JAMES VI

AND THE

GOWRIE MYSTEEY

BY

Andrew Lang

LONGMANS, GKEEN, AND CO,

39 PATEKNOSTER ROW, LONDON

NEW YORK AND BOMBAY

1902

All rights reserved

My obligations to Sir James Balfonr Panl (Lyon

King of Arms) for information on points of Heraldry

ought to be gratefully acknowledged.

Since this book was written, the author has had

an opportunity to read an Apology for the Kuthvens

by the late Andrew Bisset. This treatise is apt to

escape observation : it is entitled ' Sir Walter Scott,'

and occupies pp. 172-303 in 'Essays on Historical

Truth,' long out of print. 1 On many points Mr. Bisset

agreed with Mr. Barbe in his 'Tragedy of Gowrie

House,' and my replies to Mr. Barbe serve for his

predecessor. But Mr. Bisset found no evidence that

the King had formed a plot against Gowrie. By a

modification of the contemporary conjecture of Sir

William Bowes he suggested that a brawl between

the Kino- and the Master of Euthven occurred in the

turret, occasioned bv an atrocious insult offered to

the Master by the King. This hypothesis, for various

reasons, does not deserve discussion. Mr. Bisset ap-

peared to attribute the Sprot papers to the combined

authorship of the King and Sir Thomas Hamilton :

which our new materials disprove. A critic who,

like Mr. Bisset, accused the King of poisoning Prince

Henry, and many other persons, was not an unpreju-

diced historian.

1 Longmans, Green, & Co., 1871.

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION vii

I. THE MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENCE ... 1

II. THE SLAUGHTER OF THE KUTHVENS . . . . 11

III. THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE 35

IV. THE KING'S NARRATIVE. II ... . . 55

V. HENDERSON'S NARRATIVE . ... 60

VI. THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. EGBERT OLIPHAXT . . 71

VII. THE CONTEMPORARY KUTHVEN VINDICATION ... 80

VIII. THE THEORY OF AN ACCIDENTAL BRAWL . . . 94

IX. CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM . . 99

X. POPULAR CRITICISM OF THE DAY . . . Ill

XI. THE KING AND THE EUTHVENS 118

XII. LOGAN OF EESTALRIG . . .... 148

XIII. THE SECRETS OF SPROT 168

XIV. THE LAIRD AND THE NOTARY 182

XV. THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY . . . 201

XVI. WHAT is LETTER IV ?. . . . . . 232

XVII. INFERENCES AS TO THE CASKET LETTERS 240

xii THE GOWRIE MYSTERY

APPENDICES

PAGE

A. THE FRONTISPIECE .... . 245

B. THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION . . . . 252

C. FIVE LETTERS FORGED BY SPROT, AS FROM LOGAN . . 257

INDEX . . 265

Even so, when the Bonny Earl Moray the tallest

and most beautiful man in Scotland died like a lion

dragged down by wolves, the people sang :

He was i brave gallant,

And he rode at the ring,

And the Bonny Earl Moray,

He mighu have been the Kmg.

He was a brave gallant,

And he rode at the glove,

And the Bonny Earl Moray

He was the Queen's love.

On one side was a beautiful Queen mated with

James VI, a pedant and a clown. On the other

side were, first the Bonny Earl, then the Earl of

THE MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENCE 3

Gowrie, both young, brave, handsome, both suddenly

slain by the King's friends : none knew why. The

opinion of the godly, of the Kirk, of the people, and

even of politicians, leaped to the erroneous conclusion

that the young men perished, like Konigsmarck,

because they were beautiful and beloved, and be-

cause the Queen was fair and kind, and the King

was ugly, treacherous, and jealous. The rumour also

ran, at least in tradition, that Gowrie ' might have

been the King,' an idea examined in Appendix A.

Here then was an explanation of the slaying of

the Euthvens on the lines dear to romance. The

humorous King Jamie (who, if he was not always

sensible, at least treated his nighty wife with abun-

dance of sense) had, to, play *he. part of King Mark

of Cornwall to.Oowjie's Si^* -Tristram. For this

theory, we shall? /^Ow', no evitfetiqe' exists, and, in

'looking for; the '.woman,' fancy, found two men.

The Queen 5 'was "alternately said ,to iQve Gowrie,

and to love Bis.' Brother, the Master* bf, 1 Euthven, a

lad of nineteen -if she did not lovfe both at once.

It is curious tTastt/the affair did not ^ive rise to

ballads ; if it did; 'none has reacHe/d'.us.

In truth there was, ,np m ^fr'm'an in the case, and

this of course makes the mystery much less excit-

ing than that of Mary Stuart, for whom so many

swords and pens have been drawn. The interest

of character and of love is deficient. Of Gowrie's

character, and even of his religion, apart from his

learning and fascination, we really know almost

nothing. Did he cherish that strongest and most sacred

of passions, revenge ; had he brooded over it in Italy,

where revenge was subtler and craftier than in Scot-

land ? Did this passion blend with the vein of fanati-

cism in his nature ? Had he been biding his time,

and dreaming, over sea, boyish dreams of vengeance

and ambition ? All this appears not improbable, and

would, if true, explain all ; but evidence is defective.

Had Gowrie really cherished the legacy of revenge

for a father slain, and a mother insulted ; had he

studied the subtleties of Italian crime, pondered over

an Italian plot till it seemed feasible, and communi-

cated his vision to the boy brother whom he found

at home the mystery would be transparent.

As to Kino- James, 'we krirhv him well. The babe

'wronged in hi$\ mother's w-bnib,;'' threatened by

conspirators before his birth ; terrified by a harsh

tutor as a child ; bullied ; preached at ; captured ;

insulted ; ruled now by debauched favourites, now

by godly ruffians ; James naturally grew up a dis-

sembler, and be'trayed his fa ther's- murderer with a

kiss. He was frightened into 'deceit: he could be

cruel ; he became, "as' lar as he might, a tyrant. But,

though not the abject, .coward 'of tradition, James

(as he himself observed) was never the man to risk

his life in a doubtful brawl, on the chance that his

enemies might perish while lie escaped. For him a

treachery of that kind, an affair of sword and dagger

fights on staircases and in turrets and chambers,

in the midst of a town of doubtful loyalty, had

certainly no attractions. Moreover, he had a sense

of humour. This has been the opinion of our best

historians, Scott, Mr. Tytler, and Mr. Hill Burton;

but enthusiastic writers have always espoused the

cause of the victims, the Euthvens, so young, brave,

handsome ; so untimely slain, as it were on their own

hearthstone. Other authors, such as Dr. Masson in

our own day, and Mr. S. E. Gardiner, have abstained

from a verdict, or have attempted the via media ;

have leaned to the idea that the Euthvens died

in an accidental brawl, caused by a nervous and

motiveless fit of terror on the part of the King.

Thus the question is unsettled, the problem is un-

solved. Why did the jolly hunt at Falkland, in the

bright August morning, end in the sanguinary scuffle in

the town house at Perth ; the deaths of the Euthvens ;

the tumult in the town ; the King's homeward ride

through the dark and dripping twilight ; the laying

of the dead brothers side by side, while the old

family servant weeps above their bodies ; and the

wailing of the Queen and her ladies in Falkland

Palace, when the torches guide the cavalcade into the

palace court, and the strange tale of slaughter is

variously told, c the reports so fighting together that

no man could have any certainty ' ? Where lay the

actual truth ?

This problem, with which the following pages are

concerned, is much darker and more complex than

that of the guilty ' Casket Letters ' attributed to Mary.

Queen of Scots. The Queen did write these, in the

madness of a criminal passion ; or she wrote parts

of them, the rest beini? srarbleti or forced. In either

case, her motives, and the motives of the possible

forgers, are distinct, and are human. The Queen

was in love with one man, and hated another to the

death ; or her enemies desired to prove that these

were her moods. Absolute certainty escapes us, but,

either way, motives and purposes are intelligible.

Not so with the Gowrie mystery. The King,

Mary's son, after hunting for four hours, rides to

visit Lord Gowrie, a neighbour. After luncheon, that

nobleman and his brother are slain, in their own house,

bv the Kind's attendants. The Kiner srives his version

of the events instantly ; he never varies from it in

any essential point, but the story is almost incredible.

On the other hand, the slain men cannot speak, and

only one of them, if both were innocent, could have

told what occurred. But one of their apologists, at

the time, produced a version of the events which is,

beyond all doubt, boldly mendacious. It was easy

to criticise and ridicule the King's version ; but the

opposite version, hitherto unknown to historians,

destroys itself by its conspicuous falsehoods. In the

nature of the case, as will appear, no story accounting

for such wild events could be easily credible, so extra-

ordinary, motiveless, and inexplicable do the circum-

stances appear. If we try the theory that the King

wove a plot, we are met by the fact that his plot could

not have succeeded without the voluntary and vehe-

ment collaboration of one of his victims, a thing that

no man could have reckoned on. If we adopt the

idea that the victims had laid a trap for the King, we

have only a vague surmise as to its aim, purpose, and

method. The later li^ht which seemed to fall on the

affair, as we shall see, only darkens what was already

obscure. The inconceivable iniquity of the Govern-

ment, at a later date, reflects such discredit on all

concerned on their side, that we might naturally,

though illogically, be inclined to believe that, from

the first, the King was the conspirator. But that^

we shall find, was almost, or quite, a physical im-

possibility.

Despite these embroilments, I am, in this case, able

to reach a conclusion satisfactory to myself, a thing

which, in the affair of the Casket Letters and Queen

Mary, I was unable to do. 1 There is no doubt, in my

own mind, that the Earl of Gowrie and his brother

laid a trap for King James, and fell into the pit which

they had digged.

To what precise end they had plotted to seize the

King's person, what they meant to do with him when

they had got him, must remain matter of conjecture.

But that they intended to seize him, I have no doubt

at all.

These pages, on so old and vexed a problem,

would not have been written, had I not been fortu-

nate enough to obtain many unpublished manuscript

materials. Some of these at least clear up the

secondary enigma of the sequel of the problem of

1600. Different readers will probably draw different

conclusions from some of the other documents, but

perhaps nobody will doubt that they throw strange

new lights on Scottish manners and morals.

The scheme adopted here is somewhat like that

of Mr. Browning's poem, ' The Eing and the Book.'

The personages tell their own stories of the same set

of events, in which they were more or less intimately

concerned. This inevitably entails some repetition,

but I am unable to find any plan less open to

objection.

It must, of course, be kept in mind that all the

evidence is of a suspicious nature. The King, if he

were the conspirator, or even if innocent, had to

clear himself; and, frankly, his Majesty's word was

not to be relied upon. However, he alone was

cross-examined, by an acute and hostile catechist, and

that upon oath, though not in a court of justice. The

evidence of his retinue, and of some other persons

present, was also taken on oath, three months after

the events, before a Parliamentary Committee, ' The

Lords of the Articles.' We shall see that, nine years

later, a similar Committee was deceived shamelessly

by the King's Government, he himself being absent

in England. But the nature of the evidence, in the

second case, was entirely different : it did not rest

on the sworn testimony of a number of nobles,

gentlemen, and citizens, but on a question of hand-

writing, comparatio literarum, as in the case of the

Casket Letters. That the witnesses in 1600 did not

perjure themselves, in the trial which followed on

the slaughter of the Euthvens, is what I have to

argue. Next, we have the evidence, taken under

torture, of three of the slain Earl's retainers, three

weeks after the events. No such testimony is now

reckoned of value, but it will be shown that the

statements made by the tortured men only com-

promise the Earl and his brother incidentally, and in

a manner probably not perceived by the deponents

themselves. They denied all knowledge of a plot,

disclaimed belief in a plot by the Earl, and let out

what was suspicious in a casual way, without

observing the import of their own remarks.

Finally, we have the evidence of the only living

man, except the King, who was present at the central

point of the occurrences. That this man was a most

false and evasive character, that he was doubtless

amenable to bribes, that he was richly rewarded, I

freely admit. But I think it can be made probable,

by evidence hitherto overlooked, that he really was

present on the crucial occasion, and that, with all

allowances for his character and position, his testi-

mony fits into the facts, while, if it be discarded,

no hypothesis can account for him, and his part in

the adventure. In short, the King's tale, almost

incredible as it appears, contains the only explanation

which is not demonstrably impossible. To this con-

clusion, let me repeat, I am drawn by no sentiment

for that unsentimental Prince, 'gentle King Jamie.'

He was not the man to tell the truth, ' if he could

think of anything better.' But, where other corro-

boration is impossible, by the nature of the circum-

stances, facts corroborate the King's narrative. His

version ' colligates ' them ; though extravagant they

become not incoherent. No other hypothesis pro-

duces coherency : each guess breaks down on de-

monstrated facts.

II

THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS

IN the month of August 1600 his Majesty the King

of Scotland, James, sixth of that name, stood in more

than common need of the recreation of the chase.

Things had been going contrary to his pleasure in all

directions. ' His dearest sister,' Queen Elizabeth (as

he pathetically said), seemed likely ' to continue as

long as Sun or Moon,' and was in the worst of humours.

Her minister, Cecil, was apparently more ill disposed

towards the Scottish King than usual, while the

minister's rival, the Earl of Essex, had been suggest-

ing to James plans for a military demonstration on

the Border. Money was even more than normally

scarce ; the Highlands were more than common unruly ;

stories of new conspiracies against the King's liberty

were flying about ; and, above all, a Convention of the

Estates had just refused, in June, to make a large

grant of money to his Majesty. It was also irritating

that an old and trusted servant, Colonel Stewart,

wished to quit the country, and take English service

against the Irish rebels. This gentleman, sixteen

years before, had been instrumental in the arrest and

execution of the Earl of Gowrie ; the new young Earl,

son of the late peer, had just returned from the Con-

tinent to Scotland, and Colonel Stewart was afraid

that Gowrie might wish to avenge his father. There-

fore he desired to take service in Ireland.

With all these frets, the King needed the refresh-

ment of hunting the buck in his park of Falkland.

He ordered his own hunting costume ; it was

delivered early in August, and (which is singular)

was paid for instantly. Green English cloth was

the basis of his apparel, and five ounces of silver

decorated his second-best ' socks.' His boots had

velvet tops, embroidered ; his best ' socks ' were

adorned with heavy gold embroidery; he even

bought a new horse. His gentlemen, John Eamsay,

John Murray, George Murray, and John Auchmuty,

were attired, at the Eoyal expense, in coats of green

cloth, like the King. 1

Thus equipped, the Eoyal party rose early on the

morning of Tuesday, August 5, left the pleasant

house of Falkland, with its strong round towers that

had lately protected James from an attack by his

cousin, wild Frank Stewart, the Earl of Bothwell ; and

rode to the stables in the park ; ' the weather,' says his

Majesty, 'being wonderful pleasant and seasonable.' 2

' All the jolly hunt was there ; ' ' Tell True ' and the

other hounds were yelping at the limits of their

leashes ; the Duke of Lennox and the Earl of Mar,

friends of James from his youth, and honourable

men, were the chief nobles in the crowd ; wherein

were two or three of the loyal family of Erskine,

cousins of Mar, and a Dr. Herries, remarkable for a

club foot.

At the stables, hacks were discarded, hunters

were led out, men were mounting, the King had his

foot in the stirrup, when a young gentleman, the

Master of Euthven, rode swiftly up from the town of

Falkland. He had trotted over, very early, from the

town house, at Perth (some twelve or fourteen miles

away), of his brother, the Earl of Gowrie. He was

but nineteen years of age, tall, handsome, and brother

of the Queen's favourite maid of honour, Mrs.

Beatrix Euthven. That he was himself one of the

Gentlemen of the Household has often been said, but

we find no trace of money spent for him in the

Eoyal accounts : in fact he had asked for the place,

but had not yet obtained it. 1 However, if we may

believe the Eoyal word (which is a matter of choice),

James ' loved the young Master like a brother.'

The Master approached the King, and entered

into conversation with him. James's account of what

he had to say must be given later. For the present

we may be content with the depositions on oath,

which were made later, at a trial in November, by the

attendants of the King and other witnesses. Among

these was the Duke of Lennox, who swore to the

following effect, '-'hey hunted their buck, and killed

him. The King, in place of trotting back to lunch at

the House of Falkland (to which the progress of the

chase had led the sportsmen round in a circle), bade

the Duke accompany him to Perth, some twelve

miles away, ' to speak with the Earl of Gowrie.' His

Majesty then rode on. Lennox despatched his groom

for his sword, and for a fresh horse (another was

sent after the King) ; he then mounted and followed.

When he rejoined James, the King said ' You cannot

guess what errand I am riding for ; I am going to

get a treasure in Perth. The Master of Euthven'

(' Mr. Alexander Euthven ') i has informed me that he

has found a man with a pitcher full of gold coins of

great sorts.' James also asked Lennox what he

deemed of the Master, whose manner he reckoned

very strange. 'Nothing but an honest, discreet

gentleman,' said the Duke. The King next gave

details about the treasure, and Lennox said he

thought the tale ' unlikely,' as it was, more or less.

James then bade Lennox say nothing on the matter

to Euthven, who wanted it to be a secret. At about

a mile from Perth, the Master galloped forward, to

warn his brother, the Earl, who met the Eoyal party,

on foot, with some companions, near the town. 1 This

was about one o'clock in the afternoon.

The Eoyal party, of thirteen nobles and gentle-

men, then entered the Earl's house. It faced the

street, as the House of Falkland also does, and, at

the back, had gardens running down to the Tay.

It is necessary to understand the situation and

topography of Gowrie House. Passing down South

Street, or ' Shoe Gait,' the chief street in Perth, then

a pretty little town, you found it crossed at right

angles by a street called, on the left, Water Gate, on

the right, Spey Gate. Immediately fronting you, as

you came to the end of South Street, was the gateway

of Gowrie House, the garden wall continuing towards

your right. On your left were the houses in Water

Gate, occupied by rich citizens and lairds. Many

will understand the position if they fancy themselves

walking down one of the streets which run from the

High Street, at Oxford, towards the river. You then

find Merton College facing you, the street being

continued to the left in such old houses as Beam Hall.

The >'ate of Gowrie House fronted you, as does the

gate-tower of Merton, and led into a quadrangle, the

front court, called The Close. Behind Gowrie House

was the garden, and behind that ran the river Tay,

as the Isis flows behind Merton and Corpus. Entering

the quadrangle of Gowrie House you found, on your

right and facing you, a pile of buildings like an inverted

L (i). The basement was occupied by domestic

offices : at the angle of the "| was the main entrance.

On your right, and much nearer to you than the main

entrance, a door opened on a narrow spiral staircase,

so dark that it was called the Black Turnpike.

As to the interior, entering the main doorway you

found yourself in the hall. A door led thence into

a smaller dining-room on the left. The hall itself

had a door and external stair giving on the garden

behind. The chief staircase, which vou entered from

the hall, led to the Great Gallery, built and decorated

by the late Earl. This extended above the dining-

room and the hall, and, to the right, was separated

by a partition and a door from the large upstairs

room on the same flat called ' The Gallery Chamber.'

At the extremity of this chamber, on the left hand as

vou advanced, was a door leading into a ' round,' or

turret, or little circular-shaped ' study,' of which one

window seems to have looked to the gateway, the

other to the street. People below in the street

could see a man looking out of the turret window.

