previous proceedings. But defiances had been exchanged. The Reformers
in their Protestation (December 1558) had claimed it as lawful, we know,
that they should enjoy their own services, and put down those of the
religion by law established, until such time as the Catholic clergy "be
able to prove themselves the true ministers of Christ's Church" and
guiltless of all the crimes charged against them by their adversaries.
{93c} That was the challenge of the Reformers, backed by the menace
affixed to the doors of all the monasteries. The Regent in turn had
thrown down her glove by the proclamation of February 9, 1559, against
disturbing services and "bosting" (bullying) priests. How could she
possibly do less in the circumstances? If her proclamation was
disobeyed, could she do less than summon the disobedient to trial? Her
hand was forced.

It appears to myself, under correction, that all this part of the history
of the Reformation has been misunderstood by our older historians. Almost
without exception, they represent the Regent as dissembling with the
Reformers till, on conclusion of the peace of Cateau Cambresis (which
left France free to aid her efforts in Scotland), April 2, 1559, and on
the receipt of a message from the Guises, "she threw off the mask," and
initiated an organised persecution. But there is no evidence that any
such message commanding her to persecute at this time came from the
Guises before the Regent had issued her proclamations of February 9 and
March 23, {94a} denouncing attacks on priests, disturbance of services,
administering of sacraments by lay preachers, and tumults at large. Now,
Sir James Melville of Halhill, the diplomatist, writing in old age, and
often erroneously, makes the Cardinal of Lorraine send de Bettencourt, or
Bethencourt, to the Regent with news of the peace of Cateau Cambresis and
an order to punish heretics with fire and sword, and says that, though
she was reluctant, she consequently published her proclamation of March