journals, that no such impositions were granted by parliament.]

[Footnote 2: NOTE B, p. 20. Knox, p. 127. We shall suggest afterwards
some reasons to suspect, that perhaps no express promise was ever given.
Calumnies easily arise during times of faction, especially those of
the religious kind, when men think every art lawful for promoting their
purpose. The congregation, in their manifesto, in which they enumerate
all the articles of the regent's mal-administration, do not reproach
her with this breach of promise. It was probably nothing but a rumor
spread abroad to catch the populace. If the Papists have sometimes
maintained that no faith was to be kept with heretics, their adversaries
seem also to have thought, that no truth ought to be told of idolaters.]

[Footnote 3: NOTE C. p. 23. Spotswood, p. 146. Melvil, p. 29. Knox,
p. 225, 228. Lesley, lib That there was really no violation of the
capitulation of Perth appears from the manifesto of the congregation in
Knox, p. 184, in which it is not so much as pretended. The companies
of Scotch soldiers were, probably, in Scotch pay, since the congregation
complains, that the country was oppressed with taxes to maintain armies.
Knox, p, 164, 165. And even if they had been in French pay, it had been
no breach of the capitulation, since they were national troops, not
French. Knox does not say, (p. 139,) that any of the inhabitants of
Perth were tried or punished for their past offences, but only that they
were oppressed with the quartering of soldiers; and the congregation,
in their manifesto, say only that many of them had fled for fear.
This plain detection of the calumny with regard to the breach of the
capitulation of Perth, may make us suspect a like calumny with regard
to the pretended promise not to give sentence against the ministers. The
affair lay altogether between the regent and the laird of Dun; and that
gentleman, though a man of sense and character, might be willing to take
some general professions for promises. If the queen, overawed by the
power of the congregation, gave such a promise in order to have liberty
to proceed to a sentence, how could she expect to have power to execute
a sentence so insidiously obtained? And to what purpose could it serve?]

[Footnote 4: NOTE D, p. 24. Knox, p. 153, 154, 155. This author pretends
that this article was agreed to verbally, but that the queen's scribes
omitted it in the treaty which was signed. The story is ve