A door in the gallery chamber gave on the narrow

staircase called ' The Black Turnpike,' by which the

upper floor might be reached by any one from the

quadrangle, without entering the main door, and

going up the broad chief staircase. Thus, to quote a

poet who wrote while Gowrie House was extant (in

1638):

The Palace kythes, may nam'd be Perth's White Hall

With orchards like these of Hesperides.

The palace was destroyed, to furnish a site for a

gaol and county buildings, in 1807, but the most

interesting parts had long been in ruins. 1

In 1774, an antiquary, Mr. Cant, writes that the

palace, after the Forty Five, was converted into

artillery barracks. 'We see nothing but the remains

of its former grandeur.' The coats of arms of ' the

nobility and gentlemen of fortune,' who dwelt in Spey

Gate and Water Gate, were, in 1774, still visible on

the walls of their houses. A fragment of the old

palace is said to exist to-day in the Gowrie Inn. Into

this palace the King was led by Gowrie : he was

taken to the dining chamber on the left of the great

hall ; in the hall itself Lennox, Mar, and the rest of

the retinue waited and wearied, for apparently no

dinner had been provided, and even a drink for his

thirsty Majesty was long in coming. Gowrie and

the Master kept going in and out, servants were

whispered to, and Sir Thomas Erskine sent a

townsman to buy him a pair of green silk stockings

in Perth. 1 He wanted to dine comfortably.

Leaving the Kind's retinue in the hall, and the

King in the dining chamber off the hall, we may note

what, up to this point, the nobles and gentlemen of

the suite had to say, at the trial in November, about

the adventures of that August morning. Mar had

not seen the Master at Falkland ; after the kill Mar

did not succeed in rejoining James till they were

within two or three miles of Perth.

Drummond of Inchaffray had nodded to the

Master, at Falkland, before the Master met the King

at the stables. He later saw the Master in confer-

ence for about a quarter of an hour with James, out-

side the stables. The Master then left the King :

Inchaffray invited him to bVeakfast, but he declined,

* as his Majesty had ordered him to wait upon him.'

(According to other evidence he had already break-

fasted at Falkland.) Inchaffray then breakfasted in

Falkland town, and next rode along the highway

towards his own house. On the road he overtook

Lennox, Lindores, Urchill, Hamilton of Grange,

Finlay Taylor, the King, and the Master, riding

Perthwards. He joined them, and went with them

into Gowrie House.

Nobody else, among the witnesses, did anything

but agree with Lennox's account up to this point.

But four menials of James, for example, a cellarer

and a porter, were at Gowrie House, in addition to

the nobles and gentlemen who gave this evidence.

To return to Lennox's tale : dinner was not ready

for his hungry Majesty, as we have said, till an hour

after his arrival ; was not ready, indeed, till about two

o'clock. He had obviously not been expected, or

Gowrie did not wish it to be known that he was

expected, and himself had dined before the King's

arrival, between twelve and one o'clock. A shoulder

of mutton, a fowl, and a solitary grouse were all that

the Earl's caterer could procure, except cold meat :

obviously a poor repast to set before a king. It is

said that the Earl had meant to leave Perth in the

afternoon. When James reached the stage of dessert,

Gowrie, who had waited on him, entered the hall, and

invited the suite to dine. When they had nearly

finished, Gowrie returned to them in the hall, and sent

round a grace-cup, in which all pledged the King.

Lennox then rose, to rejoin the King (who now passed,

with the Master, across and out of the hall), but

Gowrie said 'His Majesty was gone upstairs quietly

some quiet errand.' Gowrie then called for the key of

the garden, on the banks of the Tay, and he, Lindores,

the lame Dr. Herries, and others went into the gar-

den, where, one of them tells us, they ate cherries.

While they were thus engaged, Gowrie's equerry, or

master stabler, a Mr. Thomas Cranstoun, who had

been long in France, and had returned thence with

the Earl in April, appeared, crying, ' The King has

mounted, and is riding through the Inch,' that is, the

Inch of Perth, where the famous clan battle of thirty

men a side had been fought centuries ago. Gowrie

shouted ' Horses ! horses ! ' but Cranstoun said ' Your

horse is at Scone,' some two miles off, on the further

side of the Tay. Why the Earl that day kept his

horse so remote, in times when men of his rank sel-

dom walked, we may conjecture later (cf. p. 86, infra}.

The Earl, however (says Lennox), affected not to

hear Cranstoun, and still shouted ' Horses ! ' He and

Lennox then passed into the house, through to the

front yard, or Close, and so to the outer gate, giving

on the street. Here Lennox asked the porter,

Christie, if the King had gone. The porter said

he was certain that the King had not left the house.

On this point Lindores, who had been with Gowrie

and Lennox in the garden, and accompanied them to

the gate, added (as indeed Lennox also did) that

Gowrie now explained to the porter that James had

departed by the back gate. ' That cannot be, my

Lord,' said the porter, ' for I have the key of the

back gate.' Andrew Eay, a bailie of Perth, who

had been in the house, looking on, told the same tale,

adding that Gowrie gave the porter the lie. The

porter corroborated all this at the trial, and quoted

his own speech about the key, as it was given by

Lindores. He had the keys, and must know whether

the King had ridden away or not.

In this odd uncertainty, Gowrie said to Lennox,

4 1 am sure the King has gone ; but stay, I shall go

upstairs, and get your lordship the very certainty.'

Gowrie thereon went from the street door, through

the court, and up the chief staircase of the house,

whence he came down again at once, and anew

affirmed to Lennox that ' the King was forth at the

back gate and away.' They all then went out of the

front gate, and stood in the street there, talking, and

wondering where they should seek for his Majesty.

Where was the King ? Here we note a circum-

stance truly surpiising. It never occurred to the

Earl of Gowrie, when dubiously told that the King

had 6 loupen on ' and ridden off- -to ask, Where is

the King's horse ? If the Eoyal nag was in the Earl's

stable, then James had not departed. Again a thing

more astonishing still it has never occurred to any of

the unnumbered writers on the Gowrie conspiracy to

ask, ' How did the Earl, if guilty of falsehood as to

the King's departure, mean to get over the difficulty

about the King's horse ? ' If the horse was in the

stable, then the King had not ridden away, as the

Earl declared. Gowrie does not seem to have kid-

napped the horse. We do not hear, from the King,

or any one, that the horse was missing when the

Eoyal party at last rode home.

The author is bound, in honour, to observe that

this glaring difficulty about the horse did not occur to

him till he had written the first draft of this historical

treatise, after reading so many others on the subject.

And yet the eagle glance of Mr. Sherlock Holmes

would at once have lighted on his Majesty's mount.

However, neither at the time, nor in the last three

centuries (as far as we know), was any one sensible

enough to ask ' How about the King's horse ? '

We return to the question, ' Where was the

King ? '

Some time had elapsed since he passed silently

from the chamber where he had lunched, through the

hall, with the Master, and so upstairs, fi going quietly

a quiet errand,' Gowrie had explained to the men

of the retinue. The gentlemen had then strolled in

the garden, till Cranstoun came out to them with the

news of the King's departure. Young John Earn-

say, one of James's gentlemen, had met the Laird of

Pittencrieff in the hall, and had asked where his

Majesty was. Both had gone upstairs, had examined

the fair gallery filled with pictures collected by the late

Earl, and had remained ' a certain space ' admiring it.

They thence went into the front yard, the Close, where

Cranstoun met them and told them that the King had

gone. Instead of joining the gentlemen whom we

left loitering and wondering outside the front gate,

on the street, Eamsay ran to the stables for his horse,

he said, and, as he waited at the stable door (being

further from the main entrance than Lennox, Mar,

and the rest), he heard James's voice, 'but understood

not what he spake.' l

The others, on the street, just outside the gate,

being nearer the house than Eamsay, suddenly heard

the King's voice, and even his words. Lennox said to

Mar, ' The King calls, be he where he will.' They all

glanced up at the house, and saw, says Lennox, ' his

Majesty looking out at the window, hatless, his face

red, and a hand gripping his face and mouth.' The

King called : ' I am murdered. Treason ! My Lord

of Mar, help, help ! ' Mar corroborated : InchafFray

saw the King vanish from the window, ' and in his

judgment, his Majesty was pulled, perforce, in at

the same window.' Bailie Bay of Perth saw the

window pushed up, saw the King's face appear, and

heard his cries. Murray of Arbany, who had come

to Perth from another quarter, heard the King.

Murray seems to have been holding the King's falcon

on his wrist, in hall ; he had later handed the bird to

young Eamsay.

On beholding this vision of the King, hatless,

red -faced, vociferous, and suddenly vanishing, most

of his lords and gentlemen, and Murray of Arbany,

rushed through the gate, through the Close, into the

main door of the house, up the broad staircase,

through the long fair gallery, and there they were

stopped by a locked door. They could not reach the

King ! Finding a ladder, they used it as a battering-

ram, but it broke in their hands. They sent for

hammers, and during some half an hour they

thundered at the door, breaking a hole in a panel,

but unable to gain admission.

Now these facts, as to the locked door, and the

inability of most of the suite to reach the King, are

denied by no author. They make it certain that, if

James had contrived a plot against the two Euthvens,

he had not taken his two nobles, Mar and Lennox,

and these other gentlemen, and Murray of Arbany,

into the scheme. He had not even arranged that

another of his retinue should bring them from their

futile hammer-work, to his assistance, by another

way.

For there was another way. Young Eamsay was

not with Lennox and the rest, when they saw and

heard the flushed and excited King cry out of the

window. Eamsay, he says, was further off than the

rest ; was at the stable door : he heard and recognised

James's voice, but saw nothing of him, and distin-

guished no words. He ran into the front yard,

through the outer gate. Lennox and the rest had

already vanished within the house. Eamsay noticed

the narrow door in the wall of the house, giving on

the quadrangle, and nearer him than the main door

of entrance, to reach which he must cross the quad-

rangle diagonally. He rushed into the narrow door-

way, ran up a dark corkscrew staircase, found a door

at the top, heard a struggling and din of men's feet

within, ' dang open ' the door, caught a glimpse of

a man behind the King's back, and saw James and

the Master ' wrestling together in each other's

arms.'

James had the Master's head under his arm, the

Master, ' almost upon his knees,' had his hand on the

King's face and mouth. ' Strike him low,' cried the

King, ' because he wears a secret mail doublet '

such as men were wont to wear on a doubtful though

apparently peaceful occasion, like a Warden's Day

on the Border. Eamsay threw down the King's

falcon, which he had taken from Murray and bore on

his wrist, drew his dagger or couteau de chasse, and

struck the Master on the face and neck. The King

set his foot on the falcon's leash, and so held it.

Ramsay might have spared and seized the Master,

instead of wounding him ; James later admitted that,

but ' Man,' he said, ' I had neither God nor the Devil

before me, but my own defence.' Remember that

hammers were thundering on a door hard by, and

that neither James nor Ramsay knew who knocked

so loud enemies or friends.

The King then, says Ramsay, pushed the wounded

Master down the steep narrow staircase up which the

young man had run. The man of whom Ramsay had

caught a glimpse, standing behind the King, had

vanished like a wraith. Ramsay went to a window,

looked out, and, seeing Sir Thomas Erskine, cried,

' Come up to the top of the staircase.'

Where was Erskine, and what was he doing?

He had not followed Lennox and Mar in their rush

back into the house. On hearing James's cries from

the window, he and his brother had tried to seize

Gowrie, who had been with the party of Lennox and

Mar. If James was in peril, within Gowrie's house,

they argued, naturally, that Gowrie was responsible.

JSTot drawing sword or dagger daggers, indeed, they

had none- -the two Erskine brothers rushed on Gow-

rie, who was crying ' What is the matter ? I know

nothing ! ' They bore him, or nearly bore him, to the

ground, but his retainers separated the stragglers, and

one, a Euthven, knocked Sir Thomas down with his

fist. The knight arose, and ran into the front court,

where Dr. Herries asked him ' what the matter

meant. ' At this moment Erskine heard Ramsay cry

' Come up here,' from the top of the narrow dark

staircase, he says, not from the window ; Eamsay

may have called from both. Erskine, who was

accompanied by the lame Dr. Herries, and by a

menial of his brother's named Wilson, found the

bleeding Master near the foot of the stair, and shouted

6 This is the traitor, strike him.' The stricken lad fell,

saying, ' Alas, I had not the wyte of it,' and the

three entered the chamber where now were only the

King and Eamsay. Words, not very intelligible as

reported by Erskine (we consider them later), passed

between him and the King. Though Erskine does

not say so, they shut James up in the turret opening

into the chamber where they were, and instantly

Cranstoun, the Earl's equerry, entered with a drawn

sword, followed by Gowrie, with ' two swords,' while

some other persons followed Gowrie.

Where had Gowrie been since the two Erskines

tried to seize him in the street, and were separated

from him by a throng of his retainers ? Why was

Gowrie, whose honour was interested in the King's

safety, later in reaching the scene than Erskine, the

limping Dr. Herries, and the serving man, Wilson ?

The reason appears to have been that, after the two

Erskines were separated from Gowrie, Sir Thomas

ran straight from the street, through the gateway,

into the front court of the house, meeting, in the

court, Dr. Herries, who was slow in his movements.

But Gowrie, on the other hand, was detained by

certain of Tullibardine's servants, young Tullibardine

being present. This, at least, was the story given

under examination by Mr. Thomas Cranstoun, Gow-

rie's master stabler, while other witnesses mention

that Gowrie became involved in a struggle, and went

' back from ' his house, further up or down the

street. Young Tullibardine, present at this fray, was

the heir of Murray of Tullibardine, and ancestor, in

the male line, of the present Duke of Atholl. He

later married a niece of the Earl of Gowrie. His

father being a man of forty in 1600, young

Tullibardine must have been very young indeed.

The Murrays were in Perth on the occasion of the

marriage of one of their clan, an innkeeper.

Some of their party were in the street, and seeing

an altercation in which two of the King's gentlemen

were prevented from seizing Gowrie, they made an

ineffectual effort to capture the Earl. Gowrie ran

from them along; the street, and there ' drew his two

swords out of one scabbard,' says Cranstoun. 1 The

Earl had just arrived in Scotland from Italy, where

he had acquired the then fashionable method of

fencing with twin-swords, worn in a single scabbard.

Gowrie, then, had retreated from the Hurrays to the

house of one Macbreck, as Cranstoun and Macbreck

himself declared. Cranstoun too drew his sword, and

let his cloak fall, asking Gowrie ' what the fray was.'

The Earl said that ' he would enter his own house, or

die by the way.' Cranstoun said that he would go

foremost, 6 but at whom should he strike, for he knew

not who was the enemy ? ' He had only seen the

Erskines collar Gowrie, then certain Murray s in-

terfere, and he was entirely puzzled. Gowrie did

not reply, and the pair advanced to the door of the

house through a perplexed throng. A servant of

Gowrie's placed a steel cap on his head, and with

some four or five of Gowrie's friends (Hew Moncrieff,

Alexander Euthven, Harrv Euthven, and Patrick

Eviot) the Earl and Cranstoun entered the front

court.

Here Cranstoun saw the body of a man, whether

dead or wounded he knew not, lyin; at ' the old

turnpike door,' the entry to the dark narrow

staircase up which Eamsay had run to the King's

rescue. ' Who lies there ? ' asked Cranstoun. Gowrie

only replied, ' Up the stair ! ' Cranstoun led the way,

Gowrie came next ; the other four must have followed,

for several witnesses presently saw them come down

again, wounded and bleeding. Cranstoun found

Erskine, Eamsay, and Herries with drawn swords in

the chamber. The King, then in the turret, he did

not see. He taunted Herries ; Eamsay and Gowrie

crossed swords ; Cranstoun dealt, he says, with

Herries, Erskine, and perhaps Wilson. But, though

Cranstoun ' nowise knew who followed him,' the four

men already named, two Euthvens, a MoncriefF, and

Eviot, were in the fray, though there was some

uncertainty about Eviot. 1

The position of the King, at this moment, was

unenviable. He was shut up in the little round turret

room. On the other -side of the door, in the chamber,

swords were clashing, feet were stamping. James

knew that he had four defenders, one of them a

lame medical man ; who or how many their oppo-

nents might be, he could not know. The air rang

with the thunder of hammers on the door of the

chamber where the fight raged ; were they wielded

by friends or enemies ? From the turret window the

King could hear the town bell ringing, and see the

gathering of the burgesses of Perth, the friends of

their Provost, Gowrie. We know that they could

easily muster eight hundred armed men. Which side

would they take ? The Murrays, as we saw, had

done nothing, except that some of them had crowded

round Gowrie. Meanwhile there was clash of steel,

stamping of feet, noise of hammers, while the King,

in the turret, knew not how matters were going.

Cranstoun only saw his own part of the fight in

the chamber. How Eamsay and Gowrie sped in

their duel he knew not. Eamsay, he says, turned

on him, and ran him through the body ; Herries also

struck him. Of Gowrie he saw nothing ; he fled,

when wounded, down the turret stair, his companions

following or preceding him. Gowrie, in fact, had

fallen, leaving Bamsay free to deal with Cranstoun.

Writers of both parties declare that Bamsay had

cried to Gowrie, ' You have slain the Kinsr ! ' that

Gowrie dropped his points, and that Bamsay lunged

and ran him through the body. Erskine says

that he himself was wounded in the right hand

by Cranstoun ; Herries lost two fingers. When

Bamsay ran Gowrie through, the Earl, says Erskine,

fell into the arms of a man whom he himself knew

not ; Gowrie's party retreated, but it seems they

returned to the head of the narrow staircase, and

renewed hostilities by pushing swords and halberts

under the narrow staircase door. This appears from

the evidence of Lennox.

After pounding at the door so long, Lennox's

party at last sent Bobert Brown (a servant of

James's, who had brought the hammers) round

to discover another way of reaching the King.

Brown, too, now went up the narrow staircase, and

in the gallery chamber he found the King, with

Herries, Erskine, Bamsay, Wilson, and the dead

Earl. He reassured James ; the hammerers were

his friends. They handed, says Lennox, one of the

hammers to the King's party, through a shattered

panel, ' and they within broke the doors, and gave

them entry.' At this time, halberts and swords were

being struck, by Gowrie's retainers, under the door,

and through the sides of the door, of the chamber ;

this door apparently being that from the chamber

to the narrow staircase. Murray of Arbany (who

had come into the house at the end of dinner) was

stricken through the leg by one of these weapons.

Deacon Ehynd of Perth saw Hew Moncrieff striking

with ' a Jeddart staff,' a kind of lialbert. A voice,

that of Alexander Euthven (a cousin of the fallen

Earl), cried ' For God's sake, my lord, tell me how

the Earl of Gowrie does.' ' He is well. Go your

way ; you are a fool ; you will get no thanks for this

labour,' answerad Lennox, and all was silence.

Alexander Euthven and the rest retreated ; Euthven

rushed to the town, rousing the people, and rifling

shops in search of gunpowder. The King and the

nobles knelt in prayer on the bloody floor of the

chamber where the dead Gowrie lay. For some

time the confused mob yelled outside, shaking their

fists at the King's party in the window : men and

women crying ' Come down, Green-coats, ye have

committed murder ! Bloody butchers ! ' Others

cried ' The Kin^ is shot ! ' The exits of the house

were guarded by retainers of Gowrie Eentoul,

Bissett, and others.

