II.

THE TRADITIONAL BELIE JOHN FI N KNOX'S NETHERE HOUSTH T EA - BOW VINDICATED. BY CHARLES J. GUTHRIE, Q.C., F.S.A. SCOT. [!N REPLY TO Two PAPERS READ TO THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES JJY ROBERT MILLER, Esq., F.S.A. SCOT.]

Amon e servicegth s rendere Scotlano t d thiy b ds learned Societs yha been the preservation, largely through its efforts and influence, of John Knox's house at the Netherbow of Edinburgh. In 1849 the Dean of Guild Court ordered the removal of the house. After much controversy, in which this Society took an active part, that orde s recalledwa r n 1891I a pape . n i , r read before this Societye th , lat r MilleeD r suggested doubte genuinenesth f o shouse th Johf s ea o s n Knox's residence, while at the same time rendering valuable service by establishing e thastructurth t s contemporaneouwa e s with KnoxI . s repliepaperhi d nowo t dan ; n 1899i , , whe e attac th ns bee ha kn renewe r RoberM y b dt Miller r mucou , h respected ex-Dea f Guildo n , 0 25 PROCEEDING E SOCIETYTH F O S , MARC , 189913 H .

although on different and on many points inconsistent grounds, I am again allowed the privilege of reply. Was the game of 1849 worth the candle? Is the house now worth preserving , ami or e ;genera th d l destructio d propertol f o n n Edini y - burgh, is it of no importance whether it is removed or not ? The latter opinioe th s i n expressed h yrecena t corresponden Londoe th f o t n Morning Post, following the lines indicated in the paper recently read to this Society, while the New Penny Magazine of London, on the other hand, deplore prospecte sth . This Societ s heeyha u told that considerationf so the value and interest attaching to the house are irrelevant in this dis- t agreno cussion eo d wit I h. that I viewposses f I . sa coi f littlo n e value, extrinsi r intrinsicco a respectabl d an , e person, with some know- ledg coinsf eo ,discoveres tell thaha e se m forgerya h t e e coib dth o nt I , pitc t hawayi , without puttine th informan y f i gm e proof t th Bu o t .t coin, supposing it genuine, is of great and increasing value, known to coin collectors all over the world, and has been, in addition, accepted as genuine by skilled persons for a long period of years, T say to my in- formant, "You may be right. But you have got to prove what you indisputably provo h t t d sayi e an , e evidence. I shal" l show thaI t am entitle o makdt e samth e e deman n relatioi d o Knox'nt s house. How shall we test its value? Let us take the views of authors—anti- quarian, theological, historical, biographical, literary. booke Shoth e swm about Edinburgh antiquities, about the history of Edinburgh, about the sights of Edinburgh, whether produced by Scotsmen, Englishmen, Ameri- cans, or foreigners, whether the works of Dr M'Crie, Dr Chambers, Dr Laing Danier Si , l Wilson Humr D d e,an Brown Roberf o r o , t Louis Steven- son and Mrs Oliphant, or the production of the anonymous writers of guide- books,—shot forwarpu t whicy no d an o Johd he wm n Knox's Houss ea remaininw fe e th f go historicae on l monument Edinburgn si f supremho e human interest. It is enough to refer to one book, and that a book of the highest authority, The Memorials of Edinburgh in the Olden Time, by Sir Daniel Wilson. I quote from the edition of 1891, which con- tain s lateshi s t views, after consideratio late r Miller'th eD f o n s arsu- THE BELIEF IN JOHN KNOX'S HOUSE VINDICATED. 251

ments. e chie"Th f lion amon venerable gth Towd eOl nfabrice th f o s is the singularly picturesque dwelling which has been assigned by long accepted traditio mansioe th s na n provide expense towth e t th da s nf a e o lodgine s firsth it f t o gparis h minister." Take another test. Shoe wm the views of Edinburgh, in paint, engraving, wood-cutting, etching, or photography, which do not include a representation of John Knox's House t formI .frontispiece th s r Daniel-Wilson'Si o t e s second volume. If you cannot show me such books or pictures, then I think you will agree with me that the statements which, if well founded, remove the only sufficient justification for the continued existence of the house, requir e closesth e t scrutiny timen . ow , r Whysinc ou recale en th i , n i l 1850 of the Dean of Guild's order—an order based on a laudable desire for street improvement e genuinenesy doubth an f o e n to th t f o no s, house—the old mansion has been looked at by many millions of passers- by, by all with interest, by vast numbers with reverence. Its rambling, low-roofed rooms s it curiou, s passage d corkscrewan s stairse ar , traversed annuall n increasina y b y g number—last year .fully 6000— e mosth of t culturer visitorsou f o d , British, Continental, Colonial, American r MilleM . r doe t seesno realismo t e thes tols eha d factse H . e s publicbooth hi kn i , called John e Town th Knox d an Council f o Edinburgh (which brings together much valuable informatio thn o ne interesting subject indicated in that title), that the house is " consecrated as the Mecc f Scottisao h religionism, s reputatioit d "an s nattributei o dt wha r MilleM t r call e "neth s w cul f Joho t n Knox, which spranp gu with the advent of that evangelical spirit which gave rise afterwards to the Secession known as the Free Church." I confess this latter view is a now one to me. . I am sure the Free Church will gladly accept what most Scotsme l churcheal f o n s will conside a grear t (although uninten- tional) compliment. But I had always thought that our modern eman- cipation from the old prejudices about John Knox had been accomplished by Thomas Carlyle membea , churcho n f Jameo ry b , s Anthony Froude, a member of the Church of England, by Thomas M'Crie, an Anti- Burgher, that grand old ' Presbyterian Hildebrand,' as Mr Hallam 252 PEOCEEDINGS OP THE SOCIETY, MARCH 13, 1899. called him, and by David Laing, a member of the Established Church of Scotland e houss tth oA .e bein e "Meccgth f Scottiso a h religionism," were tha sufficiena t t description I ,shoul d still thin t wortki h preserv- ing, if it be the case, as impartial judges assure us, that to the Calvinism and Puritanism, whic hI suppose maie th ne ar characteristic s pointet da e expressiobyth n " Scottish religionism, e gri mose th t f du whic o ts "i h has enabled the poor inhabitants of this sunless, sterile and inclement land of ours to wrest for themselves a commanding position, in every department of life, in every quarter of the globe. "e MeccButh s i t f Scottisao h religionism adequat n "a e descriptiof no John Knox's House ? I take the Visitors' Book for a day in September 1898, and I read the addresses of the earliest visitors on that day :—

