In this version the Regent bears all the blame, nothing is said of the Council.  “The whole multitude stay”—­at Perth, or it may perhaps be meant that they do not come forward towards Stirling.  The Regent’s promise is merely that she would “take some better order.”  She does not here promise to postpone the summons, and refuses “any request made” to abstain from putting them to the horn.  The account, therefore, is somewhat more vague than that in the letter to Mrs. Locke.  Prof.  Hume Brown puts it that the Regent “in her understanding with Erskine of Dun had publicly cancelled the summons of the preachers for the 10th of May,” which rather overstates the case perhaps.  That she should “publicly cancel” or “discharge” the summons was what a part of the brethren desired, and did not get. {277b}

We now turn to a fragmentary and anonymous “Historie of the Estate of Scotland,” concerning which Prof.  Hume Brown says, “Whoever the author may have been, he writes as a contemporary, or from information supplied by a contemporary . . . what inspires confidence in him is that certain of his facts not recorded by other contemporary Scottish historians are corroborated by the despatches of d’Oysel and others in Teulet.” {277c}

I elsewhere {277d} give reasons for thinking that this “Historie” is perhaps the chronicle of Bruce of Earl’s Hall, a contemporary gentleman of Fife.  I also try to show that he writes, on one occasion, as an eye-witness.

This author, who is a strong partisan of the Reformers, says nothing of the broken promise of the Regent and Council.  He mentions the intention to march to Stirling, and then writes:  “And although the Queen Regent was most earnestly requested and persuaded to continue”—­that is to defer the summons—­“nevertheless she remained wilful and obstinate, so that the counsel of God must needs take effect.  Shortly, the day being come, because they appeared not, their sureties were outlawed, and the preachers ordered to be put to the horn.  The Laird of Dun, who was sent from Perth by the brethren, perceiving her obstinacy, they” (who?) “turned from Stirling, and coming to Perth, declared to the brethren the obstinacy they found in the Queen. . . . "

This sturdy Protestant’s version, which does not accuse the Regent of breaking troth, is corroborated by a Catholic contemporary, Lesley, Bishop of Ross.  He says that Erskine of Dun was sent to beg the Regent not to impose a penalty on the preachers in their absence.  But as soon as Dun returned and Knox learned from him that the Regent would not grant their request, he preached the sermon which provoked the devastation of the monasteries. {278a} Buchanan and Spottiswoode follow Knox, but they both use Knox’s book, and are not independent witnesses.