‘After this, Kirkcaldy said, that he marvelled that the communication between Sir James Crofts and him, for a truce of certain days to have been made, was not agreed unto; and said the same matter was one of the occasions of his coming to me, to declare his doings therein; whom I answered that the same was not like to take effect by his doings for Scotland, for, they made sundry meetings and countenances for truce, and when their army was ready, did let the matter fall, which gave occasion to be thought in this realm not well done. And after, he revived again that communication, which, without others calling for, and personages for that realm to have been appointed for that purpose, he ought to think the same could not take effect. After this, he asked me, if it could not be brought to a truce yet. I said I had no commission, nor anything to say therein; what he would say, I would hear it. And then he desired mine advice. I told him what I had seen—that Scotland, in war, had sent messages to officers or to noblemen, and thereupon meetings of commissioners did follow, for abstinence, which was had, and after, peace. And I making occasion of other communications, he came to this again, and desired that a herald should be sent to my Lord of Northumberland, Lord Warden, and to me, having some prisoners taken by the garrison here, that gentlemen might be appointed, and treat for the order of prisoners of both realms, as before they did; and at that meeting, the former sayings of Sir James Crofts and him to be spoken of, for a truce for certain days, and to be remembered by the Scots. I asked whom he thought should be appointed (if meeting were had). He said, the Lord Seaton, Captain Sarlabois—to be one because he was one before—the Laird of Craigmillar, and the young Laird of Lethington; or two of them. These are the Dowager’s and great with her. I told him that I could make him no answer; but said, if it were his mind, I would make advertisements of his sayings, which he desired that I would, to my Lords of the King and Queen’s Majesty’s most Honourable Privy Council. He said that Scotland would agree to an abstinence for twenty days or for three months; but, always they mind to have a licence for an especial man to pass through this realm with the Dowager’s letters to the French King for knowledge of his further pleasure to their treaties and doings. And I asking him what news he had, and reasoning of the present state and devices for the order of their realm, he said, that, on Sunday last, the 7th of November, there arrived a ship at Leith, with letters and money from the French King. He said he read a letter written from the said King to d’Oysel, wherein was that he should have all his desires of men and money; and that a letter was written from Bettancourt, Master of the Dowager’s household (who passed from the Dowager to the French King for an aid in summer last) that he with four ensigns and twelve hundred footmen, and two hundred horsemen, were dispatched to come into Scotland by the West Seas, whom continually they look for there. Captain Crayer and the Englishmen in France are appointed to serve in Scotland as he saith. He said that it was written that the French King was in the field with a great army, and intended to besiege St Quentin. He further said that they have three hundred in garrison in Kelso, and that they have in Eyemouth and Ayton, nine hundred, besides three hundred Scots in garrison, and that they mind, having money now come (whereof was great want), to make a more furniture of five hundred Scotts horsemen, himself, the Laird of Ormistone, James Stuart, one Livingstone, and a fifth, whom he could not name, to be their Captains. I told him these were many hundreds he spoke of, if all might be well paid; and said that his news and these would give occasion to think that this realm should not treat of abstinence nor peace. He answered that Monsieur d’Oysel thought the peace would be made between the King’s Highness and the French King, and doubteth nothing thereof, except the Duke of Savoy; and therefore he would that peace should be treated upon here.
‘He saith that they will have a parliament at Saint Andrew’s day to appoint the marriage of the Queen, which, he saith, will be solemnised after Christmas, or at Easter, and not to fail. He saith the going of Monsieur d’Oysel to Edinburgh at this time, is for the order of the money come, which the Dowager and d’Oysel will keep secret so much as they can, because the Scotts will be greedy thereof.’
On this incident, which does not appear to have led to any definite results, Tytler has founded a charge of gross inconsistency against Sir William Kirkcaldy. Even the fragment of Wharton’s report quoted by him contains nothing that can be looked upon as supporting the accusation. An examination of all the documents bearing on the case wholly refutes it. It makes it clear that the main object of the conference was the recall of the Earl of Lennox—a scheme to which Kirkcaldy, who, in his own words, had ‘always been willing to do pleasure and service’ to the Earl and his wife, might honourably lend himself. With regard to the informal conversation on the subject of a truce, it was, obviously, nothing more than the revival of a subject which had already been openly discussed with Crofts; and whatever construction may be given to it, there is manifest unfairness in distorting it into the abandonment, on Kirkcaldy’s part, of the principles which he had formerly professed; on the contrary, if it can be held to prove anything, that can only be a wish for the establishment of more friendly relations with England. As to ‘inviting a French army into the country,’ there is nothing in Wharton’s report that justifies the assumption that Grange favoured such a measure. He referred to the expected arrival of troops, simply in answer to the question asked him, as to the latest news; and the fact of his communicating such details to an English agent might, with some plausibility, serve as an argument that he had but little sympathy with the Dowager’s French policy.
