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.