46

THE BEGGARS' WARNING (1559).

forcements from the Bible and the Fathers, is Kennedy's doctrine. In March 1559 he was challenged to dispute with the preacher Willock at Ayr. Willock, says Kennedy, had been making great play, in sermons, with Irenæus, Chrysostom, Origen, Tertullian, and other Fathers. "I perceived the craft of the knave, who, expecting no adversary, cited such doctors, believing that their works had not been in this country"; and, indeed, there can have been no great sale for Tertullian's works in Ayrshire. But Kennedy possessed these and other authors. He reduced Willock to admit that he only accepted his own Fathers, "as far as he thought they were agreeable with the Word of God." On the day of the proposed disputation, four or five hundred Ayrshire theologians assembled to back Willock. Kennedy could have brought twice as great a "tail," but he foresaw a riot. Nothing else could be expected. A theological discussion would have degenerated into a clan battle.12

Already the din of social revolution was heard. On January 1, 1559, a notice had been fastened on the gates of religious houses. "The beggars "the poor, halt, and maimed-demanded "restitution." The alms and the wealth of the religious foundations, they said, were their own: they would claim all, and evict the religious, on Whitsunday. Of course the poor never got the "patrimony" which they claimed in "The Beggars' Warning." The example of England might have warned them that the Reformation there only deepened social oppression. The nobles kept the wealth of the clergy, though perhaps the populace helped themselves at the sacking of churches and abbeys. In Edinburgh the town council seized and sold the treasures of St Giles' (October 1560).

While these affairs show the drift and the methods of the great debate, in official religious politics we are told by Knox that the godly trusted Mary of Guise, and rebuked those who thought her promises hypocritical.13 But at the moment of the general Peace of Cateau Cambresis (April 2, 1559) the Regent "began to spew forth and declare the latent venom of her double heart." The treaty provided that neither realm should assist the enemies or shelter the rebels of the other. The Regent might hope that Elizabeth would keep the treaty. At Easter "she commanded her household to use all abominations," and insisted on knowing when every one received the sacrament. After this "it is supposed that the Devil took more violent and strong possession in her," so much

THE BATTLE APPROACHETH" (1559).

47

so that she "caused our preachers to be summoned "; among them were Willock and Paul Methven. When remonstrated with, she blasphemed and told Glencairn and the sheriff of Ayr that princes need keep no more of their promises than they pleased. The summons to the preachers, however, was postponed.14

Here accuracy of dates is desirable. In a transcript of a MS. 'Historie of the Estate of Scotland' we do get an approach to dates, and an account of the events, unlike Knox's. It is here said that the preachers were summoned, in the end of December 1558, to appear at St Andrews on February 2, 1559, and that the summons was postponed. "We ceased not most humbly to sue her favours," writes Knox, "and by great diligence at last obtained that the summonses at that time were delayed." The anonymous writer explains the nature of the humility and the "diligence" of Knox's version: "The brethren . . . caused inform the QueenRegent that the said preachers would appear with such multitude of men professing their doctrine, as was never seen before in suchlike cases in this country." This was the traditional Scottish way of controlling justice. Mary of Guise, fearing sedition, caused the bishops to postpone the case, and summoned a convention at Edinburgh "to advise for some reformation in religion." The date was March 7, 1559, and a helpless Provincial Council was held at the same time. Acts were passed for the reform of the lives of the clergy, and some "Articles" suggested by the moderate Catholics were considered. But nothing was done to any purpose, 15 The Protestants dispersed: the bishops bribed Mary, says the anonymous writer, and on March 23 a statute denounced death against unauthorised preaching and administration of the In April the preachers were summoned, under pain of outlawry.16 According to Knox, this final summons was for May 10, at Stirling. Knox himself arrived in Edinburgh on May 2. He went to Dundee, after writing on May 3 to Mrs Locke, Assist me, sister, with your prayers, that now I shrink not when the battle approacheth." On this occasion he had a powerful band of supporters. Dundee was full of the gentlemen of Angus, who accompanied the preachers to Perth, "without armour, as peaceable men, minding only to give confession with their preachers." Lest such a crowd should frighten the Regent, Knox says that they sent Erskine of Dun to inform her of their peaceful purpose. She begged him "to stay the multitude, and the preachers also, with

sacrament.

48

WAS MARY OF GUISE TREACHEROUS?

promise that she would take some better order." Erskine wrote to the evangelists in Perth, some of whom acquiesced, others wished to march on Stirling, until "a discharge of the former summons should be had." Knox was now in Perth. The Queen-Regent, "perceiving that the preachers did not appear" on May 10, had them outlawed. Erskine retired from Stirling to Perth, "and did conceal nothing of the queen's craft and falsehood." Consequently the multitude, in spite of "the exhortation of the preacher and the commandment of the magistrate, . . . destroyed the places of idolatry," the religious houses in Perth.17

