The year 1559 marks one of the most important events in the history of the Scottish people. In that year began ‘the uproar of religion,’ as Pitscottie quaintly yet vigorously styles it. Instigated by her brothers, Mary of Guise, the Queen-Regent of Scotland, inaugurated the unwise and unscrupulous policy by which she and they hoped to check the growing power of the Protestant party, and to secure the ascendancy of France. A little before Easter, she issued a proclamation ‘commanding every man, great and small, to observe the Roman Catholic religion, to resort daily to the Mass, that all should make confession in the ear of a priest, and receive the sacrament.’ In addition to that, she summoned several of the most influential amongst the Protestant Lords, and, after communicating to them the instructions, ‘mixed with some threatenings,’ which Bettancourt had brought from the French Court, she called upon them to abjure the principles and practice of the Reformed religion. More injudiciously still, she ordered the leaders of the Reformed clergy to attend a Court of Justice, which was to be held at Stirling, and before which they would be required to defend their teaching and their conduct. In the face of this wanton provocation the ‘Professors’ acted with calm and dignified determination. They sent Alexander, Earl of Glencairn, and Sir Hugh Campbell of Lowdan, Sheriff of Ayr, to remonstrate with the Queen-Regent, and to beseech her to use no violent measures against the Protestant ministers, ‘unless any man were able to convict them of false doctrine.’ To this she replied in violent and intolerant language: ‘In despite of you, and your ministers both,’ she said, ‘they shall be banished out of Scotland, albeit they preached as true as ever did Saint Paul.’

Though both astonished and shocked at this ‘proud and blasphemous answer,’ Glencairn and Campbell maintained their self-restraint. They contented themselves with representing to her that her former tolerance had given such strength to the Reformed religion, that she could no longer hope to repress it; and with appealing to the promises which she had herself made to her Protestant subjects. At this her anger burst forth again; and she told them that ‘it became not subjects to burden their Princes with promises, further than it pleased them to keep.’ The deputies firmly replied by pointing out the disastrous consequences that would inevitably ensue from such high-handed action, and by warning the Regent that the responsibility for them would fall upon her. This produced a salutary effect; and Mary so far relented as to promise that she would give the matter further consideration.

At this juncture, the spontaneous development of events brought about new complications, and made it evident that an amicable settlement of the quarrel between the two parties was no longer possible. The town of Perth openly embraced the Reformed religion—a measure which, in the words of the chronicler, ‘provoked the Queen-Regent to a new fury.’ She at once sent orders to Lord Ruthven, who was Provost at the time, to take the most rigorous means for the suppression of the heretical outbreak. He replied that he could oblige the citizens to bring their bodies to her Grace, and to prostrate themselves before her, till she was satiate with their blood, but that he could not undertake to make them do anything against their consciences. On receiving the ‘malapert’ answer, Mary of Guise commanded that the summons issued to the preachers should take effect, and that they should appear at Stirling on the 10th of May.

The leaders of the Protestant party still hesitated to abandon their conciliatory policy; and even though it was thought advisable that the most influential gentlemen in Angus and Mearns should assemble in Perth to express their sympathy with the ministers and to give them their moral support, it was prudently resolved that they should appear unarmed, and that the Regent should be informed that their intentions went no further than ‘giving confession with the preachers.’ Intimidated by this peaceful but suggestive demonstration, Mary thought it wise to meet the ‘fervency’ of the people with craft. Through the Laird of Dun, who had been sent to her, she expressed her willingness to stay the trial of the ministers, if they and their sympathisers consented to disperse at once. When, after some hesitation, her terms had been accepted, instead of keeping faith with the Protestants, she caused the preachers to be put to the horn for not having appeared in Stirling in obedience to the summons, and all men to be forbidden under pain of rebellion to assist, comfort, receive, or maintain them in any sort.

The Queen-Regent’s duplicity aroused a storm of indignation in Perth, where it became known within a few hours. Next day, John Knox, who had but lately returned to Scotland, ascended the pulpit. It does not appear that he made any direct reference to the treachery of which Mary had been guilty, or that he intended further to excite the resentment of the people. He inveighed against idolatry; set forth the commandments given by God for the destruction of everything connected with false worship; and denounced the Mass as an abomination of the grossest kind.

It is a very striking illustration of the strange confusion of the time, that this discourse was delivered in the parish church, and that immediately after it, and before those who had been stirred by the preacher’s fervid eloquence had retired, a priest came forward, and made preparation for the performance of the very function against which Knox had directed his bitter invectives. This ill-timed zeal, or imprudent defiance, called forth an indignant protest from a youth who was near the altar at the moment. ‘This is intolerable,’ he cried, ‘that when God, by his word, hath plainly damned idolatry, we should stand and see it used in despite.’ The rash priest replied with a violent blow. Rushing out of the church, the young man seized a heavy stone, returned to the altar, and flung the missile with all his might at the aggressor. The stone missed the priest, but struck a statue, and broke it to pieces. This was the signal for a scene of uproar and violence. In a few moments the church was wrecked, and the mob was on its way to the other religious buildings in the city. The tumult lasted for two whole days, during which the monasteries of the Blackfriars, of the Greyfriars, and of the Carthusians were so completely pillaged and destroyed, that ‘the walls only of those great buildings remained.’

