Appendix B: Forgery Procured by Mary of Guise
In the writer’s opinion several of Knox’s accusations of perfidy against the Regent, in 1559, are not proved, and the attempts to prove them are of a nature which need not be qualified. But it is necessary to state the following facts as tending to show that the Regent was capable of procuring a forgery against the Duke of Chatelherault. A letter attributed to him exists in the French Archives, 280a dated Glasgow, January 25, 1560, in which the Duke curries favour with Francis II., and encloses his blank bond, un blanc scellé, offering to send his children to France. 280b On January 28, the Regent writes from Scotland to de Noailles, then the French Ambassador to England, bidding him to mention this submission to Elizabeth, and even show the Duke’s letter and blank bond, that Elizabeth may see how little he is to be trusted. Now how could the Regent, on January 28, have a letter sent by the Duke to France on January 25? She must have intercepted it in Scotland. 280c Next, on March 15, 1560, the Duke, writing to Norfolk, denies the letter attributed to him by the French. 280d He said that any one of a hundred Hamiltons would fight M. de Seurre (the French Ambassador who, in February, succeeded de Noailles) on this quarrel. 280e
There exists a document, in the cipher of Throckmorton, English Ambassador in France, purporting to be a copy of a letter from the Regent to the Duc and Cardinal de Guise, dated Edinburgh, March 27, 1560. 280f The Regent, at that date, was in Leith, not in Edinburgh Castle, where she went on April 1. In that letter she is made to say that de Seurre has “very evil misunderstood” the affair of the letter attributed to Chatelherault. She had procured “blanks” of his “by one of her servants here” (at Leith) “to the late Bishop of Ross”; the Duke’s alleged letter and submission of January 25 had been “filled up” on a “blank,” the Duke knowing nothing of the matter.
This letter of the Regent, then, must also, if authentic, have been somehow intercepted or procured by Throckmorton, in France. It is certain that Throckmorton sometimes, by bribery, did obtain copies of secret French papers, but I have not found him reporting to Cecil or Queen Elizabeth this letter of the Regent’s. The reader must estimate for himself the value of that document. I have stated the case as fairly as I can, and though the evidence against the Regent, as it stands, would scarcely satisfy a jury, I believe that, corrupted by the evil example of the Congregation, the Regent, in January 1560, did procure a forgery intended to bring suspicion on Chatelherault. But how could she be surprised that de Seurre did not understand the real state of the case? The Regent may have explained the true nature of the affair to de Noailles, but it may have been unknown to de Seurre, who succeeded that ambassador. Yet, how could she ask any ambassador to produce a confessed forgery as genuine?
Footnotes
0a Inventories of Mary, Queen of Scots, p. cxxii., note 7.
0b Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 320-324.
2a Probably Mrs. Knox died in her son’s youth, and his father married again. Catholic writers of the period are unanimous in declaring that Knox had a stepmother.
2b Knox, Laing’s edition, iv. 78.
4 See Young’s letter, first published by Professor Hume Brown, John Knox, vol. ii. Appendix, 320-324.
5 Laing, in his Knox, vi. xxi. xxii.
6 Knox, i. 36-40. The facts are pointed out by Professor Cowan in The Athenæum, December 3, 1904, and had been recognised by Dr. Hay Fleming.
7 Beza, writing in 1580, says that study of St. Jerome and St. Augustine suggested his doubts. Icones Virorum Doctrina Simul ac Pietate Illustrium.
9 Pollen, Papal Negotiations with Mary Stuart, 428-430, 522, 524, 528.
10 Knox, vi. 172, 173.
12 Letter of Young to Beza. Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 322-24.
15a Cf. Life of George Wishart, by the Rev. Charles Rodger, 7-12 (1876).
15b Maxwell, Old Dundee, 83, 84.
17 M‘Crie’s Knox, 24 (1855).
18a “Letter to the Faithful,” cf. M‘Crie, Life of John Knox, 292.
18b Knox, vi. 229.
19 M‘Crie, 292.
20 Dr. Hay Fleming has impugned this opinion, but I am convinced by the internal evidence of tone and style in the tract; indeed, an earlier student has anticipated my idea. The tract is described by Dr. M‘Crie in his Life of Knox, 326-327 (1855).
22 Most of the gentry of Fife were in the murder or approved of it, and the castle seems to have contained quite a pleasant country-house party. They were cheered by the smiles of beauty, and in the treasurer’s accounts we learn that Janet Monypenny of Pitmilly (an estate still in the possession of her family), was “summoned for remaining in the castle, and assisting” the murderers. Dr. M‘Crie cites Janet in his list of “Scottish Martyrs and Prosecutions for Heresy” (Life of Knox, 315). This martyr was a cousin, once removed, of the murdered ecclesiastic.
23a Knox, Laing’s edition, i. 180.
23b Knox, i. 182. “The siege continued to near the end of January.” “The truce was of treacherous purpose,” i. 183.
