Spain: August 1550, 16-31 | British History Online

Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 10, 1550-1552. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1914.

Citation:

'Spain: August 1550, 16-31', in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 10, 1550-1552, ed. Royall Tyler( London, 1914), British History Online https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol10/pp156-167 [accessed 27 November 2024].

August 1550, 16–31



Aug. 16. Brussels, E.A. 125.	The Bishop of Arras to the Queen Dowager.
	The Bishop informs the Queen Dowager that the Emperor is writing to urge her to come to Augsburg to join him and the King of the Romans. Her counsel is required on no less a matter than Prince Philip's candidature to the Empire. The King of the Romans is opposed to it, and claims the high honour for himself and his son. (fn. 1) The Emperor knows that the Queen is employed in very important matters, but has decided after mature deliberation to request her to come, as the point to be settled at Augsburg outweighs all other considerations. There is already some talk at Augsburg, so the Queen had better let it be known that she is going to consult the Emperor on business connected with the Low Countries. The following passage is translated in full:—
	Few of the Council (i.e. the Emperor's Council of State) really know how the Princess Mary's affairs stand, so that point is touched upon as your Majesty will see. But the Emperor has instructed me to write separately to you to say that, were it not that your Majesty has gone so far in your denials, combating their assertions that Scepperus went to see the Princess by night and in disguise, he would willingly have taken the responsibility himself, and would have been able to tell the English that, seeing how they used her, he had sent to persuade her to avail herself of the opportunity, but that she had refused out of fear of offending her brother. But as the matter has been handled otherwise, he adopts your Majesty's view, and will write as your letters suggest to his ambassador on the point of religion.
	Augsburg, 16 August, 1550.
	Holograph. French.
Aug. 17. Besancon, Collection Granvelle, 71.	The Queen Dowager to the Emperor.
	The French ambassador (Bassefontaine) lately demanded audience, and began by saying that the King, his master, thanked me warmly for the safe-conduct I had granted the Queen-Dowager of Scotland. He, for his part, offered me his kingdom and everything in it to dispose of as I might choose, and assured me I should always find him full of neighbourly feelings and affection. He had sent a gentleman to Scotland to cause the envoy, who had been chosen to treat with your Majesty, to start at once. But when the said gentleman arrived in Scotland, he was told by the Queen Dowager and Regent that their envoy had intended to embark to come hither, but had heard that your Majesty's ships were at sea looking out for the Scots and had attacked the Isle of May, so he had decided to go by way of England. He had sent to England to ask for a safe-conduct, according to the usage observed of old between Scots and English, even when at peace. However, as the safe-conduct might be some time in coming, the Queen Dowager and Regent had sent to him (Bassefontaine) a power to conclude a truce with me, pending the arrival of their envoy, who might soon be expected, for he would not lose time once the safe-conduct had come. Bassefontaine said he would show me the power, so that I might decide what was to be done.
	At the same time he also showed me a letter written to his master by the French ambassador in Scotland, saying he had been instructed to read it to me. It contained an account of the delay in the Scots envoy's coming, as above, and asserted that he would be on his way hither as soon as he could obtain his safe-conduct in England. It also stated that, from July 4th to 24th, your ships had committed several outrages on the Scots at sea, and behaved with inhuman cruelty, though since the King of France had told them not to go forth against your Majesty's subjects, two months ago, the Scots had not done so. Bassefontaine was to beg me to put a stop to these practices; and this he did, requesting me to order our ships not to molest the Scots.
	I replied, my Lord, that I had been glad to send a safe-conduct to the Queen Dowager for the King of France's sake. I would rejoice in doing much more for him whenever the occasion might arise, well knowing that I would thus afford your Majesty great pleasure.
	The Scots envoy, I said, had been wrong to defer his journey for fear of our ships. He had a safe-conduct, and might be sure he would have met with friendly treatment from the said ships even if he had run into them, for their captains had been informed of the granting of his safe-conduct, and told to observe it, which they certainly would have done. As for the power of which he spoke, if he would deliver it to me I would have it examined, and would depute M. de Praet and President St. Mauris to treat with him of the means for arriving at a truce.