Mary of Guise vowed to be avenged; and marched against Perth with a powerful body of troops. But the gentlemen of Fife, Angus, and Mearns, and the burgesses of Dundee were assembling to meet force with force; and though, at first, she affected to despise the rebels, the accession to their number of two thousand five hundred men, under Glencairn, induced her to consent to negotiations. On the 28th of May, a truce was agreed upon. The conditions were that ‘no inhabitants of the town should be troubled for any such crimes as might be alleged against them, for the late change of religion, abolishing of idolatry, and downcasting of the places of the same; and that her Grace would suffer the religion begun to go forward, and leave the town free from the garrisons of the French soldiers.’

On the 29th of May, the ‘Congregation’ departed from Perth; and on the same day, the Queen-Regent, the Duke of Chastelherault, the Earl of Athole, and several prelates, together with d’Oysel and his French troops, entered it. From the very first, it became evident that Mary of Guise had no intention of allowing the conditions of the truce to interfere with her policy. Indeed, she is reported to have said, that she did not consider herself bound to keep her promises to heretics. As for retaining four hundred of d’Oysel’s soldiers as a garrison, she justified that step on the ground that, though in the French service, and in the receipt of French pay, they were Scotsmen.

One of the results of this further act of perfidy was to alienate the Earl of Argyle and Lord James Stuart. As long as they thought that the Regent’s object was only the restoration of order, they remained on her side; but now, judging that she was bent on doing all in her power to suppress the Reformation, they departed for St Andrews, where the ‘Professors’ had retired after leaving Perth.

It does not appear that Sir William Kirkcaldy took any open and prominent part in the events which occurred in the early months of 1559. But there is evidence that he was at St Andrews in the beginning of June. It was there that John Knox first proposed to him that they should endeavour to obtain assistance from Queen Elizabeth. ‘If England would but see her own advantage,’ the Reformer said, ‘Yea, if she would consider the dangers wherein she is standing herself, she would not suffer us to perish in this quarrel; for France hath decreed no less the conquest of England than of Scotland.’ As the result of their ‘long reasoning,’ it was resolved that Kirkcaldy should open negotiations with the English.

If, as Calderwood states, this interview did not take place till after the assembling of the forces of the Congregation on Cupar Moor, on the 13th of June, Kirkcaldy had already, on his own responsibility, communicated with Elizabeth’s agent. On the 24th of May he had written to Sir Henry Percy, informing him that although the Queen-Regent of Scotland promised she would be content that all such as favoured God’s Word should have liberty to live after their own conscience, yet, in the conclusion of the peace she had uttered her deceitful mind, having since declared that she would be an enemy to all those who did not live after her religion. ‘Therefore, I pray you,’ said Sir William, ‘let me understand what will be your mistress’s part if we desire to be joined in friendship with her; for I assure you there was never a better time to get our friendship than at this time. Therefore make labours and lose no time when it is offered.’

About a month later, on the 23rd of June, Kirkcaldy, who by this time had returned to his own house, wrote to Cecil. The natural love which he bore to his native country, he said, and the unfeigned desire which he had long cherished, that the inhabitants of the whole island might be united in perpetual amity, compelled him to declare their present state, and to require of him counsel and comfort in their danger. Twice already, he informed Cecil, had the Professors of God’s Word shown their faces for defence of their brethren, whose blood was sought for the cause of religion; and, at that moment, they were in the field for the deliverance of Perth, which the Queen had taken and, contrary to her promises, garrisoned with her troops. Of the Catholic party in Scotland itself, there was no cause, he believed, to be afraid; for the greater part of the nobility and commonalty had openly defied the Pope; but the Queen and the Papists were plotting to bring in a French army. If this should happen, it was the desire of all goodly men to know what support they might look for from England, with which they were anxious to be one in religion and friendship. The number of these was already great and seemed likely to increase daily, if no foreign nation interfered to coerce them; and Cecil was warned that, if he allowed the latter contingency to take place, he would be preparing a way for his own destruction.