24 Knox, i. 203-205.
25a Thorpe’s Calendar, i. 60; Register Privy Council, i. 57, 58; Tytler, vi. 8 (1837).
25b State Papers, Scotland, Thorpe, i. 61.
25c Bain, Calendar of Scottish Papers, 1547-69, i. I; Tytler, iii. 51 (1864).
26a Bain i. 2; Knox, i. 182, 183.
26b For the offering of the papal remission to the garrison of the castle before April 2, 1547, see Stewart of Cardonald’s letter of that date to Wharton, in Bain’s Calendar of Scottish Papers, 1547-69, i. 4-5.
27a John Knox, i. 80.
27b State Papers, Domestic. Addenda, Edward VI., p. 327. Lord Eure says there were twenty galleys.
27c Odet De Selve, Correspondence Politique, pp. 170-178.
28 Knox, i. 201.
30a Leonti Strozzio, incolumitatem modo pacti, se dediderunt, writes Buchanan. Professor Hume Brown says that Buchanan evidently confirms Knox; but incolumitas means security for bare life, and nothing more. Lesley says that the terms asked were life and fortune, salvi cum fortunis, but the terms granted were but safety in life and limb, and, it seems, freedom to depart, ut soli homines integri discederent. If Lesley, a Catholic historian, is right, and if by discederent he means “go freely away,” the French broke the terms of surrender.
30b Knox, i. 206, 228.
33a Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 261.
33b Ibid., 158.
33c Ibid., 156, 157.
35 Compare the preface, under the Restoration, to our existing prayer book.
36a Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 98-136.
36b Knox, iii. 122.
37a Knox, iii. 297.
37b Ibid., iii. 122.
38a Knox, iii. 280-282.
38b Lorimer, i. 162-176.
39 But, for the date, cf. Hume Brown, John Knox, i. 148; and M‘Crie, 65, note 5; Knox, iii. 156.
40a Knox, iii. 120.
40b Laing, Knox, vi. pp. lxxx., lxxxi.
40c Pollen, The Month, September 1897.
43 Knox, iii. 366.
45 Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 259.
47a Original Letters, Parker Society, 745-747; Knox, iii. 221-226.
47b M‘Crie, 65 (1855); Knox, iii. 235.
48 Knox, iii. 184.
49a Knox, iii. 309.
49b Ibid., iii. 328, 329.
49c Ibid., iii. 194.
54 cf. Hume Brown, ii. 299, for the terms.
56 John Knox, i. 174, 175; Corp. Ref., xliii. 337-344.
58 For the Frankfort affair, see Laing’s Knox, iv. 1-40, with Knox’s own narrative, 41-49; the letters to and from Calvin, 51-68. Calvin, in his letter to the Puritans at Frankfort, writes: “In the Anglican Liturgy, as you describe it, I see many trifles that may be put up with,” Prof. Hume Brown’s rendering of tolerabiles ineptias. The author of the “Troubles at Frankfort” (1575) leaves out “as you describe it,” and renders “In the Liturgie of Englande I see that there were manye tollerable foolishe thinges.” But Calvin, though he boasts him “easy and flexible in mediis rebus, such as external rites,” is decidedly in favour of the Puritans.
60 Knox i. 244.
62a Knox, i. 245, note I.
62b Ibid., iv. 245.
66 I conceive these to have been the arguments of the party of compromise, judging from the biblical texts which they adduced.
67 Knox, i. 247-249.
71a Knox, i. 92.
71b Ibid., iv. 75-84.
73 Knox; iv. 238-240.
74 We shall see that reformers like Lord James and Glencairn seem, at this moment, to have sided with Mary of Guise.
76a Knox, i. 267-270.
76b Corpus Reformatorum, xlvi. 426.
77a More probably by Calvin’s opinion.
77b Knox, iv. 248-253; i. 267-273.
78 Stevenson, Selected MSS., pp. 69, 70 (1827); Bain, i. 585; Randolph to Cecil, January 2, 1561.
80a Knox, iv. 255-276.
80b Ibid., i. 273, 274.
81a Knox, i. 275, 276.
81b Ibid., i. 273, 274.
83 Knox, iv. 501, 502.
84 Knox, iv. 358. Zurich Letters, 34-36.
85 Knox, iv. 486, 488.
87a Wodrow Miscellany, vol. i.
87b Here the “Historie of the Estate” is corroborated by the Treasurer’s Accounts, recording payment to Rothesay Herald. He is summoning George Lovell, David Ferguson (a preacher, later minister of Dunfermline), and others unnamed to appear at Edinburgh on July 28, to answer for “wrongous using and wresting of the Scriptures, disputing upon erroneous opinions, and eating flesh in Lent,” and at other times forbidden by Acts of Parliament (M‘Crie, 359, note G). Nothing is here said about riotous iconoclasm, but Lovell had been at the hanging of an image of St. Francis as early as 1543, and in many such godly exercises, or was accused of these acts of zeal.