Bradford. Yorkshire. Neuch&tel, Switzerland. Leicestershire. Sussex. Dungannon, Ireland. Edinburgh. (Scottish reli- Banbury. t gionisnecesNo t? - Liverpool. sarily !) Aberdeen. (Another Scot- Dunedin Zealandw Ne , . tish religionist 1 But Paris, France. a pretty hard-headed Massachusetts. one !) Denmark. Sheffield. Gloucestershire. San Francisco. Chicago. Blairgowrie. Philadelphia. Leeds. Jamaica. London. London. i Llanelly, Wales.

t I rather appear e thae lism th t o t shows e housth s o havt e s a e much to do with Mecca as with Scottish religionism! Edinburg s nowadayha h s only three buildings associated witl al h the great actors in what Thomas Carlyle extravagantly calls the only in- THE BELIEF IN JOHN KNOX'g HOUSE VINDICATED. 253

teresting perio Scottisn di h history—the Reformation period,—Jame. sV and Mary of Lorraine; Cardinal Beaton, Sir David Lyndsay, Mary Queen of Scots, the Regents Murray and Morton, Maitland of Lethiiigton, George Buchanan d Johan , n Knox I refer. f coursee Castleo ,th o t ,, e North-west th Giles'S d an , t Towe d Abbean r y Churc f Holyrooo h d House. Connected specially "with John Knox, \ve pride ourselves on two other buildings—the Magdalene Chapel in the Cowgate, where Knox sat as a member of the first General Assembly, and the house at the Netherbow wher e died h en bot I . h these building s beey ha m n t i s privilege to take an interest. The late Mr J. M. Gray and I got up a fund some years ago to preserve from certain destruction the windows in the Magdalene Chapel, which contain the only extant specimens of Scottish pre-Reformation ecclesiastical stained I glasshav d ean ; tried to do something also for John Knox's House, emptying the important upper e miscellaneouroomth f o s s lumber they once containedd an , formin Reformatioga n librar picture-gallerd yan lowee th n yri rooms. Is the slender number of those ancient monuments now to suffer hoped reductioha e d ratheW n 1 havo t r e seen them adde , througto d h the labours of Mr Miller. Is it not possible, even yet, instead of attemptin o takgt e away Edinburgh's treasures o increast , e thes I m ? it not possible, in our closes, to identify, not sites, which are never inspiring, but actual extant houses in which Knox lived, or in which Cardinal Beaton lived, or George Buchanan, or any of the other towering figure Scottisn i s h history—Catholi r Reformedco , Presbyterian or Episcopalian careso wh I ,shal ? l ventur mako t e a suggestioe o t n Mr Miller. No man is better able than he to find for us such treasures, if they exist. Whe nI hear d som investigatins e wa year tha o e h ag ts g old Edinburgh houses, I was hopeful that, like Sir Daniel Wilson, e whCastlth o f eo discovere powder-magazinee on n i d s that price- less possession t Margaret'S , s Chapel r Milled M s abouad , wa o rt t e rols f th namEdinburgh'o hi l o t e s benefactors. But, alass hi , labours up to this point have been destructive, not constructive ! In solid result, wha o thed t y amoun 1 Onlo t to thi t ya proposa s: o t l 254 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, MARCH 13, 1399.

.destroy the only Edinburgh house which claims Knox for its occupant, and in its place to present to us several sites, of more or less certainty, occupie y moderb d nToww tenements ne e occupie nb e th o t y r b do , Counci e ltha b o fint buildings y ta suitabld ma t I e. sit n Edini e - t alwayburgno s i hse Councith easy s a , l t s knowcostit Bu o .t s what is a site compared to an actual dwelling, admittedly con- temporaneous, round whic affectione hth associationd an s f generationso s have circled? Last summer two Frenchmen, visiting John Knox's Hous t differena e t times, declare de mosth it t interesting placn i e Edinburgh. The one was a Parisian Catholic, a colleague of the late Monsieur Pasteur e otherth ; a litterateur, a Protestan, t Professon i r Neuchatel. Suppose these gentlemen return to Edinburgh, and propose, s thea y would certainl revisio t , e houseth do yt . They fin t i goned . "What will they think of a notice-board offering them their choice of the sites of John Knox's house as identified by Dr Miller, or the totally different sites preferred by Mr Miller ! Will they not reply that these are worse than nothing—they are not even to give stones instead of bread 1 But I remain open to conviction. The mere fact that, as Mr Miller expresses it in his book, the house has been " recently paraded in a Free Church mantle"—what a funny simile !—has no weight with me what- amuse tham e evera se writeDundeeI e a t o d.th t n i r Advertiser lasf o t week, referring to to-night's meeting, suggests that my interest in the house is due to my being a Free Churchman, and to the importance to the Free Church of the revenue drawn from the house ! Being in print, and not coming to us by oral tradition, this must, of course, be true,—just as accurat e statementth s a e , whic I hexpec reao t t d soon, thae th t motive for my recent popular edition of John Knox's History was the fortune whic hI expec amaso t t s frosam e proceede th mth et timeA s! , I may explain that the result of my interest in John Knox's house, and the large sums spent on it under my auspices, has been to make the account continuously on the wrong side ! But, seriously, the views of men r likDanieSi e l r HumWilsoD d ean n Brown canno e thub t s THE BELIE JOHN I F N KNOX'S HOUSE VINDICATED5 25 .

depreciated; and as to myself, I can only judge from what I recently did with a volume bequeathed to the Free Church as having belonged to the great Marquis of Argyle. I ruthlessly destroyed its value by proving that it was not published till two years after his death. Yet I confess that if, by discovery of new facts proving the tradition impossible of reasonable belief—a different thing altogether from the suggestion of surmisesw ne doubtsw suspicionsne ,w ne , inferences—w ne , forcem a I d to abando universallbelieo e s n th lon o d s f gan y entertained I shal, d bi l good-bye to the picturesque, many-gabled old house, with expressions of regre f whichs waye strango i t th t i ,y b o ,fin t eo trac n d e whateven i r the writings of Mr Miller,—either in the articles which appeared in the Scotsman, or in his republication of these articles in the form of the book already mentioned, or in the papers, consisting of parts of these articles, which have been read to this Society. thesn i s i e t circumstanceI s tha I tpropos e to-nigh shoo t t w thae th t Society of Antiquaries in 1849 did not lend itself either to a gross im- posture or a stupid mistake, and that the tradition first recorded in 1806, as embodyin undisputen ga d and indisputable fact, thereafte r nearlfo r y ninety years universally accepted by learned and unlearned, is not to be held as disproved by the doubts and suspicions and inferences of two gentlemen, eminen t d usefuagreno an t s citizenseo a ld together o wh , , whosd an e authorit s expertya s canno comparee b t d wit e authoritth h y of thoshavo wh ee held d stilan , l hold claime e houss it th th , f o o t es name sufficient. Now, what is the question about which we are at issue ? As in many controversies, the accurate definition of the question may go a long way toward solutions sit . I define it thus : Has it been proved by those who impugn the tradition, that John Knox never e ISfetherbostayeth n i d w houseI ? take the question as Sir Daniel Wilson took it, and as Dr Hume Brown takes it, when he says—"Against the tradition that points to Mosman's housa residenc s a e f Knoo e o satisfactorn x y evidenc s beeha e n adduced." 256 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, MARCH 13, 1899.