To the havoc wrought at Perth we shall return. The torch of civil war was lighted, a thing inevitable; for the Government could not for ever endure the contumacy of the preachers, and the Congregation, if they left their pulpitmen to the law, would be stripped of every rag of honour. The conflict, then, must have come; but was it precipitated by an act of explicit treachery on the part of Mary of Guise? This is the theory of several of our historians. Mary "promised to withdraw the citations," but broke her promise, says Hill Burton.18 Mary "declared that if the people" (at Perth) "would disperse, the preachers should be unmolested, the summons discharged, and new proceedings taken, which should remove all ground of complaint." So Tytler: 19 adding that, "relying on this premise, the leaders sent home their people." Dr M'Crie avers that Mary promised that she would put a stop to the trial, and that "the greater part" of the Protestants " returned to their homes." 20 The doctor then blames "the wanton and dishonourable perfidy" of the Regent. Dr M'Crie often cites the MS 'Historie of the Estate of Scotland.' Here it contradicts Knox-and is not cited. Mr Froude remarks, "Protestant writers say that the Regent desired them" (the preachers) "not to appear, and then outlawed them for disobedience" (that is, for non-appearance), adding, "This is scarcely the truth." 21 Yet, on the next page, Mr Froude writes that Knox, on arriving at Perth, "found the summons withdrawn.” Now Knox himself does not tell us in his History that the summons to the preachers was withdrawn. The Queen-Regent "promised that she would take some better order," vague enough. Some of the leaders of the Congregation, says Knox, distrusting Mary's vague promise of taking "some better order," desired that the summons should be withdrawn; but Mary, "notwithstanding any request made in the contrary, perceiving that the preachers did not

CONFUSION OF EVIDENCE.

49

'compear,' gave commandment to put them to the horn"—that is, to outlaw them and their abettors. Erskine of Dun then left Stirling and explained the situation to the Reformers in Perth.22 Mary's vague promise to Erskine caused the multitude at Perth to "disperse," according to Mr Hill Burton; according to Mr Tytler, "their leaders sent home the people," and thus Mary's treachery secured its end. But Knox, who was in Perth, says that "the whole multitude with their preachers stayed." To be sure, Knox, writing to Mrs Locke from St Andrews six weeks later (June 23), gives a version different from that in his History.23 He says that the Queen-Regent bade the multitude to "stay" (at Perth) "and not come to Stirling, which place was appointed to the preachers to compear, and so should no extremity be used, but the summons should be continued" (postponed) "till further avisement, which being gladly granted of us, some of the brethren returned to their dwelling-places." Mary then summoned the preachers, and outlawed them on their non-appearance. Here Mary's guilt lay in persevering with a summons which she is said to have promised to "continue till further avisement."

All this is contradicted by the anonymous, but Protestant, 'Historie of the Estate of Scotland.' "Albeit the Queen-Regent was most earnestly requested and persuaded to continue" (that is, to defer the summons), "nevertheless she remained wilful and obstinate" (that is, did not "continue" or postpone the summons). . . . "Shortly, the day being come" (May 10), "because they appeared not, their sureties were outlawed" (really they were fined), "and the preachers ordered to be put to the horn.24 On this (and not before), Erskine of Dun, having visited Stirling to speak to the queen, "perceiving her obstinacy, they [who?] returned from Stirling, and coming to Perth, declared to the brethren the extremitie they found in the queen." They then sacked religious houses.25 Here we find no word of even a vague promise of deferring the summons: Mary is said to have refused to do so. The author "inspires confidence," says Mr Hume Brown, because "certain of his facts not recorded by other contemporary Scottish historians are corroborated by the despatches of d'Oysel and others in Teulet." 26 Finally, Sir James Croft, writing from Berwick on May 19, says that the preachers, with a train of 5000 or 6000 men, repaired towards Stirling, but were put to the horn, and the nobles commanded to appear before the Regent at Edinburgh. They had sent Erskine of Dun to ask the Regent to permit a public disputation. She outlawed him.27

VOL. II.

D

50

THE WRECKING OF PERTH.

The account which most modern historians really rest on is that of Buchanan.28 He says that the Regent asked Erskine to send home the multitude, and promised that in the meanwhile she would attempt nothing against any of the faith. Many therefore went home. Nevertheless the Regent put the preachers to the horn. But, if we accept Knox's History, the whole multitude stayed at Perth, and did not go home at all. In his letter some went home. If the Regent's promise was conditional, depending on the dispersion of the crowd, she broke no promise. Such, and so confused and contradictory, is the evidence for Mary's perfidy. Probably Knox's letter of June 23 is the most trustworthy account, though it clashes with his History. Mr Tytler's charge of "treacherous precipitation " against the QueenRegent is decidedly too absolute.

The real occasion of the outbreak was the habit of trying to overawe justice by tumultuous assemblages. The ruin and wrack wrought at Perth were such as characterise revolutions. The Christians on the fall of Paganism; the Huguenots at Orleans; the French in 1793, were equally or even more destructive to buildings, books, and works of art than the Reformers in Scotland. Knox was certainly conscious of the blame which attaches itself to wasteful and wanton destruction. He says that "neither the exhortation of the preacher nor the commandment of the magistrate could stay them from the destroying of the places of idolatry," as we have seen. But places are one thing, objects of art are another. The preachers, before May 11, had instructed the multitude that God commands "the destruction of the monuments of idolatry." Consequently, when the sermon of May 11, at Perth, was vehement against idolatry," the inevitable consequences followed. After the sermon

a priest did his duty, and performed mass, opening "a glorious tabernacle that stood on the high altar." "A young boy" cried out that this was intolerable. The priest struck him, and the boy, like Smollett in youth, "had a stane in his pouch." He threw it, and struck the tabernacle. The whole multitude destroyed the works of art, and while the gentry and "the earnest professors were at dinner the rascal multitude sacked the Franciscan monastery. From the Charter-House, founded by James I., the prior is said to have been allowed to take away as much of the gold and silver as he could carry. Men "had no respect to their own particular profit, but only to abolish idolatry." Yet "the spoil was permitted to the poor." Of the religious houses only the walls were left