The Congregation refused to let Argyll and Lord James hold conference with the Regent. Other discussions led to no result, except waste of time, to the Regent's advantage; and, on July 22, Mary, in council with Lord Erskine, Huntly, and the Duke, resolved to march against the Reformers at Edinburgh, who had no time to call in their scattered levies in the West, Angus, and Fife. Logan of Restalrig, lately an ally of the G.o.dly, surrendered Leith, over which he was the superior, to d'Oysel; and the Congregation decided to accept a truce (July 23-24).

At this point Knox's narrative becomes so embroiled that it reminds one of nothing so much as of Claude Nau's attempts to glide past an awkward point in the history of his employer, Mary Stuart. I have puzzled over Knox's narrative again and again, and hope that I have disentangled the knotted and slippery thread.

It is not wonderful that the brethren made terms, for the "Historie"

states that their force numbered but 1500 men, whereas d'Oysel and the Duke led twice that number, horse and foot. They also heard from Erskine, in the Castle, that, if they did not accept "such appointment as they might have," he "would declare himself their enemy," as he had promised the Regent. It seems that she did not want war, for d'Oysel's French alone should have been able to rout the depleted ranks of the Congregation.

The question is, What were the terms of treaty? for it is Knox's endeavour to prove that the Regent broke them, and so justified the later proceedings of the Reformers. The terms, in French, are printed by Teulet. {141} They run thus:--

1. The Protestants, not being inhabitants of Edinburgh, shall depart next day.

2. They shall deliver the stamps for coining to persons appointed by the Regent, hand over Holyrood, and Ruthven and Pitarro shall be pledges for performance.

3. They shall be dutiful subjects, except in matters of religion.

4. They shall not disturb the clergy in their persons or by withholding their rents, &c., before January 10, 1560.

5. They shall not attack churches or monasteries before that date.

6. The town of Edinburgh shall enjoy liberty of conscience, and shall choose its form of religion as it pleases till that date.

7. The Regent shall not molest the preachers nor suffer the clergy to molest them for cause of religion till that date.

8. Keith, Knox, and Spottiswoode, add that no garrisons, French or Scots, shall occupy Edinburgh, but soldiers may repair thither from their garrisons for lawful business.

The French soldiers are said to have swaggered in St. Giles's, but no complaint is made that they were garrisoned in Edinburgh. In fact, they abode in the Canongate and Leith.

Now, these were the terms accepted by the Congregation. This is certain, not only because historians, Knox excepted, are unanimous, but because the terms were either actually observed, or were evaded, on a stated point of construction.

1. The Congregation left Edinburgh.

2. They handed over the stamps of the Mint, Holyrood, and the two pledges.

3. 4, 5. We do not hear that they attacked any clerics or monastery before they broke off publicly from the treaty, and Knox (i. 381) admits that Article 4 was accepted.

6. They would not permit the town of Edinburgh to choose its religion by "voting of men." On July 29, when Huntly, Chatelherault, and Erskine, the neutral commander of the Castle, asked for a plebiscite, as provided in the treaty of July 24, the Truth, said the brethren, was not a matter of human votes, and, as the brethren held St. Giles's Church before the treaty, under Article 7 they could not be dispossessed. {142a} The Regent, to avoid shadow of offence, yielded the point as to Article 6, and was accused of breach of treaty because, occupying Holyrood, she had her Ma.s.s there. Had Edinburgh been polled, the brethren knew that they would have been outvoted. {142b}

Now, Knox's object, in that part of Book II. of his "History," which was written in September-October 1559 as a tract for contemporary reading, is to prove that the Regent was the breaker of treaty. His method is first to give "the heads drawn by us, which we desired to be granted." The heads are--

1. No member of the Congregation shall be troubled in any respect by any authority for the recent "innovation" before the Parliament of January 10, 1560, decides the controversies.

2. Idolatry shall not be restored where, on the day of treaty, it has been suppressed.

3. Preachers may preach wherever they have preached and wherever they may chance to come.

4. No soldiers shall be in garrison in Edinburgh.

5. The French shall be sent away on "a reasonable day" and no more brought in without a.s.sent of the whole n.o.bility and Parliament. {143a}

These articles make no provision for the safety of Catholic priests and churches, and insist on suppression of idolatry where it has been put down, and the entire withdrawal of French forces. Knox's party could not possibly denounce these terms which they demanded as "things unreasonable and unG.o.dly," for they were the very terms which they had been asking for, ever since the Regent went to Dunbar. Yet, when the treaty was made, the preachers did say "our case is not yet so desperate that we need to grant to things unreasonable and unG.o.dly." {143b} Manifestly, therefore, the terms actually obtained, as being "unreasonable and unG.o.dly," were _not_ those for which the Reformers asked, and which, _they publicly proclaimed_, had been conceded.

