^{page 59 note 1} On the origins of the 1549 war, cf. Potter, D. L., ‘Diplomacy in the mid-16th century: England and France 1536–1550’ (Cambridge Ph. D thesis, 1973), ch. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} On the campaign, cf. de Nicolay, N., Double d'une lettre missive…à monseigneur Du Bays … contenant le discours de la guerre faicte par le Roy … Henry deuxième de ce nom pour le recouvrement du pais de Boulognoys (Lyon, 1550)Google Scholar and Rosny, , ‘Documents’.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 3} The best documentation on the adverse conditions is in the correspondence of the constable de Montmorency and the rheingraff Johann Philipp, Chantilly, Musée Condé, J II. On the lack of planning, cf. Renard to the emperor, 8 Aug. 1549, C. S. P. Span., ix. 424.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 4} Renard to the emperor, 11 Nov. 1549, C. S. P. Span., ix. 471Google Scholar; L'Aubespine to Aumale, 25 Sept. 1549, B.N., fr. 20534, f. 95; Montmorency to Aumale, 25 Sept. 1549, B. N., Clairambault 342, f. 172; cardinal de Guise to Aumale, 27 Sept. 1549, B.N., fr. 20577, f. 15; Montmorency to Marillac, 7 Oct. 1549, B.N., fr. 3099, pp. 163–4; Alvarotti to Ercole II of Ferrara, 11 Oct. 1549, Modena, A. S., Can Est. Francia, B 26 fasc. 3, pp. 31–2.

^{page 60 note 1} On all this, cf. Potter, ‘Treaty’, 54–7.

^{page 60 note 2} On Guidotti, cf. below, no. 4, n. 1.

^{page 60 note 3} Renard to the emperor, 10 July 1550, C. S. P. Span., x. 327–8.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 4} Especially in the advice of Paget to Protector Somerset, discussed by Bush, M. L., The Government Policy of Protector Somerset (1975), 37–9Google Scholar, Hoak, D., The King's Council in the Reign of Edward VI (Cambridge, 1976), 167–9Google Scholar and, of course, Gammon, S., Master of Practices (Newton Abbot, 1973), 130–59.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 6} The two crucial documents are Guidotti's memorial to Henri II, 9 Nov. 1549, Calig. E. iii, ff. 69–70 and Alvarotti's description of his negotiations with the French king, 1 Jan. 1550, Modena, A. S., Francia, B 27, fasc. 1, n. p. (pp. 1–6). Guidotti's memorial is printed below, Appendix II.

^{page 60 note 6} Cf. ‘Paget Letters’, nos. 47–58.

^{page 61 note 1} Delaborde, , Coligny, vol. iGoogle Scholar; Rosny, , ‘Documents’Google Scholar, is a valuable collection which prints mainly documents concerning the war but also a few on the peace talks.

^{page 61 note 2} Correspondance politique d'Odet de Selve, ed. Lefebvre-Pontalis, J. (Paris, 1888)Google Scholar. The editor makes it clear that the break of Dec. 1548 is simply the result of the loss of de Selve's register for Jan.–Aug. 1549 (his next register, for the embassy to Venice in 1551, is preserved). Only one of the dispatches received by de Selve has come to light (below, App. 1, no. 2) (drafts would have been kept by Claude de L'Aubespine, Guillaume Bochetel or Jacques Bourdin—see below). The next ambassador, Jean Pot, sieur de Chémault, kept the dispatches he received, 1550–1, and these, formerly thought to have been destroyed by fire in the 19th century at the Archives Départementales, Bourges, are in fact kept, mutilated and inaccessible to researchers, at those archives. Virtually nothing remains of the correpondence of Boisdauphin, 1551–3. Vertot, J., Ambassades de Messieurs de Noailles, 5 vols. (Leyden, 1763)Google Scholar prints a large portion of the Noailles registers at the quai d'Orsay. Those not printed can be consulted in transcript in P.R.O., 31/3 vol. 20.

^{page 63 note 1} E.g. a dispatch of 18 Feb. received on 21, that of 21 received on 24, of 16 Mar. received on 19.

^{page 64 note 1} Potter, , ‘Treaty’, 64.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} Duke of Guise to the duke of Ferrara, undated draft, c. Apr. 1550, B.N., fr. 20648, ff. 64–5.

^{page 65 note 1} Sutherland, N., The French Secretaries of State in the Age of Catherine de Medici (1962), 29–32, 70–2Google Scholar. Bassefontaine outlined the division of responsibilities at the start of the campaign: ‘Monsieur le Conestable et Monsieur d'Aumale partent ce jourd'huy de Compienne et quatre ou cinq jours apres part le Roy pour aller a Amiens, la ou il deliberera selon ce qu'il entendra de passer ou non. Monsieur de L'Aubespine sera tousiours prest du Roy … Messieurs de Marchaumont et Bourdin, qui a sa survivance et l'office de Monsieur de Sassy, vont avec Monsieur le Conestable’ (letter to Jacques Mesnage, 6 Aug. 1549, B.N., fr. 17890, f. 300).

^{page 66 note 1} Below, nos. 10, 36 and 57.

^{page 66 note 2} The 1903 sale catalogue, reproduced by Des Forts, P., Le château de Villebon (Paris, 1914), 180–8.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 3} The provenance of the La Rochepot papers is revealed by Pichon, J., ‘Correspondance des d'Humières, provenant du château de Monchy’, Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire de Compiègne, vi. 78–140.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 1} Secretaries of State did, of course, keep registers of financial orders made by the conseil priveé and the king.

^{page 67 note 2} B.N., fr. 2846, ff. 156–217.