87c “Historie of the Estate of Scotland,” Wodrow Miscellany, i. 53-55.
88a Knox, i. 301.
88b Knox appears (he is very vague) to date Calder’s petition after Willock’s second visit, which the “Historie of the Estate of Scotland” places in October 1558. Dr. M‘Crie accepts that date, but finds that Knox places Calder’s petition before the burning of Myln, in April 1559. Dr. M‘Crie suggests that perhaps Calder petitioned twice, but deems Knox in the right. As the Reformer contradicts himself, unless there were two Calder petitions (i. 301, i. 307), he must have made an oversight.
88c Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. Appendix, 301-303.
88d Knox, i. 301-306
89a Knox, i. 294, 301-312. On p. 294 Knox dates the Parliament in October.
89b Knox, i. 309-312.
90a Knox, i. 312-314.
90b See Laing’s edition, i. 320, 321.
91 Wodrow Miscellany, i. 55.
92a M‘Crie, Knox, 359, 360.
92b Knox, i. 306, 307.
93a Knox, i. 307.
93b “Historie,” Wodrow Miscellany, i. 55, 56.
93c Knox, i. 312-314.
94a “Historie,” Wodrow Miscellany, 56.
94b Melville, 76, 77 (1827).
But Professor Hume Brown appears to be misled in saying that Bettencourt, or Bethencourt, did not reach Scotland till June (John Knox, i. 344i note i), citing Forbes, i. 141. Bethencourt “passed Berwick on April 13” (For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 214) to negotiate the Scottish part in the peace, signed at Upsettlington (May 31). Bethencourt would be with the Regent by April 15, and he may have confirmed her in summoning the preachers who defied her proclamations, though, with or without his advice, she could do no less.
95a Pitscottie, ii. 523.
95b State Papers, Borders, vol. i. No. 421 MS.
96a Affaires Etrangéres, Angleterre, vol. xv. MS.
96b Forbes, 97; Throckmorton to Cecil, May 18.
96c For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 272.
97 Melville, 80.
98a Statuta, &c. Robertson, vol. i. clv-clxii.
98b Book of Discipline. Knox, ii. 253, 254.
99a M‘Crie, 360.
99b The Regent’s account of the whole affair, as given by Francis and Mary to the Pope, is vague and mistily apologetic. (Published in French by Prof. Hume Brown, ii. 300-302.) The Regent wrote from Dunbar, July 1559, that she had in vain implored the Pope to aid her in reforming the lives of the clergy (as in 1556-57). Their negligence had favoured, though she did not know it (and she says nothing about it in 1556-57), the secret growth of heresy. Next, a public preacher arose in one town (probably Paul Methuen in Dundee) introducing the Genevan Church. The Regent next caused the bishops to assemble the clergy, bidding them reform their lives, and then repress heresy. She also called an assembly of the Estates, when most of the Lords, hors du conseil et à part, demanded “a partial establishment of the new religion.” This was refused, and the Provincial Council (of March 1559) was called for reform of the clergy. Nothing resulted but scandal and popular agitation. Public preachers arose in the towns. The Regent assembled her forces, and the Lords and Congregation began their career of violence.
100 As to Knox’s account of this reforming Provincial Council (Knox, i. 291, 292), Lord Hailes calls it “exceedingly partial and erroneous... no zeal can justify a man for misrepresenting an adversary.” Bold language for a judge to use in 1769! Cf. Robertson, Statuta, i. clxii, note I.
101 Knox, v. 15-17.
102a Knox, v. 207, 208.
102b Ibid., v. 229.
102c Ibid., v. 420, 421.
Ibid., v. 495-523. [This footnote is provided in the original book but isn’t referenced in the text. DP.]
104 John Knox and the Church of England, 215-218.
105 Knox, ii. 460, 461. We return to this point.
107 Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium Majoris Brit. Catalogus Poster., p. 219 (1559). Knox, i. 258-261.
108a Dieppe, April 10-April 22, 1559. Knox, vi. 15-21.
108b Desmarquets, Mem. Chronol. Jour. l’Hist, de Dieppe, i. 210.
109a Corp. Ref., xlv. (Calv., xvii.) 541.
109b Naissance de l’Hérésie à Dieppe, Rouen, 1877, ed. Lesens.
111 Knox, i. 321-323.
112 Knox, vi. 23.
113a Corpus Reformatorum, xlvi. 609, xlvii. 409-411, August 13, 1561.
113b The learned Dr. M‘Crie does not refer to this letter to Mrs. Locke, but observes: “None of the gentry or sober part of the congregation were concerned in this unpremeditated tumult; it was wholly confined to the lowest of the inhabitants” (M‘Crie’s Life of Knox, 127, 1855). Yet an authority dear to Dr. M‘Crie, “The Historie of the Estate of Scotland,” gives the glory, not to the lowest of the inhabitants, but to “the brethren.” Professor Hume Brown blames “the Perth mob,” and says nothing of the action of the “brethren,” as described to Mrs. Locke by Knox. John Knox, ii. 8.
