surrendered (Knox, i. 204, 205). It appears that there is some error or confusion in Knox's account of this famous siege of the castle, of which he was an eyewitness. The 'Diurnal of Occurrents' places the arrival of Strozzi and his fleet on July 24. In State Papers Domestic, Addenda, Edward VI., No. 23, July 13, 1547, Lord Eure writes to Somerset from Berwick that a number of galleons have passed that town towards Scotland. He again mentions them as French galleons on July 14. De Selve had the news from Somerset on July 16. On July 23 he learned that the galleons were investing the castle. On August 2 Somerset had news that a galleon had been destroyed by the bursting of a gun, and this may be the ship spoken of by Knox as wrecked or nearly wrecked. De Selve did not believe the story. On August 5 Somerset informed de Selve that the castle had surrendered on the first day that the battery was erected (de Selve, p. 178). It does not seem easy to reconcile these facts with Knox's dates and

statements.

CHAPTER II.

THE REGENCY. THE MARRIAGE OF MARY STUART.

1554-1559.

TILL the moment when Mary of Guise assumed the Regency, the national sentiment of Scotland, on the whole, must have preferred the French alliance to any union or compact with England. This would not, of course, be the opinion of men honestly convinced of the merits of the Reformation. In "their auld enemies of England" these Protestants, like Sir John Mason, recognised "Christian men"; in the French they saw "idolaters." Even before the change of religion, persons like Major had found the best hope for Scotland in union with England. Later, all who sincerely held the principles of Knox and Rough were of the same mind. The nobles, as has been shown, though they might speak the language of the godly, were alternately false to both parties; while all who had suffered in the ferocious wars of Somerset had a cruel hatred of the English, and little love for the French. A curious manifesto of a Unionist, James Henderson, is 'The Godly and Golden Book,' addressed to Thynne and Cecil (July 9, 1549). Henderson desires "the union and matrimony of the northern and southern parts of this isle of Great Britain." All are "of one tongue and nature, bred in one isle, compassed of the sea." Henderson, like Knox and Major, and indeed like Mary of Guise, pities "the poor labourers of the ground, . . . in more servitude than were the children of Israel in Egypt." He proposes that whereas, according to Mary of Guise, the peasants kept their holdings but for five years, they now should have long leases at the same rents, and the tithes so far as not "set to the landlords." Now, just as persecution

HOPE OF SOCIAL REFORMS.

23

was at the moment as cruel in Protestant England as in Catholic Scotland, so the greed of landlords was as great. The insurrections of 1549 in England were mainly due to the recent inclosures of commons by landlords, who "frequently let their lands at an advanced rent to 'leasemongers"" (like the larger Highland tacksmen) "or middle-men, who on their part oppressed the farmer and cottager that they might indemnify and benefit themselves."1 But Henderson, like Knox and Latimer, was sanguine enough to hope for a more tolerable social condition as a result of a purer Christian doctrine. But while it was easy to be godly as regards dogmas and ceremonies, and not impossible to punish sexual vices, the Reformers did not succeed in softening the hearts and subduing the avarice of men. Henderson hoped that the poor might live "as substantial commoners, not miserable cottars, charged daily to war and to slay their neighbours at their own expense." So far the union of the crowns was destined to fulfil his dream: Border raids were diminished and ceased. He also desired the restoration of the old almshouses and hospitals, decayed under the greedy cadets of noble houses, who for long had almost monopolised the best benefices. Many parish churches were "rent or falling down": the most ignorant and cheapest clergy held the cures. The wealth of the benefices ought to be expended on rebuilding the churches and securing adequate ministers, while bishops ought to maintain free schools in the chief towns.2

Not much is known of this Henderson, who was a Scottish informant of William Cecil. But his book, which he was anxious to print, proves that Reformers of his stamp expected social as well as religious reform from Protestantism, union, and the abandonment of "the bloody league" with France. To such Scots, when sincere and disinterested, we can no longer refuse the name of patriots. The whole policy of Mary of Guise tended to increase their number and influence. Since de la Bastie's head swung by its long locks at a Borderer's saddle-bow, the Scots had ever resisted the intrusion of foreigners into places of power. Mary of Guise, nevertheless, made de Rubay chancellor under Huntly, whose place became but nominal. Huntly's history is complex and obscure. We have seen that, after being taken at Pinkie, he either escaped or broke parole to return to England after a visit to Scotland. While he