^{page 70 note 1} The correspondence between the French court and Scotland has been published in several places: letters between Marie de Guise and her brothers, Mémoires de Guise, 5–37Google Scholar and Teulet, A., Relations, politiques de la France et de l'Espagne avec l'Ecosse au XVI^e siècle (Paris, 1862)Google Scholar. Documents from the same source and still unpublished are in B.N., fr. 20457, pp. 229–43. The dispatches received by Marie are largely published in Foreign Correspondence with Marie de Lorraine, queen of Scotland, from the originals in the Balcarres Papers, ed. Wood, M. (Scottish History Soc., 1925).Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 2} There is as yet no study of La Rochepot's career. The main sources are his papers in the B.N. For a study of an earlier aspect of his life, cf. Potter, D. L., ‘International politics and naval juridiction in the 16th century: the case of François de Montmorency’, European Studies Rev. vii (1977), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 70 note 3} On this period of Coligny's career, the best source is Delaborde, Coligny, 70–90Google Scholar. Cf. also Bersier, E., Coligny avant les guerres de religion (Paris, 1884)Google Scholar and Shimizu, J., Conflict of Loyalities (Geneva, 1970).Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 1} On Guillart, cf. Pommier, A., Chroniques de Souligné-sous- Vallon et Flacé (Angers, 1889), 158–70Google Scholar and Jouanna, A., ‘André Guillart’ in R. Mousnier, Le conseil du Rot de Louis XII à la Révolution (Paris, 1970), 231–53.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 2} On Bochetel, cf. V.-I. Comparato, ‘Guillaume Bochetel, secrétaire d'etat’, Mousnier, R., Le conseil du Roi, 105–29.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note a} Draft A gives there the following passage: Pour laquelle mieulx eddiffier et establir il sera par adventure necessaire traicter et entrer en propoz d'approcher noz maisons par plus grande et estroicte assunte et alliance de mariage, auquel effect est besoing depputer bons et notables personnaiges esquelz nous ayons entiere confiance. This is crossed out and in draft B, Bourdin replaces it by the following: et pour lad. paix myeulx eddiffier, corroborer et establir par approaches de noz maisons et plus grande et estroicte alliance, nosdictz depputez pourront pareillement traicter, conclure et accorder avec ceulx de nostredict cousin le roy d'Angleterre le traicte de mariage d'entre ledict roy d'Angleterre et nostre treschere et tresamee fille aisnee Elizabeth de France soubz et avecques telles condicions et articles qu'ilz adviseront. It seems reasonable to suppose that this is the version which had to be replaced in order to save French prestige, below no. 27

^{page 75 note b-b} This passage was added by Bourdin in draft B

^{page 76 note 1} The preliminaries were negotiated by Antonio Guidotti through his contact in the household of Catherine de Medici, Antonio Gondi. Cf. his memorial to Henri II, 9 Nov. 1549, Calig. E. iii, ff. 69–70 (Appendix II).

^{page 76 note 2} Treaty of Campe, 7 June 1546.

^{page 77 note a} Illegible

^{page 77 note 1} Henri II had refused to confirm the treaty of April 1547 after his accession in Mar. 1547. (Cf. the proces-verbal of the conseil privé, B.N., fr. 18153, f. 1, 19 Apr. 1547). He had then been prepared to observe the 1546 treaty (cf. App. I, nos. 1 and 2).

^{page 77 note 2} The Dunette was a fortified mole in the middle of the harbour of Boulogne, built between 1547 and 1549 and much admired by the French. Cf. Shelby, , Rogers, 71–2Google Scholar; de Rosny, A., Album historique du Boulonnais (Boulogne-sur-Mer, 1892), prate xvii.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 3} Tour d'Ordre: a Roman lighthouse which stood on the cliff to the north of the harbour of Boulogne. Known to the English as ‘the Old Man’, it was fortified in 1544 but Rogers began a new fort around it in 1546. Gf. Shelby, , Rogers, 63–4.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 1} For the terms of the treaty of More, 30 Aug. 1525, cf. Rymer, , Foedera, xiv. 48–57.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 2} The vast sums of pensions and obligations which had accrued to England by the treaties of 1525 and 1527 were remitted by Henry VIII to help the French war effort in 1527–9, cf. L.P., iv. nos. 5515, 1604(3), app. no. 183; accounts of Passano, A.N., J 923 no. 8. Full payment was resumed in 1531 and continued until the first instalment of 1534 but then ceased (L.P., v. nos. 222, 1065, 1504, vii. no. 1554).

^{page 78 note 3} Treaty of Perpetual Peace, 18 Aug. 1527, Rymer, , Foedera, xiv. 218–27.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note a} Illegible

^{page 79 note 1} I.e. during the war of 1528–9.

^{page 79 note 2} I.e. the invasion of 1536. The payment of the pension had, in fact, ceased in 1534.

^{page 79 note 3} For French demands for aid in 1536 and connections with the unpaid pension, cf. L.P. xi, no. 304, 445Google Scholar; xii (1), nos. 445, 865.

^{page 79 note 4} These were the contracts signed as part of the Anglo-French peace of 1518 and the agreements between Henry VIII and François I at the Boulogne conference of 1532.

^{page 80 note 1} English fortifications had been commenced in 1548 as a response to similar French moves on Sark. Cf. Henri II to Marillac, 15 May 1549, B.N., fr. 3099, p. 1.

^{page 81 note 1} Elisabeth de France.

^{page 82 note 1} For further details on Venetian good offices, cf. no. 50, the reply of Henri II, 9 Mar. 1550; Morvillier, French ambassador to Venice, to Henri II, 7 Apr. 1550, B.N., fr. 16088, ff. 192–3.

^{page 82 note 2} Jean de Crussol, sieur de Beaudiné, a gentleman frequently used for confidential messages to and from the court.

^{page 82 note 3} Johann Philipp von Salm, count of Sauviage, the Rhine and Salm, a German captain regularly in French service. He played an important part in Scotland, 1548–9 and the siege of Boulogne, 1549–50. Many letters to him survive from Montmorency, La Rochepot and Marie de Guise for this period.