Mar and Lennox, from the window, explained to

the mob that the King was well. James showed

himself, the magistrates and nobles pacified the

people, who, some armed, some unarmed, were all

perplexed, whether they were anxious about the

King or about their Provost, the Earl. From the

evidence of scores of burghers, it appears that the

tumult did not last long. One man was reaping

in the Morton haugh. Hearing the town bell he

hastened in, ' when all the tumult was ceased,' and

the magistrates, Eay and others, were sending the

people to their houses, as also did young Tullibardine.

A baker, hearing the bell, went to the town cross,

and so to Gowrie's house, where he met the stream

of people coming away. Another baker was at

work, and stayed with his loaves, otherwise he ' would

have lost his whole baking.' The King represents that

it was between seven and eight in the evening before

matters were quiet enough for him to ride home to

Falkland, owing to the tumult. The citizens doubt-

less minimised, and James probably exaggerated, the

proportions and duration of the disturbance.

This version of that strange affair, the slaughter

of the Euthvens, is taken entirely from the lips of

sworn witnesses. We still know no more than we

did as to what passed between the moment when

James and the Master, alone, left the dining chamber,

and the moment when the Kino* cried ' Treason ! ' out

of the turret window.

The problem is, had James lured the Master to

Falkland for the purpose of accompanying him back

to Perth, as if by the Master's invitation, and of there

craftily begetting a brawl, in which Gowrie and the

Master should perish at the hands of Earn say? Or

had the Master, with or without his brother's know-

ledge, lured James to Perth for some evil end ? The

question divided Scotland ; France and England were

sceptical as to the King's innocence. Our best

historians, like Mr. Hill Burton and Mr. Tytler, side

with the King ; others are dubious, or believe that

James was the conspirator, and that the Euthvens

were innocent victims.

III

THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE

So far we have not gained any light on the occur-

rences of the mysterious interval between the

moment when the King and Alexander Euthven

passed alone through the hall, after dinner, up the

great staircase, and the moment when the King cried

' Treason ! ' out of the turret window. In the nature

of the case, the Master being for ever silent, only

James could give evidence on the events of this

interval, James and one other man, of whose presence

in the turret we have hitherto said little, as only

one of the witnesses could swear to having seen a

man there, none to having seen him escaping thence,

or in the tumult. Now the word of James was not

to be relied on, any more than that of the unequalled

Elizabeth. If we take the King's word in this case,

it is from no prejudice in his favour, but merely

because his narrative seems best to fit the facts as

given on oath by men like Lennox, Mar, and other

witnesses of aU ranks. It also fits, with discrepancies

to be noted, the testimony of the other man, the man

who professed to have been with the Master and the

King in the turret.

The evidence of that other man was also subject,

for reasons which will appear presently, to the

gravest suspicion. James, if himself guilty of the

plot, had to invent a story to excuse himself; the

other man had to adopt the version of the King, to

save his own life from the gibbet. On the other

hand, James, if innocent, could not easily have a

credible story to tell. If the Master was sane, it was

hardly credible that, as James averred, he should

menace the King with murder, in his brother's house,

with no traceable preparations either for night or for

armed resistance. In James's narrative the Master

is made at least to menace the King with death.

However true the King's story might be, his adver-

saries, the party of the Kirk and the preachers, would

never accept it. In Lennox's phrase they ' liked it

not, because it was not likely.' Emphatically it was

not likely, but the contradictory story put forward

by the Euthven apologist, as we shall see, was not

only improbable, but certainly false.

There was living at that time a certain Mr. David

Calderwood, a young Presbyterian minister, aged

twenty-five. He was an avid collector of rumour, of

talk, and of actual documents, and his ' History of

the Kirk of Scotland,' composed at a much later date,

is wonderfully copious and accurate. As it was im-

possible for King James to do anything at which

Calderwood did not carp, assigning the worst imagin-

able motives in every case, we shall find in Calderwood

the sum of contemporary hostile criticism of his

Majesty's narrative. But the criticism is negative.

Calderwood's critics only pick holes in the King's

narrative, but do not advance or report any other

explanation of the events, any complete theory of the

King's plot from the Euthven side. Any such story,

any such hypothesis, must be to the full as impro-

bable as the King's narrative.

There is nothing probable in the whole affair ;

every system, every hypothesis is difficile a croire.

Yet the events did occur, and we cannot reject

James's account merely because it is ' unlikely.' The

improbabilities, however, were enormously increased

by the King's theory that the Euthvens meant to

murder him. This project (not borne out by the

King's own version of Euthven's conduct) would have

been insane : the Euthvens, by murdering James,

would have roused the whole nation and the Kirk

itself against them. But if their object was to kidnap

James, to secure his person, to separate him from

his Ministers (who were either secretly Catholics, or

Iiidifferents), and to bring in a new administration

favourable to Kirk, or Church, then the Euthvens were

doing what had several times been done, and many

times attempted. James had been captured before,

even in his own palace, while scores of other plots,

to take him, for instance, when hunting in Falkland

woods, remote from his retinue, had been recentlv

planned, and had failed. To kidnap the King was

the commonest move in politics ; but as James thought,

or said, that the idea at Gowrie House was to murder

him, his tale, even if true, could not be easily

credible.

The first narrative was drawn up at Falkland

in the night of August 5. Early on August 6 the

letter reached the Chancellor in Edinburgh, and the

contents of the letter were repeated orally by the

Secretary of State (Elphinstone, later Lord Balmerino)

to Nicholson, the English resident at the Court of

Holyrood. Nicholson on the same day reported what

he remembered of what the Secretary remembered

of the Falkland letter, to Cecil. Yet though at third

hand Nicholson's written account of the Falkland

letter of August 5 l contains the same version as James

later published, with variations so few and so unes-

sential that it is needless to dwell upon them, they

may safely be attributed to the modifications which a

story must suffer in passing through the memories of

two persons. Whatever the amount of truth in his

narrative, the King had it ready at once in the form

to which he adhered, and on which he voluntarily

underwent severe cross-examination, on oath, by

Mr. Eobert Bruce, one of the Edinburgh ministers ; a

point to which we return.

James declares in a later narrative printed and

published about the end of August 1600, that the

Master, when he first met him at Falkland, made a

very low bow, which was not his habit. The Master

then said (their conference, we saw, occupied a

quarter of an hour) that, while walking alone on the

previous evening, he had met a cloaked man carrying

a great pot, full of gold in large coined pieces.

Euthven took the fellow secretly to Gowrie House,

' locked him in a privy derned house, and, after locking

many doors on him, left him there and his pot with

him.'

It might be argued that, as the man was said to

be locked in a house, and as James was not taken

out of Gowrie House to see him, James must have

known that, when he went upstairs with the Master,

he was not going to see the prisoner. The error

here is that, in the language of the period, a house

often means a room, or chamber. It is so used by

James elsewhere in this very narrative, and endless

examples occur in the letters and books of the

period.

Euthven went on to explain, what greatly needed

explanation, that he had left Perth so early in the

morning that James might have the first knowledge

of this secret treasure, concealed hitherto even from

Gowrie. James objected that he had no right to the

gold, which was not treasure trove. Euthven replied

that, if the King would not take it, others would.

James now began to suspect, very naturally, that the

gold was foreign coin. Indeed, what else could it well

be ? Coin from France, Italy, or Spain, brought in often

by political intriguers, was the least improbable sort of

minted gold to be found in poor old Scotland. In the

troubles of 1592-1596 the supplies of the Catholic

rebels were in Spanish money, whereof some was likely

enough to be buried by the owners. James, then,

fancied that Jesuits or others had brought in gold

for seditious purposes, ' as they have ofttimes done

before.' Sceptics of the period asked how one pot of

gold could cause a sedition. The question is puerile.

There would be more gold where the potful came

from, if Catholic intrigues were in the air. James

then asked the Master ' what kind of coin it was.'

6 They seemed to be foreign and uncouth ' (unusual)

' strokes of coin,' said Euthven, and the man, he added,

was a stranger to him.

James therefore suspected that the man might be

a disguised Scottish priest : the few of them then in

Scotland always wore disguises, as they tell us in

their reports to their superiors. 1 The King's infer-

ences as to popish plotters were thus inevitable,

though he may have emphasised them in his narrative

to conciliate the preachers. His horror of ' practising

Papists,' at this date, was unfeigned. He said to the

Master that he could send a servant with a warrant

to Growrie and the magistrates of Perth to take and

examine the prisoner and his hoard. Contemporaries

asked why he did not ' commit the credit of this

matter to another.' James had anticipated the

objection. He did propose this course, but Euthven

replied that, if others once touched the money, the

King ' would get a very bad account made to him of

that treasure.' He implored his Majesty to act as

he advised, and not to forget him afterwards. This

suggestion may seem mean in Euthven, but the age

was not disinterested, nor was Euthven trying to

persuade a high-souled man. The King was puzzled

and bored, ' the morning was fair, the game already

found,' the monarch was a keen sportsman, so he

said that he would think the thing over and answer

at the end of the hunt.

Granting James's notorious love of disentangling

a mystery, granting his love of money, and of hunt-

ing, I agree with Mr. Tytler in seeing nothing im-

probable in this narration. If the Master wanted to

lure the King to Perth, I cannot conceive a better

device than the tale which, according to the King, he

told. The one improbable point, considering the

morals of the country, was that Euthven should

come to James, in place of sharing the gold with his

brother. But Euthven, we shall see, had possibly

good reasons, known to James, for conciliating the

Eoyal favour, and for keeping his brother ignorant.

Moreover, to seize the money would not have been a

safe thing for Euthven to do ; the story would have

leaked out, questions would have been asked. James

had hit on the only plausible theory to account

for a low fellow with a pot of gold; he must be

' a practising Papist.' James could neither suppose,

nor expect others to believe that he supposed, one

pot of foreign gold enough ' to bribe the country into

rebellion.' But the pot, and the prisoner, supplied

a clue worth following. Probabilities strike different

critics in different ways. Mr. Tytler thinks James's

tale true, and that he acted* in character. That is my

opinion ; his own the reader must form for himself.

Euthven still protested. This hunt of gold was

well worth a buck! The prisoner, he said, might

attract attention by his cries, a very weak argument,

but Euthven was quite as likely to invent it on the

spur of the moment, as James was to attribute it to

him falsely, on cool reflection. Finally, if James

came at once, Gowrie would then be at the preaching

(Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays were preaching

days), and the Eoyal proceedings with the captive

would be undisturbed.

Now, on the hypothesis of intended kidnapping,

this was a well-planned affair. If James accepted

Euthven' s invitation, he, with three or four servants,

would reach Gowrie House while the town of Perth

was quiet. Nothing would be easier than to seclude

him, seize his person, and transport him to the sea-

side, either by Tay, or down the north bank of that

river, or in disguise across Fife, to the Firth of Forth,

in the retinue of Gowrie, before alarm was created at

Falkland. Gowrie had given out (so his friends de-

clared) that he was to go that night to Dirleton, his

castle near North Berwick, 1 a strong hold, manned,

and provisioned. Could he have carried the King in

disguise across Fife to Erie, Dirleton was within a

twelve miles sail, on summer seas. Had James's

curiosity and avarice led him to ride away at once with

Euthven, and three or four servants, the plot might

have succeeded. We must criticise the plot on these

lines. Thus, if at all, had the Earl and his brother

planned it. But Fate interfered, the unexpected

occurred but the plot could not be dropped. The story

of the pot of gold could not be explained away. The

King, with royal rudeness, did not even reply to the

new argument of the Master. ' Without any further

answering him,' his Majesty mounted, Euthven stay-

ing still in the place where the King left him. At

this moment Inchaffray, as we saw, met Euthven,

and invited him to breakfast, but he said that he was

ordered to wait on the King.

At this point, James's narrative contains a cir-

cumstance which, confessedly, was not within his own

experience. He did not know, he says, that the

Master had any companion. But, from the evidence of

another, he learned that the Master had a companion,

indeed two companions. One was Andrew Euthven,

about whose presence nobody doubts. The other,

one Andrew Henderson, was not seen by James at

this time. However, the King says, on Henderson's

own evidence, that the Master now sent him (about

seven o'clock) to warn Gowrie that the King was to

come. Eeally it seems that Henderson was despatched

rather later, during the first check in the run.

It was all-important to the King's case to prove

that Henderson had been at Falkland, and had re-

turned at once with a message to Gowrie, for this

would demonstrate that, in appearing to be unpre-

pared for the King's arrival (as he did), Gowrie was

making a false pretence. It was also important to

prove that the ride of Euthven and Henderson to

Falkland and back had been concealed, by them,

from the people at Gowrie House. Now this was

proved, Craigengelt. Gowrie's steward, who was tor-

tured, tried, convicted, and hanged, deponed that,

going up the staircase, just after the King's arrival,

he met the Master, booted, and asked ' where he had

been.' ' An errand not far off,' said the Master, conceal-

ing his long ride to Falkland. 1 Again, John Moncrieff,

a gentleman who was with Gowrie, asked Henderson

(who had returned to Perth much earlier than the

King's arrival) where he had been, and he said ' that

he had been two or three miles above the town.' 2

Henderson himself later declared that Gowrie had

told him to keep his ride to Falkland secret. 3 The

whole purpose of all this secrecy was to hide the

fact that the Euthvens had brought the King to

Perth, and that Gowrie had early notice, by about

10 A.M., of James's approach, from Henderson.

Therefore to make out that Henderson had been in

Falkland, and had given Gowrie early notice of

James's approach, though Gowrie for all that made

no preparations to welcome James, was almost

necessary for the Government. They specially ques-

tioned all witnesses on this point. Yet not one of their

witnesses would swear to having seen Henderson at

Falkland. This disposes of the theory of wholesale

perjury.

The modern apologist for the Euthvens, Mr. Louis

Barbe, writes : 'We believe that Henderson perjured

himself in swearing that he accompanied Alexander '

(the Master) ' and Andrew Euthven when . . . they

rode to Falkland. We believe that Henderson per-

jured himself when he asserted, on oath, that the

Master sent him back to Perth with the intelligence

of the Kind's coming.' l

On the other hand, George Hay, lay Prior of the

famous Chartreux founded by James I in Perth,

deponed that Henderson arrived long before Gowrie's

dinner, and Peter Hay corroborated. But Hay averred

that Gowrie asked Henderson ' who was at Falkland

with the King ? ' It would not follow that Henderson

had been at Falkland himself. John Moncrieff

deponed that Gowrie said nothing of Henderson's

message, but sat at dinner, feigning to have no

knowledge of the King's approach, till the Master

arrived, a few minutes before the King. Mr. Ehynd,

Gowrie's tutor, deponed that Andrew Euthven (the

Master's other companion in the early ride to Falk-

land) told him that the Master had sent on Henderson

with news of the King's coming. If Henderson had

been at Falkland, lie had some four hours' start of the

King and his party, and must have arrived at Perth,

and spoken to Gowrie, long before dinner, he him-

self says at 10 A.M. Dinner was at noon, or, on this

day, half an hour later. Yet Gowrie made no pre-

parations for welcoming the King.

It is obvious that, though the Hays and Moncriefl

both saw Henderson return, booted, from a ride

somewhere or other, at an early hour, none of them

could prove that he had ridden to Falkland and back.

There was, in fact, no evidence that Henderson had

been at Falkland except his own, and that of the poor

tortured tutor, Ehynd, to the effect that Andrew

Euthven had confessed as much to him. But pre-

sently we shall find that, while modern apologists for

Gowrie deny that Henderson had been at Falkland,

the contemporary Euthven apologist insists that he

had been there.

To return to James's own narrative, he asserts

Henderson's presence at Falkland, but not from

his own knowledge. He did not see Henderson at

Falkland. Euthven, says James, sent Henderson to

Gowrie just after the King mounted and followed the

hounds. Here it must be noted that Henderson him-

self says that Euthven did not actually despatch

him till after he had some more words with the

King. This is an instance of James's insouciance

as to harmonising his narrative with Henderson's,

or causing Henderson to conform to his. ' Cooked '

evidence, collusive evidence, would have avoided

these discrepancies. James says that, musing over

the story of the pot of gold, he sent one Naismith,

a surgeon (he had been with James at least since

1592), to bring Euthven to him, during a check,

and told Euthven that he would, after the hunt,

come to Perth. James thought that this was after the

despatch of Henderson, but probably it was before,

to judge by Henderson's account.

During this pause, the hounds having hit on the

scent again, the King was left behind, but spurred on.

At every check, the Master kept urging him to make

haste, so James did not tarry to break up the deer,

as usual. The kill was but two bowshots from the

stables, and the King did not wait for his sword, or

his second horse, which had to gallop a mile before

it reached him. Mar, Lennox, and others did wait

for their second mounts, some rode back to Falk-

land for fresh horses, some dragged slowly along

on tired steeds, and did not rejoin James till later.

Euthven had tried, James says, to induce him to

refuse the compan}' of the courtiers. Three or four

servants, he said, would be enough. The others ' might

mar the whole purpose.' James was 'half angry/

he began to entertain odd surmises about Euthven.

One was ' it might be that the Earl his brother had

handled him so hardly, that the young gentleman, being

of a high spirit, had taken such displeasure, as he was

become somewhat beside himself.' But why should

Gowrie handle his brother hardly ?

The answer is suggested by an unpublished con-

temporary manuscript, 'The True Discovery of the

late Treason,' l &c. ' Some offence had passed betwixt

the said Mr. Alexander Ruthven ' (the Master) ' and

his brother, for that the said Alexander, both of

himself and by his Majesty's mediation, had craved

of the Earl his brother the demission and release of

the Abbey of Scone, which his Majesty had bestowed

upon the said Earl during his life. . . . His suit had

little success.'

If this be fact (and there is no obvious reason for

its invention), James might have reason to suspect

that Gowrie had ' handled his brother hardly : '

Scone being a valuable estate, well worth keeping.

To secure the King's favour as to Scone, Ruthven

had a motive, as James would understand, for making

him, and not Gowrie, acquainted with the secret of the

treasure. Thus the unpublished manuscript casually

explains the reason of the King's suspicion that the

Earl might have ' handled the Master hardly.'

On some such surmise, James asked Lennox (who

corroborates) whether he thought the Master quite

* settled in his wits.' Lennox knew nothing but good

of him (as he said in his evidence), but Ruthven,

observing their private talk, implored James to keep

the secret, and come alone with him at first to see

the captive and the treasure. James felt more and

more uneasy, but he had started, and rode on, while

the Master now despatched Andrew Euthven to warn

Gowrie. Within a mile of Perth the Master spurred

on his weary horse, and gave the news to Gowrie,

who, despite the messages of Henderson and Andrew

Euthven, was at dinner, unprepared for the Eoyal

arrival. However, Gowrie met James with sixty men

(four, says the Euthven apologist).

James's train then consisted of fifteen persons.

Others must have dropped in later : they had no

fresh mounts, but rested their horses, the King says,

and let them graze by the way. They followed be-

cause, learning that James was going to Perth, they

guessed that he intended to apprehend the Master of

Oliphant, who had been misconducting himself in

Angus. Thus the King accounts for the number of

his train.