	As for the letter he had shown me, I told him that your warships had almost all returned to Zeeland by the 12th of July. Others had remained at sea a little longer, but all had since been in port, so it seemed likely to be untrue that they had done the Scots so much harm during July, as the letter stated. On the other hand, I had received advices from several quarters that the Scots had attacked your subjects, not only in July but during the present month. I would have information submitted to him, by which he should see the wrongs that had been inflicted upon your subjects, for whose protection I would be in duty bound to send your ships to sea again. However, I had issued definite orders to the captains not to attack the Scots on a mere presumption that their intentions also were hostile, but only to fall upon pirates, were they to meet them, and drive away any who might attack your subjects. And this, my Lord, is the sum of what passed with the ambassador.
	He afterwards showed me the above-mentioned power, and I am sending your Majesty a copy that has been collated with the original. It has been examined in Council, and there appear to be several difficulties about treating with him. First, it clearly declares that the Queen of Scotland gives a power to the King of France's ambassador resident with your Majesty to conclude a truce in her name;so obviously Bassefontaine, who is ambassador with me, has no authority to conclude one. The other point is that it states that if a truce is agreed to, it shall run until next May inclusive, so long a term that one can only take it the real object of the truce is to put off a peace, and make sure that your warships shall be disarmed in the meantime, in order to make war again in the spring if the French feel like it. In the same power there is another clause, which recites that the Queen of Scotland wishes her abettors, confederates and friends to be included in the truce. If looks very much as if they thus wished to include the King of France, so that if we were hereafter to break with the Scots, they might claim that we were also breaking with the King of France. This point is of importance, and we must be careful to have it cleared up if we really treat with the Scots: namely, whether or no war with one country would mean war with the other.
	Besides, a blank was left in the power where the ambassador's name was to go, and Bassefontaine is quite well enough known for them to have put him in, had they wished him to treat.
	There is yet another clause, my Lord, in which the said Queen promises to agree to whatever the ambassador may treat with your Majesty as to the truce, which shows that he who resides at your court is meant. Just after this there is an omission of words: “to treat with his Majesty and those . . .,” without stating who, though it certainly ought to be specified.
	We have caused the above points to be underlined in the copy of the power, so that they may be seen at a glance. The difficulties, particularly the fact that Bassefontaine really has no power, are so great that the Council are of opinion that I may refuse to treat with him, invoking that one reason. So I summoned him and told him what had been settled.
	He replied that he had expected me to raise that point, but he begged me to consider that as he was ambassador here he ought to be considered ambassador with your Majesty, for I represented your Majesty, and he was ambassador with me in that capacity. Moreover, it was said that the King of France's ambassador might conclude a truce with me, for he resided here. He insisted on this point, and declared it to the Councillors then present, saying he had sufficient power because, though here, he was ambassador to your Majesty whom I, as Regent, represented.
	It was replied to him that the power might not so be interpreted, for the words said the opposite. It was not at all the same thing to reside with me, and with your Majesty, and he must know that the King, his master, had sent him to me, as his letters of credence might bear witness. When princes treated together, powers must be so clear as to admit of no subsequent difficulty, and he must be aware that his master had another ambassador with your Majesty, who was a person quite distinct from himself.
	He then said that his master was anxious to have the truce concluded in order to stop hostilities while peace negotiations should be in progress. It would be a bad beginning if the Scots ambassadors on their arrival were to find that the power to conclude a truce had been rejected as insufficient, for the said ambassadors had a power to conclude a peace, but not a truce, as it had been supposed that the other power would be sufficient, and that the truce would be an accomplished fact by their arrival.
	I replied, my Lord, that if the ambassadors came it would take no longer to conclude a peace with them than a truce. Moreover, he knew I had already told him I would command your warships not to attack the Scots, either by sea or by land, as long as the Scots would also abstain from violence, as he assured me they would do. This would amount to a truce, if both sides would keep the bargain. After Bassefontaine had gone, my Lord, he sent back once more to know if I still persisted in regarding him as not sufficiently empowered, for he wished to inform his master. I caused President St. Mauris to reply that I saw nothing to move me to set aside the Council's opinion. If the King was so eager about the truce, let him send the power to Marillac to conclude it with your Majesty, which would be the shortest way out of the difficulty.
	I also instructed the President to obtain from Bassefontaine a copy of the letter he had shown me, in order to be certain about the assurance contained in it that the Scots would not attack your subjects, and with the intention of taking steps to insure similar forbearance here. He obtained it, and the ambassador said he thought the King would not be willing to send the power to your Majesty without consulting the Queen Dowager of Scotland, for she and the Regent had supposed the truce was to be concluded here. He also told the President that he saw quite clearly that I believed they were trying to obtain a truce only, and really did not desire to conclude a peace; for my remarks, to the effect that it would be as easy to make a peace as a truce, revealed my thoughts. However, I was entirely mistaken, for the King and the Scots desired a peace; and with this he showed the President a letter from the King, in two paragraphs of which he said that the Scots ambassadors were on their way, coming to France by the post, and that as soon as they arrived he would send them off to us. He added he feared the King and the Scots might be irritated by the rejection of the power to conclude a truce, and might leave things in suspense, which he (Bassefontaine) would be sorry to see because of his zeal in the cause of peace. It was true many Scotsmen said war was as profitable to them as peace could be; but the King rebutted such arguments, and greatly desired to reinstate Scotland once more in the friendship of the Low Countries.