^{page 82 note 4} Georg von Reckenrod a mercenary leader of landsknechts in French service as early as 1542 and still in 1558.

^{page 83 note 1} Baptistc Praillon, king's interpeter (cf. pension of 1000 liv. for him in 1549, B.N., fr. 3132, fn. 38).

^{page 83 note 2} Pierre, sieur de Salcedo or Salcede, captain of Hardelot and concessionaire for the supply of French forts between Montreuil and Boulogne. Cf. L'Homel, G., Nouveau receuil de documents pour service a l'histoire de Montreuil-sur-mer (Compiègne, 1910), 125–44.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 3} Mont Châtillon, probably fort Châtillon, a fort commenced by Coligny nearer to the entrance of the harbour at Boulogne. For plan, cf. Shelby, , Rogers, 62.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 4} Ellis ap Gruffydd gave a vivid description of the state of the troops sent out under Huntingdon to restore the situation and who were encamped in the terre d'Oye. Cf. Davies, M. Bryn, ‘Boulogne and Calais from 1545 to 1550’ in Bull. Faculty of Arts of Found I University, Cairo, xii(i) (05 1950), 74–5Google Scholar. The council was worried by Huntingdon's difficulties ‘who, being a yong jentleman hath nede to have his want of experience supplyed with your good advises’ to control troops and supplies (cf. letter to commissioners, 28 Jan. 1550, Calig. E. iv, ff. 204v–205r).

^{page 84 note 1} Some confirmation of these fears is to be found in commissioners to the council, 30 Jan. 1550: ‘We do lykewyse here bruted here that ther h[ath] now of verey late byn many conspiracies atte[mpted in] sundry parts of the realme' (Calig. E. iv, f. 204r, ‘Paget letters’ no. 47).

^{page 84 note 2} A copy of this, entitled ‘Ce sont les munitions quy ont este chargees dedens vingt et ung vaisseau quy partirent le xix^e jour de ce moys de Janvier pour aller a Ambletueil’ is in Villebon, no. 26.

^{page 85 note 1} Antonio Guidotti was a Florentine merchant naturalized in England, cf. Ruddock, A., ‘Antonio Guidotti’, Proc. Hants Field Club, xv (1941) 34–42Google Scholar. His motives and background were attacked by Ellis ap Gruffydd, the Welsh soldier at Calais. Cf. M. Bryn Davies, in Bull, Faculty of Arts of Fouad I University, Cairo, xii (i) (05 1950), 75–6.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} Nicolas de Pommereux, commissaire ordinaire de l'artillerie Catalogue des Actes de Henri II (Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 1979), I. 05.15⁴.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 3} Officers of the artillerie, unidentified.

^{page 85 note 4} Nicolas Durand, sieur de Villegaignon, chevalier de Malte, vice-amiral de Bretaigne (1510–71). He brought Mary Stuart from Dumbarton and was preparing a fleet for Scotland at the time of the treaty. He planned to break into the harbour of Boulogne by using ‘ramberges’, a ploy which succeeded at Le Havre in 1562. Cf. Heulhard, , Villegaignon, roi d'Amerique, (Paris, 1897) pp. 46–50.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 1} Possibly Robinet de Mailly.

^{page 86 note 2} Unidentified. Probably captain of the fort Chatillon at the entrance to the harbour of Boulogne.

^{page 87 note a} je m'actends deleted

^{page 87 note b} parensemble deleted

^{page 87 note c} et pource qu'il n'est riens survenu depuis vostre partment que res[‥] vous f. deleted.

^{page 87 note 1} Edward Ffiennes, baron Clinton, governor of Boulogne 1546–50.

^{page 88 note 1} The English deputies wrote to the council on 26th of their ‘purpose of embarking that mornyng in a vessel of Rye to passe the sees’ (council to the commissioners, 28 Jan 1550, Calig. E. iv, f. 204v) but had since written they were ‘constrayned to returne backe agayn having passed half the sees’.

^{page 88 note 2} Copy made in the 18th century from a document then at Villebon.

^{page 89 note a} le passage deleted

^{page 90 note a} encores touiours c'est de faire cesser les armes pour quelques jours deleted

^{page 90 note b} noz vaisseaulx deleted

^{page 90 note c} aussi que dedans peu de jours aprez que vous serez abouchez ensemble vous sentez bien ce qu'ilz auront sur le cueur et sentez esperance de quelque f […]ce, de sorte que vous vous garderez bien deleted

^{page 90 note d} demourer en ung deleted

^{page 91 note a-a} passage in the Villebon copy but lost in the mutilated B.L. version

^{page 91 note 1} This letter was delivered by Guidotti to the English on their arrival at Calais and sent by them to England. Cf. commissioners to the council, 30 Jan. 1550, Calig. E. iv, f.203r, ‘Paget letters’ no. 47.

^{page 91 note 2} Probably meant was the same site used for the negotiations of 1546, when a tent had been used (in mid-summer).

^{page 92 note a-a, b-b, c-c} words in the B.L. version but omitted in the Villebon version

^{page 92 note d} de ce il a este tresaise deleted

^{page 92 note e} Illegible

^{page 92 note 1} Martin Du Bellay, sieur de Langey, younger brother of cardinal Du Bellay and at this time La Rochepot's deputy as governor of Picardy.

^{page 92 note 2} This house was built on a site by the Liane estuary known as ‘Capécure’ (cf. de Rosny, H., Histoire du Boulonnais (Amiens, 1871), iii. 268)Google Scholar. Clinton reported its construction early in February and was warned by the commissioners not to allow it to be used as a fortified position (commissioners to Clinton, 10 Feb. 1550, Calig. E. iv, f. 210r–v).