An hour passed before dinner : James pressed for

a view of the treasure, but the Master asked the King-

not to converse with him then, as the whole affair

was to be kept secret from Gowrie. If the two

brothers had been at odds about the lands of Scone,

the Master's attitude towards his brother might

seem inteUigible, a point never allowed for by critics

unacquainted with the manuscript which we have

cited. At last the King sat down to dinner, Gowrie

in attendance, whispering to his servants, and often

going in and out of the chamber. The Master, too,

was seen on the stairs by Craigengelt.

If Gowrie's behaviour is correctly described, it

might be attributed to anxiety about a Eoyal meal

so hastily prepared. But if Gowrie had plenty of

warning, from Henderson (as I do not doubt), that

theory is not sufficient. If engaged in a conspiracy,

Gowrie would have reason for anxiety. The cir-

cumstances, owing to the number of the royal

retinue, were unfavourable, yet, as the story of the

pot of gold had been told by Euthven, the plot could

not be abandoned. James even ' chaffed ' Gow-

rie about being so pensive and distrait, and about

his neglect of some little points of Scottish etiquette.

Finally he sent Gowrie into the hall, with the grace-

cup for the gentlemen, and then called the Master.

He sent Gowrie, apparently, that he might slip off

with the Master, as that o-entleman wished. ' His

Majesty desired Mr. Alexander to bring Sir Thomas

Erskine with him, who ' (Euthven) ' desiring the King

to go forward with him, and promising that he should

make any one or two follow him that he pleased to

call for, desiring his Majesty to command publicly

that none should follow him.' This seems to mean,

James and the Master were to cross the hall and go

upstairs ; James, or the Master for him, bidding no

one follow (the Master, according to Balgonie, did say

that the King would be alone), while, presently, the

Master should return and privately beckon on one or

two to join the King. The Master's excuse for all

this was the keeping from Gowrie and others, for the

moment, of the secret of the prisoner and the pot of

gold.

Now, if we turn back to Sir Thomas Erskine's

evidence, we find that, when he joined James in the

chamber, after the slaying of the Master, he said ' I

thought your Majesty would have concredited more

to me, than to have commanded me to await your

Majesty at the door, if you thought it not meet to

have taken me with you.' The King replied, ' Alas,

the traitor deceived me in that, as in all else, for I

commanded him expressly to bring you to me, and

he returned back, as I thought, to fetch you, but he

did nothing but steik [shut] the door.'

What can these words mean ? They appear to

me to imply that James sent the Master back,

according to their arrangement, to bring; Erskine,

that the Master gave Erskine some invented message

about waiting at some door, that he then shut a door

between the King and his friends, but told the King

that Erskine was to follow them. Erskine was,

beyond doubt, in the street with the rest of the

retinue, before the brawl in the turret reached its

crisis, when Gowrie had twice insisted that James

had ridden away.

In any case, to go on with James's tale, he went

with Euthven up a staircase (the great staircase),

' and through three or four rooms ' c three or four

sundry houses ' ' the Master ever locking behind him

every door as he passed, and so into a little study '

the turret. This is perplexing. We nowhere hear

in the evidence of more than two doors, in the suite,

which were locked. The staircase perhaps gave on

the long gallery, with a door between them. The

gallery gave on a chamber, which had a door (the

door battered by Lennox and Mar), and the chamber

i^ave on a turret, which had a door between it and

the chamber.

We hear, in the evidence, of no other doors, or

of no other locked doors. However, in the Latin in-

dictment of the Euthvens, ' many doors ' are insisted

on. As all the evidence tells of opposition from only

one door- -that between the gallery and the chamber

of death James's reason for talking of ' three or

four doors ' must be left to conjecture. ' The True

Discourse ' (MS.) gives but the gallery, chamber, and

turret, but appears to allow for a door between

stair and gallery, which the Master ' closed,' while he

' made fast ' the next door, that between gallery and

chamber. One Thomas Hamilton, 1 who writes a long

letter (MS.) to a lady unknown, also speaks of several

doors, on the evidence of the King, and some of the

Lords. This manuscript has been neglected by his-

torians. 2

Leaving this point, we ask why a man already

suspicious, like James, let the Master lock any door

behind him. We might reply that James had dined,

and that ' wine and beer produce a careless state of

mind,' as a writer on cricket long ago observed.

We may also suppose that, till facts proved the

locking of one door at least (for about that there is

no doubt), James did not know that any door was

locked. On August 11 the Eev. Mr. Galloway, in a

sermon preached before the King and the populace

at the Cross of Edinburgh, says that the Master

led the monarch upstairs, ' and through a trans '

(a passage), ' the door whereof, so soon as they had

entered, chekit to with ane lok, then through a gallery,

whose door also chekit to, through a chamber, and

the door thereof chekit to, also,' and thence into the

turret of which he ' also locked the door.' 1

Were the locks that ' chekit to ' spring locks, and

was James unaware that he was locked in ? But Eam-

say, before the affray, had wandered into ' a gallery,

very fair,' and unless there were two galleries, he

could not do this, if the gallery door was locked.

Lennox and Mar and the rest speak of opposition

from only one door.

While we cannot explain these things, that door,

at least, between the gallery and the gallery chamber,

excluded James from most of his friends. Can

the reader believe that he purposely had that door

locked, we know not how, or by whom, on the sys-

tem of compelling Gowrie to c come and be killed '

by way of the narrow staircase ? Could we see

Gowrie House, and its ' secret ways,' as it then was,

we might understand this problem of the locked

doors. Contemporary criticism, as minutely recorded

by Calderwood, found no fault with the number of

locked doors, but only asked 'how could the King's

fear but increase, perceiving Mr. Alexander ' (the

Master) ' ever to lock the doors behind them? If

the doors closed with spring locks (of which the

principle had long been understood and used), the

King may not have been aware of the locking. The

problem cannot be solved; we only disbelieve that

the King himself had the door locked, to keep his

friends out, and let Gowrie in.

NOTE. The Abbey of Scone. On page 48 we have quoted

the statement that Jarnes had bestowed on Gowrie the Abbey of

Scone ' during his life.' This was done in 1580 (Begiatrum Magni

Siffilli, vol. iii. No. 3011). On May 25, 1584, William Fullarton

got this gift, the first Earl of Gowrie and his children being then

forfeited. But on July 23, 1580, the Gowrie of the day was restored

to all his lands, and the Earldom of Gowrie included the old church

lands of Scone (Reg. Mag. Sig. iv. No. 695, No. 1044). How, then,

did John, third Earl of Gowrie, hold only ' for his life ' the Com-

mendatorship of the Abbey of Scone, as is stated in S. P. Scot. (Eli/.)

vol. Ixvi. No. 50?

IV

THE KING'S NARRATIVE

II

THE MAN IN THE TURRET

WE left James entering the little ' round,' or ' study,'

the turret chamber. Here, at last, he expected to

find the captive and the pot of gold. And here the

central mystery of his adventure began. His Majesty

saw standing, ' with a very abased countenance, not

a bondman but a freeman, with a dagger at his

girdle.' Euthven locked the door, put on his hat,

drew the man's dagger, and held the point to the

King's breast, ' avowing now that the King behoved to

be at his wilL and used as he list : swearing manv

bloody oaths that if the King cried one word, or

opened a window to look out, that dagger should go

to his heart.'

If this tale is true, murder was not intended,

unless James resisted : the King was only being

threatened into compliance with the Master's ' will.'

Euthven added that the King's conscience must now

be burthened ' for murdering his father,' that is, for

the execution of William, Earl of Gowrie, in 1584.

His conviction was believed to have been procured

in a dastardly manner, later to be explained.

James was unarmed, and obviously had no secret

coat of mail, in which he could not have hunted all

day, perhaps. Euthven had his sword ; as for the

other man he stood ' trembling and quaking.' James

now made to the Master the odd harangue reported

even in Nicholson's version of the Falkland letter of the

same day. As for Gowrie's execution, the King said,

he had then been a minor (he was eighteen in 1584),

and Gowrie was condemned ' by the ordinary course of

law ' which his friends denied. James had restored,

he said, all the lands and dignities of the House, two

of Euthven's sisters were maids of honour. Euthven

had been educated by the revered Mr. Eollock, he

ouo'ht to have learned better behaviour. If the King

died he would be avenged : Gowrie could not hope

for the throne. The King solemnly promised forgive-

ness and silence, if Euthven let him go.

Euthven now uncovered his head, and protested

that the King's life should be safe, if he made no

noise or cry : in that case Euthven would now bring

Gowrie to him. ' Why ? ' asked James ; ' you could

gain little by keeping such a prisoner ? ' Euthven

said that he could not explain ; Gowrie would tell

him the rest. Turning to the other man, he said ' I

make you the King's keeper till I come again, and

see that you keep him upon your peril.' He then

went out, and locked the door. The person who later

averred that he had been the man in the turret,

believed that Ruthven never went far from the door.

James believed, indeed averred, that he ran down-

stairs, and consulted Gowrie.

If there was an armed man in the turret, he

was either placed there by the King, to protect him

while he summoned his minions by feigned cries of

treason, or he was placed there by Gowrie to help

the Master to seize the Kin^. In the latter case, the

Master's position was now desperate ; in lieu of an

ally he had procured a witness against himself. Great

need had he to consult Gowrie, but though Gow-

rie certainly entered the house, went upstairs, and

returned to Lennox with the assurance that James

had ridden away, it is improbable that he and his

brother met at this moment. James, however, avers

that they met, Euthven running rapidly downstairs,

but this was mere inference on the King's part.

James occupied the time of Euthven's absence

in asking the man of the turret what he knew of

the conspiracy. The man replied that he knew

nothing, he had but recently been locked into the

little chamber. Indeed, while Euthven was threaten-

ing, the man (says James) was trembling, and

adjuring the Master not to harm the King. James,

having sworn to Euthven that he would not open

the window himself, now, characteristically, asked

the man to open the window 'on his right hand.'

If the King had his back to the turret door, the

window on his right opened on the courtyard, the

window on his left opened on the street. The

man readily opened the window, says the King,

and the person claiming to be the man deponed later

that he first opened what the King declared to be the

wrong window, but, before he could open the other,

in came the Master, who, ' casting his hands abroad

in desperate manner, said "he could not mend it,

his Majesty behoved to die." Instead of stabbing

James, however, he tried to bind the Eoyal hands

with a garter, ' swearing he behoved to be bound.'

(A garter was later picked up on the floor by one of

the witnesses, Graham of Balgonie, and secured by

Sir Thomas Erskine. 1 )

A struggle then began, James keeping the

Master's right hand off his sword-hilt ; the Master

trying to silence James with his left hand. James

dragged the Master to the window, which the other

man had opened. (In the Latin indictment of the

dead Euthvens, James opens the window himself.)

The turret man said, in one of two depositions, that

he stretched across the wrestlers, and opened the

window. The retinue and Gowrie were passing, as

we know, or loitering below ; Gowrie affected not to

hear the cries of treason ; Lennox, Mar, and the rest

rushed up the great staircase. Meanwhile, struggling

with the Master, James had brought him out of the

turret into the chamber, so he says, though, more

probably, the Master brought him. They were now

near the door of the chamber that gave on the narrow

staircase, and James was ' throwing tlie Master's sword

out of his hand, thinking to have stricken him there-

with,' when Eamsay entered, and wounded the Master,

who was driven down the stairs, and there killed

by Erskine and Herries. Gowrie then invaded the

room with seven others : James was looking for the

Master's sword, 1 which had fallen, but he was instantly

shut into the turret by his friends, and saw none

of the fight in which Gowrie fell. After that Lennox

and the party with hammers were admitted, and the

tumult appeased James rode back, through a dark

rainy night, to Falkland.

V

HENDEBSON'S NAEEATIVE

THE man in the turret had vanished like a ghost.

Henderson, on the day after the tragedy, was also

not to be found. Like certain Euthvens, Hew

Moncrieff, Eviot, and others, who had fought in the

death-chamber, or been distinguished in the later riot,

Henderson had fled. He was, though a retainer of

Gowrie, a member of the Town Council of Perth,

and ' chamberlain,' or c factor,' of the lands of Scone,

then held by Gowrie from the King. To find any

one who had seen him during the tumult was difficult

or impossible. William Eobertson, a notary of Perth,

examined in November before the Parliamentary

Committee, said then that he only saw Gowrie, with

his two drawn swords, and seven or eight companions,

in the forecourt of the house, and so, ' being afraid,

he passed out of the place.' The same man, earlier,

on September 23, when examined with other citizens

of Perth, had said that he followed young Tullibar-

dine and some of his men, who were entering the

court ' to relieve the King.' l He saw the Master

lying dead at the foot of the stair, and saw Hender-

son ' come out of the said turnpike, over the Master's

belly.' He spoke to Henderson, who did not answer.

He remembered that Murray of Arbany was pre-

sent. Arbany, before the Parliamentary Committee

in November, said nothing on this subject, nor did

Robertson. His evidence would have been impor-

tant, had he adhered to what he said on Septem-

ber 23. But, oddly enough, if he perjured himself

on the earlier occasion (September 23), he withdrew

his perjury, when it would have been useful to the

King's case, in the evidence given before the Lords

of the Articles, in November. Mr. Barbe, perhaps

misled by the sequence of versions in Pitcairn, writes :

' Apparently it was only when his memory had been

stimulated by the treatment of those whose evidence

was found to be favourable to the King that the wily

notary recalled the details by which he intended to

corroborate Henderson's statement. . . .' l

The reverse is the case : the wily notary did not

offer, at the trial in November, the evidence which

he had given, in September, at the examination of

the citizens of Perth. It may perhaps be inferred

that perjury was not encouraged, but depressed. 2

2 Mr. Barbe, as we saw, thinks that Robertson perjured himself,

when he swore to having seen Henderson steal out of the dark stair-

case and step over Ruthven's body. On the other hand, Mr. Bisset

thought that Robertson spoke truth on this occasion, but concealed the

truth in his examination later, because his evidence implied that

Henderson left the dark staircase, not when Ramsay attacked Ruthven,

but later, when Ruthven had already been slain. Mr. Bisset' s theory

was that Henderson had never been in the turret during the crisis, but

had entered the dark staircase from a door of the dining-hall on the

Despite the premiums on perjury which Euthven

apologists insist on, not one witness would swear to

having seen Henderson during or after the tumult.

Yet he instantly fled, with others who had been

active in the brawl, and remained in concealment.

Calderwood, the earnest collector of contemporary

gossip and documents, assures us that when the man

in the turret could not be found, the first pro-

clamation identified him with a Mr. Eobert Oliphant,

a ' black grim man,' but that Oliphant proved his

absence from Perth. One Gray and one Lesley were

also suspected, and one Younger (hiding when sought

for, it is said) was killed. But we have no copy of

the proclamation as to Mr. Eobert Oliphant. To Mr.

Eobert Oliphant, who had an alibi, we shall return,

for this gentleman, though entirely overlooked by

our historians, was probably at the centre of the

situation (p. 71, infra).

Meanwhile, whatever Henderson had done, he

mysteriously vanished from Gowrie House, during or

after the turmoil, ' following darkness like a dream. 7

Nobody was produced who could say anything about

seeing Henderson, after MoncriefF and the Hays saw

first floor. Such a door existed, according to Lord Hailes, but

when he wrote (1757) 110 traces of this arrangement were extant. If

such a door there was, Henderson may have slunk into the hall, out of

the dark staircase, and slipped forth again, at the moment when

Robertson, in his first deposition, swore to having seen him. But

Murray of Arbany cannot well have been there at that moment, as he

was with the party of Lennox and Mar, battering at the door of the

gallery chamber. Bisset, Essays in Historical Truth, pp. 228-237.

Hailes, Annals. Third Edition, vol. iii. p. 369. Note (1819).

him on his return from Falkland, at about ten o'clock

in the morning of August 5.

By August 12, Henderson was still in hiding, and

was still being proclaimed for, with others, of whom

Mr. Robert Oliphant was not one : they were Mon-

crieff, Evict, and two Ruthvens. 1 But, on August 11

at the Cross of Edinburgh, in presence of the King,

his chaplain, the Rev. Patrick Galloway, gave news

of Henderson. Mr. Galloway had been minister of

Perth, and a fierce Presbyterian of old.

Blow, Galloway, the trumpet of the Lord !

exclaimed a contemporary poet. But James had

tamed Galloway, he was now the King's chaplain, he

did not blow the trumpet of the Lord any longer,

and, I fear, was capable of anything. He had a

pension, Calderwood tells us, from the lands of Scone,

and knew Henderson, who, as Chamberlain, or

steward, paid the money. In his exciting sermon,

Galloway made a dramatic point. Henderson was

found, and Henderson was the man in the turret !

Galloway had received a letter from Henderson, in

his own hand ; any listener who knew Henderson's

hand might see the letter. Henderson tells his tale

therein ; Galloway says that it differs almost nothing

from the King's story, of which he had given an

abstract in his discourse. And he adds that Hender-

son stole downstairs while Ramsay was engaged with

the Master. 2

Henderson, being now in touch with Galloway,

probably received promise of his life, and of reward,

for he came in before August 20, and, at the trial in

November, was relieved of the charge of treason, and

ave evidence.

Here we again ask, Why did Henderson take to

flight ? What had he to do with the matter ? None

fled but those who had been seen, sword in hand,

in the fatal chamber, or stimulating the populace to

attack the Kino- during the tumult. Andrew Ruthven,

who had ridden to Falkland with Henderson and the

Master, did not run away, no proclamation for him

is on record. Nobody swore to seeing Henderson,

like his fellow fugitives, armed or active, yet he fled

and skulked. Manifestly Henderson had, in one way

or other, been suspiciously concerned in the affair.

He had come in, and was at Falkland, by August 20,

when he was examined before the Chancellor, Mont-

rose, the King's Advocate, Sir Thomas Hamilton, Sir

George Hume of Spot (later Earl of Dunbar), and

others, in the King's absence. He deponed that, on

the night of August 4, Gowrie bade him and Andrew

Euthven ride early to Falkland with the Master, and

return, if the Master ordered him so to do, with a

message. At Falkland they went into a house, 1 and

the Master sent him to learn what the King was

doing. He came back with the news ; the Master

talked with the King, then told Henderson to carry to

Gowrie the tidings of the King's visit, ' and that his

Majesty would be quiet.' Henderson asked if he was

to start at once. Euthven told him to wait till he

spoke to the King again. They did speak, at a gap

in a wall, during the check in the run ; Euthven

returned to Henderson, sent him off, and Henderson

reached Perth about ten o'clock. Gowrie, on his

arrival, left the company he was with (the two Hays),

and here George Hay's evidence makes Gowrie ask

Henderson ' who was with the King at Falkland ? ' Hay

said that Gowrie then took Henderson into another

room. Henderson says nothing about a question as

to the King's company, asked in presence of Hay,

a compromising and improbable question, if Gowrie

wished to conceal the visit to Falkland.

Apart, Gowrie put some other questions to

Henderson as to how the King received the Master.

Henderson then went to his house ; an hour later

Gowrie bade him put on his secret coat of mail,

and plate sleeves, as he had to arrest a Highlander.

Henderson did as commanded ; at twelve the steward

told him to bring up dinner, as Craigengelt (the

caterer) was ill. Dinner began at half-past twelve ;

at the second course the Master entered, Andrew

Euthven had arrived earlier. The company rose

from table, and Henderson, who was not at the

moment in the room, heard them moving, and

thought that they were ' going to make breeks

for Maconilduy,' that is, to catch the Highlander.

