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 Etrangeres, 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 a 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.

{102d} 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.