On the other side, I do not find the question anywhere crisply t unfairlno e h formulated yy I statethin ma t t i dkBu .thus : Have thos accepo e traditiowh th t n prove documentary h d y evidence coming down from Knox's time, first that he lived in the Netherhow house from his final return to Edinburgh in 1560 to his death in 1572; and second, that all the preposterous legends as to secret baptising at a well within e houseth , etc. truee ar , 1? I prefer my way of stating the question, for these reasons :— First.— e burdeth y f proosa nIo f liethosn o s e attackin housee gth . If a man has for a series of years passed without challenge as of an prooe hones th point n upo i f, m pu is thant thi e characterno h t o d u yo , havy o lonma es o e fr beeg H fact fo professen s . , ha whabe e o t h dt guilty of falsehood, fraud, and wilful imposition, but those who allege case th ee sucmusb o ht t tak onue neves eth provinf ha so e rh f i g d itan ; even been suspecte f dishonesto d r manyfo y years e onuth , s a wil e b l proportionately heavy one, to prove his guilt by the clearest evidence. Second.— I declin encumbeo t e e issuth r e wit n enquira h y inte th o whole period of Knox's Edinburgh residence. If he ever stayed in the house, tha enougs i t entitlo ht e housth e the-nameo et s . wa Tha e h t n othei r house s wela s l between 156 1572d s death 0hi an date f th , o e, is of no more concern to me than to show, as could be done with equal success and equal futility, that from his birth in 1505 down to 1560 he never set foot in the Netherbow house. I find what I call this fallacy even in the title of Mr Miller's first paper. It runs—" Where did John Knox live in Edinburgh?" It should have run—"Where did John Knox live in Edinburgh from 1560 to 1569 1" Then I should not have had a word to say about it, although I am far from accepting all its con- clusions. To disprove the right of the Netherbow house to claim Knox's residencf o n e ma s durin Edinburga hi p l u al g t se h o t life s i , straw to knock him down again,—excellent practice for the muscles, but t fruitfuno practicaf o l l results. Thi , howeveris s , wha r MilleM t r does when, postulating " this (Knox's residence in the house during the whole period) is an integral part of the full-blown legend," he vexes himself in THE BELIEF IN JOHN KNOX'S HOUSE VINDICATED. 257

vain to disprove a proposition which always seemed to me absurd, in view of the Town Council minutes from which Dr M'Crie quoted so long ago. Third.—The elaborate exposure given by Mr Miller of the many stories woven round the original traditio ingeniouy nb s person s besidi s e the mark. The exposure has been often done before, but will no more affect the question than if anyone establishing, as he can easily do, that the flooring outside Mary's bedroom at Holyrood has been renewed within fifty years, and thus exploding the legend of the blood-stain, were then to maintain that the whole connection of Eizzio with the north- west towe f Holyrooo r d mus e giveb t. Thinup s fallacy appears in the title of Mr Miller's second paper: " The Legend of John Knox's t complaiHouse.no o d thif I no " s title, becaus t stateei factsa . There ia tradition—as I thins a kthoroughl y reliable tradition—of John Knox's House d s ther\isuala an ,s i e , also legena , f Johdo n Knox's House n imaginativa , suppressioe th tale o t , f whicno hI hav e myself contributed. What I desire to guard against is the confusion of thought which doe distinguissnot h betwee two nthe seem but , thinto s k them synonymous, as for instance when, dealing with the original tradition, Mr Miller designates it, " the legend in its most attenuated form " ! I shall be proud to be known as the champion of the tradition that Knox resided in this house, but I decline the distinction which Mr Miller seek confeo st r f beinupoo champioe e gnth m legena f no d which affirms tha housete Kiiowela th d n t whici la , x ha h there were secret baptisms, that the carved outside figure at the corner was a genuine portrait of the Eeformer e thad regulath an ,t n i Kno r s habix wa f preachin o t e th o gt people in the street out of a window. Equally, reverting to my old illus- tration soos a ,anybods a n y denies Rizzio's connection wit e existinhth g north-west tower of Holyrood, I shall be glad to do battle for our possessio n Edinburga s a n h attraction a plac f o o muc,es h associated with that interesting foreigner, but I shall decline to treat the blood- stain as anything but material for grim jesting. If, then, the question is, Has it been proved that John Knox never 258 ' PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, MARCH 13, 1899.

residee Netherboth n i d w house,—wha t e answehangth n o that o sr t question t presenA ?e housth t e continues ticketed "John Knox's House." To satisfy all forms of scepticism, however, I said to some •friends that I was getting a sign-painter to interline two words, so as to make the board read "The alleged House of the so-called John Knox" ! Bu I fint d that Scotlandn i , muse on , t joke with cautione resulth r tfo , has been that I have been told by quite a number of people that they had been informed (two of them named Mr Miller as their informant) , thae is th ty sa e housen l losthal d th faitca tha al Al ha tn I t i h. I t report is absolutely without any foundation whatever; and that, before I perpetrate another joke in Scotland, I shall see that there is a duo provision of surgical appliances. e practicath e b Whao lt outcome s i t ? Obviously, ther onle o ear ytw courses. Either the house must continue to be shown as John Knox's, honestly believing, as the Trustees of the House do, that it is entitled to the name, or the board must be removed. But if, on being convinced that the house is not John Knox's, we remove the board, we cannot stop there. The removal of the house itself must .follow; and in its place we shall, I suppose, erect a neat tenement, built to resemble in style, so far as possible, that adjoining Grecian structure, whose exquisite appropriateness to its surroundings, all people, of taste, including the Cockburn Association, hav lavishlo es y praised I nee. d scarcel thad than yad o t t event coming to pass—which Heaven forbid !—we shall never hesitate whose name, as that of the true author, should be "associated with the new Grecian tene- ment, in substitution for that of John Knox! But if my method of stating the question is conceded, the dispute is n enda t a . Inferences are doubto ,n , suggeste shako t s a i o ds belie n i f the probability of the tradition being accurate. I can only say, as a lawyer, that these inferences seem to me strained and inconclusive, as well as insufficient to outweigh the fact of the tradition. Doubt is undoubtedly cast on the tradition, but proof of its falsehood there e presenth n i s r nonei documentart d ou stat an f , o e y evidence there can be none, because it is admitted that Knox passed at least two THE BELIE JOHN I F N KNOX'S HOUSE VINDICATED9 25 .