^{page 92 note 1} For a similar case, cf. Villegaignon to the constable, 22 Mar. 1550, Villebon, liasse 52 carton H: ‘Ung corsaire escossoys vint ces jours passez prendre ung navire flament en la rade de Dieppe que les navires que je laissay pour la conduicte des vins et Montpelle ont rescous sans rien des beins dud. navire. Il s'est trouve ung Escossoys dedans qui y avoit este la mis pour la garde et conduicte …’ [extract].

^{page 93 note 1} Montlambert was known to the English as ‘Bullemberg’ or the ‘Master of the Horse's Camp’, a few miles east of Boulogne. Fortified in the spring of 1546 in response to French works at St. Etienne, it was captured in Sept. 1549. Cf. Shelby, , Rogers, 73–4.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note a} meilleurs deleted

^{page 94 note 4} choisir de deleted

^{page 94 note 1} The council informed the commissioners on 1 Feb. that Wriothesley (whom the French presumably still mistook for the chancellor) had been placed under house arrest and Sir John and Sir Thomas Arundel sent to the Tower (Calig. E. iv, ff.206–7). Wriothesley and the earl of Arundel had been excluded from the council after 14 Jan. and formally dismissed on 2 Feb. Cf. Hoak, D., The Privy Council in the Reign of Edward VI (Cambridge, 1976), 59, 257Google Scholar. The speed of French information is remarkable here.

^{page 94 note 2} Presumably a change in the personnel of the French commission.

^{page 95 note a} est asseure deleted

^{page 95 note 1} André Blondet.

^{page 95 note 2} Possibly linked to the family of Bertrand de Simiane, baron de Gordes, lieutenant general en Dauphiné 1562–76 and a close associate of the Coligny family.

^{page 96 note a} plus qu'ilz veullent deleted

^{page 96 note 1} There is no trace in the emperor's correspondence with Scheyfve, ambassador in England, of this move.

^{page 96 note 2} For La Rochepot's letter, cf. no. 13. The letter from the English has not been found.

^{page 97 note a} One word illegible

^{page 97 note b} J'ay veu le marche deleted

^{page 97 note 1} I.e. the trésorier de l'extraordinaire des guerres, Raoul Moreau.

^{page 97 note 2} Probably the same as the capt. Villefranche who was Coligny's lieutenant in 1551 for the assembly of his men at Noyon (Coligny's to Guise, 4 July 1551, B.N., fr. 20461, f.265) and who had been selected by La Marck in 1549 to contact a spy who had a plan to capture Boulogne (‘Memoire touchant la ville de Boulogne’, B.L., Egerton MS 2, f.114r: ‘homme de bien et fidel’). Cf. below, App. I, no. 3.

^{page 97 note 3} The document is undated but must be late January or early February 1550, after the negotiations had started but before the truce. It must have been drawn up for Coligny's attention. The French had made a detailed analysis of the state of the Boulogne garrison in Sept.–Oct. 1549, cf. ‘L'advis de la qualité de ceulx qui sont dedans Boullongne’, B.N., fr.3127, ff.42–6.

^{page 99 note 1} On this, cf. commissioners to council, 30 Jan. 1550, Calig. E. iv, ff.203r–204r; ‘Paget letters’ no. 47. On their arrival at Calais on 30th, they received La Rochepot's letter and Russell answered it. A memorial was given to Guidotti explaining why the English would not accept the French proposal for the place of meeting (i.e. that Boulogne was inappropriate since the discussions would centre on its cession and English honour ‘myght fo[rever be tarnis] hed yf we agre to mete in that place’). In reply to a request for guidance, the council left the decision to their discretion (letter of 1st, Calig. E. iv, ff.206v–207r) but on 2nd had had further thoughts: ‘we thinke yt not moche to be stycked at, whether [the] meetyng place be at their wyll or owres, so [as] through ceremonye or altercacion upon the metyng place the frute of your meting be not empeched’ (Calig. E. iv, f.207v; cf. also A.P.C., ii. 379Google Scholar, 2 Feb. 1550, Warwick not present).

^{page 99 note 2} On the negotiations of Nov. 1549, cf. council to Cobham, 24 Nov. 1549: ‘By lettres from you, my lord Cobham, we have been lately advertised how Monsieur de Chastillon did sende a jentylman on messaige unto him touchinge thinges (as he saide) tending to the treatye and composicion of matters between us and the French’ (B.L., Harley MS 284, f.56). An agreement on prisoners was reached, cf. A.E.C.P., Angl. VIII, ff.92v–93r. François de Guise had considered Clinton favourable to cession (cf. his letter to cardinal de Guise, 2 Oct. 1549, B.N., fr. 20577, f. 18).

^{page 101 note 1} Probably Edme de Courtenay, sieur de Bléneau, qualified as ‘gentilhomme de la maison du Roy’ on a mission to the financier Albisse del Bene in 1551 (B.N., fr.20455, f. 107; Odet de Selve to Henri II, 27 May 1551, A.E.C.P., Venise III, f. 140v). Also a messenger between the court and La Rochepot in 1548 (Henri II to La Rochepot, 19 May 1548, B.N., fr.3120, f.57).

^{page 101 note 2} Capt. Valleron was probably attached to Coligny's service by this time. In Oct.-Nov. 1549, he had been involved in Coligny's abortive negotiations at Boulogne. (Cf. Alvarotti to Ercole II of Ferrara, Modena A.S., Francia B26 fasc. 3 pp. 31–2, 11 Oct. 1549.) He was, by 1551, a confidential agent in various missions (cf. Coligny to Guise, 4 July and 25 July, 1551, B.N., fr. 20461, ff. 149v and 265v.

^{page 101 note 3} For English anger at French ‘wylfull bravery’ in this, cf. commissioners to the council, undated [c. 1–7 Feb. 1550], Calig. E. iv, f.208r–v, ‘Paget letters’ no. 48.