	He added, my Lord, that he would like to know whether, if your Majesty's warships were to inflict any injuries upon the Scots, I would cause any property taken to be restored, and damages paid. He offered similar treatment on behalf of Scotland, and said he made the proposal because, whatever prohibitions might be issued, it was to be expected there would be some trouble, for fighting men, and particularly those who sailed the seas, often did more than was required of them. This fact had recently been illustrated by the attacks made by our ships on the Isle of May, which had deterred the Scots ambassadors from embarking, though they had safe-conducts.
	He also told the President that he had heard I was soon to go away, and would like to know what was to be done with the Scots ambassadors (in my absence). He desired some explanations: how long I was to remain here, and whether negotiations could be opened with the Scots after my departure. The King, hearing I was going, might detain the said ambassadors in France in order that they might not waste their time, unless he had more information on this point. He also said he hardly thought the King would wish to send them on to your Majesty, for there they would be so far away from Scotland as to be unable to send home for instructions were any difficulties to arise, and their power to treat might well state that the negotiations were to take place in this country. However, he would await my instructions, and if I desired to leave the principal negotiation to your Majesty, let me inform him of my wishes. He would transmit them to his master;and he cordially hoped good results might be obtained, either here or at your Majesty's court.
	Since, my Lord, he desired to know what the Scots were to look for from your ships, claiming as he does that they have already been assailed by them, and might be again, wherefore the ambassadors had been unwilling to come by sea, I thought the affair important enought to warrant ordering the Council to give a written statement, from which a verbal reply should be made to Bassefontaine. This was done by the President, who also told him I would cause the King to receive more detailed information through your ambassador in France, to whom I have written to keep to the terms of the statement, no more and no less, as your Majesty may see by the copy of my letters. The reply given verbally to Bassefontaine ran as follows:
	The Scots ambassadors had no cause to fear your Majesty's ships, as they had a safe conduct. Besides, since he (Bassefontaine) had been advised of their return to port, the ships had not gone out to sea.
	The Scots, however, had gone on daily committing depredations. Only a few days back, a ship flying banners with the Scottish arms on them had attacked a boat from Flushing, killed one man, wounded three or four more, and also assailed another fishing boat. In view of this, I had no other means of protecting your Majesty's subjects than to send your ships back to sea to shelter them from the pirates' outrages. But as Bassefontaine said the Scots ambassadors were near, and assured us on his master's behalf that the Scots had recalled their warships and would not allow them to harm your Majesty's subjects, I would do the same, and command your ships to do no more than was stated above. Were my orders to be disobeyed, the transgressors should be punished.
	As for the last point, I was as yet uncertain when I should go. As soon as I knew, he should be informed; and he might write to speed the Scots envoys on their way, for I would leave orders for negotiations to be held with them, even were I myself not present.
	Bassefontaine told the President that he was very glad to know my intentions as to the last point, and assured him the ambassadors would soon be here.
	Binche, 17 August, 1550.
	Signed. French. Printed by Weiss, Documents Inédits, Vol. III.
Aug. 17. Vienna, Imp. Arch. F. 29.	Jehan Scheyfve to the Queen Dowager.
	Madam: In obedience to the instructions contained in your Majesty's letters of the 4th of this month, I sent my man secretly to see the Lady Mary. He explained to her what had taken place concerning her, so that she might better know how to regulate her own conduct.
	The Lady Mary was very glad to learn it, and thanked your Majesty for the great honour and benevolence shown to her; and she expressed herself eternally obliged to the Emperor's Majesty and yours. Since I last wrote she had not been molested again in the matter of going to court, but she was apprehensive that fresh pressure might be put upon her.
	In answer to your Majesty's letters of the 11th, I made application to my Lords of the Council to recover certain moneys proceeding from the sale of sugar seized heretofore by the English; and I asked if the fact that goods belonging to the enemy were found on vessels belonging to friends, were sufficient to warrant the confiscation of the whole.