years of his life in Edinburgh in a house or houses of whose situation o documentarthern s i e y evidence whatever, - —o sayt tha s i ,t fully two years during which, or part of which, he may, for aught yet seen, have lived in the Netherbow house. It is no use to reply that there is no original documentary evidence that he lived in the Netherbow house during that period. I do not need documentary evidence. I have e traditionth , whic friendy hm so displace t hav t go e , unless o thes o yg o refust l l s fatradition,—ivalua al ral e o t e n short anythino t , n i t gno print,—a position as absurd as the opposite extreme of believing everything coming down to us by tradition ; or unless their argument drives them to e conclusioth n that, because evidenco thern s i e whan ei t house Knox lived during thes yearso housey tw t liv,an t thereforalleno n ea i d ! di e eh I have said that casting doub . Castindo t wilt no l g doubmoro n s ei t use by itself than casting mud. Give me time to burrow, and I shall be prepared, although I do not say with the same zest as Mr Miller, to cast doub evern o t y fac Scottisn i t h history prio livino t r g memory, and, prior same th eo t period evern o , y historical associatio Edinburgh—fon ni n a r adequate remuneration ! It would be uncongenial employment, and I should have to deal with the matter not in the broad and patriotic spirit suitabl sucr efo enquiryn ha t wit e microscopibu , hth flye d th an , f o e cey kin amouninsisthe to dand on tevidenc of t e which would senman da to the scaffold, or obtain a warrant from the Dean of Guild Court. But, pursuing the main lines of Mr Miller's argument, I think I could, for instance, persuad gooa e d many people tha claime e chapeth th t f o n si l the Castle to the deservedly sainted name of Malcolm Canmore's wife are expose e greatesth o t d t doubt d thae nomenclaturan th ,t e th f o e Marian rooms in Holyrood must be abandoned. t thiA s point, however I mus, t mak qualificationea . Although there is no documentary evidence of where Knox lived during the two years I have referred to, it might have been shown that the house could not be Kiiox's house, because it was built after his death. Even the ignorant tourist who imagines that Moray House was the residence of Eegent Moray sees his mistake when ho is told that the house was not built till the 260 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, MARCH 13, 1899.

century after the tragedy at Linlithgow. But both my antagonists maintain that wha cale w tl Knox's house stoo n Knox'i d s later years substantiall t i stand s ya s now,—tha sayo t ,s i t that Kiiox must have passed the house hundreds of times, and probably have been within its walls. It is not like Shakspeare's birthplace, of which only the cellar, t besta , e poet'remainth n i s s timesa . . The hoiise, then, being old enough and commodious enough to have been Knox's, and in suitable proximity to his church, while comfortably removed from the guns of the Castle, there.can be no sufficient reason to reject the tradition, unless it can bo proved either that, during his whole residenc Edinburghn ei livee h , d elsewhere r thae houso , th s t ewa so occupied durin whole gth Knox'f eo s Edinburgh life that accommoda- tion coul t possiblno d y s familhavhi ed ybee an withi nm founhi nr fo d s wallsit . Proof of residence elsewhere, covering the whole period, admittedly fails, to the extent of fully two out of twelve years. What remains 1 s therI e evidence impossibl n thahouse a s th t ewa e hous r Knoxfo e I ? have heard none. And here I must in fairness acknowledge the great service rendered to the supporters of the house, albeit unwittingly, by the late Dr Miller. It was largely through his efforts that the owner- ship of the house was traced to James Mosman—the J. M. of the outside tablet—giving ground for the strong argument founded upon the cir- cumstances of the Mosman family at the time of Knox's return from St Andrew Augusn si t 1572, whic commendes hha d itsel suco t f h authorities as Sir Daniel Wilson and Dr Hume Brown, although rejected, on what e inadequatseem o mt e grounds r Miller M e reject H y b . , t i chiefls y because Mosma Catholica s t Mosmanwa Bu . n owned several housen si Edinburgh, some of which he must have rented to others, and it would be alien to all we know of the customs of the time for a Catholic house- proprietor in Edinburgh to have refused house rent from the Town Counci f Edinburgho l , whoever migh e thb te tenan r whofo e t mth Counci s payinwa l e lasgth t rentn monthI . f Knox'o s s life t seemi , s likely tliat even house rent would not have stood in the way. The THE BELIEF IN JOHN KNOX'S HOUSE VINDICATED. 261

Castle was held for the Queen by Kirkcaldy of Grange. Mosman, the goldsmith housee e owneth th , f adherenn o a r, supportef Mara o t d yan r of Kirkcaldy, was taken from the Castle with Kirkcaldy and hanged a few months later t . knowr no Whe e M Castlo d th . e fle e nh o t edw Miller thinks it was probably not till after Knox's death. It is a matter of opinion. I confess to thinking, with Dr Hume Brown and Sir Daniel Wilson, that Mosman fled there before, and left his Netherbow house vacant, makin likela git y Councihousthe efor assig to l Knoxnto . I mentio r Daniel'Si n s revered name without hesitation spitn i , f o e the private letter to Dr Miller which Mr Miller has quoted to show that r DanieSi d contradicteha l e opinionth d , previousl d subsequentlan y y expressed by him, in favour of the genuineness of the hovise. I do not into wisg oo t htentativ e views expresse privatn di e letters r DanieSi . l . FindlayE . J o r wh M , alaWilso, s i so s! r Mille d D dead s ni s an i r; o s ; once showed me the volume of private letters to which Mr Miller has referred. It is better, I venture to think, to look at what Sir Daniel Wilson committe de lashimselth t n i editioMemorials,s o hi t f f no pub- lishe 1891n di I alsprivatd . oha e letters fro r DanielmSi , written after the one referred to, and after lie had considered the views which I put before the Society. In these letters to me he stated as his final opinion exactly what appeare lasth t n editioi sMemorials.s hi f no r Mille M r quotes a part of the passage from the Memorials, but not the whole. e quoteH s these words:—"I e absencnth f otheo e r evidencey ma e w , welcome such guidance as tradition supplies, and still think of the house lono s thags bornha t lodgine nams th ehi s ea g wher s lashi e t days were spent." That is sufficient for me; but why does Mr Miller stop short, ant giv nexe dno eth t sentence—"He expired sixty-sevente therth n ei h year of his age,"—that is to say, in Sir Daniel Wilson's opinion, in a house whic r MillehM r sayhighls i t si y improbabl evee eh r occupied. I have said enougpurposey m r Miller hM fo . r doe t allegsno e impos- sibility, but only a high degree of improbability. But where you have a tradition, not improbable in itself, traceable in an unexaggerated form beyond living memory, and universally accepted for a long period of years, VOL. XXXTII. S 2 26 PEOCEEDING SOCIETYE TH F O S , MAKC , 189913 H .