117 Theses of Erastus. Rev. Robert Lee. Edinburgh, 1844.
120 Knox, i. 341,342; vi. 24. Did the brethren promise nothing but the evacuation of Perth?
121a “Historie,” Wodrow Miscellany, i. 58.
121b Knox, i. 343, 344. The Congregation are said to have left Perth on May 29. They assert their presence there on May 31, in their Band.
122 Edinburgh Burgh Records.
123a But see Knox, i. 347-349. Is a week (June 4 to June 11) accidentally omitted?
123b Writing on June 23, Knox dates the “Reformation” “June 14.” His dates, at this point, though recorded within three weeks, are to me inexplicable. Knox, vi. 25.
124 Keith, i. 265, note.
125a Lesley, ii. 443, Scottish Text Society.
125b For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 367.
126a Knox, vi. 26.
126b Ibid., i. 355.
126c Wodrow Miscellany, i. 60.
127a Knox, vi. 26.
127b See Scottish Historical Review, January 1905, 121-122, 128-130.
131 Bain, i. 215.
133a For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 278. Erroneously dated “May 24” (?).
133b Bain, i. 216-218; For. Cal. Eliz., ut supra, 335, 336.
133c Archives Etrangéres, Angleterre, vol. xv. MS.
133d For. Cal. Eliz., 336; Knox, i. 359, 360.
134 Knox, i. 360-362.
135a Knox dates the entry of the Reformers into Edinburgh on June 29. But he wrote to Mrs. Locke from Edinburgh on June 25, probably a misprint. The date June 29 is given in the “Historie.” Knox dates a letter to Cecil, “Edinburgh, June 28.” The Diurnal of Occurrents dates the sack of monasteries in Edinburgh June 28.
135b Wodrow Miscellany, i. 62; Knox, i. 366, 367, 370.
135c Knox, i. 363; cf. Keith, i. 213, 214; Spottiswoode, i. 280, 281.
136a Knox, i. 363-365; For. Cal. Eliz., 337.
136b Teulet, i. 338-340.
137a Bain, i. 218; For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 339. 340.
137b Knox, vi. 45.
138 In Dr. Hay Fleming’s The Scottish Reformation (p. 57), he dates the Regent’s proclamation July 1. He omits the charge that, as proof of their disloyalty, “they daily receive Englishmen with messages, and send the like into England” (Knox, i. p. 364). “The narrative of the proclamation, Knox says, is untrue,” Dr. Hay Fleming remarks; but as to the dealing with England, the Reformer confessed to it in his “History,” Book III., when he could do so with safety.
139a Knox, i. 365.
139b Spottiswoode, i. 282.
139c Teulet, i. 331. The Regent’s instructions to Du Fresnoy.
141 Teulet, i. 334, 335, citing Archives Etrangéres, Angleterre, xiv. (xv.?), f. 221 (see the English translation), For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 406, 407; Keith, i. 220, 221; Spottiswoode, i. 285, 286.
142a Extracts from Edinburgh Town Council Records, July 29, 1559; Keith, i. 487-489.
142b Cf. Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 30.
143a Knox, i. 376-379. The italicised articles are not in the other versions of the terms as finally settled; cf. “Historie,” Wodrow Miscellany, i. 55-57.
143b Ibid., i. 379.
144a Knox, i. 380.
144b Sloane MSS., British Museum, 4144, 177b, 4737f, 100b. For. Cal. Eliz. 1558-59, 411.
145a Knox, i. 381.
145b My italics.
146 (Kyrkcaldy to Croft.)
“Theis salbe to certiffy you vpon monday the xxiii of Jully the quene and the lordis of the congregation are agreit on this maner as followeth. The armies beying boythe in Syghte betuix Eddingburght and Lietht or partye adversaire send mediatoris desyring that we sall agree and cease frome sheddinge of blude yf we wer men quhilkis wold fulfill in deid that thing quhilk we proffessit, that is the preachyng of godis worde and furth settyng of his glorye. Me lordis of the congregation movet by thare offres wer content to here commonyng. So fynallye after long talke, It is appointted on this maner. That the Religion here begoon sall proceid and contenew in all places wt owt impedement of the quenes authoretie, thare minesters sall neyther be trubillit nor stopped and in all places whare ydolletre is put downe sall not be cett vp agane. And whill the parlement be haldin to consele vpon all materes wch is fixit the x day of Januarye nixt, every man sall leive to his conscience not compellit be authoretye to do any thyng in religion yt his conscience repugnes to. And to this said parlement ther sall no man of or congregation be molested or trobillit in thair bodeis landis goodis possessions what someevir. Further wt all dilligent spede ther frenche men here present salbe send awaye. And sall no other cum in this Realme w owt consent of the hole nobilite. The towne of Eddingburght salbe keipit fre by the inhabitantes thairof and no maner of garnission laid or keip thair In, neyther of frenche nor scottis. For our part we sall remove of Eddingburght to or awne houssis, yt the quene may come to hir awne palyce, wch we tuke of before and hathe left it voyde to hir G. We have delyvered the prentyng yrunes of the coyne agayne wch we tuke becaus of the corruption of monye agaynst our laws and commonwealthe. Off truthe we believe nevir worde to be keipit of thir promises of her syde. And therfore hath tane me lord duke the erll of Huntlye and the rest of the nobillitye beying vpon hir syde bound to the performance hereof wt this condition yf sche brekkes any point heirof they sall renunce hir obeysance and joyne them selfis wt vs. In this meane-tyme we contenew or men of warr to gydder wt in or boundis of Fyfe, Angus, Stretherin and Westland, in aduenture the appointtment be broken, and dowtes not to mak vs daily stronger for by the furthe settying of religion and haittred of the frenche men we gett the hartis of the hole commonalties. Nowe to conclude yf it had not bene for some nobillmens causis who hes promised to be owres we hade not appointted wt the quene at this tyme. From hens forwardis send to the lard of Ormiston who will se all saifly conveyed to me. Thvs I commit you to god from Eddingburght the xxiiii of Jully yoris at power