Finding he was wrong, he threw his steel gauntlet

into the pantry, and sent his boy to his house with

his steel cap. He then followed Gowrie to meet the

King, and, after he had fetched ' a drink ' (which James

says ' was long in coming '), the Master bade him

ask Mr. Ehynd, Gowrie's old tutor, for the key of

the gallery, which Ehynd brought to the Master.

Gowrie then went up, and spoke with the Master, and,

after some coming and going, Henderson was sent

to the Master in the gallery. Thither Gowrie re-

turned, and bade Henderson do whatever the Master

commanded. (The King says that Gowrie came

and went from the room, during his dinner.) The

Master next bade Henderson enter the turret, and

locked him in. He passed the time in terror and

in prayer.

There follows the story of the entry of James

and the Master, and Henderson now avers that

he ' threw ' the dagger out of the Master's hand.

He declares that the Master said that he wanted

' a promise from the King,' on what point Gowrie

would explain. The rest is much as in the King's

account, but Henderson was 'pressing to have

opened the window,' he says, when the Master entered

for the second time, with the garter to bind the King's

hands. During the struggle Henderson removed the

Master's hand from the King's mouth, and opened

the window. The Master said to him, 'Wilt thou

not help ? Woe betide thee, thou wilt make us all

die.' 1

Henderson's later deposition, at the trial in No-

vember, was mainly, but not without discrepancies, to

the same effect as his first. He said that he prayed,

when alone in the turret, but omits the statement

(previously made by him) that he deprived Euthven of

his dagger, a very improbable tale, told falsely at first,

no doubt, as Eobertson the notary at first invented

his fable about meeting with Henderson, coming

out of the dark staircase. This myth Eobertson

narrated when examined in September, but omitted

it in the trial in November. Henderson now ex-

plained about his first opening the wrong window,

but he sticks to it that he took the garter from

Euthven, of which James says nothing. He vows

that he turned the key of the door on the staircase,

so that Eamsay could enter, whereas Eamsay averred

that he himself forced the door. Mr. Hudson

(James's resident at the Court of England), who in

October 1600 interviewed both Henderson and the

King, says that, in fact, the Master had not locked

the door, on his re-entry. 2 Henderson slunk out

when Eamsay came in. He adds that it was his steel

cap which was put on Gowrie's head by a servant

(there was plenty of evidence that a steel cap was

thus put on).

One singular point in Henderson's versions is this :

after Euthven, in deference to James's harangue in

the turret, had taken off his hat, the King said,

' What is it ye crave, man, if ye crave not my life ? '

4 Sir, it is but a promise,' answered Euthven. The

King asked 4 What promise ? ' and Euthven said that

his brother would explain. This tale looks like a con-

fusion made, by Henderson's memory, in a passage

in James's narrative. 'His Majesty inquired what

the Earl would do with him, since (if his Majesty's

life were safe, according to promise) they could gain

little in keeping such a prisoner.' Euthven then,

in James's narrative, said ' that the Earl would tell

his Majesty at his coming.' It appears that the word

4 promise ' in the Eoyal version, occurring at this point

in the story, clung to Henderson's memory, and so

crept into his tale. Others have thought that the

Euthvens wished to extort from James a promise

about certain money which he owed to Gowrie.

But to extort a promise, by secluding and threatening

the King, would have been highly treasonable and

dangerous, nor need James have kept a promise

made under duress.

Perhaps few persons who are accustomed to

weigh and test evidence, who know the weaknesses

of human memories, and the illusions which impose

themselves upon our recollections, will lay great

stress on the discrepancies between Henderson's first

deposition (in August), his second (in November), and

the statement of the King. In the footnote printed

below, 1 Hudson explains the origin of certain differ-

ences between the King's narrative and Henderson's

evidence, given in August. Hudson declares that

James boasted of having taken the dagger out of

Euthven's hands (which, in fact, James does not do,

in his published narration), and that Henderson

claimed to have snatched the dagger away, ' to move

mercy by more merit.' It is clear that James would

not accept his story of disarming Euthven ; Henderson

omits that in his second deposition. For the rest,

James, who was quite clever enough to discover the

discrepancies, let them stand, at the end of his own

printed narrative, with the calm remark, that if any

differences existed in the depositions, they must be

taken as ' uttered by the deponer in his own behouf, for

obtaining of his Majesty's princely grace and favour.' 2

Henderson's first deposition was one of these which

1 James Hudson to Sir Robert Cecil.

' . . . I have had conference of this last acsyon, first w tb the King,

at lenght, & then w th Henderson, but my speache was first w th Hen-

derson befoar the King came over the waiter, betwixt whoame I fynde

no defference but y l boath alegethe takinge the dager frome Alexander

Ruthven, w ch stryf on the one part maie seame to agrnent honor, &

on the other to move mersy by moa r merit : it is plaen y* the King

only by god's help deffended his owin lyff wel & that a longe tynie, or

els he had lost it : it is not trew that M r . Alex spok w tb his brother

when he went owt, nor that Henderson vnlokt the door, but hast &

neglect of M r . Alex, left it opin, wherat S r Jhon Ramsay entrid, &

after hime S r Tho. Ereskyn S r Hew Haris & Wilsone. Y* it is not

generally trustid is of mallice & preoccupassyon of mens mynds by

the minesters defidence at the first, for this people ar apt to beleve

the worst & loath to depart frome y l fayth.

' Edinborow this 19 of October 1600.'

2 Pitcairn, ii. 218.

James printed with his own narrative, and thus

treated en prince. He was not going to harmonise

his evidence with Henderson's, or Henderson's with

his. On the other hand, from the first, Henderson had

probably the opportunity to frame his confession on the

Falkland letter of August 5 to the Chancellor, and

the Provost of Edinburgh ; and, later, on the printed

narrative officially issued at the close of August 1600.

He varied, when he did vary, in hopes of ' his

Majesty's princely grace and favour,' and he naturally

tried to make out that he was not a mere trembling

expostulating caitiff. He clung to the incident of

the garter which he snatched from the Master's hand.

Henderson had no Eoyal model for his account

of how he came to be in the turret, which James

could only learn from himself. Now that is the most

incredible part of Henderson's narrative. However

secret the Kuthvens may have desired to be, how

could they trust everything to the chance that the

town councillor of Perth, upper footman, and Cham-

berlain of Scone, would act the desperate part of

seizing a king, without training and without warn-

ing ?

But was Henderson unwarned and uninstructed,

or, did he fail after ample instruction ? That is the

difficult point raised by the very curious case of Mr.

Eobert Oliphant, which has never been mentioned, I

think, by the many minute students of this bewilder-

ing affair.

VI

THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. ROBERT

LIPHANT

SUPPOSE that men like the Ruthvens, great and

potent nobles, had secretly invited their retainer,

Andrew Henderson, to take the role of the armed

man in the turret, what could Henderson have done ?

Such proposals as this were a danger dreaded even

by the most powerful. Thus, in March 1562, James

Hepburn, the wicked Earl of Bothwell, procured,

through John Knox, a reconciliation with his feudal

enemy, Arran. The brain of Arran was already, it

seems, impaired. A few days after the reconcilia-

tion he secretly consulted Knox on a delicate point.

Bothwell, he said, had imparted to him a scheme

whereby they should seize Queen Mary's person, and

murder her secretary, Lethington, and her half-

brother, Lord James Stuart, later Earl of Moray.

Arran explained to Knox that, if ever the plot came

to light, he would be involved in the crime of guilty

concealment of foreknowledge of treason. But, if he

divulged the plan, Bothwell would challenge him to

trial by combat. Knox advised secrecy, but Arran,

now far from sane, revealed the real or imagined

conspiracy.

To a man like Henderson, the peril in simply

listening to treasonable proposals from the Ruthvens

would be even greater. If he merely declined to be

a party, and kept silence, or fled, he lost his employ-

ment as Gowrie's man, and would be ruined. If the

plot ever came to light, he would be involved in

guilty concealment of foreknowledge. If he instantly

revealed to the King what he knew, his word would

not be accepted against that of Gowrie : he would

be tortured, to get at the very truth, and probably

would be hanged by way of experiment, to see if he

would adhere to his statement on the scaffold a

fate from which Henderson, in fact, was only saved

by the King.

What then, if the Gowries offered to Henderson

the role of the man in the turret, could Henderson

do ? He could do what, according to James and to

himself, he did, he could tremble, expostulate, and

assure the King of his ignorance of the purpose

for which he was locked up, ' like a dog,' in the little

study.

That this may have been the real state of affairs

is not impossible. We have seen that Calderwood

mentions a certain Mr. Eobert Oliphant (Mr. means

Master of Arts) as having been conjectured at, im-

mediately after the tragedy, as the man in the turret.

He must therefore have been, and he was, a trusted

retainer of Gowrie. But Oliphant at once proved

an alibi ; he was not in Perth on August 5. His

name never occurs in the voluminous records of the

proceedings. He is not, like Henderson, among the

persons who fled, and for whom search was made,

as far as the documents declare, though Calderwood

says that he was described as a ' black grim man '

in ' the first proclamation.' If so, it looks ill for

James, as Henderson was a brown fair man. In

any case, Oliphant at once cleared himself.

But we hear of him again, though historians have

overlooked the fact. Among the Acts of Caution

of 1600 that is, the records of men who become

sureties for the good behaviour of others is an entry

in the Privy Council Eegister for December 5, 1600. 1

' Mr. Alexander Wilky in the Canongate for John

Wilky, tailor there, 200/., not to harm John Lyn,

also tailor there ; further, to answer when required

touching his (John Wilky's) pursuit of Lyn for

revealing certain speeches spoken to him by Mr.

Eobert Oliphant anent his foreknowledge of the

treasonable conspiracy of the late John, sometime

Earl of Gowrie.'

Thus Eobert Oliphant, M.A., had spoken to tailor

Lyn, or so Lyn had declared, about his own fore-

knowledge of the plot ; Lyn had blabbed ; tailor

Wilky had ' pursued ' or attacked Lyn ; and Alexander

Wilky, who was bailie of the Canongate, enters

into recognisances to the amount of 200/. that John

Wilky shall not further molest Lyn.

1 Privy Council Eegister, vi. 671.

Now what had Oliphant said ?

On the very day, December 5, when Alexander

Wilky became surety for the good behaviour of John

Wilky, Nicholson, the English resident at Holyrood,

described the facts to Eobert Cecil. 1 Nicholson

says that, at a house in the Canongate, Mr. Eobert

Oliphant was talking of the Gowrie case. He was

a man who had travelled, and he inveighed against

the unfairness of Scottish procedure in the case of

Cranstoun.

We have seen that Mr. Thomas Cranstoun,

Gowrie's equerry, first brought to Lennox and others,

in the garden, the report that the King had ridden

away. We have seen that he was deeply wounded

by Eamsay just before or after Gowrie fell. Unable

to escape, he was taken, examined, tortured, tried on

August 22, and, on August 23, hanged at Perth. He

had invaded and wounded Herries, and Thomas

Erskine, and had encouraged the mob to beleaguer

the back gate of Gowrie House, against the King's

escape. He had been in France, he said, since 1589,

had come home with Gowrie, but, he swore, had not

spoken six words with the Euthvens during the last

fortnight. 2 This is odd, as he was their Master

Stabler, and as they, by their friends' account, had

been making every preparation to leave for Dirleton,

which involved arrangements about their horses.

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 107.

2 Cranstoun mentioned his long absence in France to prove that he

was not another Mr. Thomas Cranstoun, a kinsman of his, who at this

time was an outlawed rebel, an adherent of Bothwell (p. 155, infra).

In any case, Mr. Eobert Oliphant, in a house

in the Canongate, in November or early December

1600, declared that Cranstoun, who, he said, knew

nothing of the conspiracy, had been hanged, while

Henderson, who was in the secret, and had taken the

turret part, escaped, and retained his position as

Chamberlain of Scone. Henderson, at the critical mo-

ment, had ' fainted,' said Oliphant ; that is, had failed

from want of courage. Oliphant went on to say that

he himself had been with Gowrie in Paris (February-

March 1600), and that, both in Paris and at home

in Scotland later, Gowrie had endeavoured to induce

him to take the part later offered to Henderson.

He had tried, but in vain, to divert Gowrie's mind

from his dangerous project. This talk of Oliphant's

leaked out (through Lyn as we know), and Oliphant,

says Nicholson, c fled again.' l

Of Oliphant we learn no more till about June

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 107.

' George Nicolson to Sir Robert Cecil.

4 A man of Cannagate speaking that one M r . Ro: Oliphant, lyeng at

his house, should haue complayned and said that "there was no justice

in Scotland, for favlters skaped fre and innocentis were punished. M r .

Thomas Cranston was execute being innocent, and Henderson saued.

That therle of Go wry had moued that matter to him (Oliphant) in

Paris and here, that he had w th good reasons deverted him, that therle

thereon left him and delt w th Henderson hi that matter, that Henderson

vndertooke it and yet fainted, and M r . Thomas Cranston knew nothing

of it and yet was executed." This I heare, and that this Oliphant that

was Gowries servant is, vpon this mans speache of it, againe fled.

The heades of Gowry and his brother are sett vpon the tolebuthe here

this day. .......

' Edenfc. the 5 of Decernb. 1600.'

1608. At that time, the King, in England, heard a

rumour that he had been connected with the con-

spiracy. A Captain Patrick Heron 1 obtained a

commission to find Oliphant, and arrested him at

Canterbury : he was making for Dover and for France.

Heron seized Oliphant's portable property, ' eight

angels, two half rose-nobles, one double pistolet, two

French crowns and a half, one Albertus angel ; two

English crowns ; one Turkish piece of gold, two gold

rings, and a loose stone belonging to one ; three

Netherland dollars ; one piece of four royals ; two

quart decuria ; seven pieces of several coins of silver ;

two purses, one sword ; one trunk, one " mail," and

two budgetts.' Oliphant himself lay for nine months

in ' the Gate House of Westminster,' but Heron,

' careless to justify his accusation, and discovering

his aim in that business ' (writes the King), ' presently

departed from hence.' ' We have tried the innocency

of Mr. Eobert Oliphant,' James goes on, ' and have

freed him from prison.' The Scottish Privy Council

is therefore ordered, on March 6, 1609, to make

Heron restore Oliphant's property. On May 16,

1609, Heron was brought before the Privy Council in

Edinburgh, and was bidden to make restitution. He

was placed in the Tolbooth, but released by Lindsay,

the keeper of the prison. In March 1610, Oliphant

having again gone abroad, Heron expressed his

1 The Captain was ' a landless gentleman.' His wife owned

Ranfurdie, and the Captain, involved in a quarrel with Menteith of

Kers, had been accused of witchcraft ! The Captain's legal affairs

may be traced in the Privy Council Begister.

readiness to restore the goods, except the trunk and

bags, which he had given to the English Privy

Council, who restored them to Eobert Oliphant.

The brother of Eobert, Oliphant of Bauchiltoun,

represented him in his absence, and, in 1611, Eobert

got some measure of restitution from Heron.

We know no more of Mr. Eobert Oliphant. 1 His

freedom of talk was amazing, but perhaps he had been

drinking when he told the story of his connection

with the plot. By 1608 nothing could be proved

against him in London : in 1600, had he not fled

from Edinburgh in December, something might have

been extracted. We can only say that his version

of the case is less improbable than Henderson's.

Henderson if approached by Gowrie, as Oliphant is

reported to have said that he was could not divulge

the plot, could not, like Oliphant, a gentleman, leave

Perth, and desert his employment. So perhaps he

drifted into taking the role of the man in the turret.

If so, he had abundance of time to invent his most

improbable story that he was shut up there in igno-

rance of the purpose of his masters.

Henderson was not always of the lamblike de-

meanour which he displayed in the turret. On

March 5, 1601, Nicholson reports that 'Sir Hugh

Herries,' the lame doctor, ' and Henderson fell out

and were at offering of strokes,' whence ' revelations '

1 The proceedings of the English Privy Council at this point are

lost, unluckily. The Scottish records are in Privy Council Register,

1608-1611, s.v. Oliphant, Robert, in the Index.

were anticipated. They never came, and, for all that

we know, Herries may have taunted Henderson with

Oliphant's version of his conduct. He was pretty

generally suspected of having been in the conspiracy,

and of having failed, from terror, and then betrayed

his masters, while pretending not to have known why

he was placed in the turret.

It is remarkable that Herries did not appear as a

witness at the trial in November. He was knighted

and rewarded : every one almost was rewarded out

of Gowrie's escheats, or forfeited property. But that

was natural, whether James was guilty or innocent ;

and we repeat that the rewards, present or in pro-

spect, did not produce witnesses ready to say that

they saw Henderson at Falkland, or in the tumult,

or in the turret. Why men so freely charged with

murderous conspiracy and false swearing were so

dainty on these and other essential points, the ad-

vocates of the theory of perjury may explain. How

James treated discrepancies in the evidence we have

seen. His account was the true account, he would

not alter it, he would not suppress the discrepancies

of Henderson, except as to the dagger. Witnesses

might say this or that to secure the King's princely

favour. Let them say : the King's account is true.

This attitude is certainly more dignified, and wiser,

than the easy method of harmonising all versions

before publication. Meanwhile, if there were dis-

crepancies, they were held by sceptics to prove false-

hood ; if there had been absolute harmony, that

would really have proved collusion. On one point I

suspect suppression at the trial. Almost all versions

aver that Bamsay, or another, said to Gowrie, 4 You

have slain the King,' and that Gowrie (who certainly

did not mean murder) then dropped his points and

was stabbed. Of this nothing is said, at the trial, by

any witnesses.

VII

THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN

VINDICATION

WE now come to the evidence which is most fatally

damaging to the two unfortunate Euthvens. It is

the testimony of their contemporary Vindication.

Till a date very uncertain, a tradition hung about

Perth that some old gentlemen remembered having

seen a Vindication of the Euthvens ; written at

the time of the events. 1 Antiquaries vainly asked

each other for copies of this valuable apology. Was

it printed, and suppressed by Eoyal order ? Did it

circulate only in manuscript ?

In 1812 a Mr. Panton published a vehement

defence of the Euthvens. Speaking of the King's

narrative, he says, ' In a short time afterwards a reply,

or counter manifesto, setting forth the matter in its

true light, written by some friend of the Euthven

family, made its appearance. The discovery of this

performance would now be a valuable acquisition;

but there is no probability that any such exists, as

1 See the Rev. Mr. Scott's Life of John, Earl of Gowrie. Mr.

Scott, at a very advanced age, published this work in 1818. He relied

much on tradition and on anonymous MSS. of the eighteenth century.

the Government instantly ordered the publication to

be suppressed. . . .'

The learned and accurate Lord Hailes, writing in

the second half of the eighteenth century (1757), says,

6 It appears by a letter of Sir John Carey, Governor '

(really Deputy Governor) ' of Berwick, to Cecil, 4th

September, 1600, that some treatise had been pub-

lished in Scotland, in vindication of Gowrie.' That

' treatise,' or rather news-letter, unsigned, and over-

looked by our historians (as far as my knowledge

goes), is extant in the Eecord Office. 1 We can

identify it as the document mentioned by Carey

to Cecil in his letter of September 4, 1600. Carey

was then in command of Berwick, the great Eng-

lish frontier fortress, for his chief, ' the brave Lord

Willoughby,' was absent on sick leave. On Sep-

tember 4, then, from Berwick, Carey wrote to Sir

Eobert Cecil, ' I have thought good to send you such '

(information) ' as I have received out of Scotland

this morning on both sides, both on the King's part

and the Earl's part, that you may read them both

together.'