not merely by tlie people, but by scholars and antiquaries, after investiga- tion t musi , e proveb t d impossibl e fairleb beforn y ca stampe t i e a s a d mere legend. A legend, in the modern use of that word which Mr Miller adopts, is something, either in itself impossible, or something actually disproved somethinr o , whicn g i inextricabl o e s trud fals th he an ear e y mixe p thau d t they cannot lie disentangled e wholth d e an mus, e b t rejected. t disinclineno m a I o deat t d lBu wit r Miller'hM s doubts. Somf o e them e reasonabl m see o mt e doubts; others far-fetched d otheran , s dependent on fallacies, due either to deficient perspective, or to partial informatio contractea d nan d outlook inadequato t r o , e reflection. In approaching these doubts, I must, with great respect both for the late r MillerM r r fo Mille, D citizend an r whoo t s e peoplmth Edinburgf eo h ow greaa e t deal, declin accepo t e t anythin thein go r ipse m dixi.t.a I not impressed, for instance, by such statements as the following, obviously inappropriate to an argument founded entirely on probabilities, and coming from an author who tells us—so obscure are the facts—" I had to change my opinion on many points many times." Mr Miller says :— " The foregoing discussion has shown that there never was any founda- tion statemene foth r t that Knox Netherbow e liveth t shownds a ha t I ,. further, that the legend attached to the present house is an invention altogethe presene th f ro t century." Tha vera s i ty easy thin sayo gd t an ; I know, from experience with juries, how impressive such a statement is apt to he, when made with proper emphasis, until it is replied on the other side, as I reply now with equal emphasis, that Mr Miller's admis- sion f ignorancso f Knox'eo s residence durin yearo o t tw g se seem mo t leave ample foundation for the belief that Knox lived in the Netherbow legene houseth thato d t d s an ;attachea , house th o edt being inven"n a - tion altogether of the present century," the only legend to which the present century can lay exclusive claim is the unfounded assertion stated, for the first time in the last decade of the century, that John Knox never lived in the Netherbow house. Apart, then, from bare assertion there doubty ar , ean s worth attention? 263

Perhaps you expect me to say there are none. I say nothing of the kind. I say, of course there are. Indeed, I could supply, for a con- sideration, a few more to Mr Miller,—points which I humbly think are at leasn connectioi f hiso s plausibla d ty ,an an s na e with whice th h fallacies on which they are based are by no means so obvious. I am struck by the resemblance between my friend's arguments and those used against Shakspeare's birthplace u wilYo l .remembe e r th fou f o r most prominen r Miller'M f o t s points,—first e absencdocuy th , an f -o e mentary reference to the house till early in this century; second, the likelihood of confusion with another John Knox; third, the fact that at one time the name of John Knox's Land seems to have been extended also over an adjoining house; and fourth, the absurd additions with whic e originath h l stor s becomha y e encrusted. What about Shakspeare's birthplace t There also we find a complete absence of any reference to the house, as associated with Shakspeare's documeny birthan n i , t until lat n lasei t century. Again e namth , f o e William Shakspcar a ver s e districty th wa ecommo n i feweo n ,e on nr than three Richard Shakspeares, with sons called William, having been unearthed by the perverse industry of the cavillers against the house. Again, the name of Shakspeare's birthplace was connected not only with the house now shown, but with the house immediately adjoining. And finally, minute internal identifications have been devised inside the house, which it is easy, to show are impossible and absurd. All these arguments have been tried on at Stratford, and all of them and many others have been hel y competendb t authorities utterly insufficieno t t outweigh a tradition recorded originally very little earlier and on no better authority than the Knox tradition, and more exposed to criticism, becaus e Shakspeariath e n traditio challenges nwa d withiyearw fe sna after it was first recorded; whereas the Knox tradition was unchallenged until 1891, and then by a gentleman whose conclusions are summarily rejected by Mr Miller. I have referred to the original tradition. What was it ? Not in the least what Mr Miller asserts it to have been. He says that "the original . PKOCEEDING E SOCIETY 4 TH 26 F O S , MARC , 189913 H .

statemene forth f mo thas wa t Kno sais xi havo dt e live particulaa t da r house in the Netherbow for the eleven years from 1560 to 1571." - This delusiona s i e originaTh . l statement sayo st nothins i e sort t I th f . go be found in two books, published in 1806 and 1811. In 1806, Stark, in s Picturehi of Edinburgh, vera y accurat carefud ean l book, thus writes :— " Amon e antiquitieth g f Edinburgo s mentionee b y ma he hous dth e of the great Scottish reformer, John Kiiox. It stands on the north side Hige th fooe hof th f o t Street, and, projecting int streete oth , reducet si nearl e ywesfigur a e th fronone-hals i th s n twidthi o e it t n t f O o f . alto relievo, pointin witp gu s finge hit radiatea o t r d stone whicn o , s i h sculptured the name of the Divinity in three different languages:— 6E02 DEUS GOD

" Whether the figur means i e represeno t reformee th t r himsel notr o f , t knownno s e seemt whoevei h bu , ;havo is t s t i er been hardly used, e stonth parwhic n f s executeo ei o t t i h d being broken off, eithey b r acciden oldese r design o th tedifice f Th to ston.e itselon e s i housef s in Edinburgh. As, in the course of the improvements in the city, this buildin yearw gfe swila perhapn i l wishee e removedb b s o t ds i that i , t e sculptureth d stones coul e preservedb d n who n memori ma , , a f o y whatever wer s s bolfaultshi ehi dy b ,eloquenc d undauntean e d conduct pulled down the fabric of a superstition which had shackled the mind for ages."—Picture of Edinburgh, 1806, pp. 102, 103. M'CriDr e make referencsno clasStark'eto the sof snot bookwas it : likels boowa hav o yt e kh e consulted statements Hi . Lifes hi n oi ,f Knox, published in 1811, is as follows :— " The house which the Eeformer possessed is situated near the bottom of the High Street, a little below the Fountain Well. These three words are inscribe wall—0EO2e th n do , DEUS, GOD." e originath Thes e ar el statements d neithean , f theo r m affory an d warrant for Mr Miller's assertion. THE BELIE JOHN I F N KNOX'S HOUSE VINDICATED5 26 .