Although Percy’s answer to Kirkcaldy has not been preserved, it appears to have been rather an inquiry for direct information as to the objects which the leaders of the Congregation really had in view, than a promise to afford the help so earnestly solicited. It drew from Grange a further communication, written on the 1st of July, the day after the triumphant entry of the Protestant forces into Edinburgh, and containing a distinct exposition of the policy of his party. ‘I received your letter this last day of June,’ he wrote, ‘perceiving thereby the doubt and suspicion you stand in for the coming forward of the Congregation, whom I assure you, you need not to have in suspicion; for they mean nothing but reformation of religion, which shortly throughout the realm they will bring to pass, for the Queen and Monsieur d’Oysel, with all the Frenchmen, for refuge are retired to Dunbar. The foresaid Congregation came this last of June, by three of the clock, to Edinburgh, where they will take order for the maintenance of the true religion and resisting of the King of France, if he sends any force against them. The manner of their proceeding in reformation is this: they pull down all manner of friaries, and some abbeys which willingly receive not the Reformation. As to parish churches, they cleanse them of images and all other monuments of idolatry, and command that no masses be said in them; in place thereof the Book set forth by godly King Edward is read in the said churches. They have never as yet meddled with a pennyworth of that which pertains to the Church, but presently they will take order throughout all the parts where they dwell, that all the fruits of the abbeys and other churches shall be kept and bestowed upon the faithful ministers, until such time as a further order be taken. Some suppose the Queen, seeing no other remedy, will follow their desires, which is a general reformation throughout the whole realm, conform to the pure Word of God; and the Frenchmen to be sent away. If her Grace will do so, they will obey her and serve her, and annex the whole revenues of the abbeys to the Crown; if her Grace will not be content with this, they are determined to hear of no agreement.’

In the minds of the English statesmen, there was still some doubt as to the position taken up by Kirkcaldy. They remembered that, shortly after his return to Scotland, he had acted as the Queen-Regent’s agent; and they had before them the fact that he had not yet openly declared himself to be on the side of the Congregation. Under such circumstances, Cecil thought it prudent not to write directly to the Laird of Grange, whom, as yet, he had no reason for treating otherwise than ‘as a private man, not before known otherwise to them but as one in good grace with the Dowager.’ He instructed Sir Henry Percy to obtain an interview with Sir William, to thank him privately for his letter and the sentiments to which it gave expression, and at the same time, to tell him that the English Government desired to be more fully informed as to the purposes of the Earls and other Protestants; as to the cause they meant to adopt; and as to the means at their disposal for the accomplishment of their designs. Above all, there was to be a clear understanding as to ‘what manner of amity might ensue between the two realms,’ if assistance were sent from England, ‘and how the same might be hoped to be perpetuated, and not to be so slender as heretofore, with other assurance of continuance than from time to time had pleased France.’ Lest Kirkcaldy should think that Cecil’s unwillingness to negotiate directly with him arose from any doubt as to his good faith and honesty, Percy was further commissioned to tell him that all promises communicated through the English agent would be considered just as binding as though they had been made immediately to himself. Considering, however, the very guarded nature of the answer which Sir Henry was to make to the Scottish Laird’s advances, the assurance thus given did not commit the English minister too much.

As soon as Kirkcaldy learnt from Percy the reasons put forward by Cecil in explanation of his cautious hesitation, he at once promised to supply, within a few days, the information required by the English statesman with regard both to the ‘foundation’ on which the Protestants meant to work, and the ‘amity’ they were ready to offer. He further undertook to get himself duly acknowledged ‘under the hands of some of the nobility.’

Although less than a week elapsed between Kirkcaldy’s interview with Percy and Crofts and the formal recognition of his negotiations by the Lords of the Congregation, the delay appears to have suggested fresh doubts, and possibly suspicions, to the minds of the English agents. On the 20th of July, Crofts wrote from Berwick, informing Cecil that Grange, though expected the day before, had not yet arrived, and suggesting reasons for the delay.

‘Kirkcaldy,’ he wrote, ‘has not yet discovered himself plainly to be of the Protestant party, nor does he come to the Queen-Regent, but feigns himself sick. Money is owing him for serving in the late wars, in hope whereof he drives time. The man is poor and cannot travail in these matters without charges, wherein he must be relieved by the Queen, if these proceedings go forward, and so must as many as be principal doers have relief. They all be poor, and necessity will force them to leave off when all they have is spent, and you know, in all practices, money must be one part.’

A few days later, however, on the 26th of the month, the same writer was able to announce that Kirkcaldy had now ‘declared himself plainly,’ and was with the Protestants. That pecuniary considerations, even if they had influenced him at all, as Crofts had previously stated, had not been allowed to deter him from the course of action which his conscience pointed out to him, was proved by the fact that, as Crofts himself acknowledged, in a later communication, his declaration cost him fifteen or sixteen months’ pay, which he should have received from France.

Kirkcaldy’s object and ambition had been the formation of a Protestant alliance, and he had fervently declared that all Europe should know that a league, in the name of God, had another foundation and assurance than factions made by man for worldly commodity. But the result of his negotiations fell very far short of his sanguine hopes. He was obliged to be content for the time with a vague promise of assistance.