^{page 102 note 1} There is no trace of this letter from Warwick, though he had certainly just returned from work after a bout of stomach trouble (Warwick to the commissioners, 1 Feb. 1550, Calig. E. iv, f.206r). In any case, the council had decided to give way on 2nd.

^{page 103 note a} Illegible

^{page 103 note 1} Cf. no. In. a for the drafts of the various commissions.

^{page 104 note 1} Desvres and Samer, villages south-east of Boulogne and, as they were south of the Liane, on French territory after 1546. They constituted forward French positions.

^{page 105 note 1} Jean d'Estouteville, sieur de Villebon, governor of Thérouenne and later deputy-governor of Picardy (appointed May 1550).

^{page 105 note 2} Jean d'Estourmel, général des finances de Picardie.

^{page 106 note 1} For the different versions of the commission, cf. no. 1.

^{page 108 note 1} On 10 Feb. the English reported that they would, ere that, have been at Boulogne ‘saving that, by sending to and fro for thagreyng uppon the forme of our saulveconduct, some more tyme hath byn spent then, we wold have wished’ (Calig. E. iv, f.210v, ‘Paget letters’ no. 51).

^{page 108 note 2} There is a letter from La Rochepot to du Roeulx, governor of Artois, dated Montreuil, 8 Feb. complaining of the ‘pilleries et coursses que les Anglois sauvaiges faisoient le long de ceste frontiere de Picardye’ by the consent of the imperial authorities. Vienna, H—, H— u. St. A., Frankreich, Varia 7, nachtrag f. 11.

^{page 109 note 1} Jean de Lisle, sieur de Marivault was a member of La Rochepot's household and had been his trusted agent since at least 1536. He became Coligny's deputy as governor of the Ile-de-France in September 1553 (Compiège, Archives municipales, BB 22 f. 19v).

^{page 109 note 2} Cf. next item.

^{page 110 note 1} Paradis: the French name for the small fort between the Tour d'Ordre and the high town of Boulogne, called by the English ‘the Young Man’ and built between 1545 and 1548. Cf. Shelby, , Rogers, 68–9.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 1} This was a small fort attached to Mont Chatillon, both commanded by M. de Launay in 1548 (cf. Henri II to La Rochepot, 27 July 1548, B.N., fr. 3035, f.100).

^{page 111 note 2} Headed in another hand: ‘Abstinence de guerre pour 4 iours de Milor Clinthon du 13 fevrier’.

^{page 112 note a} copy reads ay je

^{page 112 note 1} This is the letter that was sent to the court by the French deputies on 13 Feb. (cf. no.38). De Rosny clearly misread the date, which must be the 12th. The document was originally at Villebon and acquired by de Rosny after the sale.

^{page 112 note 2} Commisioners to the council, 12 Feb. 1550: ‘upon Saturday at ny[ght we do] mynde nevertheles to be at Bulloyn, trustin[g in the] meane tyme that some good help will co[me out of] England’ (Calig. E.iv, f.213r, ‘Paget letters’, no.53).

^{page 114 note 1} Antonio Gondi, sieur du Peyron (and, in the right of his wife Catherine de Pierrevive sieur de Lezigny). He was Guidotti's uncle (cf. Alvarotti to Ercole II of Ferrara, 10 Mar. 1550, Modena, A.S., Francia, B 27 fasc. 1). Cf. also Corbinelli, J., Histoire généalogique de la maison de Gondi (Paris, 1705), i. 239, 344Google Scholar; Pommerol, M. J., Albert de Gondi (Geneva, 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 1} Headed, in a later hand, ‘lettre de Milor Clinthon’ but the content makes its origin and destination clear.

^{page 116 note 1} Cf. also Philip Hoby to Cobham, governor of Calais, Brussels, 17 Feb. 1550: ‘The Cardinall Monte is elected Bysshop of Rome who, although he be an Italian borne, is a Frencheman in hart for his lyfe an so earnest an ennemie to themperour and his procedinges as it is thought he will be an other manner of let unto him then ever his predecessour was’, B.L., Harley MS 284, f.66.

^{page 116 note 2} The correspondence of the English commissioners is full of anxiety about the lack of money and provisions for Boulogne and the Calais garrison. Cf. ‘Paget letters’, nos. 47–58 passim.

^{page 117 note a} One word illegible

^{page 118 note 1} For a longer account of these preliminary speeches, conveyed in a light favourable to the English, cf. commisioners to the Council, 20 Feb. 1550 (Calig. E. iv, f.214r–v; ‘Paget Letters’ no.54).

^{page 120 note 1} The discussions up to this point are omitted from the report of the English envoys on this meeting, 20 Feb. (Calig. E. iv, f.215r–v, ‘Paget letters’, no.54).

^{page 121 note 1} The discussion on the proposition is rather fuller in the English version of 20 Feb., but badly mutilated (Calig. E. iv f.215r–v): ‘[The]y shewe them selfes so precise and so imperious in their talkes and so [thirjsting still for an aunswere] that the commissioners asked whether the Council wished to enlarge on its instructions. Guidotti was still working behind the scenes for an Anglo-French marriage but the French had said nothing of it (ibid. ff.215v–216r).

^{page 121 note 2} On this, cf. Paget to Warwick, c.22 Feb. 1550: ‘I suggested a private talke betwen M[ortier or] Chatillon and me orsumme [other of us] a part, thinking thereby to have [practised] somewhat, but it would nat [be, they] wold in no wise talke a [parte with] any of us’ (Calig. E.iv, f.233r, collated with copy, B.L., Lansdowne MS 2, f.81).

^{page 123 note 1} Dated 20 Jan. but this is a clear mistake for 20 Feb.

