
tacitly and with some pleasure authorised by Henry.
30
is was done
on 5 September but the French returned a few days later and du Biez
only gave up under intense diplomatic pressure. Renewal of war was
reported as likely early in September but Odet de Selve, in an audience
with Henry at Guildford on 14th, tried to stress that Annebault was the
strongest support for peace in France. Back in London, the Council tried
to impress on him the need for the French to leave o their new works.
31
e essential context of all these moves was, in fact, the disquieting plans
of the Emperor in Germany and French attempts to buttress the resis-
tance of the Protestant princes. e latter required Anglo-French coop-
eration and this, for the French, provided an incentive to come to an
agreement with the English, who could not be allowed again to dri into
the Imperial camp. All this is reected in the negotiations which took
place to settle the Anglo-French boundary in the autumn of 1546.
e rst round took place in August and the French negotiators were
Heilly, Courtebourne, Honvaulx, Lagy under the supervision of du Biez
(in other words, a mixture of military men and local landowners). It
proved abortive, since the French seem to have wished to re-open the
whole treaty.
32
In October, with the tensions of September calmed, a new
round of talks began, this time with du Biez, Heilly and Estourmel on
28
On Fiennes, see Hertford to Paget, 6 July 1546, L&P XXI, I, 1228; Wallop to
Somerset, 3 April 1547 CSPF Edward VI, Calais Papers, 96. e English continued to
try to control Fiennes and Boursin (Blérancourt to Council of Calais, 23 March 1548,
BL Harl. 288, fo. 82).
29
Deputy and Council of Boulogne to Henry VIII, 29 Aug. 1546, SP1/223, fo. 186r
(L&P XXI, I, 1524).
30
Henry VIII to Grey, 5 Sept. 1546; Grey to Henry VIII, 6 Sept. 1546, exchange
with Capt. Baron, L&P XXI, ii, 32; Du Biez to Grey, 5, 7, 9 Sept. 1546, Potter, Du Biez,
pp. 222–223; Grey to Henry VIII, 15, 18 Sept. 1546; Wotton to Henry VIII, Tournus,
11, 17, 22 Sept. 1546, St.P., XI, pp. 294, 300–301, 303–307.
31
Odet de Selve to Annebault, 14 Sept. 1546; to Francis I, 19 September, Lefèvre-
Pontalis, nos. 29, 31.
32
Instruction to Grey Moyle, Wotton and Palmer, 7 Aug. 1546; Survey of Boulon-
nais, 11 Aug. 1546; Commissioners to Council, 12 Aug. 1546; Moyle to Paget, 19 Aug.
1546; Du Biez to Grey, 29 Aug. 1546, Potter, Du Biez, pp. 221–222.
the end of two reigns 469
the French side.
33
e terms of reference were now wider and all tribu-
taries and fortications would be examined. e report of the French
commissioners makes their dilemma quite clear; the treaty had stated
that the longest tributary would form the boundary. e trouble was that
this was the most southerly and would make direct access to Ardres on
French territory impossible. ey therefore wanted to push for one of
the sources near Nabringen.
34
Eventually, a compromise agreement was
hammered into a dra treaty and powers given to baron de La Garde to
negotiate denitive terms in England as part of a comprehensive renewal
of the alliance.
35
e treaty was concluded in London on 11 March 1547
and gave the Quêques branch as the source. is just about made French
communications possible but the quid pro quo was a licence for English
works at Boulogneberg, Blackness and Ambleteuse while the French
were forbidden to continue theirs at le Portel and the mouth of the
Boulogne harbour. e French were, though, able to continue at Saint-
Etienne and the English to evacuate Boursin, now dened as part of the
French county of Guînes.
36
e treaty of La Garde was never given much of a chance. Already,
in November 1546, the English feared that du Biez would try to attack
Boulogneberg and, soon aer a visit to court by the marshal in December
new plans were announced for works at Le Portel.
37
ough strategic
logic was encouraging France and England to co-operate at the very end
of Francis I’s reign, persistent reports of French troop movements were a
source of disquiet to the English.
38
Reports of a spy at Corbie told a tale
33
Agreement on the exact course of the boundary was not reached. In October,
Cobham, Deputy of Calais, omas Seymour and Edward Wotton were commis-
sioned to negotiate with the French (L&P, XXI, ii, 330; 25 Oct. 1546, SAP Ch. Heilly,
59 II, no. 52). It was found then that the Vielmoutier branch of the Liane was the
longest (Cobham and Seymour to Henry VIII, 18 Nov. 1546, St.P., XI, p. 347).
34
Commissioners to Henry VIII, 25 Oct. 1546; Moyle to Paget, 31 Oct. 1546;
Mémoire of French commissioners, 13 Sept. 1546, Potter, Du Biez, pp. 225–227. Fran-
cis I to Heilly, 8 Dec. 1546, Bnf, nafr. 23167, fo. 11, revoking their mission in view of
La Garde’s crossing to England.
35
Negotiations of 15–17 Nov. 1546. e Vielmoutier branch was found to be the
longest, as the French had feared. Cobham and Seymour to Henry VIII, 15 Nov.
1546, L&P XXI, ii, 422; Palmer to Paget [19] Nov. 1546, ibid., no. 424. Dra treaty,
L&P XXI, ii, 3302. Francis I, commission, La Muette, 15 Feb. 1547; Denitive terms,
4 March 1547, CSPF Edward VI, no. 47, Rymer 2nd ed. XV, p. 13, 3rd ed. VI, pp.
148, 152–153.
36
Rymer, 2nd ed. XV, pp. 35–39.
37
Grey, 6 Nov. 1546; Grey to Paget, 27 Dec. 1546; to Henry VIII, 4 Jan. 1547, L&P,
XXI, ii, 358, 623, 665).
38
CSPF Edward VI, Calais Papers, 117.