Now we possess a manuscript, ' The Verie Maner

of the Erll of Gowrie and his brother their Death,

quha war killit at Perth, the fyft of August, by the

Kingis Servanttis, his Majestie being present.' This

paper is directed to 'My Lord Governor,' and, as

Carey was acting for ' My Lord Governor,' Lord

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 52. For the

document see Appendix B.

Willoughby, at Berwick, he received and forwarded

the document to Cecil. This is the Vindication, at

least I know no other, and no printed copy, though

Nicholson writes that a ' book on the Euthven side

was printed in England' (October 28, 1600).

The manuscript is in bad condition, in parts

illegible ; acids appear to have been applied to

it. The story, however, from the Gowrie side, can

be easily made out. It alleges that, ' on Saturday,

August 1 ' (really August 2), the lame Dr. Herries

came, on some pretext, to Gowrie's house. ' This

man by my Lord was convoyed through the house,

and the secret parts shown him.'

Now there was no ' secret part ' in the house, as

far as the narratives go. The entry to the narrow

staircase was inconspicuous, but was noticed by

Eamsay, and, of course, was familiar to Gowrie and

his men. On Tuesday, the fatal day (according to

the Euthven Vindication), Gowrie's retainers were

preparing to go with him ' to Lothian,' that is to

Dirleton, a castle of his on the sea, hard by North

Berwick. The narrator argues, as all the friends of

the Euthvens did, that, if Gowrie had intended any

treason, his men would not have been busy at their

houses with preparations for an instant removal. The

value of this objection is null. If Gowrie had a plot,

it probably was to carry the King to Dirleton with

him, in disguise.

The Master, the apology goes on, whom the King

had sent for ' divers times before, and on August 5,'

rode early to Falkland, accompanied by Andrew

Euthven, and Andrew Henderson. None of James's

men, nor James himself, as we have remarked, saw

Henderson at Falkland, and modern opponents of the

King deny (as the aforesaid Mr. Panton does) that

he was there. Here they clash with ' The Verie

Manner ' &c. issued at the time by Gowrie's defen-

ders. It avers that the Master, and his two men, did

not intend to return from Falkland to Perth. They

meant to sleep at Falkland on the night of the Fifth,

and meet Gowrie, next day, August 6, 'at the water-

side,' and cross with him to the south coast of the

Firth of Forth, thence riding on (as other friendly

accounts allege) to Dirleton, near North Berwick.

' And Andrew Henderson's confessions testified this.'

As published, they do nothing of the sort. The

Master ' took his lodging in Falkland for this night.'

Hearing that James was to hunt, the Master

breakfasted, and went to look for him. After a con-

versation with James, he bade Henderson ride back

to Perth, and tell Gowrie that, 'for what occasion he

knew not,' the King was coming. Now after they all

arrived at Perth, the Master told Gowrie's caterer,

Craigengelt, that the King had come, 'because

Eobert Abercrombie, that false knave, had brought

the King there, to make his Majesty take order for

his debt.' l This fact was stated by Craigengelt him-

1 James himself, being largely in Abercromby's debt, in 1594 gave

him ' twelve monks' portions ' of the Abbacy of Cupar. Act. Parl

Scot. iv. 83, 84.

self, under examination. If Kuthven spoke the

truth, he did know the motive, or pretext, of the

King's coming, which the apologist denies. But Kuth-

ven was not speaking the truth ; he told Craigengelt,

as we saw, that he had been ' on an errand not

far off.'

As to the debt, James owed Gowrie a large sum,

with accumulated interest, for expenses incurred by

Gowrie's father, when Lord Treasurer of Scotland

(1583-1584). James, in June 1600, as we shall see,

gave Gowrie a year's respite from the pursuit of his

father's creditors, hoping to pay him in the meanwhile.

Whether this exemption would not have defended

Gowrie from Eobert Abercromby ; whether James

would act as debt collector for Eobert Abercromby (a

burgess of Edinburgh, the King's saddler), the reader

may decide. But the Master gave to Craigengelt this

reason for James's unexpected arrival, though his

contemporary apologist says, as to James's motive

for coming to Perth, that the Master ' knew nothing?

Henderson having cantered off with his message,

James rode to Perth (nothing is said by the apologist

of the four hours spent in hunting), ' accompanied by

sixty horsemen, of whom thirty came a little before

him.' No trace of either the sixty or the thirty

appears anywhere in the evidence. ISTo witness

alludes to the arrival of any of the King's party in

front of him. On hearing from Henderson of the

King's approach, says the Vindication, Gowrie, who

was dining, ordered a new meal to be prepared. All

the other evidence shows that Henderson came back

to Perth long before Gowrie dined, and that neverthe-

less Gowrie made no preparations at all. Gowrie,

with four others, then met the King, on the Inch of

Perth says the apologist. James kissed him when

they met, the kiss of Judas, we are to understand.

He entered the house, and all the keys were given to

James's retainers. The porter, as we saw, really had

the keys, and Gowrie opened the garden gate with

one of them. The apologist is mendacious.

Dinner was soon over. James sent the Master to

bid Eamsay and Erskine c follow him to his cham-

ber, where his Majesty, Sir Thomas Erskine, John

Ramsay, Dr. Herries, and Mr. Wilson, being convened,

slew the Master, and threw him down the stair, how,

and for what cause they [know best] themselves.' Of

course it is absolutely certain that the Master did not

bring the other three men to James, in the chamber

where the Master was first wounded. Undeniably

Herries, Eamsay, and Erskine were not brought by the

Master, at James's command, to this room. They did

not enter it till after the cries of ' Treason ' were yelled

by James from the window of the turret. A servant

of James's, saj^s the apologist, now brought the

news that the King had ridden away. Cranstoun,

Gowrie's man, really did this, as he admitted. Gowrie,

the author goes on, hearing of James's departure,

called for his horse, and went out into the street.

There he stood ' abiding his horse.' Now Cranstoun,

as he confessed, had told Gowrie that his horse was

at Scone, two miles away. By keeping his horses

there, Gowrie made it impossible for him to accom-

pany the Boyal retinue as they went on their useless

errand (p. 21, supra). In the street Gowrie 'hears his

Majesty call on him out at the chamber window, " My

Lord of Gowrie, traitors has murdered your brother

already, and ye suffer me to be murdered also ! '

Nobody else heard this, and, if Gowrie heard it,

how inept it was in him to go about asking ' What

is the matter ? ' He was occupied thus while Lennox,

Mar, and the others were rushing up the great stair-

case to rescue the King. James, according to the

Euthven apologist, had told Gowrie what the matter

was, his brother was slain, and slain by Erskine, who,

while the Earl asked ' What is the matter ? ' was try-

ing to collar that distracted nobleman. The Master

had brought Erskine to the King, says the apologist,

Erskine had slain the Master, yet, simultaneously, he

tried to seize Gowrie in the street. Erskine was in

two places at once. The apology is indeed ' a valu-

able acquisition.' Gowrie and Cranstoun, and they

alone, the apologist avers, were now permitted by

James's servants to enter the house. We know that

many of James's men were really battering at the

locked door, and we know that others of Gowrie's

people, besides Cranstoun, entered the house, and

were wounded in the scuffle. Cranstoun himself

says nothing of any opposition to their entry to the

house, after Gowrie drew his two swords.

Cranstoun, according to the apologist, first entered

the chamber, alone, and was wounded, and drawn

back by Gowrie which Cranstoun, in his own

statement, denies. After his wounds he fled, he says,

seeing no more of Gowrie. Then, according to the

apologist, Gowrie himself at last entered the cham-

ber ; the King's friends attacked him, but he was too

cunning of fence for them. They therefore parleyed,

and promised to let him see the King (who was in

the turret). Gowrie dropped his points, Eamsay

stabbed him, he died committing his soul to God,

and declaring that he was a true subject.

This narrative, we are told by its author, is

partly derived from the King's men, partly from the

confessions of Cranstoun, Craigengelt, and Baron

(accused of having been in the chamber-fight, and

active in the tumult). All these three were tried

and hanged. The apologist adds that James's com-

panions will swear to whatever he pleases. This

was unjust ; Eamsay would not venture to recognise

the man of whom he caught a glimpse in the turret,

and nobody pretended to have seen Henderson at

Falkland, though the presence of Henderson at Falk-

land and in the chamber was an essential point. But,

among the King's crew of perjurers, not a man

swore to either fact.

What follows relates to Gowrie's character ;

4 he had paid all his father's debts,' which most

assuredly he had not done. As to the causes of his

taking off, they are explained by the apologist, but

belong to a later part of the inquiry.

Such was the contemporary Vindication of Gow-

rie, sent to Carey, at Berwick, for English reading,

and forwarded by Carey to Cecil. The narrative is

manifestly false, on the points which we have noted.

It is ingeniously asserted by the vindicator that

a servant of James brought the report that he had

ridden away. It is not added that the false report

was really brought by Cranstoun, and twice con-

firmed by Gowrie, once after he had gone to make

inquiry upstairs. Again, the apologist never even

hints at the locked door of the gallery chamber,

whereat Mar, Lennox, and the rest so long and so

vainly battered. Who locked that door, and why ?

The subject is entirely omitted by the apologist. On

the other hand, the apologist never alludes to the

Murrays, who were in the town. Other writers soon

after the events, and in our own day, allege that

James had arranged his plot so as to coincide with

the presence of the Murrays in Perth. What they

did to serve him we have heard. John Murray was

wounded by a Euthven partisan after the Earl and

Master were dead. Some Murrays jostled Gowrie,

before he rushed to his death. Young Tullibardine

helped to pacify the populace. That is all. Nothing

more is attributed to the Murrays, and the con-

temporary apologist did not try to make capital out

of them.

Though the narrative of the contemporary apo-

logist for the Euthvens appears absolutely to lack

evidence for its assertions, it reveals, on analysis, a

consistent theory of the King's plot. It may not be

verifiable ; in fact it cannot be true, but there is a

theory, a system, which we do not find in most con-

temporary, or in more recent arguments. James,

by the theory, is intent on the destruction of the

Euthvens. His plan was to bring the Master to

Falkland, and induce the world to believe that it was

the Master who brought him to Perth. The Master

refuses several invitations ; at last, on his way to

Dirleton, he goes to Falkland, taking with him

Andrew Euthven and Andrew Henderson. The old

apologist asserts, what modern vindicators deny, that

Henderson was at Falkland.

Then the Master sends Henderson first, Andrew

Euthven later, to warn Gowrie that, for some un-

known reason, the King is coming. To conceal hi&

bloody project (though the apologist does not men-

tion the circumstance), James next passes four hours

in hunting. To omit this certain fact is necessary

for the apologist's purpose. The King sends thirty

horsemen in front of him, and follows with thirty

more. After dinner he leaves the hall with the

Master, but sends him back for Erskine, Wilson,

and Eamsay. James having secured their help, and

next lured the Master into a turret, the minions

kill Euthven and throw his body downstairs ; one

of them, simultaneously, is in the street. James has

previously arranged that one of his servants shall

give out that the King has ridden away. This he

does announce at the nick of time (though Gowrie's

servant did it), so that Gowrie shall go towards the

stables (where he expects to find his horse, though

he knows it is at Scone), thus coming within earshot

of the turret window. Thence James shouts to Gowrie

that traitors are murdering him, and have murdered

the Master. Now this news would bring, not only

Gowrie, but all the Eoyal retinue, to his Majesty's

assistance. But, as not knowing the topography of

the house, the retinue, James must have calculated,

will run up the main stairs, to rescue the King.

Their arrival would be inconvenient to the King (as

the nobles would find that James has only friends

with him, not traitors), so the King has had the door

locked (we guess, though we are not told this by the

apologist) to keep out Lennox, Mar, and the rest.

Gowrie, however, has to be admitted, and killed, and

Gowrie, knowing the house, will come, the King

calculates, by the dark stair, and the unlocked door.

Therefore James's friends, in the street, will let him

and Cranstoun enter the house ; these two alone, and

no others with them. They, knowing the narrow

staircase, go up that way, naturally. As naturally,

Gowrie lets Cranstoun face the danger of four hostile

swords, alone. Waiting till Cranstoun is disabled,

Gowrie then confronts, alone, the same murderous

blades, is disarmed by a ruse, and is murdered.

This explanation has a method, a system. Unfor-

tunately it is contradicted by all the evidence now to

be obtained, from whatever source it comes, retainers

of Gowrie, companions of James, or burgesses of

Perth. We must suppose that Gowrie, with his

small force of himself and Cranstoun, both fencers

from the foreign schools, would allow that force to be

cut off in detail, one by one. We must suppose that

Erskine was where he certainly was not, in two places

at once, and that Eamsay and Herries and he, unseen,

left the hall and joined the King, on a message

brought by the Master, unmarked by any witness.

We must suppose that the King's witnesses, who pro-

fessed ignorance on essential points, perjured them-

selves on others, in batches. But, if we grant that

Mar, Lennox, and the rest gentlemen, servants,

retainers and menials of the Euthvens, and citizens

of Perth- -were abandoned perjurers on some points,

while scrupulously honourable on others equally

essential, the narrative of the Euthven apologist

has a method, a consistency, which we do not find in

modern systems unfavourable to the King.

For example, the modern theories easily show

how James trapped the Master. He had only to

lure him into a room, and cry ' Treason.' Then, even

if untutored in his part, some hot-headed young man

like Eamsay would stab Euthven. But to deal with

Gowrie was a more difficult task. He would be out

in the open, surrounded by men like Lennox and

Mar, great nobles, and his near kinsmen. They

would attest the innocence of the Earl. They must

therefore be separated from him, lured away to

attack the locked door, while Gowrie would stand

in the street asking ' What is the matter ? ' though

James had told him, and detained by the Murrays till

they saw fit to let him and Cranstoun go within the

gate, alone. Then, knowing the topography, Gowrie

and Cranstoun would necessarily make for the murder-

chamber, by the dark stair, and perish. The Eoyal wit

never conceived a subtler plot, it is much cleverer

than that invented by Mr. G. P. E. James, in his novel,

' Gowrie.' Nothing is wrong with the system of the

apologist, except that the facts are false, and the

idea a trifle too subtle, while, instead of boldly saying

that the King had the gallery chamber locked against

his friends, the apologist never hints at that circum-

stance.

We have to help the contemporary vindicator

out, by adding the detail of the locked door (which

he did not see how to account for and therefore

omitted), and by explaining that the King had it

locked himself, that Lennox, Mar, and the rest might

not know the real state of the case, and that Gowrie

might be trapped through taking the other way, by

the narrow staircase.

An author so conspicuously mendacious as he

who wrote the Apology for English consumption is

unworthy of belief on any point. It does not foUow

that Henderson was really at Falkland because the

apologist says that he was. But it would appear

that this vindicator could not well deny the circum-

stance, and that, to work it conveniently into his

fable, he had to omit the King's hunting, and to

contradict the Hays and Moncrieff by making Hender-

son arrive at Perth after twelve instead of about

ten o'clock.

The value of the Apology, so long overlooked, is

to show how very poor a case was the best that the

vindicator of the Euthvens was able to produce.

But no doubt it was good enough for people who

wished to believe. 1

1 Mr. Henderson, in his account of William, Earl of Gowrie, in

the Dictionary of National Biography, mentions ' The Vindication of

the Ruthvens ' in his list of authorities. He does not cite the source,

as in MS. or hi print ; and I know not whether he refers to ' The Verie

Manner &c.,' State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 52. The

theory of Mr. Scott (1818) is much akin to that of 'The Verie Manner,'

which he had never seen.

VIII

THE THEORY OF AN ACCIDENTAL BE AWL

So far, the King's narrative is least out of keeping

with probability.

But had James been insulted, menaced, and

driven to a personal struggle, as he declared? Is

the fact not that, finding himself alone with Euthven,

and an armed man (or no armed man, if you believe

that none was there), James lost his nerve, and cried

' Treason ! ' in mere panic ? The rest followed from

the hot blood of the three courtiers, and the story

of James was invented, after the deaths of the Gow-

ries, to conceal the truth, and to rob by forfeiture

the family of Euthven. But James had certainly

told Lennox the story of Euthven and the pot of

gold, before they reached Perth. If he came with

innocent intent, he had not concocted that story as

an excuse for coming.

We really must be consistent. Mr. Barbe, a

recent Euthven apologist, says that the theory of an

accidental origin of c the struggle between James

and Euthven may possibly contain a fairly accurate

conjecture.' l But Mr. Barbe also argues that James

had invented the pot of gold story before he left

1 Barbe, p. 124.

Falkland ; that, if James was guilty, ' the pretext had

been framed ' the myth of the treasure had been

concocted ' long before their meeting in Falkland,

and was held in readiness to use whenever circum-

stances required.' If so, then there is no room at

all for the opinion that the uproar in the turret was

accidental, but Mr. Barbe's meaning is that James thus

forced a quarrel on Euthven. For there was no captive

with a pot of gold, nor can accident have caused the

tragedy, if Euthven lured James to Falkland with the

false tale of the golden hoard. That tale, confided

by James to Lennox on the ride to Perth, was either

an invention of the King's in which case James is

the crafty conspirator whom Mr. Bruce, in 1602,

did not believe him to be (as shall be shown) ; or it

is true that Euthven brought James to Perth by

the feigned story in which case Euthven is a con-

spirator. I reject, for reasons already given, the

suggestion that Lennox perjured himself, when he

swore that James told him about Euthven's narrative

as to the captive and his hoard. For these reasons

alone, there is no room for the hypothesis of acci-

dent : either James or Euthven was a deliberate

traitor. If James invented the pot of gold, he is the

plotter : if Euthven did, Euthven is guilty. There

is no via media, no room for the theory of accident.

The via media, the hypothesis of accident, was

suggested by Sir William Bowes, who wrote out

his theory, in a letter to Sir John Stanhope, from

Bradley, on September 2, 1600. Bowes had been

English ambassador in Scotland, probably with the

usual commission to side with the King's enemies,

and especially (much as Elizabeth loathed her own

Puritans) with the party of the Kirk. His coach

had been used for the kidnapping of an English

gentleman then with James, while the Governor of

Berwick supplied a yacht, in case it seemed better to

carry off the victim by sea (1599). Consequently

Bowes was unpopular, and needed, and got, a guard

of forty horsemen for his protection. He was no

friend, as may be imagined, of the King.

Bowes had met Preston, whom James sent to

Elizabeth with his version of the Gowrie affair.

Bowes's theory of it all was this : James, the Master,

4 and one other attending ' (the man of the turret)

were alone in a chamber of Gowrie House. Speech

arose about the late Earl of Gowrie, Euthven's father,

whether by occasion of his portrait on the wall, or

otherwise. ' The King angrily said he was a traitor,

whereat the youth showing a grieved and expostu-

latory countenance, and haplie Scotlike words, the

King, seeing himself alone and without weapon, cried

Treason ! ' The Master placed his hand on James's

mouth, and knelt to deprecate his anger, but Earn-

say stabbed him as he knelt, and Gowrie was slain,

Preston said, after Eamsay had made him drop his

guard by crying that the King was murdered. The

tale of the conspiracy was invented by James to

cover the true state of the case. 1

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 64.