These fallacies being out of the way, we have only to point out the sharp contrasts betwee periodo ntw s constantly interwove r Miller'M n ni s narrative :—

e perio1Th . d during whic have hw a eclu o Knox'st e residencey b s findin namee landlords gth hi f so s mentione s Historyhi n di e ofth Reformation, or in the Town Council records. 2. The period when all extant documents are silent.

The first perio dI dismis s wit e observatioth h t profesnno o thasd I t to decide between Dr Miller and Mr Miller, who are here hopelessly t variancea r MilleM .s muc i r h more curt wit antagonisy hm f 189o t 1 thae dismisseH n wit. r Miller'hme D s s laborious identifications with e shorth t statement tha sitee th t s laid wit m dowmuco hi hs y nb h care were " incorrectly given." I can only say that I think a great deal is to be sai dr Miller' r Miller'D bot r M fo r h sfo s I sitehav d sited an sean , still an open mind between them. I go farther. I reserve right to prefer any of the other identifications inconsistent with either which, no doubt, succeeding equally able local antiquaries, perhaps takins gu down int e Cowgatoth changr efo airf eo , will periodically offer. And here I desire to acknowledge the great obligation which all lovers of John Knox's house are under, not as before to Dr Miller, but this r MillerM tim havinr o t efo , g dispose n argumena f r Miller'so dD f o t , whic hI considere e onlth d y formidable argument ever brought against the authenticity of the house. r Milledeadla D d ha ry suggestioe name origie th th th f f o eo no t s na present John Knox's House e coul H t brin. no d g himsel suggesto t f , as Mr Mille dones ha r , that some worthy scrivene tradesmar o r name th f eno of John Knox, living some distance up the High Street, has been mis- whole takenth y eb , citizen f Thundeo f Edinburghn o so So rwh e th r fo , dethrone Queeda d pulleuan d dowmuca d nChurcha h ha more H e. plausible theory. He suggested that John Knox, having undoubtedly time on e t occupiea housda e belonginnamen ma da Robero gt t Mowbray, and that house having been situated immediately to the rear of the pre- 266 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, MARCH 13, 1899.

sent house, both houses, frond hackan t , came naturall associatee b o yt d wit Reformere hth whed backhouse e an ; onlnth e th t th ,eya true house, was pulled down, the name naturally enough inured to the front house, which had no real right to it at all. Now, .however, we again breathe freely, for Mr Miller has proved to his own satisfaction, and we are not dispose e criticalb o t d , that Robert Mowbray's house, contrar o Dt yr Miller's opinion, and contrary to Sir Daniel Wilson's opinion, was not. down at the Netherbow at all, but much higher up the High Street. Second. The period when all extant documents are silent, namely, from November 156 o Novembet 9 r 1572e perioth , d r MillewhenM s a r, frankly admits, " documentary prooe simplth r f efo fail reasos u s n that no documentary proof of the kind already quoted is known to exist." Take, first, November 1569 to May 1571, when Knox went to St Andrews. s scarceli t I y denied that during this period , Kno it y parr o f , o xma t have occupie e Netherboth d wn endeavou a house t Bu .s madi r o t e escape from the consequences of such a quasi-admission by saying— Suppose he did, no such residence would entitle the Jiouse to its name, because nothing that occurred during these years " could have consecrated his residence as the Mecca of Scottish religionism." Why not ? If he resided in the house during this period, why should it not be called John Knox's House? Was it nothing to make the period memorable to Scottish religionism that Knox, during its progress, was struck with apoplexy t Must the interest of that period be confined s lifetimehi o n Scottis t i s secretar o hi ;s t h no yreligionis s wa t I m 1 .tell s "thau s e bruith t t passe t onlno dy through Scotland,but also ot England s becom, wa tha e mose h tth e t deformed creature that ever was seen, and that he would never preach nor yet speak." Would there not be anxious enquirer t thasa t n eagehousea d r an ,crowd , bot f friendho s and foes, watchin conditios ghi n whe firse nh t left itfino t ;d both hopes and fears disappointed, for, as Richard Bannatyne quaintly puts it, withi d dayw "Go fe s na declare d them e convalescedh liars r fo ,o s d an , returned to his exercise of preaching, at least on the Sunday." Would THE BELIEF IN JOHN KNOX'S HOUSE VINDICATED. 267

nobody care to see the house to which was brought the news of the murdee Queen'th f o r s half-brothe t Linlithgowa r e Greath , t Eegent, whose character and career have baffled so many investigators, the house from which Knox went to preach the funeral sermon at St Giles' which, as Calderwood tells us, " moved 3000 persons to shed tears for the loss of such a good and godly governor"? Or, are there none so poor, even among Scottish religionists, as to do reverence to the house to which, after Knox's beed lifha en attempted, " some brethren, s Bannatyn"a e nighe reportsth f 19to tn "o h, April 1571, fearin Johr gfo n Knox, their minister, came and watched all night in the house " 1

Second Period—August to November 1572. Here, again havwe , e nothin doubt tolgbut are d meetto stha We t. probabilitabsence y "th an f o e y that Knox live thin di s house deepens into certainty that Knox did not die in it." That is a dangerous form of argument. Apply it to Mary's career, and you will have to re-write her history ! Was there not " an absence of probability, deepening into impossibility," thae mostth t attractive woma n Europei n , brave, devout, accomplished, generous, loyal, affectionat e casth e e (forn i s ,a of King David I ,believ e worse th bot e besd t th han abou t t Mary kings d e Queen),ha th o , princeswh r suitorsd noblehe an ,r fo s, would eve e uniteb r n marriagi d n effeminata o t e e debauchee like Darnley, or an obscene ruffian like Bothwell ? Where and why does the cer- tainty whiccomn o r Millen dogmatieo i M hs s i r ctolde 1 First ar e , w , because neither Knox's secretary nor Principal Smeton, his friend, make any referenc Knox'o et s residenc e Netherbowth t a e . Neither the, ydo any mor eresidencs tha hi othey o nt an rn ei hous e ! Doe t folloi s w that e liveh d nowhere t -tole secondar Bu d ? e thaw , a physicat s "iwa t l improbability, deepening into an impossibility, that Knox should have spent his last three months in life in Mosman's house." And then Mr Mille r Irishma broughe o addsth wh s a , d hundrea tndi d peopl provo et e that the steam e coatyhi th lneve ,w e cumulativ"sa rth e negative 268 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, MARCH 13, 1899.""

