any more creditable theory of the Reformer's behaviour, but I can see no
alternative, unless the Lords lied to Knox.

That the French should be driven out was a great point with Cecil, for he
was always afraid that the Scots might slip back from the English to the
old French alliance. On July 28, after the treaty of July 24, but before
he heard of it, he insisted on the necessity of expelling the French, in
a letter to the Reformers. {149a} He "marvels that they omit such an
opportunity to help themselves." He sent a letter of vague generalities
in answer to their petitions for aid. When he received, as he did, a
copy of the terms of the treaty of July 24, in French, he would
understand.

As further proof that Cecil was told what Knox and Kirkcaldy should have
known to be untrue, we note that on August 28 the Regent, weary of the
perpetual charges of perfidy anew brought against her, "ashamed not,"
writes Knox, to put forth a proclamation, in which she asserted that
nothing, in the terms of July 23-24, forbade her to bring in more French
troops, "as may clearly appear by inspection of the said Appointment,
which the bearer has presently to show." {149b}

Why should the Regent have been "ashamed" to tell the truth? If the
bearer showed a false and forged treaty, the Congregation must have
denounced it, and produced the genuine document with the signatures. Far
from that, in a reply (from internal evidence written by Knox), they
admit, "neither do we _here_ {149c} allege the breaking of the
Appointment made at Leith (which, nevertheless, has manifestly been
done), but"--and here the writer wanders into quite other questions.
Moreover, Knox gives another reply to the Regent, "by some men," in which
they write "we dispute not so much whether the bringing in of more