^{page 124 note 1} Cf. de Langey to Aumale, 3 Mar. 1550: ‘… j'ay envoie encores du vin a Ardres de sorte que de tout le mois de May il n'en auroit fault …. nos voisins sont encore en l'estat que vous ay escript par monsieur d'Andelot et encores pis’ (B.N., fr.20456).

^{page 125 note 1} The reporting of these exchanges is different in the English version. This has the English putting forward two first proposals, which the French utterly refuse, and then, after some brinkmanship ‘to sucke out of them whether they wold discende to any other overtures’, two more are put forward, as described in the French version. After further refusal, the fifth offer is made by the English and this, too, is refused (Calig. E.iv, f.216v, ‘Paget letters’ no.56, commissioners to the council, [21 Feb.]).

^{page 126 note 1} The English version agrees that the English considered that Guidotti's initial negotiations had been deceptive (f.217r). For Paget's masterly summation of the English predicament at this point, cf. his letter to Warwick, c. 21 Feb. 1550, ‘Paget letters’ no.58.

^{page 129 note 1} This dispatch is missing from the register. There is no dispatch from the English commisioners after 21 Feb. The most informative document here is the instruction of Edward VI to the English commissioners ofc. 23 Feb. (Calig. E.iv, ff.276–81, orig.;218r–v, copy). The first part, in reply to letters of 20 Feb., specifies that: 1. the right to the pension was not to be abandoned, 2. 2 million crowns were to be demanded (400,000 in hand and the rest over three years), 3. Roxburgh and Eyemouth were not to be abandoned. The second part, in reply to letters of 21 Feb., agrees to accept the second French offer and, as for money, ‘they shall advaunce the same sum[me as] hiegh as they can bring the Fre[nch] deputez to graunte’. Alvarotti, the Ferrarese ambassador, reported the terms in detail from Montargis on 2 Mar. Aumale had told his secretary that the English had stated their final terms: the question of the pension would be left in suspense since they wished to be on good terms with France. As for the arrears, if these were reduced to 800,000 crowns, they would be content with an immediate payment of 400,000 ‘et delli altri quattro milla Sua Ex. non gli ne disse altro’. They would then return Boulogne and all the forts, terms which Henri II ‘Iha trovata la megliore del mondo, et cosi questa matina ha spedito detto Andelot al forte con commissione alli di Sùa Maesta che appontino et erano accordio’. (Modena, A.S., Francia, B 27 fasc. 1).

^{page 129 note 2} The English were under instruction to hold on to all places in Scotland but, if necessary, to give up Broughty Craig, Lauder and Dunglass as long as Roxburgh and Eyemouth could be held (cf. instructions of Jan., Calig. E.iv, f.285r). This was re-emphasized in the instructions of c.23 Feb. (ibid., f.278r).

^{page 132 note 1} The English instructions of Jan. had used the ploy that, as the Scots were at war with the emperor, their comprehension would have to include a clause requiring that the Scots' differences with the emperor would have to be arbitrated by the English (Calig. E.iv, f.285r). The instruction of c.23 Feb. repeats this point (ibid. f.277v). The crucial ‘addicion’ is damaged at this point but does seem to specify that any comprehension of the Scots should reserve the former treaties between Henry VIII and the Scots (ibid., f.280r).

^{page 133 note 1} See above, note to no.32 i.

^{page 134 note 1} The English government was at one with the French here in its desire not to allow the dispute over Alderney and Sark to disrupt negotiations (Calig. E.iv, f.283r, collated with a copy made by Burnet, History of the Reformation, ed. Pocock, N. (Oxford, 1865), v. 302–4).Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 2} François de Coligny, sieur d'Andelot, brother of Gaspard de Coligny and at this time a regular messenger between his brother and the court.

^{page 135 note 1} The English instructions of 4 Mar. in no sense envisaged the handing over of artillery and, in fact, expected the artillery to be withdrawn (Calig. E.iv, f.283r).

^{page 137 note 1} Odd de Baillon in 1551 (B.N., Coll. de Picardie, 31, f.277).

^{page 137 note 2} Louis de Saint-Simon, sieur de Raches (or Rasse), governor of Hesdin.

^{page 137 note 3} Cf. also a letter of Coligny's to Aumale, Oultreau, 6 Mar. 1550, credence for sieur Paule (B.N., fr.20461, f.161).

^{page 138 note 1} The English had been instructed on 4 Mar. that they should strive to retain Roxburgh and Eyemouth, even to the point of breaking off negotiations for a day, but should, if necessary, consent in the end to the dismantlement of all the forts, with a proviso against any refortification (Calig. E.iv, f.282r). A modified form of this proposal was agreed in the treaty.

^{page 139 note 1} Guidotti had also sent a letter to Du Perron describing the state of negotiations which came into the hands of the Ferrarese ambassador, who adds: ‘et su questo fu spedito Andelot per intendere la volunta del Re, il quale, per quanto il S. Ludovico Biraga ha detto al secretaries de Venetia, ha rimandato Andelot che parti hieri di sera con ordine che si contenta che la cose passa cosi” (Alvarotti to Ercole II, Fontainebleau, 10 Mar. 1550, Modena, A.S., Francia, B 27, fasc.1).

^{page 140 note a} Marginal note, evidently added before dispatch, as is indicated by its presence in the registered copy

^{page 141 note a} See previous note

^{page 143 note 1} It will be seen here that the French had managed to insert the specific proviso against further English invasions of Scotland but had not managed to have their right to intervene written in. The English had succeeded in preserving their rights and claims in Scotland based on earlier treaties but the problem of the emperor's relationship with Scotland was, it seems, deliberately left vague.

^{apge 143 note 2} On the same day, Mason was sent over to England with an identical outline of terms. He was due back on the 23rd (Alvarotti to Ercole II, Melun, 21 Mar. 1550, Modens, A.S., Francia B 27, fasc. 1.)