evidenc overwhelmins ei g agains associatioy an t f Knono e Keformexth r with the Netherbow." That argument is easily tested. It is based on e theorth yremoto thae to hous th s t e ewa fro t GilesmS r Knofo ' o t x Avalk s feebltherhi n ei e state. Thi s foundei s n Knox'o d s accounf o t himself, written fro t AndrewsmS "s t half-dead., wa bu tha e ; h s t Ye " Mr Miller forgets, or perhaps is not sufficiently in sympathetic contact with Knox's indomitable spiri realiseo t t , that John Knox "half-dead" was more alive than half-a-dozen ordinary men in the maturity of their powers. What was this semi-corpse doing when he thus described him- self ? He was preaching, so that, once he got fairly started, he was "like to din pulpie gth t into it,f o blad James "t fled a ou esan s Melvill tells su in a sentence, of which the first part only is quoted by Mr Miller. He was writin gtrenchana t pamphle repln i t s Tyrio yt Jesuite wa eth e H . controverscarrying bi a n go y wit Universite hth y authoritiess wa e h d an ; conducting a large correspondence, not only with different parts of Scot- land, but with England and the Continent. No doubt he was feeble in body t Jamebu , s Melvill tell s tha su walkee h t d froAbbee t mth S t ya Andrews ,s lodge e Novuwherth wa n e i demh Hospitium parise th o ht , church r MilleM . r reject e Netherboth s w hous s Knox'a e s residence during the last months of his life because he could not have walked the 410 yards intervening between it and St Giles', where he preached. Why t AndrewS e th s s wa Abbe r fa yw fro e parisHo mth t ? no h churcn I h1 straighEdinburga r yards0 ou 55 s I s t. linwa h t eclimati enervatino es g that Knox could not walk 410 in Edinburgh 1 But all this is beside the mark. Kylligrew e Englisth , h envoy, tell s thatu s n poini , f facto t , Knox did not walk, except when he preferred to walk, because, Kylligrew says, "e causeh d himsel e carriet b Giles'.S o o t t df " What, then, become r Miller'M f o s s great point, o anxiouslwhics e h h y labours throug pagen te h f hi o ss book, that e conditio"th f Knox'o n s health made his residence at the Netherbow under the circumstances narrated by those authorities practically impossible" d againa an s ; ,wa "t i practical impossibility for Knox to have walked to that place after a long and fatiguing service, eyen though ' leaning on his staff.' " Why THE BELIE JOHN I F N KNOX'S HOUSE VINDICATED9 26 . same th en i conditio so, if ; f healtn o t Andrews S t ha walkee h , d further, and if in Edinburgh he did not require to walk at all 1 I have dwelt on this point hecause it is not an unfavourable specimen e straineoth f d reasoning through whic r MillehM r labour discredio st t this interesting historical monument. Lastly, there only remain two arguments of Mr Miller's not dealt withoftee H n. risk f e becom remindo r traditioth n sf ou o ru - s s su n ha distortedg in , hande n froo d m generatio generatioo t n n durin e longth g space of two hundred and thirty-four years, from Knox's death in 1572 to 1806, whe t firsni t appeare printn di . This looks plausible at first sight. But it crumbles when you grasp it. hundreo Tw thirty-foud dan r year s1 Yes e ;arithmetica th tha s i t l dis- tance between 1572 and 1806. But, in the transmission of knowledge, suco n ther hs gapewa . Thin momenta t kovei r fo r . Some peoplo ewh s childrea n watched Knox's funeral woul e ableb d , seventy-five years after 1572, to point out to their grandchildren the house from which the procession started " with man ya fearfu l heart, s Bannatyn"a e tell. sus whoo t d m An would these grandchildre e abl b no impar t e e knowth t - ledge thus acquire they db t mfirsa t hand fro actuan ma l spectatoe th f ro funeral 1 Why, they would be able, with no undue assumption of lon- gevity, to impart their knowledge to persons alive in 1806. The matter seemdeale b t o relate i t sEgyptia e witf i th s o hda t n Sphynx stone th , y mystery muso wh , t have bee objecn na f veneratioo t e Patriarcth o t n h Abraham as he sojourned in Egypt, because even then the Sphynx was already one thousand years old. If the doubts about John Knox's house, suggested so recently for the first time, had been stirred in 1806, when the house was openly and without challenge claimed for Edinburgh as Knox's residence u coulyo , d hav d evidencha e f recollectioo e n going back cer- tainl 1731—recollectioo yt f statemento n s madd e peopleha d b yol o wh , themselves derived their knowledge at first hand from persons alive at Knox's death. Thus you have only one independent life between the child of 1572 and the old man of 1806. I only wish that all our beliefs, resting, as so many of them necessarily do, on tradition unwritten for 270 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, MARCH 13, 1899.

many hundred f yearso s , were founde a basi n littlo o s ds e exposeo t d error. And now I come to a genuine specimen of the genus Red-herring,—Mr Miller's naive suggestion, that durin l thesal g e ed al th lan year e w s world have been takin wrone g hatr th of o ou fgst John Knox ! Stripped bare, what is the basis for this extraordinary suggestion, absolutely unexample othey an e hav rw n d i placs e a o heardr s r timeeo fa d o s an ,, natterin r forefathersou o gt ' intelligenc s -founha e d eH tha ? t before, in , and since Knox's time there were house-proprietors in Edinburgh of the nam f Knoxo e , som f whoo e m were named John e callH .s thia s discovery. I traced out some of these worthy citizens more than ten years ago, but never imagined I had made any discovery. I regret now that I did not take out a patent; but, in my simplicity, I thought, look- ing to the commonness of both names, that the existence of such people went without saying e nearesTh . t John Kno Joho xt n Knox's house he locates about 110 yards away. Mr Miller may be right, but my recollection is that my identification, very likely imperfect, planted the neares stiln lma tfarthe t thamayre i offB s ta .,extraordinar e whath s i t y conclusion from such obviou se gravely premisear e W asked s1 y , "Ma we not surmise that here we have tracked the legend to its lair, and that either Star r Stark'o k s unknown informan d seee namha th nt e John Kno n somxi e title-deed f properto s thin yd i le s s localitywa d an , immediatel conclusioe th o yt n tha Joho tn n Knox coulimportancf o e db e y shoul Wh e ?surmise "w d on t e bu anythin e kinth df 1 Supposo g e thao t d t le Starconclusion s kwa doew sho , that affec e namth tf o e Stard thidi ksw housecomho d o transfet ean , a Johr n Knox owning property away up the street to a house away down at the ISTetherbow ? If, in the title-deeds of this house you had found, among former owners or tenants "Joha , n e KnoxReformerth t migh"no u yo , t have argued, with some decent sho f plausibilitywo , that, however improbables wa t i , t leasa t possible tha laten i t r year confusiosa d arisenha n between John Kno Tradesmae xth Johd an nn Kno e Iconoclast Miller'r xth M t sBu . point n anothei , s caser hi pars thai f ,o suco n tt h nams evewa er THE BELIEF IN JOHN KNOX'S HOUSE VINDICATED. 271