24

3

THE FRENCH UNPOPULAR.

was in England, de Selve thought him double-faced (December 1548). In Scotland he showed duplicity, trying to keep touch with both parties. He, with Argyll, was expected to keep down Highland disorders, to "pass upon the Clan Cameron," while Argyll "passed upon" Clan Ranald. Later, according to Lesley, he was commanded to bring the Macdonalds of Moydart into subjection. He was deserted by his Clan Chattan allies, in revenge for his execution of their captain, Mackintosh, and his expedition failed. He was then imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle, was deprived of the earldom of Murray, and was sentenced to five years of exile, though this punishment was remitted. Huntly was regarded as the champion of the old faith; but, both under the Regent and her daughter, he was untrustworthy, was constantly "put at," and finally destroyed.

Mary of Guise, as Lesley declares, "neglected almost all the Scots nobles," and admitted only de Rubay, d'Oysel, Bonot, and other Frenchmen to her counsels. The most fortunate occurrences of these years were the establishment of peace on the Borders, and the delimitation of the Debatable Land. Despite these arrangements (which were previous to the assumption of regency by Mary of Guise) many Borderers were under bands to England. Such were the Elliots, Armstrongs, Glendinnings, and Irvings. A Parliament held at Edinburgh in June 1555 throws some light on the condition of the country. Among evil deeds noted and repressed are the eating of flesh in Lent, and the revels of Robin Hood, and of Queens of the May, and "women or others about summer trees singing." The Protestants whose Lenten beef and mutton were cut off could scarcely be mollified by this repression of sports in essence older than Christianity. Vengeance was denounced on political gossips who blamed the French in Scotland. A "Revocation" by Mary of grants in her minority, made on April 25 at Fontainebleau, in the usual form, was recorded. In May 1556, after the marriage of Mary Tudor and Philip of Spain had seemed to strengthen the old faith, it was decided that an inquest into all property should be held, as the basis of new taxation. According to Lesley, the Regent was moved by the advice of her Frenchmen, who wished to reorganise the system of national defence. Some of the nobles approved, but the barons totally rejected the scheme. Three hundred of them met, and denounced a measure contrary to their ancient feudal methods of military service. They would hear

NEW MEN AND KNOX.

25

of no mercenary forces, no germ of a standing army; and the Regent gave way. Many of the protesters against taxation and a standing army were probably much inclined to the English party. Hence, in part, their opposition to the only scheme which would enable Scotland to put regularly drilled musketeers into the field. In this Parliament the traitor Brunston, Balnaves, and William Kirkcaldy of Grange were pardoned, and restored to their estates. This was a measure of conciliation. Throughout de Selve's despatches, and despite a letter of Mary of Guise, speaking well of Châtelherault and the Archbishop of St Andrews, we recognise friction and jealousy between her and the Hamiltons. She was therefore anxious to gain over the Protestant party to her cause, and thus there was a lull in persecution for heresy.

The days of Brunston, Angus, and Sir George Douglas were nearly ended. New hands, Cecil and Lethington, were weaving the tangled web of faith and policy. Among these the most vigorous was Knox, whose biography for this period must be summarised. He had gone to England, as we saw, when released from the galleys in 1549. Under Henry VIII. he had regarded the English Church as little better than the Roman. Under Somerset and Edward VI. there was more of root-and-branch work. Fiery "licensed preachers" were needed by the Government, so Knox was licensed. He "was left to his own devices, and was permitted to introduce into an English town" (Berwick) "a form of religious service after the model of the most advanced Swiss reformers." 10 In Berwick he became the director of a spiritual hypochondriac, wife of Richard Bowes, an English gentleman of good family. His visits to her "gave rise to public gossip"; but the older Knox grew, the younger did he like his wives to be, and probably the eyes of Mrs Bowes' daughter Marjory were as attractive to him as the godly perplexities of her mother. At all events he later wedded the daughter, Marjory, when he was verging on fifty. In 1551 he went to Newcastle and took part in the editing of the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. He had already, at Newcastle, preached to a distinguished audience against the mass. As Mr Hume Brown says, "his method of procedure was arbitrary in the highest degree, and by a similar handling of texts any fanatic could make good his wildest visions." But underlying the logic based on detached texts was his fundamental idea, "that rites and ceremonies were but so many barriers between the soul of man and God." This notion may