Knox writes, "These our articles were altered, and another form disposeth." And here he translates the terms as given in the French, terms which provide for the safety of Catholics, the surrender of Holyrood and the Mint, but say nothing about the withdrawal of the French troops or the non-restoration of "idolatry" where it has been suppressed.

He adds, "This alteration in words and order was made" (so it actually _was_ made) "without the knowledge and consent of those whose counsel we had used in all cases before"--clearly meaning the preachers, and also implying that the consent of the n.o.ble negotiators for the Congregation _was_ obtained to the French articles.

Next day the Congregation left Edinburgh, after making solemn proclamation of the conditions of truce, in which they omitted all the terms of the French version, except those in their own favour, and stated (in Knox's version) that all of their own terms, except the most important, namely, the removal of the French, and the promise to bring in no more, had been granted! It may be by accident, however, that the proclamation of the Lords, as given by Knox, omits the article securing the departure of the French. {144a} There exist two MS. copies of the proclamation, in which the Lords dare to a.s.sert "that the Frenchmen should be sent away at a reasonable date, and no more brought in except by a.s.sent of the whole n.o.bility and Parliament." {144b}

Of the terms really settled, except as regards the immunity of their own party, the Lords told the public not one word; they suppressed what was true, and added what was false.

Against this formal, public, and impudent piece of mendacity, we might expect Knox to protest in his "History"; to denounce it as a cause of G.o.d's wrath. On the other hand he states, with no disapproval, the childish quibbles by which his party defended their action.

On reading or hearing the Lords' proclamation, the Catholics, who knew the real terms of treaty, said that the Lords "in their proclamation had made no mention of anything promised to _them_," and "had proclaimed more than was contained in the Appointment;" among other things, doubtless, the promise to dismiss the French. {145a}

The brethren replied to these "calumnies of Papists" (as Calderwood styles them), that they "proclaimed nothing that was not _finally_ agreed upon, _in word and promise_, betwixt us and those with whom the Appointment was made, _whatsoever their scribes had after written_, {145b} who, in very deed, had altered, both in words and sentences, our Articles, _as they were first conceived_; and yet if their own writings were diligently examined, the self same thing shall be found _in substance_."

This is most complicated quibbling! Knox uses his ink like the cuttle- fish, to conceal the facts. The "own writings" of the Regent's party are before us, and do not contain the terms proclaimed by the Congregation.

Next, in drawing up the terms which the Congregation was compelled to accept, the "scribes" of the Regent's party necessarily, and with the consent of the Protestant negotiators, altered the terms proposed by the brethren, but not granted by the Regent's negotiators. Thirdly, the Congregation now a.s.serted that "_finally_" an arrangement in conformity with their proclamation was "agreed upon _in word and promise_"; that is, verbally, which we never find them again alleging. The game was to foist false terms on public belief, and then to accuse the Regent of perfidy in not keeping them.

These false terms were not only publicly proclaimed by the Congregation with sound of trumpets, but they were actually sent, by Knox or Kirkcaldy, or both, to Croft at Berwick, for English reading, on July 24.

In a note I print the letter, signed by Kirkcaldy, but in the holograph of Knox, according to Father Stevenson. {146} It will be remarked that the genuine articles forbidding attacks on monasteries and ensuring priests in their revenues are here omitted, while the false articles on suppression of idolatry, and expulsion of the French forces are inserted, and nothing is said about Edinburgh's special liberty to choose her religion.

The sending of this false intelligence was not the result of a misunderstanding. I have shown that the French terms were perfectly well understood, and were observed, except Article 6, on which the Regent made a concession. How then could men professionally G.o.dly venture to misreport the terms, and so make them at once seem more favourable to themselves and less discouraging to Cecil than they really were, while at the same time (as the Regent could not keep terms which she had never granted) they were used as a ground of accusation against her?

This is the point that has perplexed me, for Knox, no less than the Congregation, seems to have deliberately said good-bye to truth and honour, unless the Lords elaborately deceived their secretary and diplomatic agent. The only way in which I can suppose that Knox and his friends reconciled their consciences to their conduct is this:

Knox tells us that "when all points were communed and agreed upon by mid- persons," Chatelherault and Huntly had a private interview with Argyll, Glencairn, and others of his party. They promised that they would be enemies to the Regent if she broke any one jot of the treaty. "As much promised the duke that _he_ would do, if in case that she would not remove her French at a reasonable day . . . " the duke being especially interested in their removal. But Huntly is not said to have made _this_ promise--the removal of the French obviously not being part of the "Appointment." {148a}