associated wit titlee hth f thiso s house. Where, then thers i , e roor mfo mistake th como et , witein h referenc thio et s mistake e housTh t i e ? f i , came in at all, would come in with reference to one of these other houses actually owned hy another John Knox d thaan , t only supposing any of these other houses had heen found associated in later times with the Reformer's name. But no such association has even been suggested. One would have expected some house to he connected with Edinburgh's greatest citizen for long after his death by the common people, among whom traditions linger. But there is not, and, so far as we know, never s been traditioy ha an , n connectin Eeformee gth r withousy an h e except the e housNetherbowth n ei , which, we helieve beed ha ,n handed down from one generation to another, because it was the house where he died. I close with a challenge which I have thrown out before, and which has never been faced. If Stark's statement, publicly made in 1806, and r M'Crie'D s statement, made with equal publicit n 1811yi Roberd an , t Chambers' statement in 1823, were inventions, why were they not questioned? The hooks of these men were all reviewed, and in Dr M'Crie's case with great hostility in many quarters. What a chance to expose M'Crie's untrustworthiness t leasa s credulity t r hi i to , s Wa ! because th e e beginninpeopl t th th ee centurno n th i e d f o gha y necessary information 1 They needed no information but only their own recollectio o stamnt n inventio a s pa n r MillewhatM rightf e i ,b r , must necessarily have been known to be an invention by all Edinburgh people. interesy an dend o t te statement ha y t th becausi e s on e o Wa eTh n ? very opposit casee th .s e i Recal facte th l s connected wit attemptee hth d remova e hous th e Dea y ordef th b eo lf Guil f o no r d Cour n 1847i t . After much controversy e fac th f muc eo n i hd oppositionan , , that order was recalled d Johan , n Knox's hous same saves th ewa y db Court f o s Law which stopped our civic rulers from quarrying away Salisbury Crags, d froan m building Princes Stree botn o t h streete sideth f so . Whas twa fuse th s l abou al y wertWh e 1 indignation meetings held petitiond an , s signed and subscriptions collected ? Why did this Society of Antiquaries take an active part in the row? Not because the house was old and 272 PKOCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY, MARCH 13, 1899.

picturesque. At that date Edinburgh had plenty such houses, and the advantages to be got from widening the street were sufficient to counter- balance and extinguish all merely antiquarian and aesthetic considerations. house Ns defendeth o! ewa d e undoubtesolelth s ya d residenc Johf eo n Knox. If that characteristic of the house could have been effectually challenged whole th , e groune oppositioth r e Council'dfo th o t n s decree would have disappeareds ther wa o sucn e y h suggestioWh . n1 Plenty peopld ol e were aliv 184n ei 7 whose memories stretche bacr dfa k inte oth precedin toldgw centuryno , e e ar storwhod th d e beenan ,w f yha i , s a , "an invention of the early part of the century," could have proved that invention beyond the possibility of doubt. Was it the crass stupidity or ignoranc Deae s Courth hi f Guilf n o eo n neglectin d i t an d a gweapo n ready to their hand and certain to slay ? I cast no such imputation. I think—you will judge—it was because any such assertion would have been instantly negative people,d ol woul o y db wh d have said, tha lono s t g as they remembered the house had been associated with the Reformer, and that they had heard the same account of it in their childhood from old people long dead. So passe "e Legensth f Johdo n Knox's House," unwept, unhonoured, an de traditio unsungth t Bu n. remains honouren a , d heritage froe mth futuree handee th past b o t o t ., n do Whe namese nth -thd ean writings l thos havoo al f ewh e taken par n thii t s friendly controversy have been long burie n oblivioni d , John Knox's e NetherboHousth t a e w will continue to render a great public service, by vivifying the memory of the greatest man, the greatest statesman, the greatest churchman whom God has yet given to the Scottish Church and the Scottish people, and through them to mankind.

[Note.—It is proper to add that, when a report of the foregoing paper appeare e Scotsman,th n i d a lette s publishewa r n thai d t newspaper pointing out that I was wrong in conceding that the first printed reference to John Knox's House occurs in Stark's Picture of Edinburgh, published 1806n writee i Th f tha.o r t letter referre CompanionA o dt d Usefulan THE BELIEF IN JOHN KNOX'S HOUSE VINDICATED. 273

BeautiesGuidee th o t of Scotland, e Hon s Murrayth y Mr . b f Kensingo , - ton, publishe n Londoi d n 1799ni whichn i , , describin gvisia t mady eb he Edinburgo t r 1784n hi , John Knox's Hous referres ei , amondto e gth other sights of the town. Mrs Murray wrote—"The Canongate joins, an facn di t make Hige parsa th Townd f h leado td Ol Streete an , sth n i , to the Abbey; and a fine place it is—for everything that is disagreeable! housee Th highe chiefld sar an , y inhabite e loweth y drb orde peoplef o r . streeAe sth t narrow lefe goinn th i t n so g down totterina s i , g bow-window thouseoa , whence Knox thundere addresses dhi people.e th o st " This, of course, dispose e viewth laboriousl o f s ,o s y elaborate r MillerM y b d, that the House, to use his own words, is "an invention of the early part of the century," and was originated by Stark.]

MONDAY, 10th April 1899. THE HON HAMILTOW .HE N DALEYMPLE, Vice-President, in the Chair.

A Ballot having been taken, the following Gentlemen were duly elected Fellows:—

JAMES DONALDSON BOSWALL, W.S., Donaldson House, Wardie. JULIAN G. WANDESFORD BDTLER, C.E., 2 Garscube Terrace, Murrayfleld. BENJAMIN 0. Cox, Manldslieugh, Selkirk. HENRY R. HOWATT, 99 Millbrae Koad, Langside, Glasgow. ROBERT OR Kinnairdf Eo , Stirlingshire Wes9 7 , t Nile Street, Glasgow. ROBERT M. SUTHERLAND, Wallside, Falkirk.

The following Donations to the Museum and Library were laid on the table thankd an , s Donore voteth o dt s :— (1) By The Eight Hon. THE EAHL OP HOPETOUN. Three Button f jeto s a ancien, founn i n dt e witUr buria th n ha n o l estate of the Earl of Hopetoun at Old Windymains, Keith Marisehall,