^{page 144 note 1} Probably the sieur de Fumel. Cf. the instructions to him of 30 Mar.

^{page 145 note 1} Cf. commission of Henri II to Coligny, Du Mortier and Bochetel to receive Edward VI's oath and ratification, Paris 31 May 1550, Rymer, , Foedera, xv, 220.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} François d'Orléans, due de Longueville, Marie de Guise's son by her first marriage (d.1551).

^{page 145 note 3} Francois de Vendome (d. 1560), related through his mother Helene de Gouffier to the Montmorency, Coligny and Bourbon-Vendome families.

^{page 146 note 1} Cf. Montmorency to Aumale, Monterreau, 18 Mar. 1550:‘… une lettre de monsieur de Marillac qui ne contient autre chose que le inpirement des affaires des Anglois en Angleterre et comme ilz tumbent de jour a autre en plus grande necessite, si esse que jusques ceste heure il n'este encores riens venu de noz depputez deppuis l'arrivee par devers eulx de monsieur d'Andelot’ (B.N., Clairambault 342, f. 119); same to same, Vallery, 18 Mar. 1550, announcing d'Andelot's arrival with the peace terms (Mémoires de Guise, 27Google Scholar); the terms are ‘sy honnorable et avantageuse pour nostre maistre et la Royne d'Escosse que l'on n'y sçauroit mieulx faire’.

^{page 147 note 1} A description of the signing ceremony is to be found in a letter of Antonio Guidotti to Antonio Gondi, sieur du Perron, from the ‘Gran Forte’, dated 25 Mar. 1550: ‘et per essere mons. della Rochapot un poco malato delle sue gotte, questa pace se è conclusa et sottoscritta in camera del detto signore, quale ne ha fatto dipoi gran chiera, et à questi signori Deputati et se io vi dicessi la satisfattion di questi Anglesi sarrei troppo prolisso, et cosi il contenuto d'una lettera che ha scritto ultimamente il Christianissimo Re a questi suoi, gli ha ancora corroborati et satisfatti assai, havendo inteso la buona mente et openione de Sua Maiestà Christianissima, et io ho caro 500 scudi che li Deputati habbino letta detta lettera alli nostri, et à mia richiesta li detti Deputati dattomene copia, quale mandero questa notte in Anghilterra a signor conte de Vuarvich che la legga al nostro Re perche detta lettera affirma et fortifica il mio tanto alto dire che ho fatto co'l consiglio d'Anghilterra per farli capaci che Sua Maiestà Christianissima è per essere non tanto amico ma protettore di quel Re et regno.’ (Modena, A.S., Francia B 27m fasc. 1. This is not signed but its origin is made clear by Alvarotti's despatch of 2 Apr., ibid fasc.2)

^{page 147 note 2} A proclamation in the same words as no.56, ii, though issued in La Rochepot's name, AA 12, ff.230–1.

^{page 148 note a} esperant le Roy que ceste paix deleted

^{page 148 note b} one word illegible

^{page 148 note c} et en acquerir de nouveaulx deleted

^{page 148 note d} one word illegible

^{page 149 note 1} An exact copy of this proclamation was sent by La Rochepot to Amiens with his letter of 25 Mar. (no.54) and published there on 28 Mar. (Amiens, Archives municipales, AA 12, ff.230v–231r). It was headed: ‘De par monseigneur de La Rochepot’ etc. For the text and description of its publication at Paris, cf. Guerin, , Régistres, iii. 201–2.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} Accompanied by other dispatches of the same date: from Saint-André and Aumale to the Regent Marie, Balcarres Papers, ed. M. Wood (Scottish History Soc., 1925), ii, nos. 55 and 56Google Scholar; from Henry II, Miscellany of the Maitland Club, i(2), ed. Denniston, J. and Macdonald, A. (Edinburgh, 1834), 233.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note a} Illegible

^{page 152 note 1} The earl of Huntingdon and lord Cobham, with Sir John Wallop, English commissioners to receive the hostages.

^{page 152 note 2} Mayenne wrote from Edinburgh on 18 May describing his reception in England, cf. Mémoires de Guise, 39.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} The rapidity with which the large sum of 200,000 livres was assembled for the first payment is an interesting phenomenon. The main method used was, in effect, forced loans. On 31 Mar. the crown conceded the auction of duties on salt and wine in Paris, used to raise an income of 7,500 livres p.a. necessary to service a loan for the 90,000 livres demanded by the crown from Paris towards the English payment. This was registered by the Parlement of Paris on 2 Apr. A.N., K 957, no.23^i–2, cf. Guerin, Rigistres, iii. 197, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 2} There was a large stock of artillery and shot in Boulogne (for a list of 1547–8, cf. Kenyon, J. R., ‘Ordnance and the king's fortifications in 1547–48’, Arckaeologia, cvii (1982), 194–7Google Scholar. Considerably less was left behind in Apr. 1550, cf, the annexe to the treaty, no. 53, B.

^{page 155 note 1} For La Rochepot's and Coligny's act accepting Boulogne, cf. Rymer, , Foedera xv. 228–9Google Scholar, no.63. Cf. also Henri II to La Marck, 26 Apr. 1550, B.N. fr.20441 f.79.

^{page 156 note 1} This is a 16th-century copy taken from a volume of Marillac's register, now missing, which ran from Nov. 1549 to July 1550. From this, the writer says ‘i’ en ay coppie iij pieces.’ The earlier part of Marillac's register is in B.N., fr.3098 and 3099.

^{page 156 note 2} The English deputies were Lord Cobham, William Petre and John Mason, the new ambassador to France. For their commission, cf. B.L., Harley MS 284, ff.76–7.

^{page 157 note a} Illegible

^{page 157 note 1} Henri II made his entry into Boulogne on 15 May and despatched Coligny and the other envoys on 19th.