Next, the brethren, in arguing with the Catholics about their own mendacious proclamation of the terms, said that "we proclaimed nothing which was not _finally_ agreed upon, _in word and promise_, betwixt us and those with whom the Appointment was made. . . . " {148b}

I can see no explanation of Knox's conduct, except that he and his friends pacified their consciences by persuading themselves that non-official words of Huntly and Chatelherault (whatever these words may have been), spoken after "all was agreed upon," cancelled the treaty with the Regent, became the real treaty, and were binding on the Regent! Thus Knox or Kirkcaldy, or both, by letter; and Knox later, orally in conversation with Croft, could announce false terms of treaty. So great, if I am right, is a good man's power of self-persuasion! I shall welcome any more creditable theory of the Reformer's behaviour, but I can see no alternative, unless the Lords lied to Knox.

That the French should be driven out was a great point with Cecil, for he was always afraid that the Scots might slip back from the English to the old French alliance. On July 28, after the treaty of July 24, but before he heard of it, he insisted on the necessity of expelling the French, in a letter to the Reformers. {149a} He "marvels that they omit such an opportunity to help themselves." He sent a letter of vague generalities in answer to their pet.i.tions for aid. When he received, as he did, a copy of the terms of the treaty of July 24, in French, he would understand.

As further proof that Cecil was told what Knox and Kirkcaldy should have known to be untrue, we note that on August 28 the Regent, weary of the perpetual charges of perfidy anew brought against her, "ashamed not,"

writes Knox, to put forth a proclamation, in which she a.s.serted that nothing, in the terms of July 23-24, forbade her to bring in more French troops, "as may clearly appear by inspection of the said Appointment, which the bearer has presently to show." {149b}

Why should the Regent have been "ashamed" to tell the truth? If the bearer showed a false and forged treaty, the Congregation must have denounced it, and produced the genuine doc.u.ment with the signatures. Far from that, in a reply (from internal evidence written by Knox), they admit, "neither do we _here_ {149c} allege the breaking of the Appointment made at Leith (which, nevertheless, has manifestly been done), but"--and here the writer wanders into quite other questions.

Moreover, Knox gives another reply to the Regent, "by some men," in which they write "we dispute not so much whether the bringing in of more Frenchmen be violating of the Appointment, which the Queen and her faction cannot deny to be manifestly broken by them in more cases than one," in no way connected with the French. One of these cases will presently be stated--it is comic enough to deserve record--but, beyond denial, the brethren could not, and did not even attempt to make out their charge as to the Regent's breach of truce by bringing in new, or retaining old, French forces.

Our historians, and the biographers of Knox, have not taken the trouble to unravel this question of the treaty of July 24. But the behaviour of the Lords and of Knox seems characteristic, and worthy of examination.

It is not argued that Mary of Guise was, or became, incapable of worse than dissimulation (a case of forgery by her in the following year is investigated in Appendix B). But her practices at this time were such as Knox could not throw the first stone at. Her French advisers were in fact "perplexed," as Throckmorton wrote to Elizabeth (August 8). They made preparations for sending large reinforcements: they advised concession in religion: they waited on events, and the Regent could only provide, at Leith (which was jealous of Edinburgh and anxious to be made a free burgh), a place whither she could fly in peril. Meantime she would vainly exert her woman's wit among many dangers.

Knox, too, was exerting his wit in his own way. Busied in preaching and in acting as secretary and diplomatic agent to the Congregation as he was, he must also have begun in or not much later than August 1559, the part of his "History" first written by him, namely Book II. That book, as he wrote to a friend named Railton {150} on October 23, 1559 (when much of it was already penned), is meant as a defence of his party against the charge of sedition, and was clearly intended (we reiterate) for contemporary reading at home and abroad, while the strife was still unsettled. This being so, Knox continues his policy of blaming the Regent for breach of the misreported treaty of July 24: for treachery, which would justify the brethren's attack on her before the period of truce (January 10, 1559) ran out.

One clause, we know, secured the Reformers from molestation before that date. Despite this, Knox records a case of "oppressing" a brother, "which had been sufficient to prove the Appointment to be plainly violated." Lord Seton, of the Catholic party, {151a} "broke a chair on Alexander Whitelaw as he came from Preston (pans) accompanied by William Knox . . . and this he did supposing that Alexander Whitelaw had been John Knox."

So much Knox states in his Book II., writing probably in September or October 1559. But he does not here say what Alexander Whitelaw and William Knox had been doing, or inform us how he himself was concerned in the matter. He could not reveal the facts when writing in the early autumn of 1559, because the brethren were then still taking the line that they were loyal, and were suffering from the Regent's breaches of treaty, as in the matter of the broken chair.