Knox, John, approximately 1514-1572; Reformation -- Scotland
These articles make no provision for the safety of Catholic priests and
churches, and insist on suppression of idolatry where it has been put
down, and the entire withdrawal of French forces. Knox's party could not
possibly denounce these terms which they demanded as "things unreasonable
and ungodly," for they were the very terms which they had been asking
for, ever since the Regent went to Dunbar. Yet, when the treaty was
made, the preachers did say "our case is not yet so desperate that we
need to grant to things unreasonable and ungodly." {143b} Manifestly,
therefore, the terms actually obtained, as being "unreasonable and
ungodly," were _not_ those for which the Reformers asked, and which,
_they publicly proclaimed_, had been conceded.
Knox writes, "These our articles were altered, and another form
disposeth." And here he translates the terms as given in the French,
terms which provide for the safety of Catholics, the surrender of
Holyrood and the Mint, but say nothing about the withdrawal of the French
troops or the non-restoration of "idolatry" where it has been suppressed.
He adds, "This alteration in words and order was made" (so it actually
_was_ made) "without the knowledge and consent of those whose counsel we
had used in all cases before"--clearly meaning the preachers, and also
implying that the consent of the noble negotiators for the Congregation
_was_ obtained to the French articles.
Next day the Congregation left Edinburgh, after making solemn
proclamation of the conditions of truce, in which they omitted all the
terms of the French version, except those in their own favour, and stated
(in Knox's version) that all of their own terms, except the most
important, namely, the removal of the French, and the promise to bring in
no more, had been granted! It may be by accident, however, that the
proclamation of the Lords, as given by Knox, omits the article securing
the departure of the French. {144a} There exist two MS. copies of the
proclamation, in which the Lords dare to assert "that the Frenchmen
should be sent away at a reasonable date, and no more brought in except
by assent of the whole nobility and Parliament." {144b}
Of the terms really settled, except as regards the immunity of their own
party, the Lords told the public not one word; they suppressed what was
true, and added what was false.
Against this formal, public, and impudent piece of mendacity, we might
expect Knox to protest in his "History"; to denounce it as a cause of
God's wrath. On the other hand he states, with no disapproval, the
childish quibbles by which his party defended their action.
On reading or hearing the Lords' proclamation, the Catholics, who knew
the real terms of treaty, said that the Lords "in their proclamation had
made no mention of anything promised to _them_," and "had proclaimed more
than was contained in the Appointment;" among other things, doubtless,
the promise to dismiss the French. {145a}
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account