^{page 157 note 2} The King's ratification and oath were formalized at Amiens on Thursday, 8 May. Cf. Rymer, , Foedera, xv. 230–233Google Scholar. Cf. also Henri II to d'Urfé, ambassader in Rome, Amiens, 9 May 1550, Gaucheron, R., Autographes de la collection Rothschild, (Paris, 1924) no.81 pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 3} The French mission arrived in London on 21 May, cf. council to Mason, 2 June 1550, P.R.O., S.P. 68/9, pp. 1–4. The ratification took place on 28 May and the meeting described in this document probably followed. For Edward VI's ratification, cf. A.N., J923 no. 12 bis (on display in Musée des Archives).

^{page 157 note 4} Jean Pot, sieur de Chémault, a relative of the constable (through his marriage to a d'Humières). He held the office of prévôt de l'ordre du Roy and was a member of the king's household (B.N., Clairambault 813). He had already been employed on several diplomatic missions but never as resident ambassador. After spending much of 1548 in Italy, he was sent to the emperor in Aug. 1549 in order to explain the attack on Boulogne (for his instructions, Montreuil, 18 Aug. 1549, cf. B.N., fr. 3099, pp. 118–20).

^{page 158 note 1} The loss of the archives was a great problem for the restored municipality of Boulogne in that records of its tax privileges were difficult to obtain. The echevinage took steps, on 16 Jan. and 31 Aug. 1551, to recover copies from the court (Boulogne, archives municipales, 1013 ff. 8v and 12r). For an account of how the English soldiers burned the archives in 1544, cf. de Rosny, A., ‘Enquete faicte en 1578’, Mémoires de la Société Académique de Boulogne-sur-Mer, xxvii (1912), 363–4.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 1} Cf. also the comments in Montmorency to the Regent Marie, Boulogne, 20 May 1550, Balcarres Papers, ed. M. Wood (Scottish History Soc., 1925), ii, no. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} Nicholas Wotton had been ambassador in France, 1546–9, and had taken the post of king's secretary after the coup against Somerset.

^{page 161 note 1} Dunglass was in Scottish hands by 13 May, when d'Oysel wrote to Marie de Guise from the fort. Cf. Balcarres Papers, ii, no. 48. Roxburgh and Eyemouth were not in fact handed over until the treaty of Norham in June 1551 (cf. English instructions, Apr. 1551, Cal. of State Papers … Scotland and Mary Quern of Scots, i, no. 371 and Rymer, , Foedera xv, 265).Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 1} On the queen-dowager's visit to France, Sept. 1550 to Oct. 1551, cf. Marshall, R., Mary of Guise (1977), 183–95.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 1} The nature of these documents is discussed in the introduction. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are all connected with Coligny and no. 3 was probably a copy sent to him. The first three concern negotiations for the clarification of the 1546 treaty and other matters arising from the refusal of Henri II to ratify the abortive treaty negotiated by baron de La Garde on 11 Mar. 1547 (Léonard, F., Receuil des Traitez de Paix (Paris, 1693), ii. 465–8).Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 2} Coligny at this time was inspecting the frontier. On 11 June he reported on a visitation of the sources of the Liane river, B.N., fr. 6637, ff. 293–4.

^{page 164 note 1} The refusal of Henri II to ratify the treaty took place some time after 19 Apr. (when Wotton, the English ambassador, was told by the conseil prive that inquiries were being made—B.N., fr. 18153, f. 3) and 9 June, date of the next document.

^{page 165 note 1} The only surviving dispatch addressed to de Selve during his embassy in England, 1546–9. The document was probably sent to Coligny for reference in some dealings with the English on the frontier.

^{page 165 note 2} François de Scépeaux, sieur de Vielleville, special envoy to England in May 1547 to reassure the English that Henri II would observe the 1546 treaty but to call for the demolition of recent fortifications. Cf. Potter, D. L., ‘Diplomacy in the mid-16th century’ (Cambridge Ph.D. thesis, 1973), 165–7.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 1} This is not the only evidence of this particular abortive enterprise against Boulogne. (Other such plans are indicated by documents in B.N., fr. 3127, dating from 1548–9, copies in B.L., Egerton MS 2, ff. 107–11.) In Apr. 1548, two spies sent out to Normandy and Brittany reported that near Abbeville they met a Frenchman who ‘declared howe he was one of the nomber that was appointed to surprise Bolloyne but they were frustrate of their purpose because they came to late by halfe an houre of that tyme that was prescribed them, which thing he lamented sayinge that the towne shoulde by one of the captaines that is it in it [sic.]’ (B.L., Harley MS 353, f. 43r).

^{page 169 note a} Illegible

^{page 170 note a–a} passage deleted

^{page 172 note 1} Although damage to this document means that its ascription to Guidotti is conjectural, enough remains of the signature, along with the content, to make the indentification certain. Cf. Potter, , ‘Treaty’, 57.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 2} For the general context of these documents, cf. Potter, D. L., ‘French intrigue in Ireland during the reign of Henri II, 1547–1559’, International History Rev., v (05 1983).Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 1} 18th-century copy of a translation from Latin, originally part of the Fourquecaux archive.

^{page 174 note 1} Raymond de Beccarie de Pavie, baron de Fourquevaux, French captain of Hume castle in Scotland and envoy, with Jean de Monluc, to northern Ireland in late 1549. Cf. Mission de Beccarie de Pavie. Baron de Fourquevaux, en Ecosse 1549, ed. Dickinson, G. (Oxford, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1} This document is headed ‘Copie de certaines lectres d'ung Hyrlandois au roy de France’ and is entirely in cipher except for the final commendation. This is a transcript of the contemporary decipher. It may be surmised that it was written by one of the exiles (possibly Macwilliam) then in Scotland and that it fell into the hands of Renard, then imperial ambassador in France.