(W. KYRKCALDY).” 147
147 MS. Record Office; cf. For. Cal. Eliz., 1558 59, 408, 409.
148a Knox, i. 379, 380.
148b Ibid., i. 381.
149a Knox, vi. 53.
149b Ibid., i. 397-412. The Proclamation, and two Replies.
149c My italics.
150 Knox, i. xxvi.; vi. 87.
151a Knox, i. 392, 393.
151b Ibid., i. 382.
152a Knox, ii. 15-38.
152b Ibid., vi. 56-59.
153 S. P. Scotland, Elizabeth, MS. vol. i. No. 80; cf. Bain, i. 236, 237. Croft to Cecil, Berwick, August 3, 1559.
154a For. Cal. Eliz., 470.
154b I assume that he was the preacher at Edinburgh in d’Oysel’s letter of June 30-July 2, 1559. Teulet, i. 325.
155 Sadleir to Cecil, September 8, 1559. For. Cal. Eliz., 543, 1558-1559. The fortification, says Professor Hume Brown, “was a distinct breach of the late agreement” (of July 24), “and they weir not slow to remind her” (the Regent) “of her bad faith.” The agreement of July 24 says nothing about fortifying. The ingenious brethren argued that to fortify Leith entailed “oppression of our poor brethren, indwellers of the same.” Now the agreement forbade “oppression of any of the Congregation.” But the people of Leith had “rendered themselves” to the Regent on July 24, and the breach of treaty, if any, was “constructive.” (John Knox, ii. 47; Knox, i. 413, 424-433.)
158a The evidence as to these proceedings of the brethren is preserved in the French archives, and consists of testimonies given on oath in answer to inquiries made by Francis and Mary in November 1559.
158b We have dated Lethington’s desertion of the Regent about October 25, because Knox says it was a “few days before our first defeat” on the last day in October. M. Teulet dates in the beginning of October a Latin manifesto by the Congregation to all the princes of Christendom. This document is a long arraignment of the Regent’s policy; her very concessions as to religion are declared to be tricks, meant to bring the Protestant lords under the letter of the law. The paper may be thought to show the hand of Lethington, not of Knox. But, in point of fact, I incline to think that the real author of this manifesto was Cecil. He sketches it in a letter sent from the English Privy Council in November 15, 1559. This draft was to be used by the rebels in an appeal to Elizabeth.
159 Knox, vi, 89, 90; M‘Crie, 143.
160a Bothwell states the amount at 3000 écus de soleil. French Archives MS.
160b Knox, i. 472.
161a Sadleir to Cecil, Nov. 15, 1559. For. Cal. Eliz., 1559-60, 115.
161b Labanoff, vii. 283.
163 Knox, vi. 105-107.
164 See Appendix B.
165a Corp. Ref., xlv. 645 (3118, note I).
165b Calvinus Sturmio, Corp. Ref., xlvi. 38, 39, March 23, 1560. Sturmius Calvino, ibid., 53-56, April 15.
166a Bain, i. 389, 390; For. Cal. Eliz., 1559-60, 604.
166b Knox, ii. 68; cf. the Regent’s letter. Bain, i. 389.
167a The date may be part of an interpolation.
167b This account is from the French Archives MS., Angleterre, vol. xv.
