Knox seizes on the word "offered" as if it necessarily meant "offered
though unasked," and so styles the Regent's remark "a manifest lie." But
Kirkcaldy, we see, uses the words "has in part offered already" when he
means that the Regent has "offered" to grant some of the wishes of his
allies.

Meanwhile the Regent will allow freedom of conscience in the country, and
especially in Edinburgh. But the Reformers, her paper goes on, desire to
subvert the crown. To prove this she says that they daily receive
messengers from England and send their own; and they have seized the
stamps in the Mint (a capital point as regards the crown) and the Palace
of Holyrood, which Lesley says that they sacked. Knox replies, "there is
never a sentence in the narrative true," except that his party seized the
stamps merely to prevent the issue of base coin (not to coin the stolen
plate of the churches and monasteries for themselves, as Lesley says they
did). But Knox's own letters, and those of Kirkcaldy of Grange and Sir
Henry Percy, prove that they _were_ intriguing with England as early as
June 23-25. Their conduct, with the complicity of Percy, was perfectly
well known to the Regent's party, and was denounced by d'Oysel to the
French ambassador in London in letters of July. {136b} Elizabeth, on
August 7, answered the remonstrances of the Regent, promising to punish
her officials if guilty. Nobody lied more frankly than "that imperial
votaress."

When Knox says "there is never a sentence in the narrative true," he is
very bold. It was not true that the rising was merely under pretext of
religion. It may have been untrue that messengers went _daily_ to
England, but five letters were written between June 21 and June 28. To
stand on the words of the Regent--"_every day_"--would be a babyish
quibble. All the rest of her narrative was absolutely true.