	Madam, during the last few days certain Spanish merchants came here to tell me that in April last my late predecessor had agreed with the Council that the said merchants might recover some sugar, cloth, alum, and other goods with which certain French vessels were laden, or the money which was paid down as a guarantee for their recovery. The English maintained that the goods had been sold. The merchants then requested that the bills of sale and accounts should be submitted to them, so that the amount of the guarantee required might be ascertained from the quantity of goods sold and the price they fetched. But nothing was done in the matter. They have applied to me, asking me to represent the case to the Council and request that the course (formerly) agreed upon may now be adopted. I did so, and dwelt especially on the letters from my predecessor, the late M. Van der Delft, to the Emperor, dated April 22nd, which I found to express agreement and acquiescence on the part of the Council. They promised to take steps in the matter, at my first request that they should do so, when I alleged the above-mentioned reasons. I repeated my request, as nothing was done;and they replied that the release did not include the price fetched by the cloth and sugar, but that the guarantee was accepted for the sugar and cloth that remained unsold, an estimate of which should be duly drawn up. I replied that it was set forth in my predecessor's letters that they had agreed that all the goods, sugar, cloth, alum and other merchandise seized by the English and still in their possession should be estimated and valued by persons qualified for the purpose;that the value of the goods already sold should be deducted from the sum paid as a guarantee on the basis of the said valuation. The merchants were then to have the option of receiving back their goods and the money paid down as surety, or leave the goods in the hands of the English for the price at which they were estimated. They persisted in maintaining the contrary. The merchants then produced for my inspection papers relating to a partial transaction which had been carried through since, on the basis then arranged, and I found it to be in all respects accurate. The guarantee covered only such goods as were not sold or alienated, which were to be valued and estimated;but no part of it was intended to cover the price brought by the sale of goods, or any estimate thereof. This proviso or act,—I am sending a copy to your Majesty, (fn. 2) —seems to have been drawn up in these terms because they were aware that all the goods were sold, or at least all the sugar and cloth;because, too, it would be difficult for the merchants to adduce their evidence, and therefore the effect of the said act or proviso would be annulled. The result obtained would be a complete frustration and mockery of the contents of my predecessor's letters, which would be set entirely at nought. I enclose copies of them to your Majesty. (fn. 3) He also told me, as I well remember, that the agreement arrived at with the Council would serve as a basis and precedent for the settlement of analogous cases. I had intended to bring the subject forward on the first opportunity, as I perceived that matters were not as they represented them; but they have seen fit to anticipate my action. As to Ambassador Chamberlain's declaration to your Majesty that the Emperor's subjects ought to be satisfied with what they had received—(he called them “Frenchmen” to help his main contention)—they did not know what he could have been referring to. They affirmed that nothing was returned to them. Your Majesty may know their (the Council's) habitual manner of doing business and my position here. As for those cases which they wish to bring before their Admiralty Court, to be settled by their ancient laws, observed for the last two hundred years, I may observe that if their intentions were sincere, there would be no need to harass one's self in seeking provisional remedies or hope of mending matters a little by prolonged disputation; the law would decide. The chief consideration, namely, the legal aspect of the case, and the wish to please your Majesty and the Emperor would solve the question. I have inquired into the exact condition of the law in this respect as far as I have been able to do. I can inform your Majesty that it appears that, in 1452, during King Henry VI's reign, it was ordered by statute generally, that all goods and property found on the enemy's vessels should be confiscated. I am sending an extract of the said statute, so that your Majesty may see it. Nevertheless I understand that the statute was never observed, especially in the case of your Majesty's subjects;though they have tried to summon it to their assistance lately. But the greater proportion of the goods seized has been returned to their owners, and this would certainly not have been done if the said law were habitually and punctually carried out, as they aver. It seems to me, Madam, that they would have put forward the claim if it were usual to confiscate goods belonging to the enemy, on friendly vessels;but it was not so, and the said statute does not mention that contingency.
	Madam, it seems to me from what I am able to understand that the Council are setting to work, through their ambassador, to misrepresent my manner of dealing with them to your Majesty. In the first instance, when I sued for the restitution of the Dutch vessels, he described me as demanding it sharply;and now, he refers to my “harsh request” that the (merchants') money should be returned. This tends to place me in an unfavourable light in your Majesty's and his Majesty's sight, and prejudice me. If it appears to your Majesty that I should better serve your Majesty's interest by assuming a different tone, I will obey and put on more amenity and a better countenance. One member of the Council dropped me a hint to that effect while conversing with me.