VI. THE UPROAR OF RELIGION
The year 1559 marks one of the most important events in the history of the Scottish people. In that year began ‘the uproar of religion,’ as Pitscottie quaintly yet vigorously styles it. Instigated by her brothers, Mary of Guise, the Queen-Regent of Scotland, inaugurated the unwise and unscrupulous policy by which she and they hoped to check the growing power of the Protestant party, and to secure the ascendancy of France. A little before Easter, she issued a proclamation ‘commanding every man, great and small, to observe the Roman Catholic religion, to resort daily to the Mass, that all should make confession in the ear of a priest, and receive the sacrament.’ In addition to that, she summoned several of the most influential amongst the Protestant Lords, and, after communicating to them the instructions, ‘mixed with some threatenings,’ which Bettancourt had brought from the French Court, she called upon them to abjure the principles and practice of the Reformed religion. More injudiciously still, she ordered the leaders of the Reformed clergy to attend a Court of Justice, which was to be held at Stirling, and before which they would be required to defend their teaching and their conduct. In the face of this wanton provocation the ‘Professors’ acted with calm and dignified determination. They sent Alexander, Earl of Glencairn, and Sir Hugh Campbell of Lowdan, Sheriff of Ayr, to remonstrate with the Queen-Regent, and to beseech her to use no violent measures against the Protestant ministers, ‘unless any man were able to convict them of false doctrine.’ To this she replied in violent and intolerant language: ‘In despite of you, and your ministers both,’ she said, ‘they shall be banished out of Scotland, albeit they preached as true as ever did Saint Paul.’
Though both astonished and shocked at this ‘proud and blasphemous answer,’ Glencairn and Campbell maintained their self-restraint. They contented themselves with representing to her that her former tolerance had given such strength to the Reformed religion, that she could no longer hope to repress it; and with appealing to the promises which she had herself made to her Protestant subjects. At this her anger burst forth again; and she told them that ‘it became not subjects to burden their Princes with promises, further than it pleased them to keep.’ The deputies firmly replied by pointing out the disastrous consequences that would inevitably ensue from such high-handed action, and by warning the Regent that the responsibility for them would fall upon her. This produced a salutary effect; and Mary so far relented as to promise that she would give the matter further consideration.
At this juncture, the spontaneous development of events brought about new complications, and made it evident that an amicable settlement of the quarrel between the two parties was no longer possible. The town of Perth openly embraced the Reformed religion—a measure which, in the words of the chronicler, ‘provoked the Queen-Regent to a new fury.’ She at once sent orders to Lord Ruthven, who was Provost at the time, to take the most rigorous means for the suppression of the heretical outbreak. He replied that he could oblige the citizens to bring their bodies to her Grace, and to prostrate themselves before her, till she was satiate with their blood, but that he could not undertake to make them do anything against their consciences. On receiving the ‘malapert’ answer, Mary of Guise commanded that the summons issued to the preachers should take effect, and that they should appear at Stirling on the 10th of May.
The leaders of the Protestant party still hesitated to abandon their conciliatory policy; and even though it was thought advisable that the most influential gentlemen in Angus and Mearns should assemble in Perth to express their sympathy with the ministers and to give them their moral support, it was prudently resolved that they should appear unarmed, and that the Regent should be informed that their intentions went no further than ‘giving confession with the preachers.’ Intimidated by this peaceful but suggestive demonstration, Mary thought it wise to meet the ‘fervency’ of the people with craft. Through the Laird of Dun, who had been sent to her, she expressed her willingness to stay the trial of the ministers, if they and their sympathisers consented to disperse at once. When, after some hesitation, her terms had been accepted, instead of keeping faith with the Protestants, she caused the preachers to be put to the horn for not having appeared in Stirling in obedience to the summons, and all men to be forbidden under pain of rebellion to assist, comfort, receive, or maintain them in any sort.