168 Knox, ii. 72.
169 It is an inexplicable fact that, less than a month before Glencairn and Lord James signed the first godly Band (December 3, 1557), these two, with Kirkcaldy of Grange, “were acting with the Queen-Dowager against Huntly, Chatelherault, and Argyll,” who in December signed with them the godly Band. The case is thus stated by Mr. Tytler, perhaps too vigorously. It appears that, after the refusal of the Lords to cross Tweed and attack England, in the autumn of 1557, the Regent, with the concurrence of Glencairn, Lord James, and Kirkcaldy of Grange, proposed to recall from exile in England the Earl of Lennox, father of Darnley. He, like the chief of the Hamiltons, had a claim to the crown of Scotland, failing heirs born of Mary Stuart. Lennox, therefore, would be a counterpoise to Hamilton and his ally in mutiny, Argyll. Thus Lord James and Glencairn, in November 1557; support the Regent against the Hamiltons and Argyll, but in December Glencairn, reconciled to Argyll, signs with him the godly Band. We descry the old Stewart versus Hamilton feud in these proceedings.
170 Knox, ii. 87, note.
172 Knox, ii. 89-127.
174a Randolph to Cecil, September 7; Bain, i. 477, 478.
174b Knox, vi. 83, 84.
174c Knox, vi. lxxxii.
175 M‘Crie, Life of John Knox, 162 (1855).
177a Keith, iii. 4-7.
177b Bain, i. 461.
177c Cf. Edinburgh Burgh Records.
182 Knox, ii. 193.
186 Queen Mary’s Letter to Guise, p. xlii., Scottish History Society, 1904.
191a Lesley, ii. 454 (1895).
191b See Lord James to Throckmorton, London, May 20, a passage quoted by Mr. Murray Rose, Scot. Hist. Review, No. 6, 154. Additional MSS. Brit. Mus., 358, 30, f. 117, 121. Lord James to Throckmorton, May 20-June 3, 1561.
191c Bain, i. 540, 541.
191d Lord James to Dudley, October 7, 1561, Bain, i. 557.
192 Pollen, Papal Negotiations, 62.
193a Knox, ii, 266.
193b Bain, ii. 543.
194 Bain, ii. 547.
195 Knox, ii. 276, 277.
196 Knox, vi. 131.
197 Knox, ii. 279, 280.
199 Tracts by David Fergusson, Bannatyne Club, 1860.
200a Bain, i. 551, 552.
200b Lord James to Lord Robert Dudley, October 7, 1561. Bain, i. 557, 558. Lethington’s account of his reasonings with Elizabeth is not very hopeful. Pollen, “Queen Mary’s Letter to Guise,” Scot. Hist. Soc., 38-45.
201a Bain, i. 565.
201b Knox, vi. 131, 132; ii. 289.
201c The proclamation against “all monks, friars, priests, nuns, adulterers, fornicators, and all such filthy persons,” was of October 2. On October 5 the Queen bade the council and community of the town to meet in the Tolbooth, depose the Provost and Bailies, and elect others. On October 8 the order was carried out, and protests were put in. A note from Lethington was received, containing three names, out of which the Queen commanded that one must be Provost. The Council “thought good to pass to her Grace,” show that they had already made their election, and await her pleasure. “Jezebel’s letter and wicked will is obeyed as law,” says Knox.—Extracts from Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, 126, 127.
202 Knox, vi. 133-135. Corp. Refor., xlvii. 74.
203a Corp. Refor., xlvii. 114, 115.
203b Bain, i. 582, 583.
203c Ibid., i. 491. Randolph to Cecil.
205 Bain, i. 565, 566.
206a Froude, iii. 265-270 (1866).
206b Knox, vi. 83.
207a Knox, vi. 11-14.
207b Bain, i. 569. Randolph to Cecil, November 11.
207c Ibid., i. 568-570.
208a There was a small guard, but no powerful guard existed till after Riccio’s murder.
208b Bain, i. 575. Randolph to Cecil, December 7.
208c Ibid., i. 571.
209 It is plain from Randolph (Bain, i. 575) that the precise feared that Mary, if secured by the English alliance, would be severe with “true professors of Christ.”
210 Keith, iii. 384, 385.
211a Knox, ii. 300-313. Pollen, “Mary’s Letter to the Duc de Guise,” xli.-xlvii.
211b Bain, i. 568, 569.
211c Ibid., i. 585. Randolph to Cecil, January 2, 1562.
212a There is an air of secrecy in these transactions. In the Register of the Privy Seal, vol. xxxi. fol. 45 (MS.), is a “Precept for a Charter under the Great Seal,” a charter to Lord James for the Earldom of Moray. The date is January 31, 1560-61. On February 7, 1560-61, Lord James receives the Earldom of Mar, having to pay a pair of gilded spurs on the feast of St. John (Register of Privy Seal, vol. xxx. fol. 2). Lord James now bore the title of Earl of Mar, not, as yet—not till Huntly was put at—of Moray.
212b Dr. Hay Fleming quotes Randolph thus: “The Papists mistrust greatly the meeting; the Protestants as greatly desire it. The preachers are more vehement than discreet or learned.” (Mary Queen of Scots, p. 292, note 35, citing For. Cal. Eliz., iv. 523.) The Calendar is at fault and gives the impression that the ministers vehemently preached in favour of the meeting of the Queen. This was not so, Randolph goes on, “which I heartily lament.” He uses the whole phrase, more than is here given, not only on January 30, but on February 12. Now Randolph desired the meeting, so the preachers must have “thundered” against it! They feared that Mary would become a member of the Church of England, “of which they both say and preach that it is little better than when it was at the worst” (Bain, i. 603).