	I beg to inform your Majesty of another recent occurrence, to show that they seem bent on following the path on which they have started. They tried to compel the agents and merchants, subjects of his Majesty, who were not domiciled here and had no fixed abode, to pay the subsidy and tax recently imposed. I objected to this, being requested by the merchants to do so, on the grounds that it was a breach of rights and in direct contravention of the treaties and Commercial Convention. I reminded them of the freedom and liberty enjoyed by the English overseas, and how well they were treated; and I declared that I should be compelled to inform your Majesty if they attempted to introduce new customs of the sort. They replied that the merchants habitually paid the subsidy, and some of their names were inscribed on the registers;but that last year they had let them off, to please my predecessor. I replied, Madam, that they could never show that any merchant without domicile here had paid the subsidy;it could not be claimed from them, as they were neither citizens nor labourers. They paid customs and other dues on their goods. I could not believe that they could have been exempted last year in order to gratify my predecessor, who had objected as I objected, because they were not bound to pay the subsidy and could not be compelled to do so. They set about issuing letters of dispensation to the said merchants when they perceived how strongly I supported their protest; the letters were made out for the current term, which expires at Michaelmas. Otherwise they had intended to make them pay. I expressly warned the merchants not to accept service of any such letters, as it would be tantamount to an acknowledgment of their not being exempt from the payment, and would give grounds for future molestations. They (the Council) have not insisted further in the matter, though they had taken a contrary determination. I thought it unnecessary to trouble your Majesty with the matter, as it was settled. I am much astonished that they did not have this fact mentioned. (Or: I am much astonished that they went no further: literally, retained this point. Suis bien esbahy quilz ont retenu ce poinct.)
	As to your Majesty's strong recommendations to me that I should do my utmost to further the restitution of the goods plundered from the Dutch vessels, I sent my man to my Lords of the Council at Windsor, to make repeated demands to that effect. They had long ago the list of the names of the pirates, of the receivers and accomplices, and even of those who had purchased the stolen goods. The other day they professed to be waiting for this, after which matters were to go smoothly; and they replied to my secretary that they would set the matter right incontinently. All they have done, as I hear, is simply to write letters to the Admiralty judge. This is not in accordance with their former declarations and promises, or with their own ambassador's reply to your Majesty. Their intention in transferring the matter to the said judge for settlement is obvious; for the subjects of your Majesty will be tracked down and prosecuted without hope of redress. I sent my secretary again to remonstrate with them, and gave him a certain writing to hand over to my Lords of the Council in the hope of obtaining that the restitution might take place without entering into delays of the kind proposed. I added at the end that the application then made should be the last. I enclose a copy of the writing. And it seems to me, saving your Majesty's correction, that it would be useless to make any further applications hereafter, considering what has passed in the matter, and the nature of the case, so evident and plain. Nevertheless, they have tried to put off the restitution once again. It may be feared with very good reason, saving your Majesty's correction, that if we allow this seizure to pass, it may afford them a vantage ground in future, and encourage them to do much worse, and send the cases to be judged by the courts. It appears to me, subject to your Majesty's approval, that you might declare that you do not intend to allow your subjects to be put off in this fashion and sent before the Admiralty Court, particularly in a case of such notoriety as the present one; especially as you have never allowed it in the past. In the present case the Admiralty judge would be witness, counsel and judge, all in one. The Council hope to shift the responsibility from their shoulders by these means; and the subjects of your Majesty would receive whatever treatment followed on the application of any law they chose to invent.
	Madam, I have heard that sailors from Flushing, Antwerp and other places have been assaulted, beaten and ill-used on several occasions by English sailors and others, in the public thoroughfare and even on their own ships, without cause or reason. The English give as their motive that their own countrymen receive the same treatment overseas. I informed the Council so that they might take prompt measures of repression, and I declared that unless this were done, I should have to inform your Majesty. The Lord High Treasurer (fn. 4) replied that their people had been insulted and ill-treated at Antwerp, and we had not been so particular then. My secretary told him that justice was done in our country, and that if the English had been ill-used over there, which he could not believe, order must certainly have been restored by now: while in no case was it licit for individuals to take the law into their own hands. They despatched letters to one of the officials of the Admiralty to inquire into the matter and put it right. But the English went on as before, and I sent my secretary again to the said Lord Treasurer, asking him to arrange matters differently. He replied that members of the Council should not be applied to for such trifling matters, and that my Lords were not to be molested. My secretary answered that the matter was important, and had nothing to do with the Admiralty. But he could get nothing more out of him. I shall not fail to bring this to the notice of the Council.