This Bowes only puts forth as a working hypo-

thesis. It breaks down on the King's narrative to

Lennox about Euthven's captive and hoard. It

breaks down on c one other attending ' the man in

the turret whatever else he may have been, he was

no harmless attendant. It breaks down on the locked

door between the King, and Lennox and Mar, which

Bowes omits. It is ruined by Gowrie's repeated

false assurances that the King had ridden away,

which Bowes ignores.

The third hypothesis, the via media, is impossible.

There was a deliberate plot on one side or the other.

To make the theory of Bowes quite clear, his letter

is appended to this section. 1

1 State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. Ixvi. No. 64.

Sir William Bowes to Sir John Stanhope, Sept. 2, 1600.

S r I attending hir M ties embassad r toward Newcastle happened to

meet wyth M r Preston then on his waie from his king to hir M tie . In

renewing a former acquaintance,! found hy.nr verie willing to possesse

me wyth his report of the death'of Gowrie and his brother, in the cir-

cumstances wherof sundrie ibingis- occurring Ji^fvilie probable I was

not curious to lett him 3ee that wyse men wv^'vs stumbled therat.

And therfor I thought yt wysdom in the king to deliuer his hono r to

the warld and espeaiallie to her M tie . And in this as in other albeit I

am not ignorant that.^he actions of princes must chalenge the Fairest

interpretation Yet because in deed truthe symplie canne doe no wrong

And that we owe o dearest and nearest truthes to o r soueraygnes in

this matter so precisely masked lett me deliuer to^youe what For myne

own part I doe belieue.

The King being readfe tc take hcrse was* v/j'iihctrawen in discourse

with the M r of Gowrie, a learned swee and. hurtles yong gentleman,

and one other attending. Now_were it b;y occasion of a picture (as is

sayde) or otherwise, speech happening of Earle Gowrie his father

executed, the king angrelie sayde he was a traitour, whereat the youth

showing a greeved and expostulatorie countenance and happelie Scot-

like Woordis, the King, seeing hymself alone and wythout weapon, cryed,

Treason, Treason. The M r abashed much to see the king so apprehend

yt, whilest the king wold call to the Lords, the Dnke, Marre, and others

that were attending in the court on the king comming to horse, putt

his hand with earnest deprecations to staie the king, showing his

countenance to them wythout in that moode, immediatlie falling on

his knees to entreat the King. At the K. sound of Treason, from out

of the Lower Chamber hastelie running Harris the physician Ramsey

his page and S r Thomas Erskyn came to where the king was Where

Ramsey runne the poore gentleman thorough, sitting as is saide vpon

his knees.

At this stirr the earle wyth his M r Stablere and somme other, best

knowing the howse and the wayes, came first to the slaughter where

finding his brother dead and the king retyred (For they had perswaded

hym into a countinghouse) some fight beganne between the earle and

the others. M r Preston saies that vpon thar relation that the king was

slayne the earle shronke from the pursuyte, and that one of the afor-

named rushing sodainlee to the earle thrust hym through that he fell

down and dyed. This matter seeming to haue an accidentall begin-

ning, to gyve it an honorable cloake is pursued wyth odious treasons

coniurations &c. imputed to the dead earle, wyth the death of the

M r Stabler, Wyth making knyghtis the acto r % And manye others such as

I know are notified to you long ere this. The ministers as I heare are

asked to make a thankgyving to god, where they think more need of

Fasting in Sackclothe and Ashes, to the kingis much discontenting.

This I must not saie (as the scholers terme yt) to be categoricallie true,

but heupatheticallie l I take yt so to be. Wherevpon maie be inferred

that as the death of the^ twoe Fii-^t .maie be excused by tendering the

IX

CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM

THE most resolute sceptics as to the guilt of the

Ruthvens were the Edinburgh preachers. They were

in constant opposition to the King, and the young

Gowrie was their favourite nobleman. As to what

occurred when the news of the tragedy reached

Edinburgh, early on July 6, we have the narrative of

Mr. Eobert Bruce, then the leader of the Presby-

terians. His own version is printed in the first

volume of the Bannatyne Club Miscellany, and is

embodied, with modifications, and without acknow-

ledgment (as references to such sources were usually

omitted at that period), in Calderwood's History.

It is thus better to follow Mr. Bruce's own

account, as far as it goes.

The preachers heard the ' bruit,' or rumour of

the tragedy, by nine o'clock on the morning of

August 6. By ten o'clock arrived a letter from

James to the Privy Council: the preachers were

called first ' before the Council of the town,' and the

King's epistle was read to them. ' It bore that his

Majesty ivas delivered out of a peril, and therefore

that we should be commanded to go to our Kirks,

convene our people, ring bells, and give God praises.'

While the preachers were answering, the Privy Council

sent for the Provost and some of the Town Council.

The preachers then went to deliberate in the

East Kirk, and decided ' that we could not enter

into the particular defence of (the existence of?)

' the treason, seeing that the King was silent of the

treason in his own letter, and the reports of courtiers

varied among themselves.'

This is not easily intelligible. The letter from

Falkland of which Nicholson gives an account on

August 6, was exceedingly ' particular as to the

treason.' It is my impression, based mainly on the

Burgh Eecords quoted by Pitcairn, that the letter

with full particulars cited by Nicholson, was written,

more or less officially, by the notary, David Moysie,

who was at Falkland, and that the Kinsf's letter was

brief, only requiring thanksgiving to be offered. Yet

Nicholson says that the letter with details (written

by the King he seems to think), was meant for the

preachers as well as for the Privy Council (cf. p. 38,

note).

The preachers, in any case, were now brought

before the Privy Council and desired, by Montrose,

the Chancellor, to go to church, and thank God for the

King's ' miraculous delivery from that vile treason.'

They replied that ' they could not be certain of the

treason,' but would speak of delivery ' from a great

danger.' Or they would wait, and, when quite sure

of the treason, would blaze it abroad.

' They ' (the Council) ' said it should be sufficient

to read his Majesty's letter.'

This appears to mean that the preachers would

content the Lords by merely reading James's letter

aloud to the public.

' We answered that we could not read his letter '

(aloud to the people ? ) ' and doubt of the truth of it.

It would be better to say generally, " if the report be

true," '

The preachers would have contented the Lords

by merely reading James's letter aloud to their con-

gregations. But this they declined to do ; they

wished, in the pulpit, to evade the Royal letter, and

merely to talk, conditionally, of the possible truth

of the report, or ' bruit.' This appears to have been

a verbal narrative brought by Graham of Balgonie,

which seemed to vary from the long letter probably

penned by Moysie. At this moment the Eev. David

Lindsay, who had been at Falkland, and had heard

James's story from his own mouth, arrived. He,

therefore, was sent to tell the tale publicly, at the

Cross. The Council reported to James that the six

Edinburgh preachers ' would in no ways praise God

for his delivery.' In fact, they would only do so in

general terms.

On August 12, James took the preachers to task.

Bruce explained that they could thank, and on

Sunday had thanked God for the King's delivery,

but could go no further into detail, ' in respect we

had no certainty.' ' Had you not my letter ? ' asked

the King. Bruce replied that the letter spoke only

' of a danger in general.' Yet the letter reported

by Nicholson was ' full and particular,' but that letter

the preachers seem to have regarded as unofficial.

' Could not my Council inform you of the particulars ? '

asked the King. The President (Fyvie, later Chan-

cellor Dunfermline) said that they had assured the

preachers of the certainty of the treason. On this

Bruce replied that they had only a report, brought

orally by Balgonie, and a letter by Moysie, an

Edinburgh notary then at Falkland, and that these

testimonies ' fought so together that no man could

have any certainty.' The Secretary (Elphinstone,

later Lord Balmerino) denied the discrepancies.

James now asked what was the preachers'

present opinion ? They had heard the King him-

self, the Council, and Mar. Bruce replied that, as

a minister, he was not fully persuaded. Four of

the preachers adhered to their scepticism. Two,

Hewat and Eobertson, now professed conviction.

The other four were forbidden to preach, under

pain of death, and forbidden to come within ten

miles of Edinburgh. They offered terms, but these

were refused. The reason of James's ferocity was

that the devout regarded the preachers as the

mouthpieces of God, and so, if they doubted his

word, the King's character would, to the godly,

seem no better than that of a mendacious murderer.

From a modern point of view, the ministers,

if doubtful, had a perfect right to be silent, and

one of them, Hall, justly objected that he ought

to wait for the verdict in the civil trial of the dead

Euthvens. We shall meet this Hall, and Hewatt (one

of the two ministers who professed belief), in very

strange circumstances later (p. 217). Here it is enough

to have explained the King's motives for severity.

In September the recalcitrants came before the

King at Stirling. All professed to be convinced

(one, after inquiries in Fife), except Bruce. We

learn what happened next from a letter of his to

his wife. He had heard from one who had been at

Craigengelt's execution (August 23), that Craigen-

gelt had then confessed that Henderson had told

him how he was placed by Gowrie in the turret. 1

Bruce had sent to verify this. Moreover he would

believe, if Henderson were hanged, and adhered

to his deposition to the last : a pretty experiment !

The Comptroller asked, ' Will you believe a con-

demned man better than the King and Council ? '

Mr. Bruce admitted that such was his theory of

the Grammar of Assent. ' If Henderson die peni-

tently I will trust him.' Later, as we shall see, this

pleasing experiment was tried in another case, but,

though the witness died penitently, and clinging to

his final deposition, not one of the godly sceptics

was convinced.

'But Henderson saved the King's life,' replied

the Comptroller to Mr. Bruce,

4 As to that I cannot tell,' said Mr. Bruce, and

added that, if Henderson took the dagger from

Euthven, he deserved to die for not sheathing it in

Euthven's breast.

Henderson later, we know, withdrew his talk

of his seizure of the dagger, which James had never

admitted. James now said that he knew not what

became of the dagger.

' Suppose,' said the Comptroller, ' Henderson

goes back from that deposition ? '

' Then his testimony is the worse,' said Mr. Bruce.

' Then it were better to keep him alive,' said the

Comptroller ; but Mr. Bruce insisted that Henderson

would serve James best by dying penitently. James

said that Bruce made him out a murderer. ' If I

would have taken their lives, I had causes enough '

(his meaning is unknown), ' I need not have ha-

zarded myself so.' By the ' causes,' can James have

meant Gowrie's attempts to entangle him in negotia-

tions with the Pope ? l These were alleged by Mr.

Galloway, in a sermon preached on August 11, in

the open air, before the King and the populace of

Edinburgh (see infra, p. 128).

Mar wondered that Bruce would not trust men

who (like himself) heard the King cry, and saw

the hand at his throat. Mr, Bruce said that Mar

might believe, ' as he were there to hear and see.'

He was left to inform himself, but Calderwood

says, that the story about Craigengelt's dying con-

fession was untrue. Bruce had frankly given the

lie to the King and Mar, though he remarked that

he had never heard Mar and Lennox tell the tale

fc out of their own mouths.' Mar later (September 24)

most solemnly assured Mr. Bruce by letter, that

the treason, ' in respect of that I saw,' was a certain

fact. This he professed 6 before God in heaven.'

Meanwhile Mr. Hall was restored to his Edinburgh

pulpit, and Mr. Bruce, after a visit to Restalrig,

a place close to Edinburgh and Leith, went into

banishment . l If he stayed with the Laird of Ees talrig,

he had, as will presently appear, a strange choice in

friends (pp. 148-167).

A later letter of Bruce's now takes up the tale.

In 1601, Bruce was in London, when Mar was there

as James's envoy. They met, and Bruce said he

was content to abide by the verdict in the Gowrie

trial of November 1600. What he boggled at, hence-

forward, was a public apology for his disbelief, an

acceptance, from the pulpit, of the King's veracity,

as to the events. In London, Bruce had found that

the Puritans, as to the guilt of Essex (which was

flagrant), were in the same position as himself, re-

garding the guilt of Gowrie. 2 But they bowed to

the law, and so would he ' for the present.'

The Puritans in England would not preach that

they were persuaded of the guilt of Essex, nor would

Bruce preach his persuasion of the guilt of Gowrie,

' from my knowledge and from my persuasion.' He

assured Mar ' that it was not possible for any man to

be fully persuaded, or to take on their conscience,

but so many as saw and heard.' However Bruce

is self-contradictory. He would be persuaded, if

Henderson swung for it, adhering to his statement.

Such were Mr. Bruce's theories of evidence. He

added that he was not fully persuaded that there

was any hell to go to, yet probably he scrupled not

to preach ' tidings of damnation.' He wanted to be

more certain of Gowrie's guilt, than he was that there

is hell-fire. ' Spiteful taunts ' followed, Mar's re-

partee to the argument about hell being obvious.

Bruce must have asserted the existence of hell, from

the pulpit : though not ' fully persuaded ' of hell.

So why not assert the King's innocence ?

Bruce returned later to Scotland, and met the

King in April 1602. Now, he said, according to

Calderwood, that he was ' resolved,' that is, con-

vinced. What convinced him ? Mar's oath. ' How

could he swear ? ' asked James ; ' he neither saw nor

heard ' -that is, what passed between James, the man

in the turret, and the Master. ' I cannot tell you

how he could swear, but indeed he swore very

deeply,' said Bruce, and reported the oath, which

must have been a fine example. James took Bruce's

preference of Mar's oath to his own word very calmly.

Bruce was troubled about the exact state of affairs

between James and the Master. ' Doubt ye of that ? '

said the King, ' then ye could not but count me a

murderer.' ' It followeth not, if it please you, Sir,'

said Mr. Eobert, 'for ye might have had some secret

cause' l

Strange ethics ! A man may slay another, with-

out incurring the guilt of murder, if he has ' a secret

cause.' Bruce probably referred to the tattle about

a love intrigue between Gowrie, or Euthven, and the

King's wife. Even now, James kept his temper. He

offered his whole story to Bruce for cross-examina-

tion. ' Mr. Eobert uttered his doubt where he found

occasion. The King heard him gently, and with a

constant countenance, which Mr. Eobert admired.'

But Mr. Eobert would not preach his belief: would

not apologise from the pulpit. C I give it but a

doubtsome trust,' he said.

Again, on June 24, 1602, James invited cross-

examination. Bruce asked how he could possibly

know the direction of his Majesty's intention when

he ordered Eamsay to strike the Master. ; I will

give you leave to pose me ' (interrogate me), said

James. 2

' Had you a purpose to slay rny Lord ? ' that is,

Gowrie.

6 As I shall answer to God, I knew not that my

Lord was slain, till I saw him in his last agony, and

was very sorry, yea, prayed in my heart for the

same.'

4 What say ye then concerning Mr. Alexander ? '

4 1 grant I was art and part in Mr. Alexander's

slaughter, for it was in my own defence.'

'Why brought you not him to justice, seeing you

should have God before your eyes ? '

' I had neither God nor the Devil, man, before

my eyes, but my own defence.'

' Here the King began to fret,' and no wonder.

He frankly said that ' he was one time minded to

have spared Mr. Alexander, but being moved for

the time, the motion ' (passion) ' prevailed.' He

swore, in answer to a question, that, in the morning,

he loved the Master ' as his brother.'

Bruce was now convinced that James left Falk-

land innocent of evil purpose, but, as he was in

a passion and revengeful, while struggling with the

Master, ' he could not be innocent before God.'

Here we leave Mr. Bruce. He signed a declara-

tion of belief in James's narrative ; public apologies

in the pulpit he would not make. He was banished

to Inverness, and was often annoyed and c put at,'

James reckoning him a firebrand.

The result, on the showing of the severe and

hostile Calderwood, is that, in Bruce's opinion, in

June 1602, James was guiltless of a plot against the

Euthvens. The King's crime was, not that strangely

complicated project of a double murder, to be in-

ferred from the Euthven apology, but words spoken

in the heat of blood. Betrayed, captured, taunted,

insulted, struggling with a subject whom he had

treated kindly, James cried to Eamsay ' Strike low ! '

He knew not the nature and extent of the conspiracy

against him, he knew not what knocking that was at

the door of the chamber, and he told Eamsay to

strike ; we have no assurance that the wounds were

deadly.

This is how the matter now appeared to Mr. Bruce.

The King swore very freely to the truth of his tale, and

that influenced Bruce, but the King's candour as to

what passed in his own mind, when he bade Eamsay

strike Euthven, is more convincing, to a modern critic,

than his oaths. For some reason, Bruce's real point,

that he was satisfied of the King's innocence of a

plot, but not satisfied as regards his yielding to

passion when attacked, is ignored by the advocates

of the Euthvens. Mr. Barbe observes : ' What slight

success there ever was remained on Bruce's side, for,

in one conference, he drew from the King the con-

fession that he might have saved Euthven's life, and

brought him to justice.' That confession shows un-

expected candour in James, but does not in the

slightest degree implicate him in a conspiracy, and of

a conspiracy even the rigid Bruce now acquitted the

King. Mr. Pitcairn, at first a strong King's man, in

an appendix to his third volume credits Bruce with

the best of the argument. This he does, illogically,

because the King never ceased to persecute Bruce,

whom he thought a firebrand. However wicked this

conduct of James may have been, it in no way affects

the argument as to his guilt in the conspiracy. Of that

Mr. Bruce acquitted the King. Calderwood's words

(vi. 156) are ' Mr. Eobert, by reason of his oaths,

thought him innocent of any purpose that day in the

morning to slay them. Yet because he confessed he

had not God or justice before his eyes, but was in a

heat and mind to revenge, he could not be innocent

before God, and had great cause to repent, and to

crave mercy for Christ's sake.' The thing is perfectly

clear. Bruce acquitted James of the infamous plot

against the Euthvens. 1 What, then, was the position

of the Euthvens, if the King was not the conspirator ?

Obviously they were guilty, whether James, at a

given moment, was carried away by passion or not.

1 Mr. Bruce appears to have gone to France in 1599-1600, to call

Gowrie home. In a brief account of his own life, dictated by him-

self at about the age of seventy (1624), he says, ' I was in France

for the calling of the Master ' (he clearly means Earl) ' of Gowrie '

(Wodrow's ' Life of the Rev. Robert Bruce,' p. 10, 1843). Calderwood

possessed, and Wodrow (circ. 1715) acquired, two ' Meditations ' by

Mr. Bruce of August 3, 4, 1600. Wodrow promises to print them, but

does not, and when his book was edited in 1843, they could not be

found. He says that ' Mr. Bruce appears to have been prepared, in

Providence,' for his Gowrie troubles, judging (apparently) by these

{ Meditations.' But Mr. Henry Paton has searched for and found

the lost ' Meditations ' in MS., which are mere spiritual outpourings.

Wodrow's meaning is therefore obscure. Mr. Bruce had great celebrity

as a prophet, but where Wodrow found rophecy in the ' Meditations '

of August 3, 4, 1600, is not apparent (Wodrow's ' Bruce,' pp. 83, 84.

Wodrow MSS.| Advocates' Library, vol. xliv. No. 35).

X

POPULAR CRITICISM OF THE DAY

CALDEKWOOD has preserved for us the objections

taken by sceptics to the King's narrative. 1 First, the

improbability of a murderous conspiracy, by youths so

full of promise and Presbyterianism as Gowrie and

his brother. To Gowrie's previous performances we

return later. The objection against a scheme of

murder hardly applies to a plan for kidnapping a

King who was severe against the Kirk.