212c Keith, ii. 139.
213 The Teviotdale Ormistouns of that ilk.
214a In Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials is Arran’s report of Bothwell’s very words, vol. i., part 2, pp. 462-465.
214b Bain, i. 613, 614.
215a Bain, i. 618, 619.
215b Knox, ii. 330.
215c Ibid., ii. 330, 331.
215d Cf. Baird, The Rise of the Huguenots, ii. 21 et seq.
216a Bain, i. 627. Randolph to Cecil, May 29.
216b Cf. Froude, vi. 547-565.
216c “Book of Discipline,” Knox, ii. 228.
216d M‘Crie, 187.
217a Knox, ii. 330-335.
217b Bain, i. 673.
217c Randolph mentions the joy of the Court over some Guisian successes against the Huguenots, then up in arms, while Mary was on her expedition against Huntly, in October 1562. On December 30 he says that there is little dancing, less because of Knox’s sermons than on account of bad news from France. Bain, i. 658, 674.
Dr. Hay Fleming dates the wicked dance in December 1562, but of course that date was not the moment when “persecution was begun again in France,” nor would Mary be skipping in December for joy over letters of the previous March. Mary Queen of Scots, 275.
218 Knox, vi. 140, 141.
219a Keith, iii. 50, 51.
219b Bain, i. 630.
219c Lesley, ii. 468.
219d Knox, vi. 193.
220a Knox, ii. 337-345.
220b Hay Fleming, Mary Queen of Scots, 301.
221a Knox, ii. 347.
221b Act Parl. Scot., ii. 572.
221c Bain, i. 665.
221d Bain, i. 668.
222a Chalmers, in his Life of Queen Mary, vol. i. 78-96 (1818), takes the view of the Huntly affair which we adopt, but, observing the quietly obtained title of Moray under the Privy Seal (January 30, 1561-62) and the publicly assumed title of Mar, granted on February 7, 1561-62, Chalmers (mistaking Huntly for a loyal man) denounces the treachery of Lord James and the “credulity” of the Queen. To myself it appears that brother and sister were equally deep in the scheme for exalting Moray and destroying Huntly.
222b Cf. Pollen, Papal Negotiations, 163, 164.
222c Knox, ii. 346.
222d Ibid., ii. 358.
223a Bain, i. 675.
223b Froude, ii. 144 (1863).
224a Registrum de Panmure, i.-xxxii., cited by Maxwell; Old Dundee, 162. Book of the Universal Kirk, 26.
225a Knox, ii. 364-367; ii. 531, 532; Keith, iii. 140, 141.
225b Spanish Calendar, i. 314.
225c Bain, i. 684-686.
225d Knox, ii. 367-369.
226a Knox, ii, 370.
226b Bain, i. 686.
226c Ibid., i. 687.
226d Knox, li. 361; Bain, i. 693. Lethington’s argument against Lennox’s claim, March 28, 1563.
227a Knox, ii. 371.
227b Bain, ii. 7.
228a Knox, ii. 370-377.
228b Ibid., ii. 377-379.
228c Bain, ii. 9, 10.
229a Knox, ii. 381.
229b Ibid., ii. 387-389.
231a Bain, ii. 24.
231b Ibid., ii. 25.
231c Spanish Calendar, i. 338.
231d Bain, ii. 19, 20.
232a Bain, ii. 26; Knox, ii. 393, 394.
232b Hume Brown, Scotland under Queen Mary, p. 99.
232c Pitcairn, Criminal Trials, i. 434.
232d Dr. M‘Crie accepts, like Keith, a story of Spottiswoode’s not elsewhere found (M‘Crie, 204), but innocently remarks that, as to the brawl in chapel, Spottiswoode could not know the facts so well as Knox! (p. 210). Certainly twenty-two attendants on the Mass were “impanelled” for trial for their religious misdemeanour. Knox, ii. 394, note I.
233a Knox, ii. 397.
233b Randolph to Cecil; Bain, ii. 28, 29.
233c Knox, ii. 399-401.
234a Keith, ii. 210. The version in Bain, ii. 30, is differently worded.
234b Knox, ii. 403.
235 Knox, ii. 399-415.
236 Pitcairn, Criminal Trials, i. 434, 435.
237a Randolph, December 31; Bain, ii. 33; Knox, ii. 415.
237b Randolph, February 19, 1564; Bain, i. 113, 125.
237c Knox, ii. 415, note 3.
238 Knox, ii. 417-419.
239 Bain, i. 680; ii. 54.
240 Knox, ii. 291, 292.
241a Lethington spoke merely of “controversies” (Knox, ii. 460). I give the confessed meaning of the controversy.
241b Compare Knox, ii. 291, as to the discussion at Makgill’s house in November 1561.