	The King of England has had some of his old plate melted down. Money is to be coined from it to the sum of 50,000 crowns.
	The two French hostages left recently. M. le Vidame is about to depart to Scotland. Some say he is to take the Queen of Scotland back to France through England; though others do not believe it.
	It seems as if the Council were oftener than they used to be with the French ambassador. French crowns are cried and published here at 21 stooters each. It is held that the payment received from France is the cause of it, and that their value has risen in France too. The Bishop of Durham, Tunstall, was sent for recently to court. They say he was required to sign certain ordinances made here respecting religion. He had refused to do so several times already;and as he persisted in his refusal, he was ordered to withdraw to his house in London and not to stir abroad until further orders. There is reason to suppose and fear that in the long run he will be lodged with the rest in the Tower.
	It is asserted that the Council ordered my Lord Derby to proceed to Newcastle to meet my Lord Warwick and hold communication with him on certain affairs of the King's. They appeared to wish to make some change in the government and give him a share in it. But he feared a trick, and thanked them freely, saying he desired no change to be made and was quite content. It is rumoured that Lord Warwick's object in going to Newcastle was to seize the person of my Lord Derby by force and take him to London by sea.
	It is true that 13 or 14 warships are being made ready at Portsmouth, among which are several good-sized ones. There are three or four in the Thames, well-provided with stores and ammunition. They are to sail about the beginning of September. Some say they are to be sent to Ireland;others think it more likely that they are intended to guard the coast and harbours of England, whither a certain number of troops have been sent, because of English fear of the Emperor.
	Most of the Lords of the Council are away, each one in his own part of the country. They have gone with a fair following, and carry express orders to be on their guard and watch the peasants.
	They say that certain Scots are getting ships in readiness in the West, in the neighbourhood of the Isle of Wight, and of Calais too. They are to be 14 or 15 in all, and to serve for piracy. Four of them are lying ready at Margate, which is at the mouth of the Thames. The captains and two or three mates are Scottish; but the rest are Englishmen.
	It is said that Parliament will not assemble at Michaelmas as usual, but is now prorogued until January next. This is to be published in a few days.
	London, 17 August, 1550.
	Cipher. French. This letter is unsigned, bears no heading, and is placed among the letters from the ambassador in France, Its contents make it certain, however, that it is from Scheyfve.
Aug. 17. Paris, K. 1489.	Simon Renard to the Emperor.
	(Extract.)
	The English merchants, and others who used to live in Antwerp in Flanders are withdrawing in great numbers every day, because of the inquisition lately established there. They say here that if the King of France were so minded, he could secure them by giving them shelter in Rouen at this juncture. . . .
	Translation into Spanish from a French original.
Aug. 22. Vienna, Imp. Arch. E. 1.	Edward VI. to the Emperor.
	We have summoned our very dear and faithful councillor, Mr. Philip Hoby, knight, gentleman of our privy-chamber, and our ambassador resident with you, to return hither, being desirous of employing his services in certain affairs within this realm. We beg you to grant him leave and license so that he may return to us as soon as possible. We are desirous and firmly resolved to do all that may be conducive to the fostering and continuance of our good friendship and ancient alliances, of the confederation and intelligence between us, as formerly between our predecessors. We are therefore sending our very dear and faithful councillor, Mr. Richard Morison, knight, gentleman of our privy-chamber, bearer of the present, to reside at your court in place of the said Sir Philip Hoby.
	We hope he may prove agreeable to you;and we pray you to receive him benignly, and listen to whatever he may have to say to you on our behalf as you would listen to us in person. We beseech you to accord him ready access to your person on all and every occasion when our business or that of our subjects may demand it, and grant benign and favourable audience. We shall not fail to do the like on our side, as the good and perfect friendship between us, our countries and subjects demands.
	Woking, 22 August, 1550.
	Signed original. French.
Aug. 23. Brussels, E.A. 358.	A Minute, signed by the Queen Dowager, for letters patent commissioning Count de Reuil; M. de Praet; Charles, Count de Lalaing; Charles, Seigneur de Berlaymont; Jehan de St. Mauris, Seigneur de Montbarey; and Viglius de Zwichem, or any three or four of them together, to negotiate terms of peace and conclude peace with the Scottish envoys sent for the same purpose. If a truce is found to be advisable, they are empowered to grant one.
	Brussels, 23 August, 1550.
	Minute. French.