The story of the pot of gold, and the King's

desire to inspect it and the captive who bore it,

personally, and the folly of thinking that one pot of

gold could suffice to disturb the peace of the country,

are next adversely criticised. We have already re-

plied to the criticism (p. 40). The story was well

adapted to entrap James VI.

The improbabilities of Euthven's pleas for haste

need not detain us : the King did not think them

probable.

Next it was asked ' Why did James go alone up-

stairs with Euthven ? '

He may have had wine enough to beget valour,

or, as he said, he may have believed that he was

being followed by Erskine. The two reasons may

well have combined.

'Why did not Gowrie provide better cheer, if

forewarned ? ' (by Henderson ?) it was asked.

To give the impression, we reply, that he was

taken by surprise, and that the King came uninvited

and unexpected.

' Why did Kuthven aim a dagger at James, and

then hold parley ? '

Because he wanted to frighten the King into

being ' at his will.'

' How could Euthven trust the King, with the

armed man alone in the turret ? '

What else could he do ? He locked them in, and

was, through the failure of the man, in a quandary

which made clear reflection necessary and impossible.

' It was strange that the man had not been

trained in his task.'

If Oliphant is correctly reported, he had been

trained, but fi fainted.'

6 Why bind the King with a garter ? '

In helpless pursuit of the forlorn idea of captur-

ing him.

' Why execute the enterprise when the courtiers

were passing the window ? '

Euthven could not have known that they were

coming at that moment ; it was Gowrie's ill-timed

falsehoods, to the effect that the King had ridden

away, which brought them there. Gowrie had not

allowed for Henderson's failure.

' How could the King struggle successfully with

the stalwart Master ? '

He fought for his life, and Euthven probably

even then did not wish to injure him bodily.

' Why was not the Master made prisoner ? '

James answered this question when ' posed ' by

Mr. Bruce. His blood was up, and he said 'Strike!'

' The Earl likewise might, after he was stricken,

have been preserved alive.'

Perhaps by miracle ; he died instantly.

The discrepancies as to the dagger and the

opening of the window we have already treated, also

the locking and unlocking, or leaving unlocked, of

the chamber door, giving on the dark staircase, after

Euthven's last hurried entrance (p. 69).

There follow arguments, to be later considered,

about the relations between James and the Earl

previous to the tragedy, and a statement, with no

authority cited, that James had written to Gowrie's

uncle, to meet him at Perth on August 5, implying

that James had made up his mind to be there, and

did not go on Euthven's sudden invitation.

' The Earl and Cranstoun were alone with the

four in the fatal chamber. The others who were

wounded there went up after Gowrie's death.'

It may be so, but the bulk of the evidence is on

the other side.

'It is reported' that Henderson was eating an

egg in the kitchen, and went into the town when the

fray arose.

It is also denied, on oath, by Gowrie's cook, who

added that he was ' content to be hanged,' if it could

be proved. 1

The Euthven apologist (MS.) says that Henderson

was waiting on the Lords who dined in the hall, and

was there when the King's servant brought the news

that the King had ridden away.

' The Master's sword, after his death, was found

rusted tight in his scabbard.'

The Master must have been a very untidy gallant.

No authority is cited for the story.

The Hurrays (who were well rewarded) were in

Perth, ' whether of set purpose let the reader

judge.'

By all means let the reader judge.

The King knew Henderson (so the anonymous

Goodman of Pitmillie said), but did not recognise the

man in the turret. It was reported that Patrick

Galloway, the king's chaplain, induced Henderson to

pretend to be the man in the turret.

As to the good man of Pitmillie, Calderwood did

not even know his name. This is mere gossip.

A^ain, Calderwood, who offers these criticisms,

does not ask why, of all concerned, Henderson was

the only man that fled who 'had not been seen in

connection with the fray and the tumult. If he was

not the man of the turret, and if Andrew Euthven.

who also had ridden to Falkland, did not abscond,

why did Henderson ?

As to the man in the turret, if not a retainer of

Euthven, he was a minion of James, or there was no

man at all. If there was no man at all, could James

be so absurd as to invent him, on the off chance that

somebody, anybody, would turn up, and claim to

have been the man ? That is, frankly, incredible.

But if James managed to insert a man into the turret,

he was not so silly as not to have his man ready to

produce in evidence. Yet Henderson could not be

produced, he had fled, and certainly had not come in

by August 12, when he was proclaimed.

That James had introduced and suborned Hender-

son and that Henderson fled to give tone and colour

to his narrative, is not among the most probable of

conjectures. I do not find that this desperate hypo-

thesis was put forward at the time. It could not be,

for apologists averred (1) that Henderson was eating

an egg in the kitchen : (2) that he was waiting on the

gentlemen in the hall, at the moment when, by the

desperate hypothesis, he was, by some machination of

James, in the turret : (3) there is a third myth, a Perth

tradition, that Henderson had been at Scone all day,

and first heard the tragic news, when all was over,

as, on his return, he crossed the bridge over Tay.

As it is incredible that there was no man in the

turret at all, and that James took the outside chance

that somebody, anybody, would claim to be the man ;

the assailants of the King must offer a working

hypothesis of this important actor in the drama.

My own fancy can suggest none. Was he in four

places at once, in the kitchen, in the hall, on the

bridge, and in the turret ? If he was in the kitchen,

in the hall, or on the bridge, why did he instantly

abscond ? If James put him in the turret, why did

he fly ?

The King's word, I repeat, was the word that no

man could rely on. But, among competing improba-

bilities, the story which was written on the night of

August 5, and to which he adhered under Bruce's

cross-examination, is infinitely the least improbable.

The Master of Gray, an abominable character, not

in Scotland when the events occurred, reported, not

from Scotland, that Lennox had said that, if put on

his oath, ' he could not say whether the practice

proceeded from Gowrie or the King.' (Sept. 30,

1600.)

The Master of Gray wrote from Chillingham, on

the English side of the Border, where he was playing

the spy for Cecil. Often he played the double spy,

for England and for Rome. Lennox may well have

been puzzled, he may have said so, but the report

rests on the evidence of one who did not hear

his words, who wished to flatter the scepticism of

James's English enemies, and whose character

(though on one point he is unjustly accused) reeks

with infamy.

That of James does not precisely ' smell sweet

and blossom in the dust.' But if the question arises,

whether a man of James's position, age, and tempera-

ment, or whether a young man, with the antecedents

which we are about to describe, was the more likely

to embark on a complicated and dangerous plot in

James's case involving two murders at inestimable

personal risk it is not unnatural to think that the

young man is the more likely to ' have the wyte of

it.'

XI

THE KING AND THE RUTHVENS

HAVING criticised the contemporary criticism of the

Gowrie affair, we must look back, and examine the

nature of Gowrie's ancestral and personal rela-

tions with James before the day of calamity. There

were grounds enough for hatred between the King

c c* *'

and the Earl, whether such hatred existed or not, in

a kind of hereditary feud, and in political differences.

As against James's grandmother, Mary of Guise,

the grandfather of Gowrie, Lord Euthven, had early

joined the Eeformers, who opposed her in arms.

Later, in 1566, it was Gowrie's grandfather who took

the leading part in the murder of Eiccio. He fled

to England, and there died soon after his exploit,

beholding, it was said, a vision of angels. His son,

Gowrie's father (also one of the Eiccio murderers),

when Mary was imprisoned in Loch Leven (June 1567)

was in charge of her, but was removed, ' as he began

to show great favour to her, and gave her intelli-

gence.' x Mary herself, through the narrative of ISTau,

her secretary, declares that Euthven (then a married

man) persecuted her by his lust. He aided Lindsay

in extorting her abdication at Loch Leven. Such

was his record as regards Mary : James too had little

reason to love him.

The early reign of James in Scotland was a series

of Court revolutions, all of the same sort. James was

always either, unwillingly, under nobles who were

allies of Elizabeth, and who used the Kirk as their

instrument, or under vicious favourites who delivered

him from these influences. When Morton fell in

1581, the King was under D'Aubigny (Lennox), a

false Protestant and secret Catholic intriguer, and

Arran (Captain James Stewart), a free lance, and, in

religion, an Indifferent. Lennox entangled James in

relations with the Guises and Catholic Powers ; Gowrie,

and the Protestant nobles, being threatened by Arran

and Lennox, captured James, in an insulting manner,

at Gowrie's castle of Euthven. He came as a guest,

for hunting; he remained a prisoner. (1582.) The

Kirk approved and triumphed : James waited and

dissembled, while Gowrie was at the head of the

Government. In June 1583, James, by a sudden

flight to St. Andrews Castle, where his friends sur-

rounded him, shook himself free of Gowrie, who,

however, secured a pardon for his share in James's

capture, in the ' Eaid of Euthven 'of 1582. Lennox

being dead, the masterful and unscrupulous Arran

now again ruled the King, and a new Lennox came

from France, the Duke of Lennox who was present

at the tragedy of August 5, 1600.

The Lords who had lost power by James's escape

to St. Andrews now conspired anew. Angus, Mar, and

others were to march on Stirling, Gowrie was waiting

at Dundee. (April 1584) Arran knew of the plot, and

sent Colonel Stewart to arrest Gowrie. After holding

his house against Stewart's men, the Earl was taken

and carried to Edinburgh. The other Lords, his allies,

failed and fled. Gowrie was brought to trial. He

had a pardon for the Eaid of Euthven, he had done

nothing ostensible in the recent rising, which followed

his capture at Dundee. Nevertheless he was tried,

condemned, executed, and forfeited. There exists a

manuscript of the date, which, at least, shows what

Gowrie's friends thought of the method by which his

conviction was procured. Arran and Sir Eobert

Melville, it is said, visited him in prison, and advised

him to make his peace with James. How was that

to be done ? Gowrie entreated for the kind offices of

Melville and Arran. They advised him to write to

the King confessing that he had been in several

conspiracies against his person which he could

reveal in a private interview. ' I should confess an

untruth,' said Gowrie, ' and frame my own indict-

ment.'

The letter, the others urged, being general, would

move the King's curiosity : he would grant an in-

terview, at which Gowrie might say that the letter

was only an expedient to procure a chance of stating

his own case.

Gowrie, naturally, rejected so perilous a practice.

4 You must confess the foreknowledge of these

things,' said Arran, ' or you must die.'

Gowrie replied that, if assured of his life, he

would take the advice, Arran gave his word of

honour that Gowrie should be safe. He wrote the

letter, he received no answer, but was sent to

Stirling. He was tried, nothing was proved against

him, and Arran produced his letter before the

Court. Gowrie was called, confessed to his hand-

writing, and told the tale of Arran's treachery,

which he repeated to the people from the scaffold.

This is, brieity, the statement of a newsletter

to England, written, as usual, against the Govern-

ment, and in the Protestant interest. 1 A manuscript

in the British Museum gives a somewhat different

version. 2 One charge against Gowrie, we learn, was

that of treasonable intercommuning with Hume of

Godscroft, an envoy of the Earl of Angus, who, before

Gowrie's arrest, was arranging a conspiracy. This

charge was perfectly true. Godscroft, in his History

of the Douglases (ii. 317-318), describes the circum-

stances, and mentions the very gallery whose door

resisted Lennox and Mar on August 5, 1600. Gods-

croft rode from the Earl of Angus to Gowrie in

his house at Perth. fc Looking very pitifully upon

his gallery, where we were walking at that time,

which he had but newly built and decored with

1 Form of certain Devices^ &c. See Papers relating to William,

Earl of Gowrie, London, 1867, pp. 25-29.

2 Form of examination and death of William, Earl of Gowrie.

British Museum, Caligula, c. viii. fol. 23.

pictures, he brake out into these words, having first

fetched a deep sigh. u Cousin" says he, " is there no

remedy? Et impius haec tarn culta novalia mites

habebit ? Barbarus has segetes ? ' Whereupon Gods-

croft was persuaded of his sincerity, and at his

return persuaded the Earl of Angus thereof also.'

So the plot went on, Gowrie pretending that he

meant to leave the country, says his accomplice,

Godscroft, while both the Court and the conspirators

were uncertain as to his trimming intentions. He

trimmed too long ; he was taken, the plot exploded

and failed. Gowrie was thus within the danger of

the law, for treasonablv concealing foreknowledge of

the conspiracy.

According to the British Museum MS., Gowrie

now told the jury that he was being accused on the

strength of his own letter, treacherously extorted

under promise of life, by Montrose, Doune, Maitland,

Melville, Colonel Stewart, and the Captain of Dumbar-

ton, not by Arran. In Gowrie's letter of confession,

to the King, as printed by Spottiswoode, he does not

mention Godscroft, but another intriguer, Erskine.

However, in this letter he certainly confesses his

concern with the conspiracy. But, says the MS., the

nobles charged by Gowrie with having betrayed him

under promise of life denied the accusations on oath.

Gowrie himself, according to another copy of the

MS., denied knowing Hume of Godscroft ; if he did,

he spoke untruly, teste Godscroft.

However matters really stood, the Earl's friends.

at all events, believed that he had been most cruelly

and shamefully betrayed to the death, and, as the

King was now eighteen, they would not hold him

guiltless.

These were not the only wrongs of the Euthvens.

While the power of Arran lasted (and it was, on the

whole, welcome to James, though he had moments

of revolt), the family of Euthven was persecuted.

The widow of Gowrie was a daughter (see Appen-

dix A) of Henry Stewart, Lord Methven, who, as a

young man, had married Margaret, sister of Henry

VIII, widow of James IV, and divorced from

the Earl of Angus. As this lady, our Gowrie's

mother, knelt to implore the pity of James in the

street after her Lord's death, Arran pushed her

aside, and threw her down. He received the Earl's

forfeited estate and castle of Dirleton, near North

Berwick.

In October 1585, Arran fell, in his turn ; Angus,

Mar, and others drove him into retirement. James

acquiesced ; his relations with the house of Mar

remained most friendly. The house of Euthven

was now restored to its lands and dignities, in 1586,

the new Earl being James, who died in early youth.

He was succeeded by his brother, the Gowrie of our

tragedy, who was born about 1577. He had many

sisters ; the eldest, Mary, married the Earl of Atholl,

a Stewart, in January 1580. Lady Gowrie was

thus mother-in-law of the Earl of Atholl, who died

at Gowrie House in August 1594. Her grand-

daughter, Dorothea (daughter of Atholl and Mary

Euthven, sister of our Gowrie), in 1604 married

that younw Tullibardine who was in Perth at the

tragedy of August 5, 1600. Lady Atholl is said to

have opposed the marriage. Another sister of

Gowrie, Sophia, married (before 1600, she was

dead by that time) the Duke of Lennox who was

at the slaughter of the Euthvens. Another sister,

Beatrix, was Maid of Honour to James's Queen,

and later married Hume of Cowdenknowes ; hence

come the Earls of Home. Gowrie had two younger

brothers, Patrick and William, who fled to England

from his castle of Dirleton, the day after the tragedy,

and were forfeited and persecuted by James ; Patrick

was long imprisoned in the Tower.

The new Earl, John, the victim of 1600, does not

come into public notice till 1592, when he was

elected Provost of Perth. He went to Edinburgh

University ; his governor was the respected Mr. Eol-

lock. Here a curious fact occurs. On August 12,

1593, young Gowrie read his thesis for his Master's

degree. Three weeks earlier, on July 24, the wild

Francis Stewart, Earl of Bothwell, had captured, in

Holyrood, his King, who was half dressed and un-

trussed. James at the time was suspected of

favouring the Catholic Earls of the North, Huntly,

Errol, and a new unpresbyterian Angus. The King

was on ill terms with the Kirk ; England had secretly

abetted Bothwell ; the clan of Stewart, including

Lennox, lent aid and countenance, but Bothwells

success was due to Gowrie s mother, the widow of

the decapitated Earl, and to his sister, Lady Atholl.

Bothwell entered Lady Gowrie's house, adjoining the

palace, spent the night there, stole into Holyrood by

a passage-way left open by Lady Atholl, and ap-

peared before the King, sword in hand, when his

Majesty was half dressed. Meanwhile our Gowrie,

reading for his thesis, may not have been unin-

terested in the plot of his mother and sister. This

was, in a way, the second successful Euthven plot to

seize the King ; the first was the Eaid of Euthven.

The new success was not enduring. James shook off

Bothwell in September 1593, and. in October,

Gowrie's brother-in-law Atholl, with our Gowrie him-

self, entered into alliance with Bothwell against King

James, and offered their services to Queen Eliza-

beth.

James moved out against Atholl, Gowrie, and

the Master of Montrose, who were at Castle Doune,

intending to join hands with Bothwell, and seize the

King. But Bothwell found the plan impracticable :

Atholl fled ; Gowrie and the Master of Montrose

were pursued and taken. No harm was done to

them : their excuses were accepted, but young

Gowrie and Atholl continued to conspire. In April,

1594, Atholl, signing for himself and Gowrie, and

Bothwell, signing for his associates, wrote a mani-

festo to the Kirk. They were in arms, they said, for

Protestant purposes, and wished commissioners from

among the preachers to attend them, and watch their

proceedings. 1 Bothwell then took action, he made a

demonstration in arms against Edinburgh, but the

forces of Atholl and Gowrie did not arrive and Both-

well retreated. Atholl was threatened for this affair,

but pardoned by the King, and died in August.

In the same month Gowrie informed the Town

Council of Perth that he was going to study abroad.

They retained him in the position of Provost. He

went, with his tutor, Mr. Ehynd, to Padua, an

university where Protestantism was protected by the

toleration of the Republic of Venice, and where there

was an Anglo-Scottish ' Nation ' among the students.

In ' The Return from Parnassus,' a satirical play of

1601, we find Gullio, the admirer of Shakespeare,

professing to have studied at Padua. Gowrie is

said to have been elected Rector, but I cannot

find his name in the lists. He does appear in the

roll of Scottish scholars, some of them charac-

terised (unlike the English scholars) by personal

marks. Most have scars on the face or hand ; Archi-

bald Douglas has a scar on the brow from left to

right. James Lindsay, of Gowrie's year (1596-1597),

has also a scar on his brow. Next him is Andrew

Keith, with a scar on his right hand, and then

Dominus loannes Ruthuen, Scotus, cum signo albo in

mento, ' with a white mark on his chin.' Then we

have his luckless tutor, Mr. Ehynd, who was tortured,

Scotus cum ledigine super facie. Robert Ker of

Newbattle (' Kerrus de Heubattel ') is another of

Gowrie's college companions. All were students of

law. Magic was not compulsory at Padua, though

Gowrie was said to have studied that art. 1

Concerning Gowrie's behaviour at Padua but a

single circumstance is known. Probably through one

of his fellow-students, Douglas, Ker, Keith, Lindsay

or another, the report reached Scotland that the

young Earl had left in Padua ' a strange relique,' an

emblematic figure emblazoned ; and had made, on the

subject, a singular remark. The emblematic figure

represented ' a blackamoor reaching at a crown with

a sword, in a stretched posture : ' the remark of

Gowrie, ' the Earl's own mot] was to the effect that

the emblem displayed, in umbra, or foreshadowed,

what was to be done in facto. This emblem was

secured at Padua, in 1609, by Sir Eobert Douglas,

who had heard of it in Scotland, and it was sent to