241c Knox, ii. 460, 461.
242a Original Letters, Parker Society, Bullinger to Calvin, March 26, 1554, pp. 744-747.
242b Knox, ii. 441, 442.
243a The very programme of the General Assembly for the treatment of Catholics, in November 1572. See p. 269 infra.
243b Knox, v. 462-464.
244a Knox, ii. 441.
244b Ibid., ii. 442, 443.
246 Randolph to Cecil, February 27, 1565; Bain, ii. 128.
247a Knox, ii. 497.
247b Ibid., vi. 224, 225.
248a Knox, vi. 273; ii. 499.
248b Ibid., ii. 514.
248c Ibid., vi. 402.
249a Book of the Universal Kirk, 34.
249b Knox, vi. 416.
249c Bain, ii. 254, 255.
249d Stevenson, Selections, 153-159.
250a Papal Negotiations, xxxviii.-xliii.
250b Keith, ii. 412-413.
250c Knox, ii. 524.
251a Knox, i. 235.
251b Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 231.
252a Randolph to Cecil, March 21, 1566. Bain, ii. 269, 270. Diurnal, March 17, 1566. Knox’s prayer, Knox, vi. 483, 484.
252b Bain, ii. 269, 270.
252c See Calvin’s letter of January 24 or April 1, 1564, Corpus Reformatorum, xlviii. 244-249.
253a Life of Knox, 235, note 3; cf. Knox, ii. 533.
253b Burnet, History of the Reformation, iii. 360.
253c Knox, ii. 544-560.
254a Knox, vi. 545-547.
254b State Papers, Mary, Queen of Scots, vol. xiii., No. 20, MS.
256a Book of the Universal Kirk, 61-67.
256b Stevenson, Illustrations of the Reign of Queen Mary, 208.
256c Knox, ii. 563.
257a Stevenson, 221.
257b Ibid., 240, July 21.
257c Chalmers’s “Life of Mary,” ii. 487.
258a Knox, vi. 558-561.
258b If born in 1513-15, he was only about fifty-three to fifty-five.
259a Knox, vi. 567.
259b Knox and the Church of England, 230.
259c Strype’s Grindal, 168-179 (1821).
260a Corp. Ref., xlvii. 417, 418.
260b Strype’s Grindal, 507-516.
261a Zurich Letters. 1558-1602, pp. 152-155.
261b Strype’s Grindal, 180. Also the letter of Grindal in Ellis, iii. iii. 304
262a Knox, ii. 247-249.
262b Knox and the Church of England, 298-301.
263a Knox, vi. 559.
263b Ibid., vi. 568.
263c M‘Crie, 248.
264a Bannatyne’s Memorials, 5-13 (1836).
264b Calderwood, ii. 515-525.
266 Bannatyne’s Transactions, 70-82. Bannatyne was Knox’s secretary, and fragments dictated by the Reformer appear in his pages.
{267a} Melville’s “Diary,” 20-26.
267b Knox, vi. 606-612.
268a Bannatyne, 223, 224 (1836).
268b Knox, vi. 620-622.
268c Ibid., 236
269a Bannatyne, 268.
269b Ibid., 273.
269c Ibid., 278.
269d John Knox, ii. 282, 283.
270 Cf. Leicester’s letter of October 10, 1574, in Tytler, vii. chap, iv., and Appendix.
271 Tytler, vii. chap. iv.; Appendix xi, with letters.
272a Knox, ii. 356; Bannatyne, 281, 282.
272b Morton to Killigrew, August 5, 1573.
273 Bannatyne, 283-290.
274 There was another Falsyde.
275a See the letter in Maxwell’s Old Dundee, 399-401.
275b Bain’s Calendar is misleading here (vol. i. 202). Why Mr. Bain summarised wrongly in 1898, what Father Stevenson had done correctly in 1863 (For. Cal. Eliz,, p. 263) is a mystery.
276a See the “Prefatio,” Knox, i. 297, 298. In this preface Knox represents the brethren as still being “unjustly persecuted by France and their faction.” The book ends with the distresses of the Protestants in November 1559, with the words, “Look upon us, O Lord, in the multitude of Thy mercies; for we are brought even to the deep of the dungeon.”—Knox, i. 473.
276b Knox, vi. 22, 23.
276c M‘Crie’s Knox, 360.
277a Knox, i. 317-319.
277b Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 6.
277c John Knox, ii. 4.
277d Scot. Hist. Review, January 1905.
278a Lesley, ii. 40, Scottish Text Society, 1895.
278b In the French Archives MS., Angleterre, vol. xv.
279a Melville, 79 (1827).
279b Spottiswoode, i. 320.
279c Keith, i. 493, 494 (1835).
280a Angl. Reg., xvi., fol. 346.
280b Teulet, i. 407.
280c Ibid., i. 410.
280d For. Cal. Eliz., 1559-60, p. 453.
280e Ibid., p. 469.
280f Ibid., p. 480.