diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 19:54:58 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 19:54:58 -0700 |
| commit | 36fef3bb71a86aade05495292aa5123374f8ca95 (patch) | |
| tree | 6bed9c966215838664047555c6cb56c9bb4450ea /31033-0.txt | |
Diffstat (limited to '31033-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-0.txt | 8160 |
1 files changed, 8160 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/31033-0.txt b/31033-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c05a6c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,8160 @@ +The Project Gutenberg eBook, James VI and the Gowrie Mystery, by Andrew +Lang + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + + + + +Title: James VI and the Gowrie Mystery + + +Author: Andrew Lang + + + +Release Date: January 20, 2010 [eBook #31033] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JAMES VI AND THE GOWRIE MYSTERY*** + + +Transcribed from the 1902 Longmans, Green, and Co. edition by David +Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org + + [Picture: The Gowrie Coat of Arms. In the ‘Workman’ MS.] + + + + + + JAMES VI + AND + THE GOWRIE MYSTERY + + + * * * * * + + BY + ANDREW LANG + + * * * * * + + WITH GOWRIE’S COAT OF ARMS IN COLOUR, 2 PHOTOGRAVURE PORTRAITS + AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS + + * * * * * + + LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. + 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON + NEW YORK AND BOMBAY + 1902 + + All rights reserved + + * * * * * + + TO + THE LADY CECILY BAILLIE-HAMILTON + THIS INQUIRY + IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED + + + + +INTRODUCTION + + +An old Scottish lady, four generations ago, used to say, ‘It is a great +comfort to think that, at the Day of Judgment, we shall know the whole +truth about the Gowrie Conspiracy at last.’ Since the author, as a +child, read ‘The Tales of a Grandfather,’ and shared King Jamie’s +disappointment when there was no pot of gold, but an armed man, in the +turret, he had supposed that we do know all about the Gowrie Conspiracy, +that it was a plot to capture the King, carry him to Fastcastle, and ‘see +how the country would take it,’ as in the case of the Gunpowder Plot. +But just as Father Gerard has tried to show that the Gunpowder affair may +have been Cecil’s plot, so modern historians doubt whether the Gowrie +mystery was not a conspiracy by King James himself. Mr. Hume Brown +appears rather to lean to this opinion, in the second volume of his +‘History of Scotland,’ and Dr. Masson, in his valuable edition of the +‘Register of the Privy Council,’ is also dubious. Mr. Louis Barbé, in +his ‘Tragedy of Gowrie House,’ holds a brief against the King. Thus I +have been tempted to study this ‘auld misterie’ afresh, and have +convinced myself that such historians as Sir Walter Scott, Mr. Frazer +Tytler, and Mr. Hill Burton were not wrong; the plot was not the King’s +conspiracy, but the desperate venture of two very young men. The precise +object remains obscure in detail, but the purpose was probably to see how +a deeply discontented Kirk and country ‘would take it.’ + +In working at this fascinatingly mysterious puzzle, I have made use of +manuscript materials hitherto uncited. The most curious of these, the +examinations and documents of the ‘country writer,’ Sprot, had been +briefly summarised in Sir William Fraser’s ‘Memorials of the Earls of +Haddington.’ My attention was drawn to this source by the Rev. John +Anderson, of the General Register House, who aided Sir William Fraser in +the compilation of his book. The Earl of Haddington generously permitted +me to have copies made of the documents, which Lady Cecily +Baillie-Hamilton was kind enough to search for and rediscover in an +enormous mass of documents bequeathed by the learned first Earl. + +On reading the Calendars of the Hatfield MSS. I had observed that several +letters by the possible conspirator, Logan of Restalrig, were in the +possession of the Marquis of Salisbury, who was good enough to permit +photographs of some specimens to be taken. These were compared, by Mr. +Anderson, with the alleged plot-letters of Logan at Edinburgh; while +photographs of the plot-letters were compared with Logan’s authentic +letters at Hatfield, by Mr. Gunton, to whose acuteness and energy I owe +the greatest gratitude. The results of the comparison settle the riddle +of three centuries. + +The other hitherto unused manuscripts are in no more recondite place than +the Record Office in London, and I do not know how they managed to escape +the notice of previous writers on the subject. To Dr. Masson’s ‘Register +of the Privy Council’ I am indebted for the sequel of the curious +adventure of Mr. Robert Oliphant, whose part in the mystery, hitherto +overlooked, is decisive, if we accept the evidence—a point on which the +reader must form his own opinion. For copies made at the Record Office I +have to thank the care and accuracy of Miss E. M. Thompson. + +To Mr. Anderson’s learning and zest in this ‘longest and sorest chase’ +(as King James called his hunt on the morning of the fatal August 5) I am +under the deepest obligations. The allurements of a romantic conclusion +have never tempted him to leave the strait path of historical +impartiality. + +I have also to thank Mr. Henry Paton for his careful copies of the +Haddington MSS., extracts from the Treasurer’s accounts, and other +researches. + +For permission to reproduce the picture of Fastcastle by the Rev. Mr. +Thomson of Duddingston, I have to thank the kindness of Mrs. +Blackwood-Porter. The painting, probably of about 1820, when compared +with the photograph of to-day, shows the destruction wrought by wind and +weather in the old fortalice. + +My obligations to Sir James Balfour Paul (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 Ruthvens 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. {0a} On +many points Mr. Bisset agreed with Mr. Barbé in his ‘Tragedy of Gowrie +House,’ and my replies to Mr. Barbé 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 King and the Master of Ruthven +occurred in the turret, occasioned by an atrocious insult offered to the +Master by the King. This hypothesis, for various reasons, does not +deserve discussion. Mr. Bisset appeared 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 +unprejudiced historian. + + + + +CONTENTS + + PAGE +INTRODUCTION vii + I. THE MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENCE 1 + II. THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS 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. ROBERT OLIPHANT 71 + VII. THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION 80 + VIII. THE THEORY OF AN ACCIDENTAL BRAWL 94 + IX. CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM 99 + X. POPULAR CRITICISM OF THE DAY 111 + XI. THE KING AND THE RUTHVENS 118 + XII. LOGAN OF RESTALRIG 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 + _APPENDICES_ + A. THE FRONTISPIECE 245 + B. THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION 252 + C. FIVE LETTERS FORGED BY SPROT, AS FROM LOGAN 257 +INDEX 265 + +ILLUSTRATIONS + + _IN COLOURS_ +GOWRIE’S COAT OF ARMS _Frontispiece_ + _PHOTOGRAVURES_ +JAMES VI. _to face p._ 4 + +_From the picture painted by Paul Van Somer_ +(1621) _now in the National Portrait Gallery_ +QUEEN ANNE 138 + +_From a painting by Paul Van Somer in Queen Anne’s +Room_, _St. James’s Palace_ + _OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS_ +FALKLAND PALACE 33 + +_From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons_, +_Dundee_ +DIRLETON CASTLE 82 + +_From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons_, +_Dundee_ +FALKLAND PALACE: THE COURTYARD 116 + +_From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons_, +_Dundee_ +RESTALRIG HOUSE 150 + +_From a Photograph by W. J. Hay_, _Edinburgh_ +RESTALRIG VILLAGE 150 + +_From a Photograph by W. J. Hay_, _Edinburgh_ +FASTCASTLE (_circ._ 1820) 154 + +_From a picture by the Rev. Mr. Thomson_, _of +Duddingston_, _in the possession of Mrs. +Blackwood-Porter_ +FASTCASTLE _to face p._ 176 + +_From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons_, +_Dundee_ +FASTCASTLE + +_From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons_, +_Dundee_ +HANDWRITING OF LOGAN (_January_ 1585–6) 196 +HAND OF LOGAN AS FORGED BY SPROT (second page of 202 +Letter IV) +HANDWRITING OF SPROT (_July_ 5, 1608) 210 + _PLANS_ +SITUATION AND TOPOGRAPHY OF GOWRIE HOUSE 15 +INTERIOR OF GOWRIE HOUSE 16 +THE GALLERY CHAMBER AND THE TURRET, GOWRIE HOUSE 59 + + + + + + +I. THE MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENCE + + +There are enigmas in the annals of most peoples; riddles put by the +Sphinx of the Past to the curious of the new generations. These +questions do not greatly concern the scientific historian, who is busy +with constitution-making, statistics, progress, degeneration, in short +with human evolution. These high matters, these streams of tendency, +form the staple of history, but the problems of personal character and +action still interest some inquiring minds. Among these enigmas nearly +the most obscure, ‘The Gowrie Conspiracy,’ is our topic. + +This affair is one of the haunting mysteries of the past, one of the +problems that nobody has solved. The events occurred in 1600, but the +interest which they excited was so keen that belief in the guilt or +innocence of the two noble brothers who perished in an August afternoon, +was a party shibboleth in the Wars of the Saints against the Malignants, +the strife of Cavaliers and Roundheads. The problem has ever since +attracted the curious, as do the enigma of Perkin Warbeck, the true +character of Richard III, the real face behind ‘The Iron Mask,’ the +identity of the False Pucelle, and the innocence or guilt of Mary Stuart. + +In certain respects the Gowrie mystery is necessarily less attractive +than that of ‘the fairest and most pitiless Queen on earth.’ There is no +woman in the story. The world, of course, when the Ruthvens died, at +once acted on the maxim, _cherchez la femme_. The woman in the case, men +said, was the beautiful Queen, Anne of Denmark, wife of James VI. That +fair and frivolous dame, ‘very very woman,’ certainly did her best, by +her behaviour, to encourage the belief that she was the cause of these +sorrows. 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 a brave gallant, + And he rode at the ring, + And the Bonny Earl Moray, + He might have been the King. + + 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 +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 Königsmarck, because they were beautiful and +beloved, and because 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 Ruthvens on the lines +dear to romance. The humorous King Jamie (who, if he was not always +sensible, at least treated his flighty wife with abundance of sense) had +to play the part of King Mark of Cornwall to Gowrie’s Sir Tristram. For +this theory, we shall show, no evidence exists, and, in ‘looking for the +woman,’ fancy found two men. The Queen was alternately said to love +Gowrie, and to love his brother, the Master of Ruthven, a lad of +nineteen—if she did not love both at once. It is curious that the affair +did not give rise to ballads; if it did, none has reached us. + +In truth there was no woman in the case, and this of course makes the +mystery much less exciting 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 +Scotland? Did this passion blend with the vein of fanaticism 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 communicated his vision to +the boy brother whom he found at home—the mystery would be transparent. + + [Picture: James VI] + +As to King James, we know him well. The babe ‘wronged in his mother’s +womb;’ 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 +dissembler, and betrayed his father’s murderer with a kiss. He was +frightened into deceit: he could be cruel; he became, as far 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 he 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 Ruthvens, 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. R. Gardiner, have +abstained from a verdict, or have attempted the _via media_; have leaned +to the idea that the Ruthvens 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 unsolved. 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 Ruthvens; 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, ‘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 being +garbled or forged. 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, by the +King’s attendants. The King gives 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 extraordinary, motiveless, and +inexplicable do the circumstances 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 vehement 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 light which seemed +to fall on the affair, as we shall see, only darkens what was already +obscure. The inconceivable iniquity of the Government, 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 impossibility. + +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. {7} 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 fortunate 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 Ring 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 handwriting, _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 Ruthvens, +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 compromise 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 testimony 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 conclusion, 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 +corroboration is impossible, by the nature of the circumstances, facts +corroborate the King’s narrative. His version ‘colligates’ them; though +extravagant they become not incoherent. No other hypothesis produces +coherency: each guess breaks down on demonstrated 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 suggesting 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 Continent to Scotland, and Colonel Stewart was afraid that Gowrie +might wish to avenge his father. Therefore he desired to take service in +Ireland. + +With all these frets, the King needed the refreshment 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 Ramsay, John +Murray, George Murray, and John Auchmuty, were attired, at the Royal +expense, in coats of green cloth, like the King. {12a} + +Thus equipped, the Royal 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.’ {12b} ‘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 Ruthven, 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 Ruthven. 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 Royal accounts: in fact he had asked +for the place, but had not yet obtained it. {13} However, if we may +believe the Royal 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. They 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 Ruthven’ (‘Mr. Alexander Ruthven’) ‘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 Ruthven, +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 Royal party, +on foot, with some companions, near the town. {14} This was about one +o’clock in the afternoon. + + [Picture: Situation and topography of Gowrie House] + +The Royal party, of thirteen nobles and gentlemen, 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 gate 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 (┐). 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. + + [Picture: Interior of Gowrie House] + +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 you 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 +you 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. {18} + +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. {19} He wanted to dine comfortably. + +Leaving the King’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 +conference for about a quarter of an hour with James, outside the +stables. The Master then left the King: Inchaffray invited him to +breakfast, but he declined, ‘as his Majesty had ordered him to wait upon +him.’ (According to other evidence he had already breakfasted 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 +garden, 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 seldom +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 Ray, 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, ‘I 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 circumstance truly surprising. It +never occurred to the Earl of Gowrie, when dubiously told that the King +had ‘loupen on’—and ridden off—to ask, _Where is the King’s horse_? If +the Royal 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 kidnapped the horse. We do not hear, from the King, or any one, +that the horse was missing when the Royal 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, ‘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 Ramsay, 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, Ramsay 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.’ {23} + +The others, on the street, just outside the gate, being nearer the house +than Ramsay, 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 Ray 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 Ramsay. + +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 Ruthvens, 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 Ramsay was not with Lennox and the +rest, when they saw and heard the flushed and excited King cry out of the +window. Ramsay, 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 distinguished no words. He ran into the front yard, through the +outer gate. Lennox and the rest had already vanished within the house. +Ramsay 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 quadrangle diagonally. He rushed into the narrow +doorway, 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. Ramsay 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. Not drawing +sword or dagger—daggers, indeed, they had none—the two Erskine brothers +rushed on Gowrie, 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 Ruthven, 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; Ramsay 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 ‘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 Ramsay. 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, Gowrie’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. {28} 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 Murrays 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, ‘but at whom should he strike, for he knew not who was the +enemy?’ He had only seen the Erskines collar Gowrie, then certain +Murrays interfere, 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 Ruthven, +Harry Ruthven, 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, lying at ‘the old turnpike door,’ the entry to the dark narrow +staircase up which Ramsay 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, Ramsay, and Herries with drawn swords +in the chamber. The King, then in the turret, he did not see. He +taunted Herries; Ramsay 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 Ruthvens, +a Moncrieff, and Eviot, were in the fray, though there was some +uncertainty about Eviot. {30} + +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 +opponents 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 Ramsay +and Gowrie sped in their duel he knew not. Ramsay, 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 Ramsay free to deal with Cranstoun. Writers of both parties +declare that Ramsay had cried to Gowrie, ‘You have slain the King!’ that +Gowrie dropped his points, and that Ramsay 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 Ramsay 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 Robert +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, Ramsay, 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 Rhynd of Perth saw Hew Moncrieff striking with ‘a +Jeddart staff,’ a kind of halbert. A voice, that of Alexander Ruthven (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,’ answered Lennox, and all was +silence. Alexander Ruthven and the rest retreated; Ruthven 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 King is shot!’ The exits of the house were +guarded by retainers of Gowrie—Rentoul, 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, Ray +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 +doubtless minimised, and James probably exaggerated, the proportions and +duration of the disturbance. + + [Picture: Falkland place] + +This version of that strange affair, the slaughter of the Ruthvens, 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 King +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 Ramsay? Or had the Master, with or without his +brother’s knowledge, 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 Ruthvens were innocent victims. + + + + +III. THE KING’S OWN NARRATIVE + + +So far we have not gained any light on the occurrences of the mysterious +interval between the moment when the King and Alexander Ruthven 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 all 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 flight 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 +adversaries, 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 Ruthven 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 impossible for King James to do anything at which +Calderwood did not carp, assigning the worst imaginable 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 Ruthven side. Any such story, any +such hypothesis, must be to the full as improbable as the King’s +narrative. + +There is nothing probable in the whole affair; every system, every +hypothesis is _difficile à 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 Ruthvens meant to _murder_ him. This project (not borne out by +the King’s own version of Ruthven’s conduct) would have been insane: the +Ruthvens, 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 Indifferents), and to bring in a new +administration favourable to Kirk, or Church, then the Ruthvens 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 recently 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 {38} contains the same version as James later +published, with variations so few and so unessential 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. Robert 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. Ruthven 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. + +Ruthven 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. Ruthven 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.’ ‘They seemed to be foreign and uncouth’ (unusual) +‘strokes of coin,’ said Ruthven, 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. {40} The King’s inferences +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 Gowrie 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 Ruthven 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 Ruthven, but the age was +not disinterested, nor was Ruthven 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 hunting, I agree with Mr. Tytler in seeing nothing +improbable 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 Ruthven should come to James, in place of +sharing the gold with his brother. But Ruthven, we shall see, had +possibly good reasons, known to James, for conciliating the Royal favour, +and for keeping his brother ignorant. Moreover, to seize the money would +not have been a safe thing for Ruthven 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. + +Ruthven 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 Ruthven 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 Royal +proceedings with the captive would be undisturbed. + +Now, on the hypothesis of intended kidnapping, this was a well-planned +affair. If James accepted Ruthven’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 seaside, 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 declared) that he was to go that night to +Dirleton, his castle near North Berwick, {42} a strong hold, manned, and +provisioned. Could he have carried the King in disguise across Fife to +Elie, Dirleton was within a twelve miles sail, on summer seas. Had +James’s curiosity and avarice led him to ride away at once with Ruthven, +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, Ruthven staying still in the place where the King left +him. At this moment Inchaffray, as we saw, met Ruthven, 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 circumstance 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 Ruthven, 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. +Really 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 returned at once with a message to Gowrie, for this +would demonstrate that, in appearing to be unprepared for the King’s +arrival (as he did), Gowrie was making a false pretence. It was also +important to prove that the ride of Ruthven 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 tortured, +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, concealing his long +ride to Falkland. {44a} 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.’ {44b} Henderson himself later declared that +Gowrie had told him to keep his ride to Falkland secret. {44c} The whole +purpose of all this secrecy was to hide the fact that the Ruthvens 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 +questioned 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 Ruthvens, Mr. Louis Barbé, writes: ‘We +believe that Henderson perjured himself in swearing that he accompanied +Alexander’ (the Master) ‘and Andrew Ruthven when . . . they rode to +Falkland. We believe that Henderson perjured himself when he asserted, +on oath, that the Master sent him back to Perth with the intelligence of +the King’s coming.’ {45} + +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. Rhynd, Gowrie’s tutor, deponed that +Andrew Ruthven (the Master’s other companion in the early ride to +Falkland) told him that the Master had sent on Henderson with news of the +King’s coming. If Henderson had been at Falkland, he 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 himself says at 10 a.m. +Dinner was at noon, or, on this day, half an hour later. Yet Gowrie made +no preparations for welcoming the King. + +It is obvious that, though the Hays and Moncrieff 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, Rhynd, to the effect that Andrew +Ruthven had confessed as much to him. But presently we shall find that, +while modern apologists for Gowrie deny that Henderson had been at +Falkland, the contemporary Ruthven 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. Ruthven, says James, sent Henderson to Gowrie just after the +King mounted and followed the hounds. Here it must be noted that +Henderson himself says that Ruthven 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 Ruthven to him, +during a check, and told Ruthven 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 Falkland for fresh horses, some dragged slowly along on +tired steeds, and did not rejoin James till later. + +Ruthven had tried, James says, to induce him to refuse the company 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 Ruthven. 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 contemporary manuscript, ‘The +True Discovery of the late Treason,’ {48a} &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.’ {48b} + +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 Ruthven 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 Ruthven, was at dinner, +unprepared for the Royal arrival. However, Gowrie met James with sixty +men (four, says the Ruthven 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 because, +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 intelligible, 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 Royal 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 circumstances, owing to the number of the royal retinue, +were unfavourable, yet, as the story of the pot of gold had been told by +Ruthven, the plot could not be abandoned. James even ‘chaffed’ Gowrie +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 gentleman wished. ‘His Majesty desired Mr. Alexander to bring Sir +Thomas Erskine with him, who’ (Ruthven) ‘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 Ruthven up a +staircase (the great staircase), ‘and through three or four rooms’—‘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 gave 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 indictment of the Ruthvens, ‘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, {52a} 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 historians. +{52b} + +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 +Rev. 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.’ +{53} + +Were the locks that ‘chekit to’ spring locks, and was James unaware that +he was locked in? But Ramsay, 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 system of compelling Gowrie to ‘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 +James had bestowed on Gowrie the Abbey of Scone ‘during his life.’ This +was done in 1580 (_Registrum Magni Sigilli_, 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, 1586, 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 Commendatorship of the Abbey of Scone, as is stated in S. P. +Scot. (Eliz.) vol. lxvi. 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.’ Ruthven 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 many 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.’ Ruthven 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. Ruthven 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 Ruthven’s sisters were maids of honour. Ruthven had been educated +by the revered Mr. Rollock, he ought to have learned better behaviour. +If the King died he would be avenged: Gowrie could not hope for the +throne. The King solemnly promised forgiveness and silence, if Ruthven +let him go. + +Ruthven now uncovered his head, and protested that the King’s life should +be safe, if he made no noise or cry: in that case Ruthven would now bring +Gowrie to him. ‘Why?’ asked James; ‘you could gain little by keeping +such a prisoner?’ Ruthven 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 downstairs, 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 King. 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 Gowrie 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, Ruthven running rapidly downstairs, +but this was mere inference on the King’s part. + +James occupied the time of Ruthven’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 Ruthven was threatening, the man (says James) was +trembling, and adjuring the Master not to harm the King. James, having +sworn to Ruthven 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 Royal 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. {58}) + +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 Ruthvens, 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 the +Master’s sword out of his hand, thinking to have stricken him therewith,’ +when Ramsay 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, {59} +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. + + [Picture: The Gallery Chamber and the Turret, Gowrie House] + + + + +V. HENDERSON’S NARRATIVE + + +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 Ruthvens, 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 ‘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 Robertson, 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 Tullibardine and some +of his men, who were entering the court ‘to relieve the King.’ {60} He +saw the Master lying dead at the foot of the stair, and saw Henderson +‘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 +present. Arbany, before the Parliamentary Committee in November, said +nothing on this subject, _nor did Robertson_. His evidence would have +been important, had he adhered to what he said on September 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. Barbé, 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. . . . ’ {61a} + +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. {61b} + +Despite the premiums on perjury which Ruthven 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 proclamation identified him with a +Mr. Robert 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. Robert Oliphant. To Mr. Robert +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.’ Nobody was produced who could say anything about seeing +Henderson, after Moncrieff and the Hays saw 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 Moncrieff, Eviot, and two Ruthvens. {63a} 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 Henderson stole downstairs while Ramsay was engaged with +the Master. {63b} + +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 gave +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 King +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, Montrose, 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 Ruthven 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, {64} 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. +Ruthven 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; Ruthven 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 Ruthven 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. Rhynd, Gowrie’s old tutor, for the key of the gallery, +which Rhynd 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 returned, 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.’ {67a} + +Henderson’s later deposition, at the trial in November, 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 Ruthven of his dagger, a very improbable +tale, told falsely at first, no doubt, as Robertson the notary at first +invented his fable about meeting with Henderson, coming out of the dark +staircase. This myth Robertson narrated when examined in September, but +omitted it in the trial in November. Henderson now explained about his +first opening the wrong window, but he sticks to it that he took the +garter from Ruthven, of which James says nothing. He vows that he turned +the key of the door on the staircase, so that Ramsay could enter, whereas +Ramsay 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. {67b} Henderson slunk out when Ramsay 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 Ruthven, 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?’ ‘_Sir_, +_it is but a promise_,’ answered Ruthven. The King asked ‘What promise?’ +and Ruthven said that his brother would explain. This tale looks like a +confusion 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.’ Ruthven then, in James’s narrative, said +‘that the Earl would tell his Majesty at his coming.’ It appears that +the word ‘promise’ in the Royal version, occurring at this point in the +story, clung to Henderson’s memory, and so crept into his tale. Others +have thought that the Ruthvens 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, {69a} Hudson explains the origin of certain differences +between the King’s narrative and Henderson’s evidence, given in August. +Hudson declares that James boasted of having taken the dagger out of +Ruthven’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 Ruthven; 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.’ {69b} +Henderson’s first deposition was one of these which 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 Royal 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 Ruthvens +may have desired to be, how could they trust everything to the chance +that the town councillor of Perth, upper footman, and Chamberlain of +Scone, would act the desperate part of seizing a king, without training +and without warning? + +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. Robert Oliphant, which has never been mentioned, I +think, by the many minute students of this bewildering affair. + + + + +VI. THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. ROBERT OLIPHANT + + +Suppose that men like the Ruthvens, great and potent nobles, had secretly +invited their retainer, Andrew Henderson, to take the _rôle_ 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 reconciliation 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 employment 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 _rôle_ 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. Robert Oliphant (Mr. +means Master of Arts) as having been conjectured at, immediately 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 Register for December 5, 1600. {73} ‘Mr. Alexander Wilky in the +Canongate for John Wilky, tailor there, 200_l._, 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. Robert Oliphant anent his foreknowledge of the treasonable conspiracy +of the late John, sometime Earl of Gowrie.’ + +Thus Robert Oliphant, M.A., had spoken to tailor Lyn, or so Lyn had +declared, about his own foreknowledge 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_l._ that John Wilky shall not further molest Lyn. + +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 Robert Cecil. {74a} Nicholson says +that, at a house in the Canongate, Mr. Robert 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 Ramsay 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 Ruthvens during the last +fortnight. {74b} 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. + +In any case, Mr. Robert 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 moment, 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, ‘fled again.’ +{75} + +Of Oliphant we learn no more till about June 1608. At that time, the +King, in England, heard a rumour that he had been connected with the +conspiracy. A Captain Patrick Heron {76} 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. Robert +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 readiness to restore the goods, except the trunk and bags, +which he had given to the English Privy Council, who restored them to +Robert Oliphant. The brother of Robert, Oliphant of Bauchiltoun, +represented him in his absence, and, in 1611, Robert got some measure of +restitution from Heron. + +We know no more of Mr. Robert Oliphant. {77} 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 _rôle_ 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 ignorance of the purpose of +his masters. + +Henderson was not always of the lamblike demeanour 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’ 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 prospect, 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 advocates 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 discrepancies, +they were held by sceptics to prove falsehood; 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 Ramsay, or +another, said to Gowrie, ‘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 Ruthvens. 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 +Ruthvens; written at the time of the events. {80} Antiquaries vainly +asked each other for copies of this valuable apology. Was it printed, +and suppressed by Royal order? Did it circulate only in manuscript? + +In 1812 a Mr. Panton published a vehement defence of the Ruthvens. +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 Ruthven 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 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, ‘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 published in Scotland, in +vindication of Gowrie.’ That ‘treatise,’ or rather newsletter, unsigned, +and overlooked by our historians (as far as my knowledge goes), is extant +in the Record Office. {81} 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 English frontier fortress, for his chief, +‘the brave Lord Willoughby,’ was absent on sick leave. On September 4, +then, from Berwick, Carey wrote to Sir Robert 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 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 Ruthven +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 +Ramsay, and, of course, was familiar to Gowrie and his men. On Tuesday, +the fatal day (according to the Ruthven 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 Ruthvens 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. + + [Picture: Dirleton Castle] + +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 +Ruthven, 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 +defenders. 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 +waterside,’ 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 conversation 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 Robert Abercrombie, that false knave, had brought the +King there, to make his Majesty take order for his debt.’ {83} This +fact was stated by Craigengelt himself, under examination. If Ruthven +spoke the truth, he did know the motive, or pretext, of the King’s +coming, which the apologist denies. But Ruthven 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 Robert Abercromby; whether James would act as debt collector for +Robert 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. No 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 nevertheless 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 Ramsay and Erskine +‘follow him to his chamber, 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, Ramsay, 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, says 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 accompany the Royal +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 staircase to rescue +the King. James, according to the Ruthven 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 trying 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 valuable 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 chamber; 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, Ramsay 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 companions will swear to whatever he pleases. This was unjust; +Ramsay 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 Falkland 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; ‘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 Gowrie, 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 confirmed 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 Ruthven 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 contemporary apologist did not try +to make capital out of them. + +Though the narrative of the contemporary apologist for the Ruthvens +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 contemporary, or in more recent arguments. +James, by the theory, is intent on the destruction of the Ruthvens. 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 Ruthven and Andrew Henderson. The old +apologist asserts, what modern vindicators deny, that Henderson was at +Falkland. + +Then the Master sends Henderson first, Andrew Ruthven later, to warn +Gowrie that, for some unknown reason, the King is coming. To conceal his +bloody project (though the apologist does not mention 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 +Ramsay. James having secured their help, and next lured the Master into +a turret, the minions kill Ruthven 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 Royal 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. Unfortunately 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 Ramsay 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 professed ignorance on essential points, perjured +themselves on others, in batches. But, if we grant that Mar, Lennox, and +the rest—gentlemen, servants, retainers and menials of the Ruthvens, and +citizens of Perth—were abandoned perjurers on some points, while +scrupulously honourable on others equally essential, the narrative of the +Ruthven 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 Ramsay +would stab Ruthven. 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 Royal wit never +conceived a subtler plot, it is much cleverer than that invented by Mr. +G. P. R. 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 +circumstance. + +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 +follow 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 circumstance, 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 Henderson 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 Ruthvens was able to +produce. But no doubt it was good enough for people who wished to +believe. {93} + + + + +VIII. THE THEORY OF AN ACCIDENTAL BRAWL + + +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 +Ruthven, 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 Gowries, to conceal the +truth, and to rob by forfeiture the family of Ruthven. But James had +certainly told Lennox the story of Ruthven 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. Barbé, a recent Ruthven apologist, +says that the theory of an accidental origin of ‘the struggle between +James and Ruthven may possibly contain a fairly accurate conjecture.’ +{94} But Mr. Barbé also argues that James had invented the pot of gold +story before he left 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 +circumstances required.’ If so, then there is no room at all for the +opinion that the uproar in the turret was accidental, but Mr. Barbé’s +meaning is that James thus forced a quarrel on Ruthven. For there was no +captive with a pot of gold, nor can accident have caused the tragedy, if +Ruthven 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 Ruthven brought James to Perth by the feigned +story—in which case Ruthven is a conspirator. I reject, for reasons +already given, the suggestion that Lennox perjured himself, when he swore +that James told him about Ruthven’s narrative as to the captive and his +hoard. For these reasons alone, there is no room for the hypothesis of +accident: either James or Ruthven was a deliberate traitor. If James +invented the pot of gold, he is the plotter: if Ruthven did, Ruthven 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, +‘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, Ruthven’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 expostulatory 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 Ramsay stabbed him as he knelt, and Gowrie was slain, Preston +said, after Ramsay 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. {96} + +This Bowes only puts forth as a working hypothesis. It breaks down on +the King’s narrative to Lennox about Ruthven’s captive and hoard. It +breaks down on ‘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. {97} + + + + +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. Robert Bruce, then the leader of the Presbyterians. His +own version is printed in the first volume of the Bannatyne Club +Miscellany, and is embodied, with modifications, and without +acknowledgment (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 was 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 Records +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 King’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 congregations. 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 Rev. 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 Chancellor +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 himself, 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 Robertson, 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 Ruthvens. 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 +Craigengelt had then confessed that Henderson had told him how he was +placed by Gowrie in the turret. {103} 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 condemned man better than the King and Council?’ Mr. +Bruce admitted that such was his theory of the Grammar of Assent. ‘If +Henderson die penitently 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. + +‘As to that I cannot tell,’ said Mr. Bruce, and added that, if Henderson +took the dagger from Ruthven, he deserved to die for not sheathing it in +Ruthven’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 hazarded myself so.’ By the ‘causes,’ can James have meant Gowrie’s +attempts to entangle him in negotiations with the Pope? {104} 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 confession 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 ‘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 ‘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. {105a} If he stayed with the Laird of +Restalrig, 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, henceforward, 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, regarding the +guilt of Gowrie. {105b} 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. Brace’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 repartee 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, +convinced. 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. Robert, ‘_for ye +might have had some secret cause_.’ {107a} + +Strange ethics! A man may slay another, without incurring the guilt of +murder, if he has ‘a secret cause.’ Bruce probably referred to the +tattle about a love intrigue between Gowrie, or Ruthven, and the King’s +wife. Even now, James kept his temper. He offered his whole story to +Bruce for cross-examination. ‘Mr. Robert uttered his doubt where he +found occasion. The King heard him gently, and with a constant +countenance, which Mr. Robert admired.’ But Mr. Robert would not +_preach_ his belief: would not apologise from the pulpit. ‘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 Ramsay to strike the Master. ‘I will give you leave to pose +me’ (interrogate me), said James. {107b} + +‘Had you a purpose to slay my Lord?’—that is, Gowrie. + +‘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.’ + +‘What say ye then concerning Mr. Alexander?’ + +‘I 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 Falkland 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 declaration 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 ‘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 Ruthvens. The King’s crime was, not that strangely complicated +project of a double murder, to be inferred from the Ruthven 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 Ramsay ‘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 Ramsay 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 Ramsay +strike Ruthven, 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 Ruthvens. Mr. Barbé +observes: ‘What slight success there ever was remained on Bruce’s side, +for, in one conference, he drew from the King the confession that he +might have saved Ruthven’s life, and brought him to justice.’ That +confession shows unexpected 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. Robert, 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 Ruthvens. {110} What, then, was the position of the +Ruthvens, if the King was not the conspirator? Obviously they were +guilty, whether James, at a given moment, was carried away by passion or +not. + + + + +X. POPULAR CRITICISM OF THE DAY + + +Calderwood has preserved for us the objections taken by sceptics to the +King’s narrative. {111} 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 replied to the criticism (p. 40). +The story was well adapted to entrap James VI. + +The improbabilities of Ruthven’s pleas for haste need not detain us: the +King did not think them probable. + +Next it was asked ‘Why did James go alone upstairs with Ruthven?’ + +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 Ruthven aim a dagger at James, and then hold parley?’ + +Because he wanted to frighten the King into being ‘at his will.’ + +‘How could Ruthven 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 ‘fainted.’ + +‘Why bind the King with a garter?’ + +In helpless pursuit of the forlorn idea of capturing him. + +‘Why execute the enterprise when the courtiers were passing the window?’ + +Ruthven 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 Ruthven 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 Ruthven’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 Ruthven’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. {114} + +The Ruthven 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 Murrays (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. + +Again, 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 Ruthven, who also had ridden to Falkland, did not +abscond, why did Henderson? + +As to the man in the turret, if not a retainer of Ruthven, 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 Henderson 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 hypothesis 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 improbabilities, 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) + + [Picture: Falkland Palace] + +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 +temperament, 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 +relations with James before the day of calamity. There were grounds +enough for hatred between the King 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 Ruthven, had early joined the Reformers, who +opposed her in arms. Later, in 1566, it was Gowrie’s grandfather who +took the leading part in the murder of Riccio. 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 Riccio 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 +intelligence.’ {118} Mary herself, through the narrative of Nau, her +secretary, declares that Ruthven (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 Ruthven. 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 surrounded him, shook himself free of +Gowrie, who, however, secured a pardon for his share in James’s capture, +in the ‘Raid of Ruthven’ 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 Raid of Ruthven, 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 Robert +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 indictment.’ + +The letter, the others urged, being general, would move the King’s +curiosity: he would grant an interview, 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. + +‘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 handwriting, and told the +tale of Arran’s treachery, which he repeated to the people from the +scaffold. + +This is, briefly, the statement of a newsletter to England, written, as +usual, against the Government, and in the Protestant interest. {121a} A +manuscript in the British Museum gives a somewhat different version. +{121b} 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 circumstances, and mentions the very gallery +whose door resisted Lennox and Mar on August 5, 1600. Godscroft rode +from the Earl of Angus to Gowrie in his house at Perth. ‘Looking very +pitifully upon his gallery, where we were walking at that time, which he +had but newly built and decored with pictures, he brake out into these +words, having first fetched a deep sigh. “_Cousin_” says he, “_is there +no remedy_? _Et impius haec tam culta novalia miles habebit_? _Barbarus +has segetes_?” Whereupon Godscroft 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 treasonably 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 Dumbarton, _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 Ruthvens. While the power of Arran +lasted (and it was, on the whole, welcome to James, though he had moments +of revolt), the family of Ruthven was persecuted. The widow of Gowrie +was a daughter (see Appendix 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 Ruthven 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 Ruthven, +sister of our Gowrie), in 1604 married that young 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 Ruthvens. 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. Rollock. 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 untrussed. 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 Bothwell’s __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 +appeared before the King, sword in hand, when his Majesty was half +dressed. Meanwhile our Gowrie, reading for his thesis, may not have been +uninterested in the plot of his mother and sister. This was, in a way, +the second successful Ruthven plot to seize the King; the first was the +Raid of Ruthven. 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 himself, entered into alliance with Bothwell +against King James, and offered their services to Queen Elizabeth. + +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 manifesto 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. {126} Bothwell then took action, he made a demonstration in +arms against Edinburgh, but the forces of Atholl and Gowrie did not +arrive and Bothwell 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. Rhynd, 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 +characterised (unlike the English scholars) by personal marks. Most have +scars on the face or hand; Archibald 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 Ioannes Ruthuen_, _Scotus_, _cum signo albo in +mento_, ‘with a white mark on his chin.’ Then we have his luckless +tutor, Mr. Rhynd, 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. {127a} + +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 Robert Douglas, who had heard of it in Scotland, and it was sent to +King James. {127b} If such ideas were in Gowrie’s mind, he showed no +signs of them in an early correspondence with the King. In 1595, James +wrote ‘a most loving letter’ to Gowrie; the Earl replied in a tone of +gratitude. At the same time Gowrie wrote to a preacher in Perth, +extolling the conduct of an English fanatic, who had thrown down and +trampled on the Host, at Rome. He hoped, he said, when he returned to +Scotland, ‘to amend whatever is amiss for lack of my presence.’ {128a} +Nevertheless, on December 25, 1598, Nicholson informed Cecil that Gowrie +had been converted to Catholicism. {128b} In the Venice despatches and +Vatican transcripts I find no corroboration. Gowrie appears to have +visited Rome; the Ruthven apologist declares that he was there ‘in danger +for his religion.’ Galloway, on August 11, 1600, in presence of the King +and the people of Edinburgh, vowed that Gowrie, since his return from +Italy, had laboured to make James ‘revolt from Religion, at least in +inward sincerity, to entertain purpose with the Pope, and he himself +promised to furnish intelligence.’ + +If so, Gowrie was, indeed, ‘a deep dissimulate hypocrite.’ + +Galloway’s informant must have been the King. If Gowrie did or said +anything to colour the story, it may have been for the purpose of +discovering, by pretending to approve of them, these intrigues with Rome, +of which James was constantly being accused. + +A new complexity is added here, by a list of Scottish Catholic nobles, +ready to join an invading Spanish force, which the Earl of Bothwell +handed in to Philip III. of Spain, at a date not absolutely certain. At +a time conjectured at by Major Hume, as 1600, Bothwell laid before the +Spanish ministry a scheme for an invasion of Scotland. He made another +more elaborate proposal at a date which, to all seeming, was July 1601. +In the appended list of Scottish Catholic nobles appear the names of the +Earl of Gowrie, and of ‘Baron Rastellerse,’ that is, Logan of Restalrig. +But, in 1601, there was no Earl of Gowrie; the title was extinct, the +lands were forfeited, and Gowrie’s natural heir, William Ruthven, his +brother, was a poor student at Cambridge. Could Bothwell refer to him, +who was no Catholic? Can he have handed in (in 1601) an earlier list of +1600, without deleting the name of the dead Gowrie? As to Gowrie’s real +creed, Bothwell must have known the truth, through Home, a reluctant +convert to Presbyterianism, who went from Paris to Brussels to meet +Bothwell, leaving Gowrie in Paris, just before Home and Gowrie openly, +and, as it was said, Bothwell secretly, returned to Scotland in April +1600. Was the Gowrie conspiracy a Bothwellian plot? {129a} + +We know little more about Gowrie, after his letters of 1595, till, on +August 18, 1599, Colville reports to Cecil that the party of the Kirk +(who were now without a leader among the greater nobles) intend to summon +home the Earl. {129b} He is said to have stayed for three months at +Geneva with Beza, the famous reformer, who was devoted to him. He was in +Paris, in February and March 1600. The English ambassador, Neville, +recommended Gowrie to Cecil, as ‘a man of whom there may be exceeding +good use made.’ Elizabeth and Cecil were then on the worst terms with +James. At Paris, Gowrie would meet Lord Home, who, as we have said and +shall prove in a later connection, had an interview with the exiled +Bothwell, still wandering, plotting and threatening descents on Scotland +(p. 206). + +On April 3, Gowrie was in London. {130a} He was very well received; ‘a +cabinet of plate,’ it is said, was given to him by Elizabeth; what else +passed we do not know. In May Gowrie returned to Scotland, and rode into +Edinburgh among a cavalcade of his friends. According to Sir John Carey, +writing to Cecil, from Berwick, on May 29, James displayed jealousy of +Gowrie, ‘giving him many jests and pretty taunts,’ on his reception by +Elizabeth, and ‘marvelling that the ministers met him not.’ {130b} +Calderwood adds a rumour that James, talking of Gowrie’s entry to +Edinburgh, said, ‘there were more with his father when he went to the +scaffold.’ Again, as the Earl leaned on the King’s chair at breakfast, +James talked of dogs and hawks, and made an allusion to the death of +Riccio, in which Gowrie’s father and grandfather took part. + +These are rumours; it is certain that the King (June 20) gave Gowrie a +year’s respite from pursuit of his creditors, to whom he was in debt for +moneys owed to him by the Crown, expenditure by the late Earl of Gowrie +when in power (1583). {131a} It is also certain that Gowrie opposed the +King’s demands for money, in a convention of June 21. {131b} But so did +Lord President Fyvie, who never ceased to be James’s trusted minister, +and later, Chancellor, under the title of Earl of Dunfermline. +Calderwood reports that, after Gowrie’s speech, Sir David Murray said, +‘Yonder is an unhappy man; they are but seeking occasion of his death, +which now he has given.’ This is absurd: Fyvie and the Laird of Easter +Wemyss opposed the King as stoutly, and no harm followed to them; Fyvie +rising steadily (and he had opposed the King yet more sturdily before) to +the highest official position. + +Calderwood adds a silly tale of Dr. Herries. Beatrix Ruthven laughed at +his lame leg; he looked in her palm, and predicted a great disaster. The +same anecdote, with, of course, another subject, is told of Gowrie’s own +prediction that a certain man would come to be hanged, which was +fulfilled. Gowrie had been at Perth, before the convention at Holyrood +of June 21. To Perth he returned; thence, some time in July (about the +20th), {131c} he went to his castle of Strabran, in Atholl, to hunt. +Whether his brother the Master remained with him continuously till the +Earl’s return to Perth on Saturday, August 2, I know not how to +ascertain. If there is anything genuine in the plot-letters produced +eight years later, the Master once or twice visited Edinburgh in July, +but that may have been before going to Strabran. + +Concerning the Master, a romantic story of unknown source, but certainly +never alluded to in the surviving gossip of the day, was published, late +in the eighteenth century, by Lord Hailes. ‘A report is handed down that +Lord _Gowrie’s_ brother received from the Queen a ribbon which she had +got from the King, that _Mr. Alexander_ went into the King’s garden at +Falkland on a sultry hot day, and lay down in a shade, and fell asleep. +His breast being open, the King passed that way and discovered part of +the ribbon about his neck below his cravat, upon which he made quick +haste into the palace, which was observed by one of the Queen’s ladies +who passed the same way. She instantly took the ribbon from his neck, +went a near way to the Queen’s closet, where she found her Majesty at her +toilet, whom she requested to lay the ribbon in a drawer.’ James +entered, and asked to be shown the ribbon. The Queen produced it, and +James retired, muttering, ‘Devil tak’ me, but like is an ill mark.’ + +Legend does not say when, or in what year this occurred. But the fancy +of authors has identified the Queen’s lady with Beatrix Ruthven, and has +added that the Master, in disgrace (though undetected), retired with +Gowrie to Strabane, or Strabran. History has no concern with such +fables. It is certain, however, or at least contemporary letters aver, +that Queen Anne of Denmark was grieved and angered by the slaying of the +Gowries. On October 21, 1600, Carey, writing to Cecil from Woodrington, +mentions this, and the tattle to the effect that, as the Queen is about +to have a child (Charles I.), ‘she shall be kept as prisoner ever after.’ +Was the Master supposed to be father of the Queen’s child? Carey goes +on, ‘There is a letter found with a bracelet in it, sent from the Queen +to the Earl of Gowrie, to persuade him to leave his country life and come +to Court, assuring him that he should enjoy any contents that Court could +afford.’ {133} Can some amorous promise underlie this, as in the case of +Mr. Pickwick’s letter to Mrs. Bardell, about the warming-pan? ‘This +letter the King hath,’ says Carey. Was it with Gowrie, not the Master, +that the Queen was in love? She was very fond of Beatrix Ruthven, and +would disbelieve in the guilt of her brothers; hence these tears and that +anger of the Queen. + +But James also, says Calderwood, was as anxious as Carey declares that +the Queen was, to bring Gowrie to Falkland. ‘When the Earl was in +Strabran, fifteen days before the fact, the King wrote sundry letters to +the Earl, desiring him to come and hunt with him in the wood of Falkland; +which letters were found in my Lord’s pocket, at his death, as is +reported, but were destroyed.’ {134a} + +So James was not jealous; both he and the Queen were inviting Gowrie to +their country house, the Queen adding the gift of a bracelet. She may +have worked it herself, like the bracelet which Queen Mary is said to +have sent to Bothwell. + +All this is the idlest gossip. But it is certain that, on one occasion, +at the end of July, ‘close letters’ were sent from the Court at Edinburgh +to Atholl and Gowrie; and, later, to Inchaffray and the Master, the first +three are in Bothwell’s list of Catholics ready to meet the Spanish +invaders. The fact of the letters appears from the Treasurer’s accounts, +where the money paid to the boy who carried the letters is recorded, +without dates of the days of the month. The boy got 33 shillings, Scots, +for the journey from Edinburgh to the Earls of Gowrie and Atholl; 24 for +the other two, which he carried from Falkland. Craigengelt, in his +deposition, ‘denies that during my Lord’s being in Strabran, neither yet +in Perth, after his coming from Strabran, he knew any man or page to come +from Court to my Lord, or that he commanded to give them any meat or +drink.’ {134b} + +No conclusion as to James’s guilt can be drawn, either from the fact that +he wrote to Atholl, Inchaffray, the Master, and Gowrie at the end of +July, or from the circumstance that Craigengelt professed to know nothing +about any messenger. James might write to ask the Earl to hunt, we +cannot guess what he had to say, at the same time, to Atholl or +Inchaffray or the Master. He may even have written about the affair of +the Abbey of Scone, if it is true that the Master wished to get it from +his brother. We really cannot infer that, as the Ruthvens would not come +and be killed, when invited, at Falkland, James went to kill them at +Perth. Even if he summoned the Master for August 5, intending to make it +appear that the Master had asked him to come to Perth, the Master need +not have arrived before seven in the morning, when the King went and +hunted for four hours. What conceivable reason had the Master, if +innocent, for leaving Perth at 4 A.M. and visiting his sovereign at seven +in the morning? + +As to the coming of the Gowries to Perth from Strabran or Strabane before +the tragedy, we only know what Craigengelt stated. His language is not +lucid. + +‘Depones that, my Lords being in Strabrand, Alexander Ruthven’ (a +kinsman) ‘came from Dunkeld to my Lord. And that upon Friday (August 1) +my Lord commanded Captain Ruthven to ride, and tell my Lady’ (Gowrie’s +mother), ‘that he was to come, and Captain Ruthven met my Lord at the +ferry-boat, and rode back to Dunkeld with my Lord, where he’ (Gowrie) +‘having supped, returned to his bed at Trochene, the deponer being in his +company.’ + +Where, at the end of July, was Lady Gowrie? Was she within a day’s ride +of her sons? Was she at Perth? We know that she was at Dirleton Castle, +near North Berwick, on August 6. Had she left the neighbourhood of Perth +between the 1st and 5th of August? Captain Ruthven seems to have ridden +to Lady Gowrie, and back again to Dunkeld with Gowrie. If so (and I can +make no other sense of it), she was in Perthshire on August 1, and went +at once to Dirleton. Did she keep out of the way of the performances of +August 5? + +It is curious that no apologist for Gowrie, as far as I have observed, +makes any remark on this perplexing affair of ‘my Lady.’ We know that +she had once already set a successful trap for the King. He had not +punished her; he took two of her daughters, Barbara and Beatrix, into his +household; and restored to Gowrie his inheritance of the lands of Scone, +which, as we know, had been held by his father. He had written a loving +letter to Gowrie at Padua, after the young man had for many months been +conspiring against him with his most dangerous enemy, the wild Earl of +Bothwell. + +On the morning of the fatal August 5, Gowrie went to sermon. What else +he did, we learn from John Moncrieff, who was the Earl’s cautioner, or +guarantee, for a large sum due by him to one Robert Jolly. {137} He was +also brother of Hew Moncrieff, who fled after having been with Gowrie in +arms, against Herries, Ramsay, and Erskine. Both Moncrieffs, says John, +were puzzled when they found that the Master had ridden from Perth so +early in the morning. Gowrie, says Moncrieff, did not attend the Town +Council meeting after church; he excused himself on account of private +affairs. He also sent away George Hay who was with him on business when +Henderson arrived from Falkland, saying that he had other engagements. +For the same reason, he, at first, declined to do a piece of business +with Moncrieff, who dined with him and two other gentlemen. ‘He made him +to misknow all things,’ that is affected to take no notice, when Andrew +Ruthven came in, and ‘rounded to him’ (whispered to him) about the King’s +approach. Then the Master entered, and Gowrie went out to meet the King. + +The rest we know, as far as evidence exists. + + [Picture: Queen Anne of Denmark] + +We now have all the essential facts which rest on fairly good evidence, +and we ask, did the Ruthvens lay a plot for the King, or did the King +weave a web to catch the Ruthvens? Looking first at character and +probable motives, we dismiss the gossip about the amorous Queen and the +jealous King. The tatlers did not know whether to select Gowrie or the +Master as the object of the Queen’s passion, or whether to allege that +she had a polyandrous affection for both at once. The letters of the age +hint at no such amour till after the tragedy, when tales of the _liaison_ +of Anne of Denmark with the elder or younger Ruthven, or both, arose as a +myth to account for the events. The Queen, no doubt, was deeply grieved +in a womanly way for the sake of her two maidens, Beatrix and Barbara +Ruthven. Her Majesty, also in a womanly way, had a running feud with Mar +and the whole house of Erskine. To Mar, certainly one of the few men of +honour as well as of rank in Scotland, James had entrusted his son, +Prince Henry; the care of the heir to the Crown was a kind of hereditary +charge of the Erskines. The Queen had already, in her resentment at not +having the custody of her son, engaged in one dangerous plot against Mar; +she made another quarrel on this point at the time (1603) when the King +succeeded to the crown of England. Now Mar was present at the Gowrie +tragedy, and his cousin, Sir Thomas Erskine, took part in the deeds. +Hating the Erskines, devoted to the Ruthven ladies, and always feebly in +opposition to her husband, the Queen, no doubt, paraded her grief, her +scepticism, and her resentment. This was quite in keeping with her +character, and this conduct lent colour to the myth that she loved +Gowrie, or the Master, or both, _par amours_. The subject is good for a +ballad or a novel, but history has nothing to make with the legend on +which Mr. G. P. R. James based a romance, and Mr. Pinkerton a theory. + +Leaving fable for fact, what motives had James for killing both the +Ruthvens? He had dropped the hereditary feud, and had taken no measures +against the young Earl to punish his conspiracies with Bothwell in +1593–1594. Of Gowrie, on his return to Scotland in May, he may have +entertained some jealousy. The Earl had been for months in Paris, +caressed by the English ambassador, and probably, as we have seen, in +touch with the exiled and ceaselessly conspiring Bothwell. In London the +Earl had been well received by Elizabeth, and by Lord Willoughby, who, a +year earlier, as Governor of Berwick, had insulted James by kidnapping, +close to Edinburgh, an English gentleman, Ashfield, on a visit to the +King’s Court. Guevara, a cousin of Lord Willoughby, lured Ashfield into +the coach of the English envoy Bowes, and drove him to the frontier. +Lord Willoughby had a swift yacht lying off Leith, in case it was thought +better to abduct Ashfield by sea. This is an example of English +insolence to the Scottish King—also of English kidnapping—and Lord +Willoughby, the manager, had made friends with Gowrie in England. + +Thus James, who was then on the worst terms, short of open war, with +England, may have suspected and disliked the Earl, who had once already +put himself at the service of Elizabeth, and might do so again. In the +April of 1600, rumours of a conspiracy by Archibald Douglas, the infamous +traitor; Douglas of Spot, one of Morton’s brood, and John Colville—who, +with Bothwell and, later, independently, had caught James, had tried to +catch him, and proposed to Essex to catch him again,—were afloat. +Colville was in Paris at the same time as Gowrie; Bothwell was reported +to have come secretly to Scotland in April or May, and this combination +of facts or rumours may have aroused the King’s mistrust. Again, the +Kirk was restive; the preachers, in need of a leader, were said by +Colville to have summoned Gowrie home. {140a} Moreover there were +persons about James—for example, Colonel Stewart—who had reason to dread +the Earl’s vengeance for his father. The Ruthven Apologist mentions this +fact, and the predilection of the Kirk for Gowrie, among the motives for +destroying him. + +Once more there are hints, very vague, that, in 1593, Bothwell aimed at +changing the dynasty. {140b} The fable that Gowrie was a maternal +grandson of Margaret Tudor, widow of James IV, by Henry Stewart, Lord +Methven, her third husband, and that Gowrie was thus a candidate for the +succession to the English throne, perhaps also for the hand of Arabella +Stuart, may conceivably have existed. (Compare Appendix A.) Again, +Gowrie had sided with the burgesses and minor barons, as against the +nobles, by refusing a grant of money to James, in the convention of June +1600, and James owed money to Gowrie, as he did to most people. But we +have already seen that an exemption had been granted to Gowrie for a year +from pursuit of creditors, as far, that is, as regarded his _father’s_ +debts (80,000_l._ Scots), (June 20, 1600). The College of Justice +refused to grant any new legal summonses of creditors against Gowrie, and +suspended all that were extant. + +Mr. Barbé accuses the King of ‘utter and unblushing disregard for common +truth and common honesty.’ Be this as it may, the exemption granted to +Gowrie was not regarded by his father’s creditors as extending to his +mother, after his dishonoured death. On November 1, 1600, Lady Gowrie +implored Elphinstone, the Secretary, to bring her suit for relief before +the King. The security for these debts was on her ‘conjunct fee lands,’ +and creditors, because, I suppose, the Gowrie estates were about to be +forfeited, pressed Lady Gowrie, who, of course, had no exemption. We +know nothing as to the success of Lady Gowrie’s petition, but we have +seen that her daughters married very well. I presume that Gowrie, not +his mother, had previously paid interest on the debts, ‘he had already +paid many sums of money.’ James had already restored to Gowrie the +valuable lands of Scone. {142} + +However, taking things as the King’s adversaries regard them, the +cumulative effect of these several grudges (and of the mystery of +Gowrie’s Catholicism) would urge James to lay his very subtle plot. He +would secretly call young Ruthven to Falkland by six in the morning of +August 5, he would make it appear that Ruthven had invited _him_ to +Perth, he would lure the youth to a turret, managing to be locked in with +him and an armed man; he would post Ramsay below the turret window, and +warn him to run up the dark staircase at the King’s cry of treason. By +the locked door he would exclude Lennox and Mar, while his minions would +first delay Gowrie’s approach, by the narrow stairs, and then permit him +to enter with only one companion, Cranstoun. He would cause a report of +his own departure to be circulated, exactly at the right moment to bring +Gowrie under the turret window, and within reach of his cries. This plot +requires the minutest punctuality, everything must occur at the right +moment, and all would have been defeated had Gowrie told the truth about +the King’s departure, or even asked ‘Where is the King’s horse?’ Or +Gowrie might have stood in the streets of Perth, and summoned his +burgesses in arms. The King and the courtiers, with their dead man, +would have been beleaguered, without provisions, in Gowrie’s house. Was +James the man, on the strength of the grudges which we have carefully +enumerated, to risk himself, unarmed, in this situation? As to how he +managed to have the door locked, so as to exclude the majority of his +suite, who can conjecture? How, again, did he induce Gowrie to aver, and +that after making inquiry, that he _had_ ridden homewards? + +I cannot believe that any sane man or monarch, from the motives +specified, would or could have laid, and that successfully, the plot +attributed to the King. + +Turning to Gowrie, we find that his grudges against James may have been +deep and many. If revengeful, he had the treacherous method of his +father’s conviction, and the insults to his mother, to punish. For a boy +of seventeen he had already attempted a good deal, in 1593–1594. His +mother had set him an example of King-catching, and it looks as if his +mother had been near him in Perth, while he was at Strabane. If +ambitious, and devoted to Elizabeth and England (as he had been), Gowrie +had motives for a new Raid of Ruthven, the unceasing desire of the +English Government. He might, if successful, head a new administration +resting on the support of England and the Kirk. Such a change was due in +the natural course of things. Or, quite the reverse, if a secret +Catholic he might hand the King over to Bothwell. + +Thus Gowrie may well have wished to revenge his father; his mother had +once already helped to betray James to an attack of the most insulting +nature; he himself was strong for the Kirk, over which James was playing +the despot; _or_, he desired toleration for Catholics; he had been well +received in England, where all such plots—their name was legion—had +always been fostered; he was very young, and he risked everything. Only +his method was new—that of strict secrecy. He had previously spoken to +Mr. Cowper, minister of Perth, in a general way, about the failure of +plots for lack of deep secrecy, and through the admission of too many +confederates. Cowper told this to Spottiswoode, at Falkland. Mr. Rhynd, +Gowrie’s tutor, told Cowper and the Comptroller, ‘unrequired’ (not under +torture, nor in answer to a question under examination), that Gowrie, +when abroad, several times said that ‘he was not a wise man that, having +the execution of a high and dangerous purpose, communicated the same to +any but himself.’ + +As to this secrecy, we must remember that Gowrie was very young; that in +Italy he may have heard or read of romantic and crafty plots; and may +long have dreamed (as Robert Oliphant’s reported allegation declared) of +some such scheme as that in which he failed. We must remember, too, that +James’s own account at least suggests a plan quite feasible. To bring +James to Gowrie House, early in the day, when the townsmen were at kirk, +to bring him with only three or four attendants, then to isolate him and +carry him off, was far from impossible; they might hurry him, disguised, +to Dirleton, a castle garrisoned and provisioned, according to Carey, who +reports the version of Gowrie’s friends. A Scottish judge, Gibson (the +ancestor of Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael), was later carried from Leith +Sands across the Border, with perfect success. A fault of the plan was +that, once undertaken, it could not be dropped, even though James came +late and well attended. Ruthven could not tell the King that his story +about a captive and a pot of gold was false. To do that would have +subjected him to a charge of treason. He could have only one motive for +thus deceiving his Majesty. Thus the plot _had_ to go on, even under +circumstances very unfavourable. There was no place for repentance. + +Thus considered, the conspiracy looks like the plot of a romance, not +without meritorious points, but painfully amateurish. + +As proof of Gowrie’s guilt, the evidence, I think, distinctly proves that +he intentionally concealed from those about him the ride of his brother, +Henderson, and Andrew Ruthven to Perth; that he concealed his knowledge, +derived from Henderson, of the King’s approach; and that Ruthven +concealed from Craigengelt, on his return, his long ride to Falkland, +saying that he had been on ‘an errand not far off.’ Moncrieff swore that +Henderson gave him a similar answer. Asked by Moncrieff where he had +been, he said ‘he had been two or three miles above the town.’ Henderson +corroborated Moncrieff’s evidence on this point. There can have been no +innocent motive for all this secrecy. It would have been natural for +Gowrie to order luncheon for the King to be prepared, as soon as +Henderson arrived. + +Finally, the Earl’s assertions that James had ridden away, assertions +repeated after he had gone upstairs to inquire and make sure, are +absolutely incompatible with innocence. They could have only one motive, +to induce the courtiers to ride off and leave the King in his hands. + +What was to happen next? Who can guess at the plot of such a plotter? +It is perhaps least improbable that the King was to be conveyed secretly, +by sea or across Fife, to Dirleton in the first place. Gowrie may have +had an understanding with Guevara at Berwick. James himself told +Nicholson that a large English ship had hovered off the coast, refusing +communication with the shore. Bothwell, again, now desperate, may have +lately been nearer home than was known; finally, Fastcastle, the isolated +eyrie on its perpendicular rock above the Northern Sea, may have been at +Gowrie’s disposal. I am disinclined to conjecture, being only certain +that a young man with Gowrie’s past—‘Italianate,’ and of dubious +religion—was more apt to form a wild and daring plot than was his canny +senior, the King of Scots. But that a plot of some kind Gowrie had laid, +I am convinced by his secrecy, and by his falsehoods as to the King’s +departure. Among the traps for the King contrived by Bothwell and +Colville, and reported by Colville to his English paymasters, were +schemes quite as wild as that which Gowrie probably entertained. The +King once in the pious hands of so godly a man as Gowrie, the party of +the Kirk, or the party of the Church, would have come in and made +themselves useful. {147} + + + + +XII. LOGAN OF RESTALRIG + + +We now arrive at an extraordinary sequel of the Gowrie mystery: a sequel +in which some critics have seen final and documentary proof of the guilt +of the Ruthvens. Others have remarked only a squalid intrigue, whereby +James’s ministers threw additional disgrace on their master. That they +succeeded in disgracing themselves, we shall make only too apparent, but +if the evidence which they handled proves nothing against the Ruthvens, +it does not on that account invalidate the inferences which we have drawn +as to their conspiracy. We come to the story of the Laird and the +country writer. + +That we may know the Laird better, a brief description of his home may be +introduced. Within a mile and a half of the east end of Princes Street, +Edinburgh, lies, on the left of the railway to the south, a squalid +suburb. You drive or walk on a dirty road, north-eastwards, through +unambitious shops, factories, tall chimneys, flaming advertisements, and +houses for artisans. The road climbs a hill, and you begin to find, on +each side of you, walls of ancient construction, and traces of great old +doorways, now condemned. On the left are ploughed fields, and even +clumps of trees with blackened trunks. Grimy are the stacks of corn in +the farmyard to the left, at the crest of the hill. On the right, a +gateway gives on a short avenue which leads to a substantial modern +house. Having reached this point in my pilgrimage, I met a gentleman who +occupies the house, and asked if I might be permitted to view the site. +The other, with much courtesy, took me up to the house, of which only the +portion in view from the road was modern. Facing the west all was of the +old Scottish château style, with gables, narrow windows, and a strange +bulky chimney on the north, bulging out of the wall. The west side of +the house stood on the very brink of a steep precipice, beneath which lay +what is now but a large deep waterhole, but, at the period of the Gowrie +conspiracy, was a loch fringed with water weeds, and a haunt of wild +fowl. By this loch, Restalrig Loch, the witch more than three centuries +ago met the ghost of Tam Reid, who fell in Pinkie fight, and by the ghost +was initiated into the magic which brought her to the stake. + +I scrambled over a low wall with a deep drop, and descended the cliff so +as to get a view of the ancient château that faces the setting sun. +Beyond the loch was a muddy field, then rows on rows of ugly +advertisements, then lines of ‘smoky dwarf houses,’ and, above these, +clear against a sky of March was the leonine profile of Arthur’s Seat. +Steam rose and trailed from the shrieking southward trains between the +loch and the mountain, old and new were oddly met, for the château was +the home of an ancient race, the Logans of Restalrig, ancestors of that +last Laird with whom our story has to do. Their rich lands stretched far +and wide; their huge dovecot stands, sturdy as a little pyramid, in a +field to the north, towards the firth. They had privileges over Leith +Harbour which must have been very valuable: they were of Royal descent, +through a marriage of a Logan with a daughter of Robert II. But their +glory was in their ancestor, Sir Robert Logan, who fell where the good +Lord James of Douglas died, charging the Saracens on a field of Spain, +and following the heart of Bruce. So Barbour sings, and to be named by +Barbour, for a deed and a death so chivalrous, is honour enough. + + [Picture: Restalrig House] + + [Picture: Restalrig Village] + +The Logans flourished in their eyrie above the Loch of Restalrig, and +intermarried with the best houses, Sinclairs, Ogilvys, Homes, and Ramsays +of Dalhousie. It may be that some of them sleep under the muddy floor of +St. Triduana’s Chapel, in the village of Restalrig, at the foot of the +hill on the eastern side of their old château. This village, surrounded +by factories, is apparently just what it used to be in the days of James +VI. The low thick-walled houses with fore-stairs, retain their ancient, +high-pitched, red-tiled roofs, with dormer windows, and turn their tall +narrow gables to the irregular street. ‘A mile frae Embro town,’ you +find yourself going back three hundred years in time. On the right hand +of the road, walking eastward, what looks like a huge green mound is +visible above a high ancient wall. This is all that is left of St. +Triduana’s Chapel, and she was a saint who came from Achaia with St. +Regulus, the mythical founder of St. Andrews. She died at Restalrig on +October 8, 510, and may have converted the Celts, who then dwelt in a +crannog in the loch; at all events we hear that, in a very dry summer, +the timbers of a crannog were found in the sandy deposit of the lake +margin. The chapel (or chapter-house?), very dirty and disgracefully +neglected, has probably a crypt under it, and certainly possesses a +beautiful groined roof, springing from a single short pillar in the +centre. The windows are blocked up with stones, the exterior is a mere +mound of grass like a sepulchral tumulus. On the floor lies, broken, the +gravestone of a Lady Restalrig who died in 1526. Outside is a patched-up +church; the General Assembly of 1560 decreed that the church should be +destroyed as ‘a monument of idolatry’ (it was a collegiate church, with a +dean, and prebendaries), and in 1571 the wrought stones were used to +build a new gate inside the Netherbow Port. The whole edifice was not +destroyed, but was patched up, in 1836, into a Presbyterian place of +worship. This old village and kirk made up ‘Restalrig Town,’ a place +occupied by the English during the siege of Leith in 1560. So much of +history may be found in this odd corner, where the sexton of the kirk +speaks to the visitor about ‘the Great Logan,’ meaning that Laird who now +comes into the sequel of the Gowrie mystery. + +For some thirty years before the date of which we are speaking, a Robert +Logan had been laird of Restalrig, and of the estate of Flemington, in +Berwickshire, where his residence was the house of Gunnisgreen, near +Eyemouth, on the Berwickshire coast. He must have been a young boy when, +in 1560, the English forces besieging Leith (then held by the French for +Mary of Guise) pitched their camp at Restalrig. + +In 1573, Kirkcaldy of Grange and Maitland of Lethington gallantly held +the last strength of the captive Mary Stuart, the Castle of Edinburgh. +The fortress was to fall under the guns of the English allies of that +Earl of Gowrie (then Lord Ruthven), who was the father of the Gowrie of +our mystery. + +On April 17, 1573, a compact was made between Lord Ruthven and Drury, the +English general. One provision was (the rest do not here concern us) +that Alexander, Lord Home; Lethington; and Robert Logan of Restalrig, if +captured, ‘shall be reserved to be justified by the laws of Scotland,’ +which means, hanged by the neck. But neither on that nor on any other +occasion was our Logan hanged. {152} He somehow escaped death and +forfeiture, when Kirkcaldy was gibbeted after the fall of the castle. In +1577, we find him, with Lord Lindsay and Mowbray of Barnbogle (now +Dalmeny) surety for Queen Mary’s half-brother, the Lord Robert Stewart, +who vainly warned Darnley to escape from Kirk o’ Field. Lord Robert was +then confined by the Regent Morton in Linlithgow, and Logan with the rest +was surety in 10,000_l._ that he would not attempt to escape. Later, +Logan was again surety that Lord Robert would return after visiting his +dominions, the Orkney Islands. {153} + +Logan, though something of a pirate, was clearly a man of substance and +of a good house, which he strengthened by alliances. One of his wives, +Elizabeth Macgill, was the daughter of the Laird of Cranstoun Riddell, +and one of her family was a member of the Privy Council. From Elizabeth +Logan was divorced; she was, apparently, the mother of his eldest son, +Robert. By the marriage of an ancestor of Logan’s with an heiress of the +family of Hume, he acquired the fortress and lands of Fastcastle, near +St. Abbs, on the Berwickshire coast. The castle, now in ruins, is the +model of Wolfscrag in ‘The Bride of Lammermoor.’ Standing on the actual +verge of a perpendicular cliff above the sea, whence it is said to have +been approached by a staircase cut in the living rock, it was all but +inaccessible, and was strongly fortified. Though commanded by the still +higher cliff to the south, under which it nestled on its narrow plateau +of rock, Fastcastle was then practically impregnable, and twenty men +could have held it against all Scotland. Around it was, and is, a +roadless waste of bent and dune, from which it was severed by a narrow +rib of rock jutting seawards, the ridge being cut by a cavity which was +spanned by a drawbridge. Master of this inaccessible eyrie, Logan was +most serviceable to the plotters of these troubled times. + +His religion was doubtful, his phraseology could glide into Presbyterian +cant, but we know that he indifferently lent the shelter of his fastness +to the Protestant firebrand, wild Frank Stewart, Earl of Bothwell (who, +like Carey writing from Berwick to Cecil, reckons Logan among Catholics), +or to George Ker, the Catholic intriguer with Spain. Logan loved a plot +for its own sake, as well as for chances of booty and promotion. He was +a hard drinker, and associate of rough yeomen and lairds like Ninian +Chirnside of Whitsumlaws (Bothwell’s emissary to the wizard, Richard +Graham), yet a man of ancient family and high connections. He seems to +have been intimate with the family of Sir John Cranstoun of Cranstoun. +On one occasion he informs Archibald Douglas, the detested and infamous +murderer and deeply dyed traitor, that ‘John of Cranstoun is the one man +now that bears you best good will.’ (January 1587?) + + [Picture: Fastcastle (circ. 1820)] + +In January 1600, the year of the Gowrie plot, we find Sir John Cranstoun +in trouble for harbouring an outlawed Mr. Thomas Cranstoun, who was, with +Douglas, the Laird of Spot, one of Bothwell’s allies in all his most +desperate raids on the person of King James. In 1592, Mr. Thomas +Cranstoun was forfeited, he was informed against for ‘new conspiracies +against his Majesty’s life and estate,’ and, in January 1600, Sir John +Cranstoun was sheltering this dangerous and desperate Bothwellian outlaw, +as was his son-in law, Mr. William Cranstoun. {155a} + +Now the Mr. Thomas Cranstoun who was hanged for his part in the Gowrie +affair, was brother of Sir John Cranstoun of Cranstoun, the ally of that +other Mr. Thomas Cranstoun who was so deep in Bothwell’s wild raids on +the King’s person. In the spring of 1600 (as we have said, but must here +repeat) there were reports that Bothwell had secretly returned to +Scotland, and, on April 20, 1600, just before the date of Gowrie’s +arrival in Edinburgh from London, Nicholson reports suspected plots of +Archibald Douglas, of John Colville, a ruined Bothwellian, and a spy, and +of the Laird of Spot. {155b} This Colville had recently hinted to Essex +that he could do a serviceable enterprise. ‘As for the service I mean to +do, if matters go to the worst, it shall be such, God willing—if I lose +not my life in doing thereof—as no other can do with a million of gold, +and yet I shall not exceed the bonds of humanity,’ that is, he will not +_murder_ the King. ‘But for conscience sake and worldly honesty, I must +first be absolved of my natural allegiance.’ (April 27, 1598; again, +October 20, 1598.) {156} + +The point for us to mark is that all these conspirators and violent men, +Bothwell (in exile or secretly in Scotland), Colville (in 1600 an exile +in Paris), the Laird of Spot, the Cranstouns, the infamous Archibald +Douglas, with Richard Douglas his nephew, and Logan of Restalrig, were +united, if not by real friendship, at least, as Thucydides says, by +‘partnership in desperate enterprises’ and by 1600 were active in a +subterranean way. If it is fair to say, _noscitur a sociis_, ‘a man is +known by the company he keeps,’ Logan of Restalrig bears the mark of the +secret conspirator. He had relations with persons more distinguished +than his Chirnsides and Whittingham Douglases, though they were of near +kin to the Earl of Morton. His mother, a daughter of Lord Gray, married +Lord Home, after the death of Logan’s father. The Laird of Restalrig was +thus a half-brother of the new Lord Home, a Warden of the Border, and +also was first cousin of the beautiful, accomplished, and infamous Master +of Gray, the double spy of England and of Rome. + +Logan, too, like the Master, had diplomatic ambitions. In 1586 (July 29) +we find him corresponding with the infamous Archibald Douglas, one of +Darnley’s murderers, whom James had sent, in the crisis of his mother’s +fate, as his ambassador to Elizabeth. In 1586, Logan, with two other +Logans, was on the packed jury which acquitted Douglas of Darnley’s +murder. Logan was a retainer of Bothwell, that meteor-like adventurer +and king-catcher, and he asks Douglas to try to procure him employment +(of course as a spy) from Walsingham, the English statesman. {157} + +In October of the same year, we find the Master of Gray writing to +Douglas, thus: ‘Of late I was forced, at Restalrig’s suit, to pawn some +of my plate, and the best jewel I had, to get him money for his +marriage’—his second marriage, apparently. By December 1586 we find +Logan riding to London, as part of the suite of the Master of Gray, who +was to plead with Elizabeth for Mary’s life. He was the Master’s most +intimate confidant, and, as such, in February-March 1587, proposed to +sell all his secrets to Walsingham! Nevertheless, when Gray was driven +into exile, later in 1587, Logan was one of his ‘cautioners,’ or +sureties. He had been of the party of Gowrie’s father, during that +nobleman’s brief tenure of power in 1582, 1583, and, when Gowrie fell, +Logan was ordered to hand his eyrie of Fastcastle over, at six hours’ +notice, to the officers of the King. Through the stormy years of +Bothwell’s repeated raids on James (1592–1594) Logan had been his +partisan, and had been denounced a rebel. Later he appears in trouble +for highway robbery committed by his retainers. Among the diversions of +this country gentleman was flat burglary. In December 1593, ‘when nichts +are lang and mirk,’ the Laird helped himself to the plate-chest of +William Nesbit of Newton. ‘Under silence of night he took spuilzie of +certain gold and silver to the value of three thousand merks Scots.’ The +executors of Nesbit did not bring their action till after Logan died, in +July 1606, ‘in respect the said clandestine deed and fact came not to our +knowledge, nor light as to who had committed the same,’ till just before +the action was brought. + +In 1599, when conspiracies were in the air, Logan was bound over not to +put Fastcastle in the hands of his Majesty’s enemies and rebels. {158} + +This brief sketch of a turbulent life is derived from Logan’s own letters +to Archibald Douglas, now among the Cecil Papers at Hatfield; from the +‘Papers relating to the Master of Gray,’ in which we find Logan, under a +cypher name, betraying the Master, his cousin and ally, and from the +Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, in which all that dead world, +from the King to the crofter, may be traced, often in circumstances +peculiarly private. + +At that time, civil processes of ‘horning,’ ‘putting to the horn,’ or +outlawry, were the common resort of creditors against procrastinating +debtors. Many of the most respectable persons, gentlemen and ladies, +appear in these suits; Robert Abercromby sues a lady of rank for 150_l._ +Scots. He is the burgess of Edinburgh, the King’s saddler, who, as the +Master of Ruthven told Craigengelt, had brought the King from Falkland to +Perth, ‘to take order for his debt.’ Now the singular thing is that we +never find Logan of Restalrig recorded as under ‘horning’ for debt, +whereas, considering his character, we might expect him never to be free +from ‘the horn.’ On the other hand, we know him to have been a lender, +not a borrower. He was _sui profusus_. On January 1, 1599, Cecil had +been making inquiries as to Logan, from Lord Willoughby commanding at +Berwick. Cecil always had his eyes on Border Scots, likely to be useful +in troubling King James. Willoughby replies, ‘There is sutch a laird of +Lesterigge as you write of, a vain lose man, a greate favourer of thefes +reputed, yet a man of a good clan, as they here tearme it, and a gud +felow.’ {159} + +Such was Logan of Restalrig, ‘Old Rugged and Dangerous.’ In 1601, May +30, we find him appearing as surety for Philip Mowbray, one of the +Mowbrays of Barnbogle, whose sister stood by Queen Mary at the scaffold, +and whose brother Francis was with the bold Buccleuch, when he swam ‘that +wan water’ of Esk, and rescued Kinmont Willie from Carlisle Castle. This +Francis Mowbray and his brother Philip were (1601–1603) mixed up with +Cecil in some inscrutable spy-work, and intrigues for the murder of King +James. The Mowbrays were old friends of Logan: they had been engaged in +privateering enterprises together, but could produce no letters of +marque! In 1603, Francis Mowbray, abandoned and extradited by Cecil, was +killed in an attempt to escape from Edinburgh Castle. He had been +accused, by an Italian fencing-master, of a conspiracy to kill James. +Cecil had, of course, by this time made peace and alliance with James, +who was on the point of ascending the English throne, and he gave up +Francis. Mowbray challenged the Italian fencing-master to judicial +combat; the Italian came down to fight him, the lists were actually +pitched at Holyrood, when (January 31, 1603) Francis preferred to try the +chance of flight; the rope of knotted sheet to which he trusted broke, +and he was dashed to pieces on the Castle rocks. {160a} + +Since 1592, Mowbray had been corresponding with Logan’s friend, Archibald +Douglas, and offering his services to Cecil. To Cecil, in September +1600, he was again applying, regarding Elizabeth as his debtor. In 1600, +he was in touch with Henry Locke, who had been Cecil’s go-between in his +darkest intrigues against James, and his agent with Bothwell, Atholl, and +the Gowrie slain on August 5, 1600. But, in the autumn of 1602, Cecil +had become the secret ally of James, and gave up poor Francis, a broken +tool of his and of Elizabeth’s. {160b} + +We have now learned a good deal about Logan’s habitual associates, and we +have merely glanced at a few of the numberless plots against James which +were encouraged by the English Government. If James was nervously +apprehensive of treason, he had good cause. But of Logan at the moment +of the Gowrie Plot, we know nothing from public documents. We do know, +however, on evidence which has previously been in part unpublished, in +part unobserved, that from August 1600 onwards, Logan was oddly excited +and restless. Though not in debt—or at least though no record of his +‘horning’ exists—he took to selling his lands, Restalrig, Flemington, +Gunnisgreen, Fastcastle. {161} After 1600 he sold them all; he wallowed +in drink; he made his wife wretched; with his eldest son he was on ill +terms; he wandered to London, and to France in 1605, and he returned to +die (of plague, it seems) in the Canongate, a landless but a monied man, +in July 1606. + +Why did Logan sell all his lands, investing in shipping property? The +natural inference, at the time, was that he had been engaged in ‘some ill +turn,’ some mysterious conspiracy, and people probably (certainly, if we +believe the evidence to follow) thought that he had been an accomplice in +the Gowrie affair. + +He died, and his children by his first wives dissociated themselves from +his executorship. The bulk of it was the unpaid part of the purchase +money for his lands, sold by him to Balmerino, and Dunbar, James’s +trusted ministers, who owed some 33,000 marks to the estate. + +Logan had a ‘doer,’ or law agent, a country writer, or notary, named +Sprot, who dwelt at Eyemouth, a hungry creature, who did not even own a +horse. When Logan rode to Edinburgh, Sprot walked thither to join him. +Yet the two were boon companions; Sprot was always loitering and watching +at Gunnisgreen, always a guest at the great Christmas festivals, given by +the Laird to his rough neighbours. The death of Logan was a disaster to +Sprot, and to all the parasites of the Laird. + +Logan died, we saw, in July 1606. In April, 1608, Sprot was arrested by +a legal official, named Watty Doig. He had been blabbing in his cups, it +is said, about the Gowrie affair; certainly most compromising documents, +apparently in Logan’s hand, and with his signature, were found on Sprot’s +person. They still bear the worn softened look of papers carried for +long in the pockets. {162} Sprot was examined, and confessed that he +knew beforehand of the Gowrie conspiracy, and that the documents in his +possession were written by Logan to Gowrie and other plotters. He was +tortured and in part recanted; Logan, he said, had _not_ written the +guilty letters: he himself had forged them. This was all before July 5, +1608, while Mr. Robert Oliphant lay in prison, in London, on the same +charge of guilty foreknowledge. Early in July 1608, the Earl of Dunbar +came from London to Edinburgh, to deal with the affairs of the Kirk. He +took Sprot out of his dungeon, gave him a more wholesome chamber, +secluded him from gentlemen who came and threatened him (or so he said) +if he made revelations, and Dunbar provided him with medical attendance. +The wounds inflicted in ‘the boot’ were healed. + +For six weeks Sprot was frequently examined, before members of the Privy +Council and others, without torture. What he said the public did not +know, nor, till now, have historians been better informed. Throughout, +after July 5, 1608, he persisted in declaring Logan’s complicity in the +Gowrie conspiracy, and his own foreknowledge. He was tried, solely on +the evidence of guilty foreknowledge alleged in his own confessions, and +of extracts, _given by him from memory only_, of a letter from Gowrie to +Logan (_not_ one of those which he claimed to have forged), and another +of Logan to Gowrie, both of July 1600. On August 12, Sprot was hanged at +Edinburgh. He repeated his confession of guilt from every corner of the +scaffold. He uttered a long religious speech of contrition. Once, he +said, he had been nearly drowned: but God preserved him for this great +day of confession and repentance. But ‘no unbeliever in the guilt of +Gowrie,’ says Calderwood, ‘was one whit the more convinced.’ Of course +not, nor would the death of Henderson—which they clamoured for—have +convinced them. They said, falsely, that Sprot was really condemned as a +forger, and, having to die, took oath to his guilt in the Gowrie +conspiracy, in consideration of promises of help to his wife and family. +{164} + +Nearly a year later, in June 1609, the exhumed remains of Logan were +brought into court (a regular practice in the case of dead traitors), and +were tried for treason. Five letters by Logan, of July 1600, were now +produced. Three were from Logan to conspirators unnamed and unknown. +One was to a retainer and messenger of his, Laird Bower, who had died in +January 1606. These letters were declared, by several honourable +witnesses, to be in Logan’s very unusual handwriting and orthography: +they were compared with many genuine letters of his, and no difference +was found. The Parliamentary Committee, ‘The Lords of the Articles,’ +previously sceptical, were convinced by the five letters, the evidence to +handwriting, the energy of the Earl of Dunbar, and the eloquence of the +King’s Advocate. Logan’s children were all forfeited, and Dunbar saved +the money which he owed to Logan’s estate. This trial is not alluded to, +either by Calderwood or Archbishop Spottiswoode, in their histories. The +five letters produced in the trial of Logan exist, and have been accepted +as authentic by Mr. Tytler and Mr. Hill Burton, but not by writers who +favour the Ruthvens. We print all five letters in Appendix C. + +Meanwhile what had Sprot really said, under private examination, between +July 5 and August 12, 1608, when he was executed? + +This question is to be answered, from the hitherto unpublished records, +in the following chapters. But, in common charity, the reader must be +warned that the exposition is inevitably puzzling and complex. Sprot, +under examination, lied often, lied variously, and, perhaps, lied to the +last. Moreover much, indeed everything, depends here on exact dates, and +Sprot’s are loose, as was natural in the circumstances, the events of +which he spoke being so remote in time. + +Consequently the results of criticism of his confession may here be +stated with brevity. The persevering student, the reader interested in +odd pictures of domestic life, and in strange human characters may read +on at his own peril. But the actual grains of fact, extracted from tons +of falsehood, may be set down in very few words. + +The genuine and hitherto unknown confessions of Sprot add no absolute +certainty as to the existence of a Gowrie conspiracy. His words, when +uncorroborated, can have no weight with a jury. He confessed that _all_ +the alleged Logan papers which, up to two days before his death, were in +possession of the Privy Council, were forgeries by himself. But, on +August 10, he announced that he had possessed one _genuine_ letter of +Logan to Gowrie (dated July 29, 1600). That letter (our Letter IV) or a +forged copy was then found in his repositories. Expert evidence, +however, decides that this document, like all the others, is in a +specious imitation of Logan’s hand, but that it has other characteristics +of Sprot’s own hand, and was penned by Sprot himself. Why he kept it +back so long, why he declared that it alone was genuine, we do not know. +That it _is_ genuine, _in substance_, and was copied by Sprot from a real +letter of Logan’s in an imitation of Logan’s hand, and that, if so, it +proves Logan’s accession to the conspiracy, is my own private opinion. +But that opinion is based on mere literary considerations, on what is +called ‘internal evidence,’ and is, therefore, purely a matter of +subjective impression, like one’s idea of the possible share of +Shakespeare in a play mainly by Fletcher or another. Evidence of this +kind is not historical evidence. It follows that the whole affair of +Sprot, and of the alleged Logan letters, adds nothing certain to the +reasons for believing that there was a Gowrie conspiracy. As far as +Sprot and his documents are concerned, we know that all, as they stand, +are pure fictitious counterfeits by that unhappy man, while, as to +whether one letter (IV) and perhaps another (I) are genuine _in +substance_, every reader must form his own opinion, on literary grounds, +and no opinion is of much value. Such is a brief summary of the facts. +But the tenacious inquirer who can follow us through the tangled mazes of +Sprot’s private confessions, will perhaps agree with me that they contain +distinguishable grains of fact, raising a strong surmise that Logan was +really involved with Gowrie in a plot. Yet this, again, is a subjective +impression, which may vary with each reader. + + + + +XIII. THE SECRETS OF SPROT + + +The final and deepest mystery of the mysterious Gowrie affair rises, like +a mist from a marsh, out of these facts concerning Sprot. When he was +convicted, and hanged, persisting in his confessions, on August 12, 1608, +no letters by Gowrie, or any other conspirator, were produced in Court. +Extracts, however, of a letter from Gowrie to Logan, and of one from +Logan to Gowrie, were quoted in Sprot’s formal Indictment. They were +also quoted in an official publication, an account of Sprot’s case, +prepared by Sir William Hart, the Chief Justice, and issued in 1608. +Both these documents (to which we return) are given by Mr. Pitcairn, in +the second volume of his ‘Criminal Trials.’ But later, when the dead +Logan was tried in 1609, five of his alleged plot letters (never +_publicly_ mentioned in Sprot’s trial) were produced by the prosecution, +and not one of these was identical with the letter of Logan cited in the +Indictment of Sprot, and in the official account of his trial. There +were strong resemblances between Logan’s letter, quoted but not produced, +in 1608, and a letter of Logan’s produced, and attested to be in his +handwriting, in 1609. But there were also remarkable variations. + +Of these undeniable facts most modern historians who were convinced of +the guilt of the Ruthvens take no notice; though the inexplicable +discrepancies between the Logan letters _quoted_ in 1608, and the letters +_produced_ as his in 1609, had always been matters of comment and +criticism. + +As to the letters of 1609, Mr. Tytler wrote, ‘their import cannot be +mistaken; _their authenticity has never been questioned_; they still +exist . . . ’ Now assuredly the letters exist. The five alleged +originals were found by Mr. Pitcairn, among the Warrants of Parliament, +in the General Register House, in Edinburgh, and were published by him, +but without their endorsements, in his ‘Criminal Trials’ in Scotland. +(1832). {169} Copies of the letters are also ‘bookit,’ or engrossed, in +the Records of Parliament. These ‘bookit’ transcripts were made +carelessly, and the old copyist was puzzled by the handwriting and +orthography of the alleged originals before him. The controversy about +the genuineness of the five letters took new shapes after Mr. Pitcairn +discovered those apparently in Logan’s hand, and printed them in 1832. +Mr. Hill Burton accepts them with no hint of doubt, and if Mr. Tytler was +the most learned and impartial, Mr. Hill Burton was the most sceptical of +our historians. Yet on this point of authenticity these historians were +too hasty. The authenticity of the letters (except one, No. IV) was +denied by the very man, Sprot, in whose possession most of them were +originally found. {170} The evidence of his denial has been extant ever +since Calderwood wrote, who tells us, clearly on the authority of an +older and anonymous History in MS. (now in the Advocates’ Library), that +Sprot, when first taken (April 13–19, 1608), accused Logan of writing the +letters, but withdrew the charge under torture, and finally, when kindly +treated by Lord Dunbar, and healed of his wounds, declared that he +himself had forged all the Logan letters (save one). Yet Logan was, to +Sprot’s certain knowledge (so Sprot persistently declared), involved in +the Gowrie conspiracy. + +Now assuredly this appeared to be an incredible assertion of Calderwood, +or of his MS. source. He was a stern Presbyterian, an enemy of the King +(who banished him), and an intimate friend of the Cranstoun family, who, +in 1600, were closely connected with conspirators of their name. Thus +prejudiced, Calderwood was believed by Mr. Pitcairn to have made an +untrue or confused statement. Logan is in a plot; Sprot knows it, and +yet Sprot forges letters to prove Logan’s guilt, and these letters, found +in Sprot’s possession, prove his own guilty knowledge. There seems no +sense in such behaviour. It might have been guessed that Sprot knew of +Logan’s guilt, but had no documentary evidence of it, and therefore +forged evidence for the purpose of extorting blackmail from Logan. But, +by 1608, when Sprot was arrested with some of the documents in his +pocket, Logan had been dead for nearly two years. + +The guess, that Sprot knew of Logan’s treason, but forged the proof of +it, for purposes of blackmailing him, was not made by historians. The +guess was getting ‘warm,’ as children say in their game, was very near +the truth, but it was not put forward by criticism. Historians, in fact, +knew that Logan would not have stood an attempt at extortion. He was not +that kind of man. In 1594, he made a contract with Napier of +Merchistoun, the inventor of Logarithms. Tradition declared that there +was a hoard of gold in ‘the place of Fastcastle.’ Napier was to discover +it (probably by the Divining Rod), and Logan was to give him a third of +the profits. But Napier, knowing his man, inserted a clause in the deed, +to the effect that, after finding the gold, _he was to be allowed a free +exit from Fastcastle_. Whether he found the hoard or not, we do not +know. But, two years later, in letting a portion of his property, Napier +introduced the condition that his tenant should never sublet it to any +person of the name of Logan! If he found the gold he probably was not +allowed to carry off his third share. Logan being a resolute character +of this kind, Sprot, a cowering creature, would not forge letters to +blackmail him. He would have been invited to dine at Fastcastle. The +cliffs are steep, the sea is deep, and tells no tales. + +Thus where was Sprot’s motive for forging letters in Logan’s hand, and +incriminating the Laird of Restalrig, and for carrying them about in his +pocket in 1608? But where was his motive for confessing when taken and +examined that he _did_ forge the letters, if his confession was untrue, +while swearing, to his certain destruction, that he had a guilty +foreknowledge of the Gowrie conspiracy? He _might_ conciliate Government +and get pardoned as King’s evidence, by producing what he called genuine +Logan letters, and thus proving the conspiracy, and clearing the King’s +character; but this he did not do. He swore to the last that Logan and +he were both guilty (so Calderwood’s authority rightly reported), but +that the plot letters were forged by himself, to what end Calderwood did +not say. All this appeared midsummer madness. Calderwood, it was +argued, must be in error. + +A theory was suggested that Sprot really knew nothing of the Gowrie +mystery; that he had bragged falsely of his knowledge, in his cups; that +the Government pounced on him, made him forge the letters of Logan to +clear the King’s character by proving a conspiracy, and then hanged him, +still confessing his guilt. But Mr. Mark Napier, a learned antiquary, +replied (in a long Appendix to the third volume of the History by the +contemporary Spottiswoode) to this not very probable conjecture by +showing that, when they tried Sprot, Government produced no letters at +all, only an alleged account by Sprot of two letters unproduced. +Therefore, in August 1608, Mr. Napier argued, Government had no letters; +if they had possessed them, they would infallibly have produced them. +That seemed sound reasoning. In 1608 Government had no plot letters; +therefore, the five produced in the trial of the dead Logan were forged +for the Government, by somebody, between August 1608 and June 1609. Mr. +Napier refused to accept Calderwood’s wild tale that Sprot, while +confessing Logan’s guilt and his own, also confessed to having forged +Logan’s letters. + +Yet Calderwood’s version (or rather that of his anonymous authority in +MS.) was literally accurate. Sprot, in _private_ examinations (July 5, +August 11, 1608), confessed to having forged all the letters but one, the +important one, Letter IV, Logan to Gowrie. This confession the +Government burked. + +The actual circumstances have remained unknown and are only to be found +in the official, but _suppressed_, reports of Sprot’s private +examinations, now in the muniment room of the Earl of Haddington. These +papers enable us partly to unravel a coil which, without them, no +ingenuity could disentangle. Sir Thomas Hamilton, the King’s Advocate, +popularly styled ‘Tam o’ the Cowgate,’ from his house in that old ‘street +of palaces,’ was the ancestor of Lord Haddington, who inherits his +papers. Sir Thomas was an eminent financier, lawyer, statesman, and +historical collector and inquirer, who later became Lord Binning, and +finally Earl of Haddington. As King’s Advocate he held, and preserved, +the depositions, letters, and other documents, used in the private +examinations of Sprot, on and after July 5, 1608. The records of Sprot’s +examinations between April 19 and July 5, 1600, are not known to be +extant. + +Sir Thomas’s collection consists of summonses, or drafts of summonses, +for treason, against the dead Logan (1609). There is also a holograph +letter of confession (July 5, 1608) from Sprot to the Earl of Dunbar. +There are the records of the _private_ examinations of Sprot (July +5-August 11, 1600) and of other persons whom he more or less implicated. +There are copies by Sprot, in his ‘course,’ that is, current, +handwriting, of two of the five letters in Logan’s hand (or in an +imitation of it). These are letters I and IV, produced at the posthumous +trial of Logan in June 1609. Finally, there are letters in Logan’s hand +(or in an imitation of it), addressed to James Bower and to one Ninian +Chirnside, with allusions to the plot, and there is a long memorandum of +matters of business, also containing hints about the conspiracy, in +Logan’s hand, or in an imitation thereof, addressed to John Bell, and +James Bower. + +Of these compromising papers, one, a letter to Chirnside, was found by +the Rev. Mr. Anderson (in 1902) torn into thirteen pieces (whereof one is +missing), wrapped up in a sheet of foolscap of the period. Mr. Anderson +has placed the pieces together, and copied the letter. Of all these +documents, only five letters (those published by Mr. Pitcairn) were +‘libelled,’ or founded on, and produced by the Government in the +posthumous trial of Logan (1609). Not one was produced before the jury +who tried Sprot on August 12, 1608. He was condemned, we said, merely on +his own confession. In his ‘dittay,’ or impeachment, and in the official +account of the affair, published in 1608, were cited fragments of two +letters _quoted from memory by Sprot under private examination_. These +quotations from memory differ, we saw, in many places from any of the +five letters produced in the trial of 1609, a fact which has aroused +natural suspicions. This is the true explanation of the discrepancies +between the plot letter cited in Sprot’s impeachment, and in the +Government pamphlet on his case; and the similar, though not identical, +letter produced in 1609. The indictment and the tract published by +Government contain merely Sprot’s recollections of the epistle from Logan +to Gowrie. The letter (IV) produced in 1609 is the genuine letter of +Logan, or so Sprot seems, falsely, to swear. _This_ document did not +come into the hands of Government till after the Indictment, containing +Sprot’s quotation of the letter from memory, was written, or, if it did, +was kept back. + +All this has presently to be proved in detail. + +As the Government (a fact unknown to our historians) possessed all the +alleged Logan letters and papers _before_ Sprot was hanged, and as, at +his trial, they concealed this circumstance even from Archbishop +Spottiswoode (who was present at Sprot’s public trial by jury), a great +deal of perplexity has been caused, and many ingenious but erroneous +conjectures have been invented. The Indictment or ‘dittay’ against +Sprot, on August 12, 1608, is a public document, but not an honest one. +It contains the following among other averments. We are told that Sprot, +in July 1600, at Fastcastle, saw and read the beginning of a letter from +Logan to Gowrie (Letter IV). Logan therein expresses delight at +receiving a letter of Gowrie’s: he is anxious to avenge ‘the +Macchiavelian massacre of our dearest friends’ (the Earl decapitated in +1584). He advises Gowrie to be circumspect, ‘and be earnest with your +brother, that he be not rash in any speeches touching the purpose of +Padua.’ + + [Picture: Fastcastle] + +This letter, _as thus cited_, is not among the five later produced in +1609; it is a blurred reminiscence of parts of _two_ of them. The reason +of these discrepancies is that the letter is quoted in the Indictment, +_not_ from the document itself (which apparently reach the prosecution +after the Indictment was framed), but from a version given from memory by +Sprot, in one of his private examinations. Next, Sprot is told in his +Indictment that, some time later, Logan asked Bower to find this letter, +which Gowrie, for the sake of secrecy, had returned to Bower to be +delivered to Logan. We know that this was the practice of intriguers. +After the December riot at Edinburgh in 1596, the Rev. Robert Bruce, +writing to ask Lord Hamilton to head the party of the Kirk, is said to +request him to return his own letter by the bearer. Gowrie and Logan +practised the same method. The indictment goes on to say that Bower, +being unable to read, asked Sprot to search for Logan’s letter to Gowrie, +among his papers, that Sprot found it, ‘abstracted’ it (stole it), +retained it, and ‘read it divers times,’ a _false quotation of the MS. +confession_. Sprot really said that he kept the stolen letter (IV) +‘_till_’ he had framed on it, as a model, three forged letters. It +contained a long passage of which the ‘substance’ is quoted. This +passage as printed in Sprot’s Indictment is not to be found textually, in +any of the five letters later produced. It is, we repeat, merely the +version given from memory, by Sprot, at one of his last private +examinations, before the letter itself came into the hands of Government. +In either form, the letter meant high treason. + +Such is the evidence of the Indictment against Sprot, of August 12, 1608. +In the light of Sprot’s real confessions, hitherto lying in the +Haddington muniment room, we know the Indictment to be a false and +garbled document. Next, on the part of Government, we have always had a +published statement by Sir William Hart, the King’s Justice, with an +introduction by Dr. George Abbot, later Archbishop of Canterbury, who was +in Edinburgh, and present when Sprot was hanged. This tract was +published by Bradewood, London, in 1608, and is reprinted by Pitcairn. + +After a verbose, pious, and pedantic diatribe, Abbot comes to the point. +Sprot was arrested in April 1608, first on the strength ‘of some words +that fell from himself,’ and, next, ‘_of some papers found upon him_.’ +What papers? They are never mentioned in the Indictment of Sprot. They +are never alluded to in the sequel of Abbot’s pamphlet, containing the +official account, by Sir William Hart, of Sprot’s Trial and Examinations. +In mentioning ‘some papers found upon’ Sprot, Dr. Abbot ‘let the cat out +of the bag,’ but writers like Mr. Napier, and other sceptics of his way +of thinking, deny that any of the compromising letters were found at all. + +No letters, we say, are mentioned by Sir William Hart, in Abbot’s tract +(1608), _as having been produced_. Archbishop Spottiswoode, who was +present at Sprot’s public trial (August 12, 1608), thought the man one of +those insane self-accusers who are common enough, and observes that he +did not ‘show the letter’—that of Logan to Gowrie (IV). This remark of +Spottiswoode, an Archbishop, a converted Presbyterian, a courtier, and an +advocate for the King, has been a source of joy to all Ruthven +apologists. ‘Spottiswoode saw though the farce,’ they say; ‘there was no +letter at all, and, courtier and recreant as he was, Spottiswoode had the +honesty to say so in his History.’ + +To this there used to be no reply. But now we know the actual and +discreditable truth. The Government was, in fact, engaged in a shameful +scheme to which Archbishops were better not admitted. They meant to use +this letter (IV) on a later occasion, but they also meant to use some of +the other letters which Sprot (unknown to Spottiswoode) had confessed to +be forgeries. The archiepiscopal conscience might revolt at such an +infamy, Spottiswoode might tell the King, so the Scottish Government did +not then allow the Archbishop, or the public, to know that they had any +Logan letters. No letter at all came into open and public Court in 1608. +Hart cites a short one, from Gowrie to Logan. Gowrie hopes to see Logan, +or, at least, to send a trusty messenger, ‘anent the purpose you know. +But rather would I wish yourself to come, not only for that errand, but +for some other thing that I have to advise with you.’ There is no date +of place or day. This letter, harmless enough, was never produced in +Court, and Mr. Barbé supposes that it was a concoction of Hart’s. This +is an unlucky conjecture. The Haddington MSS. prove that Sprot really +recited Gowrie’s letter, or professed to do so, from memory, in one of +his private examinations. The prosecution never pretended to possess or +produce Gowrie’s letter. + +Next, Hart cites, _as Logan’s answer to Gowrie’s first letter_ (which it +was not), the passages already quoted by the prosecution in Sprot’s +Indictment, passages out of a letter of Logan’s given by Sprot from +memory only. Hart goes on to describe, as if on Sprot’s testimony, +certain movements of the Laird’s after he received Gowrie’s reply to his +own answer to Gowrie. Logan’s letter (as given in 1609) is dated July +29, and it is argued that his movements, after receiving Gowrie’s reply, +are inconsistent with any share in the plot which failed on August 5. +Even if it were so, the fact is unimportant, for Sprot was really +speaking of movements at a date much earlier than July 29; he later gave +a separate account of what Logan was doing at the time of the outbreak of +the plot, an account _not_ quoted by Hart, who fraudulently or +accidentally confused the dates. And next we find it as good as +explicitly stated, by Hart, that this letter of Logan’s to Gowrie was +never produced in open Court. ‘Being demanded where this above written +letter, written by Restalrig to the Earl of Gowrie, which was returned +again by James Bower, is now? Deponeth . . . that he (Sprot) left the +above written letter in his chest, among his writings, when he was taken +and brought away, and that it is closed and folded within a piece of +paper,’ so Hart declares in Abbot’s tract. He falsified the real facts. +He could not give the question as originally put to Sprot, for that +involved the publication of the fact that all the letters but one were +forged. The question in the authentic _private_ report ran thus: +‘Demanded where is that letter which Restalrig wrote to the Earl of +Gowrie, _whereupon the said George Sprot wrote and forged the missives +produced_?’ (August 10). + +The real letter of Logan to Gowrie, the only genuine letter (if in any +sense genuine), had not on August 10 been produced. The others were in +the hands of the Government. Hart, in his tract, veils these +circumstances. The Government meant to put the letters to their own +uses, on a later occasion, at the trial of the dead Logan. + +Meanwhile we must keep one fact steadily in mind. When Sprot confessed +to having forged treasonable letters in Logan’s handwriting (as +Calderwood correctly reports that he did confess), he _did not include +among them Letter IV_ (Logan to Gowrie July 29, 1600). _That_ letter was +never heard of by Sprot’s examiners till August 10, and never came into +the hands of his examiners till late on August 11, or early on August 12, +the day when Sprot was hanged. Spottiswoode was never made aware that +the letter had been produced. Why Sprot reserved this piece of evidence +so long, why, under the shadow of the gibbet, he at last produced it, we +shall later attempt to explain, though with but little confidence in any +explanation. + +Meanwhile, at Sprot’s public trial in 1608, the Government were the +conspirators. They burked the fact that they possessed plot-letters +alleged to be by Logan. They burked the fact that Sprot confessed all +these, with one or, perhaps, two exceptions, to be forgeries by himself. +What they quoted, as letters of Logan and Gowrie, were merely +descriptions of such letters given by Sprot from memory of their +contents. + + + + +XIV. THE LAIRD AND THE NOTARY + + +We have now to track Sprot through the labyrinth of his confessions and +evasions, as attested by the authentic reports of his private +examinations between July 5 and the day of his death. It will be +observed that, while insisting on his own guilt, and on that of Logan, he +produced no documentary evidence, no genuine letter attributed by him to +Logan, nothing but his own confessed forgeries, till the cord was almost +round his neck—if he did then. + +In his confessions he paints with sordid and squalid realism, the life of +a debauched laird, tortured by terror, and rushing from his fears to +forgetfulness in wine, travel, and pleasure; and to strange desperate +dreams of flight. As a ‘human document’ the confessions of Sprot are +unique, for that period. + +On July 5, 1608, Sprot, in prison, wrote, in his own ordinary hand, the +tale of how he knew of Logan’s guilt: the letter was conveyed to the Earl +of Dunbar, who, with Dunfermline, governed Scotland, under the absent +King. The prisoner gave many sources of his knowledge, but the real +source, if any (Letter IV), he reserved till he was certain of death +(August 10). Sprot ‘knew perfectly,’ he said, on July 5, that one letter +from Gowrie and one from his brother, Alexander Ruthven, reached Logan, +at Fastcastle and at Gunnisgreen, a house hard by Eyemouth, where Sprot +was a notary, and held cottage land. {183} Bower carried Logan’s +answers, and ‘long afterwards’ showed Sprot ‘the first of Gowrie’s +letters’ (the harmless one about desiring an interview) and also a note +of Logan’s to Bower himself, ‘which is amongst the rest of the letters +produced.’ It is No. II, but in this confession of July 5, Sprot appears +to say that Gowrie’s innocent letter to Logan, asking for an interview, +was the source of his forgeries. ‘I framed them all to the true meaning +and purpose of the letter that Bower let me see, to make the matter more +clear by these arguments and circumstances, for the cause which I have +already’ (before July 5) ‘shewn to the Lords’—that is, for purposes of +extorting money from Logan’s executors. + +This statement was untrue. The brief letter to Logan from Gowrie was not +the model of Sprot’s forgeries; as he later confessed he had another +model, in a letter of Logan to Gowrie, which he held back till the last +day of his life. But in this confession of July 5, Sprot admits that he +saw, not only Gowrie’s letter to Logan of July 6 (?) 1600 (a letter never +produced), but also a ‘direction’ or letter from Logan to his retainer, +Bower, dated ‘The Canongate, July 18, 1600.’ This is our Letter II. Had +it been genuine, then, taken with Gowrie’s letter to Logan, it must have +aroused Sprot’s suspicions. But this Letter II, about which Sprot told +discrepant tales, is certainly not genuine. It is dated, as we said, +‘The Canongate, July 18, 1600.’ Its purport is to inform Bower, then at +Brockholes, near Eyemouth, that Logan had received a _new_ letter from +Gowrie, concerning certain proposals already made orally to him by the +Master of Ruthven. Logan hoped to get the lands of Dirleton for his +share in the enterprise. He ends ‘keep all things very secret, that my +Lord, my brother’ (Lord Home) ‘get no knowledge of our purposes, for I’ +(would) ‘rather be _eirdit quick_,’ that is, buried alive (p. 205). + +Now we shall show, later, the source whence Sprot probably borrowed this +phrase as to Lord Home, and being _eirdit quick_, which he has introduced +into his forged letter. Moreover, the dates are impossible. The first +of the five letters purports to be from Logan to an unnamed conspirator, +addressed as ‘Right Honourable Sir.’ It is not certain whether this +letter was in the hands of the prosecution before the day preceding +Sprot’s execution, nor is it certain whether it is ever alluded to by +Sprot under examination. But it is dated from Fastcastle on July 18, and +tells the unknown conspirator that Logan has just heard from Gowrie. It +follows that Logan had heard from Gowrie on July 18 at Fastcastle, that +he thence rode to Edinburgh, and from Edinburgh wrote his letter (II) to +Bower, bidding Bower hasten to Edinburgh, to consult. This is absurd. +Logan would have summoned Bower from Fastcastle, much nearer Bower’s home +than Edinburgh. Again, in Letter I, Logan informs the unknown man that +he is to answer Gowrie ‘within ten days at furthest.’ That being so, he +does not need Bower in such a hurry, unless it be to carry the letter to +the Unknown. But, in that case, he would have summoned Bower from +Fastcastle, he would not have ridden to Edinburgh and summoned him +thence. Once more, Sprot later confessed, as we shall see, that this +letter to Bower was dictated to himself by Logan, and that the copy +produced, apparently in Logan’s hand, was forged by him from the letter +as dictated to him. He thus contradicted his earlier statement that +Letter II was shown to him by Bower. He never says that he was in +Edinburgh with Logan on July 18. Besides, it is not conceivable that, by +dictating Letter II to Sprot, Logan would have voluntarily put himself in +the power of the notary. + +This is a fair example of Sprot’s apparently purposeless lying. His real +interest throughout was to persuade the Government that he was giving +them genuine Logan letters. This, however, he denied, with truth, yet he +lied variously about the nature of his confessed forgeries. + +Sprot was so false, that Government might conceive his very confession of +having forged the letters to be untrue. The skill in handwriting of that +age could not detect them for impostures; Government might deem that he +had stolen genuine letters from Bower; letters which might legitimately +be produced as evidence. Indeed this charitable view is perhaps +confirmed by the extraordinary fact, to be later proved, that three +Edinburgh ministers, Mr. Hall, Mr. Hewat, and Mr. Galloway, with Mr. +Lumisden, minister of Duddingston, were present on occasions when Sprot +confessed to having forged the letters. Yet these four preachers said +nothing, as far as we hear, when the letters, confessedly forged, were +produced as evidence, in 1609, to ruin Logan’s innocent child. Did the +preachers think the letters genuine in spite of the confession that they +were forged? We shall see later, in any case, that the _contents_ of the +three letters to the Unknown, and a torn letter, when compared with +Letter IV, demonstrate that Sprot’s final confession to having forged +them on the model of IV is true; indeed the fact ought to have been +discovered, on internal evidence, even by critics unaware of his +confessions. + +We now pursue Sprot’s written deposition of July 5. He gives, as grounds +of his knowledge of Logan’s guilt, certain conversations among Logan’s +intimates, yeomen or ‘bonnet lairds,’ or servants, from which he inferred +that Logan was engaged in treason. Again, just before Logan’s death in +July 1606, he was delirious, and raved of forfeiture. But Logan had been +engaged in various treasons, so his ravings need not refer to the Gowrie +affair. He had been on Bothwell’s enterprises, and had privy dealings +with ‘Percy,’ probably Thomas Percy, who, in 1602, secretly visited Hume +of Manderston, a kinsman of Logan. That intrigue was certainly connected +merely with James’s succession to the English crown. But one of Logan’s +retainers, when this affair of Percy was spoken of among them, said, +according to Sprot, that the Laird had been engaged in treason ‘nearer +home.’ + +Sprot then writes that ‘about the time of the conspiracy,’ Logan, with +Matthew Logan, rode to Dundee, where they enjoyed a three days’ drinking +bout, and never had the Laird such a surfeit of wine. But this jaunt +could not be part of the Gowrie plot, and probably occurred after its +failure. Later, Sprot gave a different version of Logan’s conduct +immediately before and after Gowrie’s death. Once more, after Logan’s +death, one Wallace asked Sprot to be silent, if ever he had heard of ‘the +Laird’s conspiracy.’ Sprot ended by confessing contritely that he had +forged all the letters (except Letter IV) ‘to the true meaning and +purpose of the letter that Bower let me see,’ a passage already quoted, +and a falsehood. + +What was the ‘cause’ for which Sprot forged? It was a purpose to +blackmail, not Logan, but Logan’s heirs or executors, one of whom was +Lord Home. If Sprot wanted to get anything out of _them_, he could +terrify them by threatening to show the forged Logan letters, as genuine, +to the Government, so securing the ruin of Logan’s heirs by forfeiture. +He did not do this himself, but he gave forged letters, for money, to men +who were in debt to the dead Logan’s estate, and who might use the +letters to extort remission of what they owed. + +On July 15, Sprot was examined before Dunfermline, Dunbar, Hart, the +King’s Advocate (Sir Thomas Hamilton), and other gentlemen. He said +that, about July 6, 1600, Logan received a letter from Gowrie, which, two +days later, Bower showed to him at Fastcastle. This is the harmless +Gowrie letter, which Sprot now quoted from memory, as it is printed in +Hart’s official account. + +Now begins a new puzzle, caused by Sprot’s dates. Of these we can only +give a conjectural version, for the sake of argument. Logan received a +letter from Gowrie about July 6, 1600. He returned a reply, by Bower, +but when did Bower start with the reply? Let us say on July 9. Bower +returned, says Sprot, ‘within five days,’ with ‘a new letter’ from +Gowrie. That would bring us to July 14, but in Letters I and II, dated +July 18, Logan is informing his unknown correspondent, and Bower, of the +receipt of ‘a new letter’ from Gowrie. Why inform Bower of this, if +Bower was the bearer of the new letter? But the ‘new letter’ mentioned +in Letters I and II was brought by a retainer of Gowrie. In any case, +supposing by way of conjecture that Bower returned from Gowrie about July +15, he spent the night, says Sprot, with Logan at Gunnisgreen, and next +day (July 16) rode to Edinburgh with Bower, Boig of Lochend, and Matthew +Logan. In Edinburgh he remained ‘a certain short space,’ say four days, +which would bring us to July 20. Needless to say that this does not fit +Letter II, Logan to Bower, July 18, and Letter I, Logan to the Unknown, +Fastcastle, July 18. + +After Logan’s return from Edinburgh (which, according to Sprot, seems to +be of about July 20) Sprot heard Logan and Bower discuss some scheme by +which Logan should get Gowrie’s estate of Dirleton, without payment. +Bower said nothing could be done till Logan rode west himself. He +discouraged the whole affair, but Logan said, in the hearing of several +persons, that he would hazard his life with Gowrie. Lady Restalrig +blamed Bower for making Logan try to sell the lands of Fastcastle (they +were not sold till 1602), of which Bower protested his innocence. This +was _after_ Logan’s return from Edinburgh (say July 20; that is, say five +days after Logan’s return, say July 25). Bower and Logan had a long +conference in the open air. Sprot was lounging and spying about beside +the river; a sea-fisher had taken a basket of blenneys, or ‘green-banes.’ +Logan called to Sprot to bring him the fish, and they all supped. Before +supper, however, Sprot walked about with Bower, and tried to ‘pump’ him +as to what was going forward. Bower said that ‘the Laird should get +Dirleton without either gold or silver, but he feared it should be as +dear to him. They had another pie in hand than the selling of land.’ +Bower then asked Sprot not to meddle, for he feared that ‘in a few days +the Laird would be either landless or lifeless.’ + +Certainly this is a vivid description; Bower and Logan were sitting on a +bench ‘at the byre end;’ Sprot, come on the chance of a supper, was +peeping and watching; Peter Mason, the angler, at the river side, ‘near +the stepping stones,’ had his basket of blenneys on his honest back, his +rod or net in his hand; the Laird was calling for the fish, was taking a +drink, and, we hope, offering a drink to Mason. Then followed the lounge +and the talk with Bower before supper, all in the late afternoon of a +July day, the yellow light sleeping on the northern sea below. Vivid +this is, and plausible, but is it true? + +We have reached the approximate date of July 25 (though, of course, after +an interval of eight years, Sprot’s memory of dates must be vague). Next +day (July 26) Logan, with Bower and others, rode to Nine Wells (where +David Hume the philosopher was born), thence, the same night, back to +Gunnisgreen, next night, July 27, to Fastcastle, and thence to Edinburgh. +This brings us (allowing freely for error of memory) to about July 27, +‘the hinder end of July,’ says Sprot. If we make allowance for a +vagueness of four or five days, this does not fit in badly. Logan’s +letter to Gowrie (No. IV), which Sprot finally said that he used as a +model for his forgeries, is dated ‘Gunnisgreen, July 29.’ ‘At the +beginning of August,’ says Sprot (clearly there are four or five days +lost in the reckoning), Logan and Bower, with Matthew Logan and Willie +Crockett, rode to Edinburgh, ‘_and there stayed three days_, and the +Laird, with Matthew Logan, came home, and Bower came to his own house of +the Brockholes, where he stayed four days,’ and then was sent for by +Logan, ‘and the Laird was very sad and sorry,’ obviously because of the +failure of the plot on August 5. + +How do these dates fit into the narrative? Logan was at Gunnisgreen (his +letter (IV) proves it) on July 29. (Later we show another error of +Sprot’s on this point.) He writes that he is sending Bower as bearer of +his letter to Gowrie. If Bower left Edinburgh on July 30, he could +deliver the letter to Gowrie, at Perth, on August 2, and be back in +Edinburgh (whither Logan now went) on August 5, and Logan could leave +Edinburgh on August 6, after hearing of the deaths of his +fellow-conspirators. We must not press Sprot too hard as to dates so +remote in time. We may grant that Bower, bearing Logan’s letter of July +29, rode with Logan and the others to Edinburgh; that at Edinburgh Logan +awaited his return, with a reply; that he thence learned that August 5 +was the day for the enterprise, and that, early on August 6, he heard of +its failure, and rode sadly home: all this being granted for the sake of +argument. + +Had the news of August 6 been that the King had mysteriously disappeared, +we may conceive that Logan would have hurried to Dirleton, met the +Ruthvens there, with their prisoner, and sailed with them to Fastcastle. +Or he might have made direct to Fastcastle, and welcomed them there. His +reason for being at Restalrig or in the Canongate was to get the earliest +news from Perth, brought across Fife, and from Bruntisland to Leith. + +Whether correct or not, this scheme, allowing for lapse of memory as to +dates, is feasible. Who can, remote from any documents, remember the +dates of occurrences all through a month now distant by eight years? +There were no daily newspapers, no ready means of ascertaining a date. +Queen Mary’s accusers, in their chronological account of her movements +about the time of Darnley’s death, are often out in their dates. In +legal documents of the period the date of the day of the month of an +event is often left blank. This occurs in the confirmation of Logan’s +own will. ‘He died --- July, 1606.’ When lawyers with plenty of leisure +for inquiry were thus at a loss for dates of days of the month (having +since the Reformation no Saints’ days to go by), Sprot, in prison, might +easily go wrong in his chronology. + + [Picture: Fastcastle] + +In any case, taking Letter IV provisionally as genuine in substance, we +note that, on July 29, Logan did not yet know the date fixed for Gowrie’s +enterprise. He suggested ‘the beginning of harvest,’ and, by August 5, +harvest had begun. One of the Perth witnesses was reaping in the ‘Morton +haugh,’ when he heard the town bell call the citizens to arms. But +Gowrie must have acted in great haste, Logan not knowing, till, say, +August 2 or 3, the date of a plot that exploded on August 5. + +Gowrie may have thought, as Lord Maxwell said when arranging his escape +from Edinburgh Castle, ‘Sic interprysis are nocht effectuat with +deliberationis and advisments, bot with suddane resolutionis.’ + +It is very important, we must freely admit, as an argument against the +theory of carrying James to Logan’s impregnable keep of Fastcastle, that +only one question, in our papers, is asked as to the provisioning of +Fastcastle, and _that_ merely as to the supply of drink! Possibly this +had been ascertained in Sprot’s earlier and unrecorded examinations +(April 19-July 5). One poor hogshead of wine (a trifle to Logan) had +been sent in that summer; so Matthew Logan deponed. As Logan had often +used Fastcastle before, for treasonable purposes, he was not (it may be +supposed) likely to leave it without provisions. Moreover these could be +brought by sea, from Dirleton, where Carey (August 11) says that Gowrie +had stored ‘all his provision.’ Moreover Government did not wish to +prove intent to _kidnap_ the King. That was commonly regarded as a +harmless constitutional practice, not justifying the slaughter of the +Ruthvens. From the first, Government insisted that _murder_ was +intended. In the Latin indictment of the dead Logan this is again dwelt +on; Fastcastle is only to be the safe haven of the murderers. This is a +misreading of Letter IV, where Fastcastle is merely spoken of as to be +used for a meeting, and ‘the concluding of our plot.’ + +Thus it cannot be concealed that, on July 29 (granting Letter IV to have +a basis), the plot, as far as Logan knew, was ‘in the air.’ If +Fastcastle was to be used by the conspirators, it must have been taken in +the rough, on the chance that it was provided, or that Gowrie could bring +his own supplies from Dirleton by sea. This extreme vagueness undeniably +throws great doubt on Logan’s part in the plot; Letter IV, if genuine, +being the source of our perplexity. But, if it is not genuine, that is, +_in substance_, there is only rumour, later to be discussed, to hint that +Logan was in any way connected with Gowrie. + +We left Bower and Logan conversing dolefully some days after the failure +of the plot. At this point the perhaps insuperable difficulty arises, +why did they not, as soon as they returned from Edinburgh, destroy every +inch of paper connected with the conspiracy? One letter at least +(Logan’s to Gowrie, July 29) was not burned, according to Sprot, but was +later stolen by himself from Bower; though he reserved _this_ confession +to the last day of his life but two. We might have expected Logan to +take the letter from Bower as soon as they met, and to burn or, for that +matter, swallow it if no fire was convenient! Yet, according to Sprot, +in his final confession, Logan let Bower keep the damning paper for +months. If this be true, we can only say _quos Deus vult perdere prius +dementat_. People do keep damning letters, constant experience proves +the fact. + +After Bower had met Logan in his melancholy mood, he rode away, and +remained absent for four days, on what errand Sprot did not know, and +during the next fortnight, while Scotland was ringing with the Gowrie +tragedy, Sprot saw nothing of Logan. + +Next, Logan went to church at Coldinghame, on a Sunday, and met Bower: +next day they dined together at Gunnisgreen. Bower was gloomy. Logan +said, ‘Be it as it will, I must take my fortune, and I will tell you, +Laird Bower, the scaffold is the best death that a man can die.’ Logan, +if he said this, must have been drunk; he very often was. + +It was at this point, in answer to a question, that Sprot confessed that +Logan’s letter to Bower (No. II) was a forgery by himself. The actual +letter, Sprot said, was dictated by Logan to him, and he made a +counterfeit copy in imitation of Logan’s handwriting. We have stated the +difficulties involved in this obvious falsehood. Sprot was trying every +ruse to conceal his alleged source and model, Letter IV. + +Sprot was next asked about a certain memorandum by Logan directed to +Bower and to one John Bell, in 1605. This document was actually found in +Sprot’s ‘pocquet’ when he was arrested, and it contained certain very +compromising items. Sprot replied that he forged the memorandum, in the +autumn of 1606, when he forged the other letters. He copied most of it +from an actual but innocent note of Logan’s on business matters, and +added the compromising items out of his own invention. He made three +copies of this forgery, one was produced; he gave another to a man named +Heddilstane or Heddilshaw, a dweller in Berwick, in September 1607; the +third, ‘in course hand,’ he gave to another client, ‘the goodman of +Rentoun,’ Hume. One was to be used to terrorise Logan’s executors, to +whom Heddilstane, but not Rentoun, was in debt. Sprot’s words are +important. ‘He omitted nothing that was in the original’ (Logan’s +memorandum on business matters), ‘but _eikit_’ (added) ‘two articles to +his copy, the one concerning Ninian Chirnside’ (as to a dangerous +plot-letter lost by Bower), ‘the other, where the Laird ordered Bower to +tear his missive letters. _He grants that he wrote another copy with his +course hand_, _copied from his copy_, and gave it to the goodman of +Rentoun,’ while the copy given to Heddilstane ‘was of his counterfeited +writing,’ an imitation of Logan’s hand. + + [Picture: Handwriting of Logan (January 1585–6)] + +Perhaps Sprot had two methods and scales of blackmail. For one, he +invented damning facts, and wrote them out in imitation of Logan’s +writing. The other species was cheaper: a copy in his ‘course hand’ of +his more elaborate forgeries in Logan’s hand. Now the two copies of +Letters I and IV, which, at the end of his life, as we shall see, Sprot +attested by signed endorsements, were in his ‘course hand.’ He had them +ready for customers, when he was arrested in April 1608, and they were +doubtless found in his ‘kist’ on the day before his death, with the +alleged original of Letter IV. Up to August 11, at a certain hour, +Government had neither the alleged original, nor Sprot’s ‘course hand +copy’ of Letter IV, otherwise he would not have needed to quote IV from +memory, as he did on that occasion. + +Among these minor forgeries, to be used in blackmailing operations, was a +letter nominally from Logan to one Ninian or Ringan Chirnside. This man +was a member of the family of Chirnside of Easter Chirnside; his own +estate was Whitsumlaws. All these Chirnsides and Humes of Berwickshire +were a turbulent and lawless gang, true borderers. Ninian is addressed, +by Logan, as ‘brother;’ they were most intimate friends. It was Ninian +who (as the endorsement shows) produced our Letter V, on April 19; he had +purchased it, for the usual ends, from Sprot, being a great debtor (as +Logan’s will proves) to his estate. + +To track these men through the background of history is to have a notion +of the Day of Judgment. Old forgotten iniquities and adventures leap to +light. Chirnside, like Logan and the Douglases of Whittingham, and John +Colville, and the Laird of Spot, had followed the fortunes of wild Frank +Stewart, Earl of Bothwell, and nephew of the Bothwell of Queen Mary. +Frank Bothwell was driven into his perilous courses by a charge of +practising witchcraft against the King’s life. Absurd as this sounds, +Bothwell had probably tried it for what it was worth. When he was +ruined, pursued, driven, child of the Kirk as he seemed, into the +Catholic faction, his old accomplice, Colville, took a solemn farewell of +him. ‘By me your lordship was cleared of the odious imputation of +witchcraft . . . but God only knows how far I hazarded my conscience in +making black white, and darkness light for your sake’ (September 12, +1594). {198} + +After Bothwell, when he trapped the King by aid of Lady Gowrie (July +1593), recovered power for a while, he defended himself on this charge of +witchcraft. He _had_ consulted and employed the wizard, Richard Graham, +who now accused him of attempting the King’s life by sorcery. But he had +only employed Graham to heal the Earl of Angus, himself dying of +witchcraft. Bothwell was charged with employing a retainer, _Ninian_ +Chirnside, to arrange more than twenty-one meetings with the wizard +Graham; the result being the procurement of a poison, ‘adder skins, toad +skins, and the hippomanes in the brain of a young foal,’ to ooze the +juices on the King, ‘a poison of such vehemency as should have presently +cut him off.’ Isobel Gowdie, accused of witchcraft in 1622, confessed to +having employed a similar charm. {199a} All this Bothwell, instructed by +Colville, denied, but admitted that he had sent Ninian Chirnside twice to +the wizard, all in the interests of the dying Earl of Angus. {199b} + +This Chirnside, then, was a borderer prone to desperate enterprises and +darkling rides, and midnight meetings with the wizard Graham in lonely +shepherds’ cottages, as was alleged. He could also sink to blackmailing +the orphan child of his ‘brother,’ Logan of Restalrig. + +To go on with Sprot’s confessions; he had forged, he said, receipts from +Logan to the man named Edward or Ned Heddilstane for some of the money +which Heddilstane owed him. For these forgeries his client paid him +well, if not willingly. Sprot frequently blackmailed Ned, ‘whenever he +want siller.’ + +It must be granted that Sprot was a liar so complex, and a forger so +skilled (for the time, that is), that nothing which he said or produced +can be reckoned, as such, as evidence. On the other hand, his power of +describing or inventing scenes, real or fictitious, was of high artistic +merit, so that he appears occasionally either to deviate into truth, or +to have been a realistic novelist born centuries too early. Why then, it +may be asked, do we doubt that Sprot may have forged, without a genuine +model, Letter IV? The answer will appear in due time. Letter IV, as +Sprot confessed, is certainly the model of all the letters which he +forged, whether those produced or those suppressed. He was afraid to +wander from his model, which he repeated in Letters I (?), III, V, and in +the unproduced letters, including one which we have found in twelve torn +fragments, with the signature missing. + + + + +XV. THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF THE NOTARY + + +On July 16, Sprot was again examined. Spottiswoode, Archbishop of +Glasgow, the historian, was present, on this occasion only, with +Dunfermline, Dunbar, Sir Thomas Hamilton, Hart, and other nobles and +officials. None of them signs the record, which, in this case only, is +merely attested by the signature of Primrose, the Clerk of Council, one +of Lord Rosebery’s family. In this session Sprot said nothing about +forging the letters. The Archbishop was not to know. + +Asked if he had any more reminiscences, Sprot said that, in November +1602, Fastcastle having been sold, Logan asked Bower ‘for God’s sake’ to +bring him any of the letters about the Gowrie affair which he might have +in keeping. Bower said that he had no dangerous papers except one letter +from Alexander Ruthven, and another from ‘Mr. Andro Clerk.’ This Clerk +was a Jesuit, who chiefly dealt between Spain and the Scotch Catholics. +He was involved in the affair called ‘The Spanish Blanks’ (1593), and +visited the rebel Catholic peers of the North, Angus, Errol, and Huntly. +{202} Logan, like Bothwell, was ready to intrigue either with the Kirk or +the Jesuits, and he seems to have had some personal acquaintance with +Father Andrew. + +Bower left Logan, to look for these letters at his own house at +Brockholes, and Logan passed a night of sleepless anxiety. One of the +mysteries of the case is that Logan entrusted Bower, who could not read, +with all his papers. If one of them was needed, Bower had to employ a +person who could read to find it: probably he used, as a rule, the help +of his better educated son, Valentine. After Logan’s restless night, +Bower returned with the two letters, Ruthven’s and Clerk’s, which Logan +‘burned in the fire.’ + +(Let it be remembered that Sprot has not yet introduced Letter IV into +his depositions, though that was by far the most important.) + + [Picture: Hand of Logan as forged by Sprot] + +After burning Clerk’s and Ruthven’s letters, Logan dictated to Sprot a +letter to John Baillie of Littlegill, informing him of the fact. Bower +rode off with the letter, and Logan bade Sprot be silent about all these +things, for he had learned, from Bower, that Sprot knew a good deal. +Here the amateur of the art of fiction asks, why did Sprot drag in Mr. +John Baillie of Littlegill? If Logan, as Sprot swore, informed Baillie +about the burned letters, then Baillie had a guilty knowledge of the +conspiracy. Poor Baillie was instantly ‘put in ward’ under the charge of +the Earl of Dunfermline. But, on the day after Sprot was hanged, namely +on August 13, Baillie was set free, on bail of 10,000 marks to appear +before the Privy Council if called upon. Three of Sprot’s other victims, +Maul, Crockett, and William Galloway, were set free on their personal +recognisances, but Mossman and Matthew Logan were kept in prison, and +Chirnside was not out of danger of the law for several years, as we learn +from the Privy Council Register. Nothing was ever proved against any of +these men. After the posthumous trial of Logan (June 1609) the King bade +the Council discharge John Baillie from his bail, ‘as we rest now fully +persuaded that there was no just cause of imputation against the said +John.’ So the Register of the Privy Council informs us. {203} Thus, if +Sprot told the truth about all these men, no corroborative facts were +discovered, while the only proofs of his charges against Logan were the +papers which, with one exception, he confessed to be forgeries, executed +by himself, for purposes of extortion. + +To go on with his confessions: The Christmas of 1602 arrived, and ‘The +Laird keepit ane great Yule at Gunnisgreen.’ On the third day of the +feast, Logan openly said to Bower, at table, ‘I shall sleep better this +night than that night when I sent you for the letters’ (in November), +‘for now I am sure that none of these matters will ever come to further +light, if you be true.’ Bower answered, ‘I protest before God I shall be +counted the most damnable traitor in the world, if any man on earth know, +for I have buried them.’ + +After supper, Bower and Logan called Sprot out on to the open hill-side. +Logan said that Bower confessed to having shown Sprot a letter of +Gowrie’s. What, he asked, did Sprot think of the matter? Sprot, with +protestations of loyalty, said that he thought that Logan had been in the +Gowrie conspiracy. Logan then asked for an oath of secrecy, promising +‘to be the best sight you ever saw,’ and taking out 12_l._ (Scots) bade +Sprot buy corn for his children. Asked who were present at the scene of +the supper, Sprot named eight yeomen. ‘The lady’ (Lady Restalrig) ‘was +also present at table that night, and at her rising she said, “The Devil +delight in such a feast, that will make all the children weep hereafter,” +and this she spoke, as she went past the end of the table. And, after +entering the other chamber, she wept a while, ‘and we saw her going up +and down the chamber weeping.’ + +A fortnight later, Lady Restalrig blamed Bower for the selling of +Fastcastle. Bower appealed to Logan; it was Logan’s fault, not his. +‘One of two things,’ said Bower, ‘must make you sell your lands; either +you think your children are bastards, or you have planned some treason.’ +The children were not those of Lady Restalrig, but by former marriages. +Logan replied, ‘If I had all the land between the Orient and the +Occident, I would sell the same, and, if I could not get money for it, I +would give it to good fellows.’ On another occasion Logan said to Bower, +‘I am for no land, I told you before and will tell you again. You have +not learned the art of memory.’ + +In fact, Logan did sell, not only Fastcastle, but Flemington and +Restalrig. We know how the Scot then clung to his acres. Why did Logan +sell all? It does not appear, as we have shown, that he was in debt. If +he had been, his creditors would have had him ‘put to the horn,’ +proclaimed a recalcitrant debtor, and the record thereof would be found +in the Privy Council Register. But there is no such matter. Sprot +supposed that Logan wished to turn his estates into money, to be ready +for flight, if the truth ever came out. The haste to sell all his lands +is certainly a suspicious point against Logan. He kept on giving Sprot +money (hush money, and for forgeries to defraud others, sometimes) and +taking Sprot’s oath of secrecy. + +A remarkable anecdote follows; remarkable on this account. In the letter +(II) which Logan is said by Sprot to have written to Bower (July 18, +1600) occurs the phrase, ‘Keep all things very secret, that my lord my +brother get no knowledge of our purposes, _for I rather be eirdit +quik_’—would rather be buried alive (p. 184). This ‘my lord my brother’ +is obviously meant for Alexander, sixth Lord Home, whose father, the +fifth lord, had married Agnes, sister of Patrick, sixth Lord Gray, and +widow of Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig. By Sir Robert, Lady Restalrig +had a son, the Logan of this affair; and, when, after Sir Robert’s death, +she married the fifth Lord Home, she had to him a son, Alexander, sixth +Lord Home. Our Logan and the sixth Lord Home were, therefore, brothers +uterine. {206a} + +Now, if we accept as genuine (in substance) the one letter which Sprot +declared to be really written by Logan (No. IV), Gowrie was anxious that +Home, a person of great importance, Warden on the Border, should be +initiated into the conspiracy. As Gowrie had been absent from Scotland, +between August 1594 (when he, as a lad, was in league with the wild +king-catcher, Francis Stewart of Bothwell), and May 1600, we ask, what +did Gowrie know of Home, and why did he think him an useful recruit? The +answer is that (as we showed in another connection, p. 130) Gowrie was in +Paris in February-April 1600, that Home was also in Paris at the same +time (arriving in Scotland, at his house of Douglas, April 18, 1600), and +that Home did not go to Court, on his return, owing to the King’s +displeasure because of his ‘trysting with Bothwell’ in Brussels. {206b} + +Here then we have, in March 1600, Gowrie and Home, in Paris, and +Bothwell, the King-catcher, meeting Home in Brussels. Therefore, when +Letter IV represents Gowrie as anxious to bring Home, who had been +consulting Bothwell, into his plot, nothing can be more natural. Gowrie +himself conceivably met his old rebellious ally, Bothwell; he was certain +to meet Home in Paris, and Home, owning Douglas Castle and Home Castle +near the Border, would have been a most serviceable assistant. It must +also be remembered that Home was, at heart, a Catholic, a recent and +reluctant Protestant convert, ‘compelled to come in,’ by the Kirk. +Bothwell was a Catholic; Gowrie, he declared, was another; Logan was a +trafficker with Jesuits, and an ‘idolater’ in the matter of ‘keeping +great Yules.’ Logan, however, if Letter IV is genuine, in substance, +wrote that he ‘utterly dissented’ from Gowrie’s opinion. He would not +try his brother’s, Home’s, mind in the matter, or ‘consent that he ever +should be counsellor thereto, for, in good faith, he will never help his +friend, nor harm his foe.’ + +Such being the relations (if we accept Letter IV as in substance genuine) +between Gowrie, Home, and Logan, we can appreciate Sprot’s anecdote, now +to be given, concerning Lady Home. Logan, according to Sprot, said to +him, in Edinburgh, early in 1602, ‘Thou rememberest what my Lady Home +said to me, when she would not suffer my lord to subscribe my contract +for Fentoun, because I would not allow two thousand marks to be kept out +of the security, and take her word for them? She said to me, _which was +a great knell to my heart_, that since her coming to the town, she knew +that I had been in some dealing with the Earl of Gowrie about Dirleton.’ +Now Dirleton, according to Sprot, was to have been Logan’s payment from +Gowrie, for his aid in the plot. + +Logan then asked Sprot if he had blabbed to Lady Home, but Sprot replied +that ‘he had never spoken to her Ladyship but that same day, although he +had read the contract’ (as to Fentoun) ‘before him and her in the abbey,’ +of Coldingham, probably. Logan then requested Sprot to keep out of Lady +Home’s sight, lest she should ask questions, ‘_for I had rather be eirdit +quick than either my Lord or she knew anything of it_.’ + +Now, in Letter II (July 18, 1600), from Logan to Bower, Logan, as we saw, +is made to write, ‘See that my Lord, my brother, gets no knowledge of our +purposes, _for I_ (_sic_) _rather be eirdit quik_.’ The phrase recurs in +another of the forged letters not produced in court. + +It is thus a probable inference that Logan did use this expression to +Sprot, in describing the conversation about Lady Home, and that Sprot +inserted it into his forged Letter II (Logan to Bower). But, clever as +Sprot was, he is scarcely likely to have invented the conversation of +Logan with Lady Home, arising out of Logan’s attempt to do some business +with Lord Home about Fentoun. A difficulty, raised by Lady Home, led up +to the lady’s allusion to Dirleton, ‘which was a great knell to my +heart,’ said Logan. This is one of the passages which indicate a basis +of truth in the confessions of Sprot. Again, as Home and Gowrie were in +Paris together, while Bothwell was in Brussels, in February 1600, and as +Home certainly, and Gowrie conceivably, met Bothwell, it may well have +been that Gowrie heard of Logan from Bothwell, the old ally of both, and +marked him as a useful hand. Moreover, he could not but have heard of +Logan’s qualities and his keep, Fastcastle, in the troubles and +conspiracies of 1592–1594. After making these depositions, Sprot +attested them, with phrases of awful solemnity, ‘were I presently within +one hour to die.’ He especially insisted that he had written, to Logan’s +dictation, the letter informing John Baillie of Littlegill that all +Gowrie’s papers were burned. As we saw, in November 1609, the King +deliberately cleared Baillie of all suspicion. There could be no +evidence. Bower, the messenger, was dead. + +Baillie was now called. He denied on oath that he had ever received the +letter from Logan. He had never seen Gowrie, ‘except on the day he came +first home, and rode up the street of Edinburgh.’ Confronted with +Baillie, ‘Sprot abides by his deposition.’ + +Willie Crockett was then called. He had been at Logan’s ‘great Yule’ in +Gunnisgreen, where Logan, according to Sprot, made the imprudent +speeches. Crockett had also been at Dundee with Logan, he said, but it +was in the summer of 1603. He did not hear Logan’s imprudent speech to +Bower, at the Yule supper. As to the weeping of Lady Restalrig, he had +often seen her weep, and heard her declare that Logan would ruin his +family. He only remembered, as to the Yule supper, a quarrel between +Logan and Willie Home. + +This was the only examination at which Archbishop Spottiswoode attended. +Neither he nor any of the Lords (as we have said already) signed the +record, which is attested only by James Primrose, Clerk of Council, +signing at the foot of each page. Had the Lords ‘quitted the diet’? + +The next examination was held on July 22, Dunfermline, Dunbar, Sir Thomas +Hamilton, the President of the Court of Session, and other officials, all +laymen, being present. Sprot incidentally remarked that Logan visited +London, in 1603, after King James ascended the English throne. Logan +appears to have gone merely for pleasure; he had seen London before, in +the winter of 1586. On his return he said that he would ‘never bestow a +groat on such vanities’ as the celebration of the King’s holiday, August +5, the anniversary of the Gowrie tragedy; adding ‘when the King has cut +off all the noblemen of the country he will live at ease.’ But many +citizens disliked the 5th of August holiday as much as Logan did. + + [Picture: Handwriting of Sprot] + +In the autumn of 1605, Logan again visited London. In Sprot’s account of +his revels there, and his bad reception, we have either proof of Logan’s +guilt, if the tale be true, or high testimony to Sprot’s powers as an +artist in fiction. He says that Matthew Logan accompanied the Laird to +town in September 1605, and in November was sent back with letters to +Bower. Eight days later, Matthew took Sprot to Coldingham, to meet +Bower, and get his answer to the letters. It was a Sunday; these +devotees heard sermon, and then dined together at John Corsar’s. After +dinner Bower took Sprot apart, and showed him two letters. Would Sprot +read to him the first few words, that he might know which letter he had +to answer? The first letter shown (so Sprot writes on the margin of his +recorded deposition) referred to the money owed to Logan, by the Earl of +Dunbar, for Gunnisgreen and the lands of Remington. Logan had expected +to get the purchase money from Dunbar in London; he never got more than +18,000 out of 33,000 marks. Sprot wrote for Bower the answer to this +business letter, and gave it to Matthew Logan to be sent to Logan in +London. Matthew, being interrogated, denied that he sent any letter back +to Logan, though he owned that Sprot wrote one; and he denied that Sprot +and Bower had any conference at all on the occasion. But Sprot had +asserted that the conference with Bower occurred after Matthew Logan left +them at Corsar’s house, where they dined, as Matthew admitted, after +sermon. Matthew denied too much. + +A curious conference it was. Bower asked Sprot to read to him the other +of Logan’s two letters, directed to himself. It ran, ‘Laird Bower,—I wot +not what I should say or think of this world! It is very hard to trust +in any man, for apparently there is no constancy or faithfulness. For +since I cam here they whom I thought to have been my most entire friends +have uttered to me most injurie, and have given me the defiance, and say +I am not worthy to live, “and if the King heard what has moved you to put +away all your lands, and _debosch_ yourself, you would not make such +merryness, and play the companion in London, as you do so near his +Majestie.”’ + +Logan went on to express his fear that Bower’s rash speeches had roused +these suspicions of ‘the auld misterie ye ken of.’ ‘God forgive you, but +I have had no rest since these speeches were upcast to me.’ Bower was to +take great care of this letter, ‘for it is within three letters +enclosed,’ and is confided to Matthew Logan (who travelled by sea) as a +trusty man. + +Bower was much moved by this melancholy letter, and denied that he had +been gossiping. He had twice, before Logan rode south, advised him to be +very careful never even to mention the name of Gowrie. + +Sprot said that he, too, was uneasy, for, if anything came out, he +himself was in evil case. Logan visited France, as well as London, at +this time; he returned home in the spring of 1606, but Bower expressed +the belief that he would go on to Spain, ‘to meet Bothwell and Father +Andrew Clerk, and if he come home it will be rather to die in his own +country than for any pleasure he has to live.’ Bothwell and Father +Andrew, of course, were both Catholic intriguers, among whom Bothwell +reckoned Logan and Gowrie. + +Now the letter to Bower here attributed to Logan, telling of the new +‘knell at his heart’ when he is rebuked and insulted as he plays the +merry companion in London, and near the Court; his touching complaint of +the falseness of the world (he himself being certainly the blackest of +traitors), with the distress of Bower, do make up a very natural +description. The ghost of his guilt haunts Logan, he cannot drown it in +a red sea of burgundy: life has lost its flavour; if he returns, it will +be with the true Scottish desire to die in his own country, though of his +ancient family’s lands he has not kept an acre. Pleasant rich Restalrig, +strong Fastcastle, jolly Gunnisgreen of the ‘great Yules,’ all are gone. +Nothing is left. + +Surely, if Sprot invented all this, he was a novelist born out of due +time. Either he told truth, or, in fiction, he rivalled De Foe. + +Matthew Logan, being called, contradicted Sprot, as we have already said. +He himself had seen Bower when he brought him Logan’s letter from London, +take his son, Valentine, apart, and knew that Valentine read a letter to +him. ‘It was a meikle letter,’ Matthew said, and, if Sprot tell truth, +it contained three enclosures. Bower may have stopped his son from +reading the melancholy and compromising epistle, and kept it to be read +by Sprot. Logan’s folly in writing at all was the madness that has +ruined so many men and women. + +Matthew could not remember having ridden to Edinburgh with Logan in July +1600, just before the Gowrie affair, as Sprot had declared that he did. +We could scarcely expect him to remember that. He could remember nothing +at all that was compromising, nothing of Logan’s rash speeches. As to +the Yule feast at Gunnisgreen, he averred that Lady Restalrig only said, +‘The Devil delight in such a feast that makes discord, and makes the +house ado’—that is, gives trouble. Asked if wine and beer were stored in +Fastcastle, in 1600, he said, as has already been stated, that a hogshead +of wine was therein. He himself, he said, had been ‘in the west,’ at the +time of the Gowrie tragedy, and first heard of it at Falkirk. + +On August 6, Sprot was interrogated again. Only lay lords were present: +there were no clergymen nor lawyers. He denied that he had received any +promise of life or reward. He asked to be confronted with Matthew Logan, +and reported a conversation between them, held when Lord Dunbar took +possession of Gunnisgreen. Matthew then hoped to ride with the Laird to +London (1605), but said, ‘Alas, Geordie Sprot, what shall we all do now, +now nothing is left? I was aye feared for it, for I know the Laird has +done some evil turn, and he will not bide in the country, and woe’s me +therefor.’ + +Sprot asked what the ‘evil turn’ was. Matthew answered, ‘I know well +enough, but, as the proverb goes, “what lies not in my way breaks not my +shins.”’ + +Sprot added that, after Bower’s death (January 1606), Logan wrote to him +from London, not having heard the news of his decease. Lady Restalrig +opened the letter and wrote a postscript ‘Give this to Laird Bower, for I +trow that he be ridden to Hell, as he ofttimes said to the Laird that he +would do.’ In Letter IV. Logan tells Gowrie that he believes Bower +‘would ride to Hell’s gate to pleasure him.’ + +Sprot was now asked about two letters. One of these (Logan to Chirnside) +is endorsed, ‘Production by Niniane Chirnesyde. XIII April 1608.’ +Another is Letter V, endorsed ‘produced by Ninian Chirnside,’ a fact +first noted by Mr. Anderson. Yet another is the letter in twelve torn +pieces. Logan, in the first of these three letters, requests Chirnside +to find a letter which Bower lost in Dunglas. The letter imperils +Logan’s life and lands. The date is September 23, and purports, falsely, +to be written before Logan goes to London (1605). Sprot explained that +he forged the letters, that Chirnside might blackmail Logan’s executors, +and make them forgive him the debts which (as Logan’s will proves) he +owed to the estate. + +Here we cite the letter of the twelve fragments. It is, of course, a +forgery by Sprot, to enable Chirnside to terrorise his creditors, Logan’s +executors. But, as it directly implicates Chirnside himself in the +Gowrie conspiracy, probably he disliked it, and tore it up. Yet the +artist could not part with his work; it still lies, now reconstructed, in +the old folio sheet of paper. The reader will remark that, like Letters +I (?), III, and V, this torn letter is a mere _pastiche_ framed (as Sprot +confessed) on ideas and expressions in Letter IV. + +_Letter found among the Haddington MSS. torn into thirteen pieces_ (_one +lost_)—_these have been placed in order_, _but at least one line of the +piece is wanting_. + +Brother, according to my promise the last day ve met in the kannogate I +have sent this berair to my lord vith my answer of all thingis, and, I +pray you ryde vith him till his lordschip, and bevar that he speik vith +na other person bot his lordschipis self and M.A. his lordschipis +brother, and specially let nocht his lordschipis pedagog [Mr. Rhynd] ken +ony thing of the matter, bot forder him hame agane, becawse the purpos is +parilouse, as ye knaw the danger. And yit for my ain part I protest +befoir God I sall keip trew condicion till his lordschip, and sall hasard +albeit it var to the vary skafald, and bid his lordschip tak nane other +opinion bot gude of the trustyness of this silly ald man [Bower] for I +dar baldlie concredit my lyf and all other thing I have elliss in this +varld onto his credit, and I trow he sall nocht frustrat my gude +expectacion. Burn or send bak agane as I did vith you, so till meitting, +and ever I rest, Yowre brother to power redy, Restalrige. + +Beseik his lordschip bavar [beware] that my lord my brother [Lord Home] +get na intelligense of thir towrnis as he lowfis all owr veillis, for be +God he vill be our greittest enemy. {217} + +(A line or more wanting) + + * * * * * + +On the same day (August 6) Sprot withdrew a deposition (made before July +5) that the Unknown, for whom Letters I, III, V were meant, was the Laird +of Kinfauns, Sir Harry Lindsay, who, in 1603, tried to shoot Patrick +Eviot, one of the Gowrie fugitives. The Constable of Dundee (Sir James +Scrymgeour) Sprot had also accused falsely. The Letters (I (?), III, V), +he says, were ‘imagined by me.’ + +On August 8, three ministers, Patrick Galloway, John Hall, and Peter +Hewatt, were present. The two former were now preachers of the courtly +party, the third received a pension of 500 marks from the King, after the +posthumous trial of Logan (1609), at which the five letters were +produced, but this reward may have been a mere coincidence. The +ministers Hall and Hewatt, in August 1600, had at first, as we saw, +declined to accept James’s version of the affair at Gowrie House (pp. +99–103). + +Sprot now confesses that he knows he is to die, deposes that no man has +promised him life, and that he has stated nothing in hope of life. With +tears he deplores that he has taken God’s name in vain, in swearing to +the truth of his depositions before that of July 5. His last five +depositions under examination are ‘true in all points and circumstances, +and he will go to the death with the same.’ + +‘Further the said George Sprot remembers that in the summertide of 1601, +the Laird of Restalrig had indented with the Lord Willoughby, then +Governor of Berwick, concerning my Lord’s ship then built and lying at +Berwick, whereof the Laird should have been equal partner with my Lord, +and to take voyage with the said ship, either by the Laird himself, or +some other person whom it pleased him to appoint . . . to pass to the +Indies, the Canarys, and through the Straits, for such conditions as were +set down in the indenture betwixt my Lord and him, which was framed by +Sir John Guevara,’ Willoughby’s cousin, the kidnapper of Ashfield in +1599. + +Now this ship of Lord Willoughby’s, at all events, was a real ship; and +here is a grain of fact in the narrative of Sprot. The ship was built by +Lord Willoughby to protect English commerce from the piracies of the +Dunkirkers. On March 28, 1601, he writes from Berwick to Cecil, ‘The +respect of my country and the pity of those hurt by such’ (the +Dunkirkers) ‘persuaded me to build a ship, and moves me now to offer to +serve her Majesty at as reasonable a rate as any ship of 140 tons, with +sixteen pieces of artillery, and 100 men can be maintained with. . . . +If this offer seem good to you and the Council, my ship shall presently +be fitted, if not I purpose to dispose otherwise of her’ (to Logan), +‘being not able to maintain her.’ (‘Border Calendar,’ ii. 738). On +April 19, Willoughby wrote that he had pursued, with his ship, a pirate +which had carried an English prize into the Forth. But he cannot, +unaided, maintain the ship, even for one summer. On June 14, Willoughby +‘took a great cold’ in his ship, lying at the haven mouth, awaiting a +wind, and died suddenly. On July 20, Carey says that his body has been +placed, with all honourable rites, on board his ship. + +It appears, then, that Willoughby, unable to maintain his ship, and not +subsidised by Government, in the summer of 1601 admitted Logan to a half +of the venture, carrying great expenses. Logan settled the business at +Robert Jackson’s house, in Bridge Street, Berwick, being accompanied by +Sprot, Bower, and Matthew Logan. Matthew said privately to Sprot, ‘Wae’s +me that ever I should see this day, that the Laird should grow a seaman! +I wot not what it means, for it is for no good, and I fear this shall be +one of the sorrowful blocks that ever the Laird made. It is true that I +have oft thought that the Laird would pass away, for he is minded to sell +all that he has, and would to God that he had never been born, what +should he do with such conditions, to go or to send to the sea? He might +have lived well enough at home. I find he has ever been _carried_’ +(excited), ‘and his mind has ever been set on passing out of the country +this year past,’ that is since the Gowrie affair. + +Now all this tale has much _vraisemblance_. The facts about Logan’s +adventure with Willoughby, stopped by Willoughby’s death, were easily +verifiable. Logan, at his death, owned a ship, rated at 500 marks (so we +read in his inventory), but this can hardly have been the ship of +Willoughby. He was restless, excited, selling land to supply a maritime +enterprise. + +At this time Lady Restalrig was deeply distressed, she wished Logan at +the Indies, if only he would first settle Flemington on herself. ‘If it +be God’s will, I desire never to have a child to him,’ she said. ‘I have +a guess what this mystery means, woe’s me for his motherless children,’ +that is, children of former marriages. Later, Lady Restalrig had a +daughter, Anna, by Logan. + +Matthew Logan, as usual, denied every word attributed to him by Sprot, +except regrets for his own condition. Matthew could do no less to save +his own life. + +On August 9, before other witnesses, and the Rev. Messrs. Galloway, Hall, +and Hewatt, Sprot solemnly confessed to having forged the letters in +Logan’s hand (then in possession of his examiners). On August 10, the +same clergymen and many Lords, and Hart, being present, Sprot came to the +point at last. Where, he was asked, after a prayer offered, at his +request, by Mr. Galloway, _was the letter of Logan to Gowrie_, _whereon_, +_as model_, _the rest were forged_? Now he had not previously mentioned, +as far as the reports go, a letter of Logan to Gowrie, as the model of +his forgeries. He had mentioned, as his model, the brief harmless letter +of Gowrie to Logan. On August 9, he had been very solemnly told that he +was to die, and that he would see the faces of the Lords of the Council +no more. Probably, after they left him, he told, to a minister or a +servant in the gaol, the fact that he had used, as his model, a letter +from Logan to Gowrie. The result was that he did again see, on August +10, the Lords of the Council, who asked him ‘where the letter now was.’ +This is Letter IV, the letter of Logan to Gowrie, of July 29, 1600. +Sprot, in place of answering directly, cited from memory, and +erroneously, the opening of the letter. He had read it, while it was +still unfinished, in July 1600, at Fastcastle. Logan, who had been +writing it, was called by Bower, went out, and thrust it between a bench +and the wall: there Sprot found, read, and restored the unfinished +epistle to its place. But the letter is dated ‘from Gunnisgreen,’ at the +conclusion. Logan, according to Sprot, left Gunnisgreen one day at the +end of July, 1600, or beginning of August, thence rode to Fastcastle, and +thence, next day, to Edinburgh (p. 190). + +Now Logan, in the letter (IV), says that he took two days to write it. +One day would be at Fastcastle, when he was interrupted; the other, the +day of dating, at Gunnisgreen. This, however, does not tally with +Sprot’s account (p. 190) of Logan’s movements (Nine Wells, Gunnisgreen, +Fastcastle, Edinburgh), if these are the days of writing Letter IV. Yet, +if Sprot forged Letter IV, he knew where he dated it from; {221} if the +Government had it forged, they knew, from Sprot’s confession, that it +should have been dated from Fastcastle. Perhaps we should not bear too +heavily on this point. A man may mention the wrong name by inadvertence, +or the clerk, by inadvertence, may write the wrong name. Mr. Mark Napier +in his essay on this matter twice or thrice prints ‘Logan’ for ‘Sprot,’ +or ‘Sprot’ for ‘Logan.’ {222} ‘Fastcastle,’ in Sprot’s confession, may +be a slip of tongue or pen for ‘Gunnisgreen,’ or he may have been +confused among the movements to and from Gunnisgreen and Fastcastle. The +present writer finds similar errors in the manuscript of this work. + +Sprot next alleged that, three months after the Gowrie affair, Logan bade +Bower hunt among his papers for this very letter. He had been at +Berwick, with Lord Willoughby, and Bower told Sprot that he was ‘taking +order’ with all who knew of his part in the Gowrie plot. Here is the old +difficulty. Why was the letter kept for one moment after Bower brought +it back? Why leave it with Bower for three months? At all events, as +Bower could not read, Sprot helped him to look for the letter, found it, +and kept it ‘_till_ he framed three new letters upon it,’ after which he +does not say what he did with it. + +Here Sprot cited, from memory, but not accurately, more of Letter IV. +The existence of such errors is not remarkable. Sprot again swore to the +truth of all his depositions since July 5. But if _this_ story is true, +how can it be true that Logan was at ease in his mind, after burning the +letter from Alexander Ruthven, and another from Father Andrew Clerk, +Jesuit, as Sprot previously swore? There was still Letter IV, lost, +unburned, a haunting fear. It may be suggested that Sprot only kept this +letter ‘_till_’ he had made his forgeries on its model, and then, in a +later search, pretended to find and returned it, having first copied it +out in Logan’s hand; that copy being our Letter IV. Sprot first would +make a copy, in his ordinary hand, of the letter, then restore the +original, and, after Logan’s death, copy his copy, in imitation of +Logan’s hand, and frame I, III, V, and the torn letter on his copy of IV. +Finally, Sprot said that ‘_he believes_ this letter is in his chest among +his writings, because he left it there when he was taken by Watty Doig +and deposes that it is closed and folded within a piece of paper.’ Sprot +said this on August 10. On August 12 he was hanged. Now was this +letter, on which he forged three others, found ‘in his kist,’ before his +death? That it was so found, we have direct evidence, though not from +the best of sources. + +In the year 1713, an aged nobleman, Lord Cromarty, published a defence of +the King’s conduct in the Gowrie affair. Lord Cromarty, in 1713, was +aged eighty-three. Born about 1630, he remembered the beginnings of the +Civil War, and says that the Covenanters, about 1640–1645, made great +political capital out of King James’s alleged guilt in the slaughter of +the Ruthvens. Later, Lord Cromarty occupied, in the Restoration, the +highest judicial offices, and, as Clerk Registrar, had access to public +documents. He was an old courtier, he may have been forgetful, he may +have been unscrupulous, but, as to the letter in Sprot’s kist, he writes +‘the letter was found there by the Sheriff Depute, who was ordered by Sir +William Hart, Lord Justice of Scotland, to seize the said chest, and make +search for this letter, which he found, and delivered to the King’s +Advocate, Sir Thomas Hamilton.’ {224} + +Now this Sir Thomas Hamilton was the ancestor of the Earl of Haddington, +who inherits many of his papers. Among these we find a copy, in Sprot’s +‘course hand,’ or rapid current hand, of Letter IV, and another of Letter +I, but no such copies of II, III. and V. Each of these is endorsed by +James Primrose, Clerk of Council, is endorsed by Sprot, in faded ink, and +is _also_ endorsed in Sprot’s ordinary everyday hand, very firm and +clear, thus: + +‘This is copyitt off the principal’ (the original), ‘lykeas the note +writtin upon the bak is writtin by me, George Sprott.’ + +There is, in fact, another ‘note on the back,’ in ink more faded, on a +dirty rubbed part of the paper. + +Now certainly the last endorsation was written by Sprot either on August +11 or August 12, 1600. He had not the original or this copy by him on +August 10, or on August 11 when examined, for on August 10 he could only +give a version of Letter IV from memory, and erroneously, the version +cited in his indictment. On August 11 he still had not the original or +his copy, for he quoted from memory, what he believed to be a +_postscript_ to the original Letter IV, a passage which is really in the +_text_ of Letter IV. He could not have made this error if, at that hour +of August 11, he had either the original of Letter IV, or his exact copy +before him, nor would there have been any reason why he should quote from +memory, if Government had the documents. Yet he re-endorsed his copies +of Letters I and IV before his death. This endorsement is firm and +clear, the text of the two copies is fainter and much of the paper more +rubbed, as if from being kept in the pocket. The copies are older than +the final endorsement on the copies. It follows that the Sheriff Depute +found these two copies (I, IV) and the originals, in Sprot’s kist, and +brought them to Sprot’s examiners after that hour of August 11, when he +could only quote from memory. He then endorsed them formally, one of the +last acts of his life. + +The originals were also found, for it will not be argued that Government +employed another forger to forge them from Sprot’s copies in ‘course +hand.’ We know that Sprot had a secondary species of blackmailing +documents, these in current hand; one of them he gave to the Goodman of +Rentoun. For this, or some other purpose, he had made the ‘course hand’ +copies of Letters I and IV, which he endorsed just before his death, or +perhaps he made them from the original, which he then destroyed or +surreptitiously returned. When he was examined on August 11, the three +preachers, Galloway, Hall, and Hewatt, and the minister of Duddingston, +Mr. Lumisden, were present. He was entreated not to perjure himself to +the injury of innocent people, dead or alive, ‘by making and forging of +lies.’ He renewed his protestations of truth, asked Mr. Galloway to pray +for him, wept, and repeated his averments. + +On August 12 Sprot was tried and hanged at Edinburgh. He renewed his +protestations from every corner of the scaffold, in the most vigorous +language. Abbot, who was present, declares that he thrice gave a loud +clap with his hands while he swung, as a proof that he adhered in death +to his last words. A similar story is told of Kirkcaldy of Grange, and I +think in other cases. Nothing of the sort is in the first draft of the +official account of his dying behaviour (a draft manifestly drawn up near +the spot), nor in the official account itself. + +Much value was set on dying confessions. When the preacher, Robert +Bruce, refused to believe the King’s account of the Gowrie tragedy, he +said that one proof would satisfy him. Let Andrew Henderson, the man in +the turret, be hanged. If he persisted in his confession on the +scaffold, Mr. Bruce would believe. The King declined to make this +abominable experiment. In Sprot’s case his dying confession did not move +the Kirk party. Calderwood hints that Mr. Galloway ‘had the most speech +to Sprot on the scaffold,’ and so kept him true to a dying lie. {227a} +He adds that Spottiswoode said to Galloway ‘I am afraid this man make us +all ashamed,’ that is, by retracting his confessions. Mr. Patrick +answered, ‘Let alone, my Lord, I shall warrant him.’ {227b} Had Andrew +Henderson swung, constant to his confession, the Presbyterian sceptics +would have found similar reasons for disbelief. + +What are _we_ to believe? Did Sprot go wherever he went with a +blasphemous lie in his mouth? A motive for such vehemence of religious +hypocrisy is difficult to find. Conceivably he had promise of benefits +to his family. Conceivably he was an atheist, and ‘took God in his own +hand.’ Conceivably his artistic temperament induced him to act his lie +well, as he had a lie to act. + +Yet all this is not satisfactory. + +Let us take the unromantic view of common sense. It is this: Logan was a +restless, disappointed intriguer and debauchee. He sold his lands, some +to acquire a partnership with Lord Willoughby in a vessel trading to +America; this vessel, or another, is among his assets recorded in his +inventory. All his lands he sold—not that he was in debt, he was a large +lender—for purposes of profligacy. These proceedings gave rise to +gossip. The Laird must be selling his lands to evade forfeiture. He +_must_ have been engaged in the Gowrie mystery. Then Logan dies (July +1606). Bower is also dead (January 1606). It occurs to Sprot that there +is money in all this, and, having lost Logan’s business, the hungry Sprot +needs money. He therefore makes a pact with some of Logan’s debtors. +He, for pay, will clear them of their debts to Logan’s executors, whom he +will enable them to blackmail. Logan’s descendants by two marriages were +finally his heirs, with Anna, a minor, daughter of his last wife, who had +hoped to have no children by him, the free-spoken Lady Restalrig, _née_ +Ker (Marion). They, of course, were robbed, by Logan’s forfeiture, of +33,000 marks, owed to Logan by Dunbar and Balmerino. Meanwhile, just +after Logan’s death, in autumn 1606, Sprot forges Letters I, II, III, IV, +V, and the torn letter, with two compromising letters to Bower, two to +Ninian Chirnside, and an ‘eik,’ or addition, of compromising items to a +memorandum on business, which, in September 1605, Logan gave to Bower and +John Bell before he started for London and Paris. All these documents, +the plot-letters, I, II, III, IV, V, and the rest (which lie before me), +are mere instruments of blackmail, intended to terrorise the guardians of +the Logans. + +So far, all is clear. But, in April 1608, Sprot has blabbed and is +arrested. The forgeries are found among his papers, or given up by +Chirnside. Sprot confesses to the plot, to Logan’s share of it, and to +the authenticity of the letters and papers. He is then tortured, recants +his confession, and avows the forgery of the papers. The Government is +disappointed. In July, Dunbar comes down from town, treats Sprot +leniently, and gives him medical attendance. Sprot now confesses to his +genuine knowledge of the plot, but unflinchingly maintains that all the +papers so far produced are forgeries, based on facts. + +Why does he do this? He has a better chance of pardon, if he returns to +the statement that they are genuine. If they are, the Government, which +he must propitiate, has a far stronger hand, for the forgeries then +defied detection. However, for no conceivable reason, unless it be +either conscience or the vanity of the artist, Sprot now insists on +claiming the letters as his own handiwork. On this point he was +inaccessible to temptation, if temptation was offered. If he lies as to +Letter II having been dictated by Logan, he lies by way of relapse into +the habit of a lifetime, and so on other points. He keeps back all +mention of Letter IV, till the last ember of hope of life is extinct. + +It has not been hitherto known, either that Sprot kept back Letter IV +till almost his dying day, or that he then, at last, revealed it. Lord +Cromarty’s averment that it was found in Sprot’s kist was disbelieved. +It is true, however, and now we ask, why did Sprot keep back Letter IV to +the last, and why, having so long concealed it, did he say where it was, +after all hope of life was over? + +The answer can only be conjectural. Some might guess thus: till Letter +IV was confessed to and found, Government had not received from Sprot one +scrap of documentary evidence that could be used against Logan’s heirs. +Scoundrel as he was, Sprot could not guess that the Privy Council would +use papers which were confessed forgeries to save Dunbar and Balmerino +from paying some 33,000 marks to Logan’s executors. The wretched Sprot +had robbed the orphans on a small scale, but he would not, by producing +the genuine Logan letter, enable the Lords to ruin them utterly. Bad as +he was, the Laird had been kind to Sprot. Therefore he kept back, and by +many a lie concealed, his real pieces of evidence, Letter IV, and I, if I +is genuine. So far he acted on a remnant of natural conscience. + +But Sprot, alas, had a religious conscience. He had a soul to be saved. +The preachers had prayed with him. When death was but forty-eight hours +distant, he feared to die with a lie in his mouth. So _now_, at last, he +spoke of Letter IV as his real model. Perhaps he hoped that it would not +be found, and probably it was in some secret drawer or false bottom of +his kist. It was found, and was used, along with the confessed forgeries +(which even Sprot could not have anticipated), to destroy the inheritance +of the children, at Logan’s posthumous trial in 1609. + +But the obvious reply to this hypothesis is, that Letter IV, by the +evidence of modern experts (evidence unanimous and irresistible), is just +as much forged as all the rest, is just as certainly in Sprot’s imitation +of Logan’s handwriting. This being so, why did Sprot keep it back so +long, and why, having kept it back, did he, almost in his last hour, +produce it, and say (if he did) that it was genuine, and his model, as it +certainly was? This is the last enigma of Sprot. His motives defy my +poor efforts to decipher them. Even if the substance of IV is genuine, +what were Sprot’s motives? I do not feel assured that Sprot really +maintained the genuineness of the _handwriting_ of Letter IV. His remark +that he kept Logan’s letter only _till_ he forged others on it, as a +model, certainly implies that he did not keep it _after_ he had done his +forgeries, and therefore that our Letter IV is, confessedly, _not_ +Logan’s original. Certainly it is not. + + + + +XVI. WHAT IS LETTER IV? + + +The crucial question now arises, _What is Letter IV_? If it be genuine +(in substance), then, whatever the details of the Gowrie Conspiracy may +have been, a conspiracy there was. This can only be denied by ignorance. +If the enterprise fails, says the author of Letter IV, the plotters will +lose their lives, their lands and houses will be ‘wrecked,’ their very +names will be extirpated; and, in fact, James did threaten to extirpate +the name of Ruthven. The letter deliberately means High Treason. The +objection of Calderwood, and of all the Ruthven apologists, that Sprot +confessed to having forged _all_ the letters, we have shown to rest on +lack of information. He said, at last, that he had forged many papers +(some did not appear in Court in 1609), and that he forged _three_ +letters on the model of Letter IV. These three letters may either be I, +III, and V; or III, V, and the torn letter. The case of Letter I is +peculiar. Though it contains much that is in Letter IV, and might have +been taken from it, the repetitions need not imply copying from Letter +IV. Byron and others would say the same things, on the same day, to two +or three correspondents. Letter IV is subsequent, as dated, to Letter I, +and Logan might say to the Unknown, on July 18, what, after the announced +interval of ten days, he said to Gowrie. Letter I contains this remark +on the nature of the plot: ‘It is not far by’ (not unlike) ‘that form, +with the like stratagem, whereof we had conference in Cap. h,’ which may +be Capheaton, on the English side of the Border. Probably Logan often +discussed ingenious ways of catching the King: new plots were hatched +about once a month, as Cecil’s and the other correspondence of the age +abundantly proves. The plot (the letter says) is like that in a Paduan +story of a nobleman. The rest of the letter is identical with the matter +of III, IV, and V. We cannot be sure whether Letter I is one of the +three forged on IV or not. + +One thing is certain, Letters III and V, to the Unknown, _are_ modelled +on IV, as is the torn letter. Sprot said this was the case, and every +reader of III, V, and the torn letter (given above) must see that he +tells the truth. These letters contain no invention at all, they merely +repeat Letter IV. Any man who could invent IV had genius enough to alter +his tunes in III, V. and the torn letter. But Sprot never deserts his +model. This is an argument for the authenticity in substance of Letter +IV. The other three contain nothing that is not in Letter IV, and +everything that is in it, except what is personal to Gowrie, and would be +inappropriate if addressed to the Unknown (I, III, V), or to Chirnside +(torn letter). + +There is (1) the mention of a Paduan adventure, the basis of the plot, a +thing that Sprot is very unlikely to have invented. With all my +admiration for Sprot, I do think that the Paduan touch is beyond him. +This occurs in Letter IV, ‘the good sport that M.A., your lordship’s +brother, told me of a nobleman in Padua. It is a parasteur’ (? _à +propos_) ‘to this purpose we have in hand.’ This appears in Letter I, +‘reckless toys of Padua,’ and in Letter V, ‘bid M. A. remember on the +sport he told me of Padua.’ + +2. The constant applause of Bower. This is in Letter IV, and in I, III, +V, and the torn letter. + +3. Meeting with Alexander Ruthven. This is in IV, and in I and V. + +4. The meeting at Fastcastle, which is to be quiet and well-provisioned. +This is in IV, and in I, III, V. + +5. Lord Home and Mr. Rhynd are to know nothing. This is in IV, and in +I, and V, and the torn letter, utterly needless repetition. + +6. The King’s hunting, the opportunity for the plot. This is in IV, and +in I, but that is natural. + +7. Directions as to returning the letters. These are in IV, in I, III, +V, and the torn letter. + +8. Injunctions of secrecy. These are in IV, and I, III, V, and in the +torn letter. + +9. Logan will be true, ‘although the scaffold were already set up.’ +This is a phrase of Letter IV, and recurs in Letter III and in the torn +letter. + +10. Logan’s elevation of heart on receipt of Gowrie’s letter. This +occurs in IV and in V. + +Who can doubt that Letter IV is the source, followed servilely by the +forger, of the torn letter and I (?), III, V? If Sprot could invent the +substance of IV, why was he so chary of invention in all the other +letters? + +It is clear, moreover, that the Unknown himself is derived from a line in +Letter IV: ‘I have already sent another letter to the gentleman your +Lordship knows, as the bearer will inform you of his answer.’ The bearer +is always Bower, so the ‘gentleman’ is to be conceived as in Gowrie’s +neighbourhood, or on the route thither, as one bearer serves both for +Gowrie and the gentleman. Therefore, before July 5, Sprot (who had no +idea as to who the gentleman was) identified the ‘gentleman,’ the Unknown +of I, III, V, with the laird of Kinfauns, near Perth, or with the +Constable of Dundee; but he withdrew these imputations, craving the +pardon of the accused. + +Thus it stands to reason that I (?), III, V, and the torn letter are +forged on the model of IV. Sprot introduces no novelties in I, III, V, +or the torn epistle. He harps eternally on the strings of IV. The only +variation is (V) the mention of ‘one other man with you,’ in the proposed +sail to Fastcastle. + +It is not easy for criticism to evade the conclusion that I (?), III, V, +and the torn letter are, indeed, forgeries modelled on IV. And what is +IV? + +Is Letter IV in substance genuine? If not, why did Sprot keep it back +till the rope was noosed for his neck? A guess at his possible reasons +for so keeping it back (as the only real documentary evidence extant +against the orphans of Logan) we have given, but this fails if Letter IV +was a forgery: as in handwriting it was. + +Then there are the contents of Letter IV. To myself, and to Mr. +Anderson, it does not seem probable, it seems hardly credible, that Sprot +could have _invented_ the contents of Letter IV. If he did, his power of +rendering character might have been envied by the author of the Waverley +Novels. In IV Logan is painted, the ‘main loose man, but a good fellow,’ +with a master hand. The thing is freely, largely, and spontaneously +executed. What especially moves me to think IV no invention, is the +reference to the Paduan incident or romance, ‘the good sport that Mr. +Alexander told me of the nobleman of Padua, it is _à propos_ to the +purpose we have in hand.’ This is casually inserted in the last words of +the postscript, not blazoned in the text, as in the forgeries confessedly +modelled on this letter. The whole tone of the letter is in keeping with +the alleged author’s temperament. It is respectful, but far from +servile. Gowrie is a great Earl, but Logan is of an old and good name. +There is the genial sensualism of the man, with his promise of wine and +‘a fine hattit kit’ (a kind of syllabub). There is the joyous forward +glance at an anniversary dinner, with Bothwell, to which the King’s +hunting of _this_ year shall furnish the dainty cheer; ‘_hoc jocose_!’ +At this dinner Bothwell and Gowrie, old allies, are to meet at Logan’s +board, which may suggest that Bothwell and Gowrie are still working +together. + +The contempt for Lord Home as a conspirator—‘in good faith he will never +help his friend or harm his foe’—and the praises of Bower, are +characteristic, and, here, are in place; elsewhere they are idle +repetitions, mere copies. The apology for bad writing—Logan could not +employ a secretary in this case—is natural: the two days writing agrees +with Sprot’s evidence. (p. 221.) + +Could Sprot have invented all this: and, in his confessed forgeries, +failed to invent anything? Would not the fertility of his genius have +hurried him into fresh developments, and characteristic details, +appropriate to the imaginary correspondent whom he addresses? These +considerations may seem a mere leaning on ‘internal evidence,’ and +‘literary instinct,’ broken reeds. But the case is buttressed by the +long and, on any theory, purposeless retention of Letter IV, the secrecy +concerning it, and the confession, so obviously true, that Letter IV is +the source and model of the forgeries. These facts have hitherto been +unknown to writers who believed the whole correspondence to be a forgery +done for the Government. + +Both Mr. Anderson (who has greatly aided me by his acuteness and learned +experience of old MSS.) and myself disbelieve that Logan’s hand wrote +Letter IV. The matter, the contents of Letter IV, may be Logan’s, but +the existing document may be ‘a Sprot after Logan.’ Sprot may have +reinserted the genuine Logan IV among Bower’s collection of papers, +pretended to find it, and returned it to Logan, after copying it _in +Logan’s hand_. Or he may have copied it in his ‘course hand’ (the copy +in the Haddington MSS.), and later, in autumn 1606, after Logan’s death, +have rewritten his copy in an imitation of Logan’s hand. The contents, +Mr. Anderson believes, as I do, are, none the less, genuine Logan. + +If readers accept these conclusions, there was a Gowrie conspiracy, and +Logan was in it. ‘I trow your Lordship has a proof of my constancy +already ere now,’ he says in Letter IV, and Gowrie may have had a proof, +in his early conspiracies of 1593–1594, or in a testimonial to Logan from +Bothwell, Gowrie’s old ally. + +But, if readers do not accept our conclusions, they may still rest, +perhaps, on the arguments adduced in the earlier chapters of this essay, +to demonstrate that neither accident nor the machinations of the King, +but an enterprise of their own, caused the Slaughter of the Ruthvens. +The infamous conduct of the Privy Council in 1608–1609 does not prove +that, in 1600, the King carried out a conspiracy in itself impossible. + +I have found nothing tending to show that King James was ever made aware +of Sprot’s confessions of forgery. It is true that Sir William Hart, the +Lord Justice, went to Court after Sprot’s death, and, in September, the +Scottish Privy Council asked James to send him home again. {239} But +Hart need not have told all the truth to James. + +There is a kind of rejoicing _naïveté_ in all of James’s references to +the Gowrie affair, which seems to me hardly consistent with his disbelief +in his own prowess on that occasion. If one may conjecture, one would +guess that the Privy Council and the four preachers managed to persuade +themselves, Sprot being the liar whom we know, that he lied when he +called his Logan papers forgeries. The real facts may have been +concealed from the King. Mr. Gunton, the Librarian at Hatfield, informs +me that, had he not seen Letter IV (which he is sure was _written_ by +Sprot), he does not think he should have suspected the genuineness of +Letters II and III, after comparing them with the undoubted letters of +Logan in the Cecil manuscripts. The Government and the four preachers, +with such documents in their hands, documents still apt to delude, may +easily have brought themselves to disbelieve Sprot’s assertion that they +were all forgeries. Let us hope that they did! + + + + +XVII. INFERENCES AS TO THE CASKET LETTERS + + +The affair of Sprot has an obvious bearing on that other mystery, the +authenticity of the Casket Letters attributed to Queen Mary. As we know, +she, though accused, was never allowed to see the letters alleged to be +hers. We know that, in December 1568, these documents were laid before +an assembly of English nobles at Hampton Court. They were compared, for +orthography and handwriting, with genuine letters written by the Queen to +Elizabeth, and Cecil tells us that ‘no difference was found.’ It was a +rapid examination, by many persons, on a brief winter day, partly +occupied by other business. If experts existed, we are not informed that +they were present. The Casket Letters have disappeared since the death +of the elder Gowrie, in 1584. From him, Elizabeth had vainly sought to +purchase them. They were indispensable, said Bowes, her ambassador, to +‘the secrecy of the cause.’ Gowrie would not be tempted, and it is not +improbable that he carried so valuable a treasure with him, when, in +April 1584, he retired to Dundee, to escape by sea if the Angus +conspiracy failed. + +At Dundee he was captured, after defending the house in which he was +residing. That house was pulled down recently; nothing was discovered. +But fable runs that, at the destruction of another ancient house in +Dundee, ‘Lady Wark’s Stairs,’ _a packet of old letters in French_ was +found in a hiding hole contrived within a chimney. The letters were not +examined by any competent person, and nobody knows what became of them. +Romance relates that they were the Casket Letters, entrusted by Gowrie to +a friend. It is equally probable that he yielded them to the King, when +he procured his remission for the Raid of Ruthven. In any case, they are +lost. + +Consequently we cannot compare the Casket Letters with genuine letters by +Mary. On the other hand, as I chanced to notice that genuine letters of +Logan’s exist at Hatfield, I was enabled, by the kindness of the Marquis +of Salisbury, and of Sir Stair Agnew, to have both the Hatfield Logan +letters, and the alleged Logan letters produced in 1609, photographed and +compared, at Hatfield and at the General Register House in Edinburgh. By +good fortune, the Earl of Haddington also possesses (what we could not +expect to find in the case of the Casket Letters) documents in the +ordinary handwriting of George Sprot, the confessed forger of the +plot-letters attributed to Logan. The result of comparison has been to +convince Mr. Gunton at Hatfield, Mr. Anderson in Edinburgh, Professor +Hume Brown, and other gentlemen of experience, that Sprot forged all the +plot-letters. Their reasons for holding this opinion entirely satisfy +me, and have been drawn up by Mr. Anderson, in a convincing report. To +put the matter briefly, the forged letters present the marked +peculiarities of Logan’s orthography, noted by the witnesses in 1609. +But they also contain many peculiarities of spelling which are not +Logan’s, but are Sprot’s. The very dotting of the ‘i’s’ is Sprot’s, not +Logan’s. The long ‘s’ of Logan is heavily and clumsily imitated. There +is a distinct set of peculiarities never found in Logan’s undisputed +letters: in Sprot’s own letters always found. The hand is more rapid and +flowing than that of Logan. Not being myself familiar with the Scottish +handwriting of the period, my own opinion is of no weight, but I conceive +that the general effect of Logan’s hand, in 1586, is not precisely like +that of the plot-letters. + +My point, however, is that, in 1609, Sprot’s forgeries were clever enough +to baffle witnesses of unblemished honour, very familiar with the genuine +handwriting of Logan. The Rev. Alexander Watson, minister of the Kirk of +Coldinghame (where Logan was wont to attend), alleged that ‘_the +character of every letter_ resembles perfectly Robert’s handwrit, _every +way_.’ The spelling, which was peculiar, was also Logan’s as a rule. +Mr. Watson produced three genuine letters by Logan, before the Lords of +the Articles (who were very sceptical), and satisfied them that the +plot-letters were the laird’s. Mr. Alexander Smith, minister of +Chirnside, was tutor to Logan’s younger children; he gave identical +evidence. Sir John Arnott, Provost of Edinburgh, a man of distinction +and eminence, produced four genuine letters by the Laird, ‘agreeing +perfectly in spelling and character with the plot-letters. The sheriff +clerk of Berwick, William Home, in Aytoun Mill (a guest, I think, at +Logan’s ‘great Yules’), and John Home, notary in Eyemouth, coincided. +The minister of Aytoun, Mr. William Hogg, produced a letter of Logan to +the Laird of Aytoun, but was not absolutely so certain as the other +witnesses. ‘He thinks them’ (the plot-letters) ‘like [to be] his +writing, and that the same appear to be very like his write, by the +conformity of letters and spelling.’ {243a} + +Thus, at the examination of Logan’s real and forged letters, as at the +examination of Queen Mary’s real and Casket letters, in spelling and +handwriting ‘no difference was found.’ Yet the plot-letters were all +forged, and Mr. Anderson shows that, though ‘no difference was _found_,’ +many differences existed. Logan had a better chance of acquittal than +Mary. The Lords of the Articles, writes Sir Thomas Hamilton to the King +(June 21, 1609), ‘had preconceived hard opinions of Restalrig’s process.’ +{243b} Yet they were convinced by the evidence of the witnesses, and by +their own eyes. + +From the error of the Lords of the Articles, in 1609, it obviously +follows that the English Lords, at Hampton Court, in 1568, may have been +unable to detect proofs of forgery in the Casket Letters, which, if the +Casket Letters could now be compared with those of Mary, would be at once +discovered by modern experts. In short, the evidence as to Mary’s +handwriting, even if as unanimously accepted, by the English Lords, as +Cecil declares, is not worth a ‘hardhead,’ a debased copper Scottish +coin. It is worth no more than the opinion of the Lords of the Articles +in the case of the letters attributed to Restalrig. + + + + +APPENDICES + + +APPENDIX A. THE FRONTISPIECE + + +_Gowrie’s Arms and Ambitions_ + +The frontispiece of this volume is copied from the design of the Earl of +Gowrie’s arms, in what is called ‘Workman’s MS.,’ at the Lyon’s office in +Edinburgh. The shield displays, within the royal treasure, the arms of +Ruthven in the first and fourth, those of Cameron and Halyburton in the +second and third quarters. The supporters are, dexter, a Goat; sinister, +a Ram; the crest is a Ram’s head. The motto is not given; it was DEID +SCHAW. The shield is blotted by transverse strokes of the pen, the whole +rude design having been made for the purpose of being thus scored out, +after Gowrie’s death, posthumous trial and forfeiture, in 1600. + +On the left of the sinister supporter is an armed man, in the Gowrie +livery. His left hand grasps his sword-hilt, his right is raised to an +imperial crown, hanging above him in the air; from his lips issue the +words, TIBI SOLI, ‘for thee alone.’ Sir James Balfour Paul, Lyon, +informs me that he knows no other case of such additional supporter, or +whatever the figure ought to be called. + +This figure does not occur on any known Ruthven seal. It is not on that +of the first Earl of Gowrie, affixed to a deed of February 1583–1584. It +is not on a seal used in 1597, by John, third Earl, given in Henry +Laing’s ‘Catalogue of Scottish Seals’ (vol. i. under ‘Ruthven’). But, in +Crawford’s ‘Peerage of Scotland’ (1716), p. 166, the writer gives the +arms of the third Earl (John, the victim of August 5, 1600). In place of +the traditional Scottish motto _Deid Schaw_, is the Latin translation, +_Facta Probant_. The writer says (Note C), ‘This from an authentic copy +of his arms, _richly illuminated in the year_ 1597, with his name and +titles, _viz._ “Joannes Ruthven, Comes de Gowry, Dominus de Ruthven,” +&c., in my hands.’ + +In 1597, as the archives of the Faculty of Law, in the University of +Padua, show, Gowrie was a student of Padua. It is also probable that, in +1597, he attained his majority. He certainly had his arms richly +illuminated, and he added to his ancestral bearings what Crawfurd +describes thus: ‘On the dexter a chivaleer, garnish’d with the Earl’s +coat of arms, _pointing with a sword upward to an imperial crown_, with +this device, TIBI SOLI.’ + +In Workman’s MS., the figure points to the crown with the open right +hand, and the left hand is on the sword-hilt. The illuminated copy of +1597, once in the possession of Crawfurd, must be the more authentic; the +figure _here_ points the sword at a crown, which is _Tibi Soli_, ‘For +thee’ (Gowrie?) ‘alone.’ + +Now on no known Ruthven seal, as we saw, does this figure appear, not +even on a seal of Gowrie himself, used in 1597. Thus it is perhaps not +too daring to suppose that Gowrie, when in Italy in 1597, added this +emblematic figure to his ancestral bearings. What does the figure +symbolise? + +On this point we have a very curious piece of evidence. On June 22, +1609, Ottavio Baldi wrote, from Venice, to James, now King of England. +His letter was forwarded by Sir Henry Wotton. Baldi says that he has +received from Sir Robert Douglas, and is sending to the King by his +nephew—a Cambridge student—‘a strange relique out of this country.’ He +obtained it thus: Sir Robert Douglas, while at home in Scotland, had +‘heard speech’ of ‘a certain emblem or impresa,’ left by Gowrie in Padua. +Meeting a Scot in Padua, Douglas asked where this emblem now was, and he +was directed to the school of a teacher of dancing. There the emblem +hung, ‘among other devices and remembrances of his scholars.’ Douglas +had a copy of the emblem made; and immediately ‘acquainted me with the +quality of the thing,’ says Baldi. ‘We agreed together, that it should +be fit, if possible, to obtain the very original itself, and to leave in +the room thereof the copy that he had already taken, which he did effect +by well handling the matter. + +‘Thus hath your Majesty now a view, _in umbra_, of those detestable +thoughts which afterwards appeared _in facto_, according to the said +Earl’s own _mot_. For what other sense or allusion can the reaching at a +crown with a sword in a stretched posture, and the impersonating of his +device in a blackamore, yield to any intelligent and honest beholder?’ +{247} + +From Baldi’s letter we learn that, in the device left by Gowrie at Padua, +the figure pointing a sword at the crown was a negro, thus varying from +the figure in Workman’s MS., and that in the illuminated copy emblazoned +in 1597, and possessed in 1716 by Crawfurd. Next, we learn that Sir +Robert Douglas had heard talk of this emblem in Scotland, before he left +for Italy. Lastly, a _mot_ on the subject by the Earl himself was +reported, to the effect that the device set forth ‘in a shadow,’ what was +intended to be executed ‘in very deed.’ + +Now how could Sir Robert Douglas, in Scotland, hear talk of what had been +done and said years ago by Gowrie in Padua? Sir Robert Douglas was +descended from Archibald Douglas of Glenbervie (_ob._ 1570), who was +ancestor of the Catholic Earl of Angus (_flor._ 1596). This Archibald of +Glenbervie had a son, Archibald, named in his father’s testament, but +otherwise unknown. {248} Rather senior to Gowrie at the University of +Padua, and in the same faculty of law, was an Archibald Douglas. He may +have been a kinsman of Sir Robert Douglas, himself of the Glenbervie +family, and from him Sir Robert, while still in Scotland, may have heard +of Gowrie’s device, left by him at Padua, and of his _mot_ about _in +umbra_ and _in facto_. But, even if these two Douglases were not akin, +or did not meet, still Keith, Lindsay, and Ker of Newbattle, all +contemporaries of Gowrie at Padua, might bring home the report of +Gowrie’s enigmatic device, and of his _mot_ there-anent. Had the emblem +been part of the regular arms of Ruthven, Sir Robert Douglas, and every +Scot of quality, would have known all about it, and seen no mystery in +it. + +It will scarcely be denied that the assumption by Gowrie of the figure in +his livery, pointing a sword at the crown, and exclaiming ‘For Thee +Only,’ does suggest that wildly ambitious notions were in the young man’s +mind. What other sense can the emblem bear? How can such ideas be +explained? + +In an anonymous and dateless MS. cited in ‘The Life of John Earl of +Gowrie,’ by the Rev. John Scott of Perth (1818), it is alleged that +Elizabeth, in April 1600, granted to Gowrie, then in London, the guard +and honours appropriate to a Prince of Wales. The same Mr. Scott +suggests a Royal pedigree for Gowrie. His mother, wife of William, first +Earl, was Dorothea Stewart, described in a list of Scottish nobles (1592) +as ‘sister of umquhile Lord Methven.’ Now Henry Stewart, Lord Methven +(‘Lord Muffin,’ as Henry VIII used to call him), was the third husband of +the sister of Henry VIII, Margaret Tudor, wife, first of James IV, then +of the Earl of Angus (by whom she had Margaret, Countess of Lennox, and +grandmother of James VI), then of Lord Methven. Now if Margaret Tudor +had issue by Henry Stewart, Lord Methven, and if that issue was Dorothea, +mother of John, third Earl of Gowrie, or was Dorothea’s father or mother, +that Earl was Elizabeth’s cousin. Now Burnet, touching on the Gowrie +mystery, says that his own father had ‘taken great pains to inquire into +that matter, and did always believe it was a real conspiracy. . . . Upon +the King’s death, Gowrie stood next to the succession of the crown of +England,’ namely, as descended from Margaret Tudor by Henry (Burnet says +‘Francis’!), Lord Methven. Margaret and Methven, says Burnet, had a son, +‘made Lord Methven by James V. In the patent he is called _frater noster +uterinus_’—‘Our brother uterine.’ ‘_He_ had only a daughter, who was +mother or grandmother to the Earl of Gowrie, so that by this he might be +glad to put the King out of the way, that so he might stand next to the +succession of the crown of England.’ {249} If this were true, the +meaning of Gowrie’s device would be flagrantly conspicuous. But where is +that patent of James V? Burnet conceivably speaks of it on the +information of his father, who ‘took great pains to inquire into the +particulars of that matter,’ so that he could tell his son, ‘one thing +which none of the historians have taken any notice of,’ namely, our +Gowrie’s Tudor descent, and his claims (failing James _and his issue_) to +the crown of England. Now Burnet’s father was almost a contemporary of +the Gowrie affair. Of the preachers of that period, the King’s enemies, +Burnet’s father knew Mr. Davidson (_ob._ 1603) and Mr. Robert Bruce, and +had listened to their prophecies. ‘He told me,’ says Burnet, ‘of many of +their predictions that he himself heard them throw out, which had no +effect.’ Davidson was an old man in 1600; Bruce, for his disbelief in +James’s account of the conspiracy, was suspended in that year, though he +lived till 1631, and, doubtless, prophesied in select circles. Mr. Bruce +long lay concealed in the house of Burnet’s great-grandmother, daughter +of Sir John Arnot, a witness in the trial of Logan of Restalrig. Thus +Burnet’s father had every means of knowing the belief of the +contemporaries of Gowrie, and he may conceivably be Burnet’s source for +the tale of Gowrie’s Tudor descent and Royal claims. They were almost or +rather quite baseless, but they were current. + +In fact, Dorothea Stewart, mother of Gowrie, was certainly a daughter of +Henry Stewart, Lord Methven, and of Janet Stewart, of the House of +Atholl. We find no trace of issue born to Margaret Tudor by her third +husband, Lord Methven. Yet Gowrie’s emblem, adopted by him at Padua in +1597, and his device left in the Paduan dancing school, do distinctly +point to some wild idea of his that some crown or other was ‘for him +alone.’ At the trial of Gowrie’s father, in 1584, we find mention of his +‘challenginge that honor to be of his Hignes blud,’ but _that_ must refer +to the relationship of the Ruthvens and the King through the Angus branch +of the Douglases. {250a} + +This question as to the meaning of Gowrie’s emblem came rather early into +the controversy. William Sanderson, in 1656, published Lives of Mary and +of James VI; he says: ‘I have a manuscript which relates that, in Padua, +the Earl of Gowrie, among other impressa (_sic_) in a fencing school, +caused to be painted, for his devise, a hand and sword aiming at a +crown.’ {250b} Mr. Scott, in 1818, replied that the device, with the +Ruthven arms, ‘is engraven on a stone taken from Gowrie House in Perth, +and preserved in the house of Freeland’ (a Ruthven house). ‘There is +also, I have been told, a seal with the same engraving upon it, which +probably had been used by the Earls of Gowrie and by their predecessors, +the Lords of Ruthven.’ {251a} But we know of no such seal among Gowrie +or Ruthven seals, nor do we know the date of the engraving on stone cited +by Mr. Scott. In his opinion the armed man and crown might be an +addition granted by James III to William, first Lord Ruthven, in 1487–88. +Ruthven took the part of the unhappy King, who was mysteriously slain +near Bannockburn. Mr. Scott then guesses that this addition of 1488 +implied that the armed man pointed his sword at the crown, and exclaimed +_Tibi Soli_, meaning ‘For Thee, O James III alone, _not_ for thy +rebellious son,’ James IV. It may be so, but we have no evidence for the +use of the emblem before 1597. Moreover, in Gowrie’s arms, in Workman’s +MS., the sword is sheathed. Again, the emblem at Padua showed a +‘black-a-more,’ or negro, and Sir Robert Douglas could not but have +recognised that the device was only part of the ancestral Ruthven arms, +if that was the case. The ‘black-a-more’ was horrifying to Ottavio +Baldi, as implying a dark intention. + +Here we leave the additional and certainly curious mystery of Gowrie’s +claims, as ‘shadowed’ in his chosen emblem. I know not if it be germane +to the matter to add that after Bothwell, in 1593, had seized James, by +the aid of our Gowrie’s mother and sister, he uttered a singular hint to +Toby Matthew, Dean of Durham. He intruded himself on the horrified Dean, +hot from his successful raid, described with much humour the kidnapping +of the untrussed monarch, and let it be understood that he was under the +protection of Elizabeth, _that there was a secret candidate for James’s +crown_, and that he expected to be himself Lieutenant of the realm of +Scotland. Bothwell was closely _lié_ with Lady Gowrie (Dorothea +Stewart), and our Gowrie presently joined him in a ‘band’ to serve +Elizabeth and subdue James. {251b} + + + +APPENDIX B: THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION + + +(State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 52) + +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 Matie +being present. + +Vpone thurisday the last of July . . . . Perth from Strebrane . . . . +bene ahunting accompainit wth . . . . purpose to have ridden to . . . . +mother. Bot he had no sooner . . . . aspersauit fyn . . . . vpone such . +. . . addressit thame selffis . . . thay continewit daylie . . . Amangis +the rest Doctor Herries . . . Satirday the first of August feinying +himself to . . . of purpose to . . . and my lordis house. This man be my +Lord was w . . . and convoyit throche . . the house and the secreit +pairts schawin him. + +Vpon tysday my [lordis?] servanttis vnderstanding that my [lord?] was to +ryde to Lot [Lothian] . . . obteinit licence to go . . . thair effairis +and to prepare thameselfis. Whylk my lord wold [not] have grantit to +thame if they . . . any treason in . . . + +The same day Mr. Alexander being send for be the king . . . tymes befoir, +raid to facland accompaneit wth Andro Ruthven and Andro Hendirson, of +mynd not to have returnit . . . bot to have met his brother my lord the +next morning at the watter syde. And Andro Hendirsonis confessioun +testifeit this . . . tuke his ludgeing in facland for this nygt. + +At his cuming to facland he learnit that his Matie was a huntting, quhair +eftir brekfast he addrest him self. And eftir conference wt his Matie, +he directit Andro Hendirsone to ryd befoir, and schaw my lord [that] the +king wald come to Perth [for?] quhat occasion he knew not, and desyrit +him to haist becaus he knew my lord vnforsene and vnprovydit for his +cuming. + +The kingis Matie eftir this resolution raid to Perth accompaneit wth +thrie score horse quhair (?) threttie come a lytle before him . . . +remainit . . . + +My lord being at dennar Andro Hendirsone cwmes and sayis to his Lordship +that the kingis Matie was cummand. My lord . . . quhat his Matie . . . +his hienes was. The vther ansuris . . . Then my Lord caused discover the +tabel and directit his Officeris [incontinent?] to go to the towne to +seik prouision for his Mateis dennare. His Lordship’s self accompaneit +wt fower men (?) . . . twa onlie war his awin servanttis went to the +south . . . of Perth to meit his Matie quhair in presence of all the +company his Matie kyssit my lord at meitting. + +When his Matie enterit in my lordis house his Maties awin porteris +resavit the keyis of the gaitt . . . ylk thay keipit quh . . . murther +was endit. + +His Mateis self commandit to haist the dennare wt all expedition becaus +he was hungrie eftir huntting quhilk . . . the schort warning and +suddentlie dispaschit. His Mateis sendis Mr. Alexander to call Sir +Thomas Erskyne and Jon Ramsay to folow him to the challmer, quhair his +Matie, Sir Thomas Erskyne, Jon Ramsay, Doctor Hereis, and Mr. Wilsone +being convenit slew [Mr. Alexr] and threw him down the stair, how and for +quhat cause . . . thame selfis, and no doubt wald reveill if thay war was +als straytlie toyit in the . . . men . . . kingis servanttis cummes to +the . . . at dennare in the hall the . . . saying my lordis will ye . . . +calling for horse . . . at his Maties . . . suddaine departure . . . and +callit for his horse and stayit not . . . past out to the streit qr +abyding his horse he hearis His Matie call on him out at the chalmer +window my Lord of Gowrie traittoris hes murtherit yor brother alreddie +and . . . ye suffir me to be murtherit also. My Lord hering yis makis to +the yait (?) quhair himself was . . . in and Mr. Thomas Cranstoun that +thrust in before him, the rest was excludit by violence of the kingis +servanttis and cumpany quha . . . the hous and yett. My lord being in at +the yett and entering in the turnpyck to pass vp to his Matie he fand his +brother thrawin down ye stairs dead. And when he came to the chalmer +dure Mr. Thomas Cranstoun being before him was stricken throw the body +twyse and drawin bak be my lord, quha enterit in the chalmer calling if +the king was alyve, bot the . . . , quhylk was in the chalmer . . . him +wt stroke of sworde, bot being unable to ovircum him, and some of thame +woundit, they promisit him to lat him see the king alyve according to his +desyre, and in the meantyme he croceing his two swordis was be Jon Ramsay +strok throw ye body, and falling wt the stroke recommendit his saule to +God, protesting before his heavinlie Matie that he deit his trew subiect +and the kingis. And this far is certanely knawin & collectit pairtly be +the trew affirmacione of sum quha war present of the kingis awin folkis +and last of all be the deposicionnis of Mr. Thomas Cranstoun, George +Craigingelt, and J. (?) Barroun, quha eftir grevous & intolerable +torturis tuke it vponn thair saluaciun & damnatioun that they never knew +the Earle of Gowrie to carie any evill mynd to the kyng lat be to intend +treasoun against him, bot rather wald die wt that that the Earle of +Gowrie his brother and thay thame selfis deit innocent: . . . Hendersone +if he be put to the lyke tryall . . . bot he will confess that he was +servind the Lordis al . . . in the hall quhen the Mr was murtherit and +quhen the kingis [servant?] broght the newis that his Matie was away & +fra that I hear . . . that he was sene till the king causit him to come +vponn promeis that his lyfe and landis suld be saif, for quhat cause the +effect will . . . As for the buke of Necromancie whiche was alledgit to +have bene deprehendit on my lord it (?) was proposeit to the earles +pedagog Mr. Wr Rind (?), quha schawis that he knew my lord to have ane +memoriall buik quhairin he wreat all the notable thingis he learned in +his absence, ather be sicht or hearing, bot as for any buik of +Necromancie nor his medling wt necromanceis he never knew thereof. + +It may be my gude Lord governor that the maner of the earle of Gowrie and +his brotheris death befoir writtin be so far frome yor honoure in mynd +that yt (?) may move farther doubtes to aryse theryn. The cause hereof I +vnderstand is pairtlie the difference of the last report frome the +reporttis preceidding in that it determines na thing concerning the cause +of his Maties sending for the Mr of Gowrie nor concerning. . . . speiches +and . . . and in the chalmer. . . . pairtlie becaus . . . prevaile . . . +or speik against his Matie albeit thay kowe . . . some thair be that +corse . . . apat (?) to his Maties sayingis that thay will swear thame +all albeit thair consciences persuade thame of [the] contrair. Sua it is +hard for yor Lordship to be resoluit be reporttis. Bot if it will pleas +yor Lordship to be acquent wt the causis and incidentis preceidding this +dolorous effect, I hoip yor Lordship wilbe the mair easilie persuadit of +the treuth. And first of all the evill mynd careit be my lord. . . . +Colonel (?) Stewart and his privie complaint & informacioune to his Matie +thair anent. + +Secondlie the opposition laid (?) be my lord himself in the Conventioun +and be the barronnis, as is thocht be his instigacioun, against (?) his +Matie. + +Thirdlie the great haitrent and envy of the courtieris in particularis, +quha had persavit him to be ane great staye of thair commoditie, and sa +be fals reportis and calumneis did go about to kendle and incense his +Maties wrath against him privilie. + +And fourtlie the over great expectatioune the Kirk and cuntrie had of him +wt ane singular lowe preceding yr fra and vther causis qlk is not +neidfull to be exprest. All these causis makis the kingis pairt to be +deadlie suspected be those quha knawis thame to be of veritie. + +As for my lordis pairt if yor Lordship knew how weill he was trainit be +Mr Robert Rollok ane of the godliest men in Scotland at scoolis, and +quhat testificatioun of gude inclinacioun and behaviour he had ressauit +fra him yor honor wald hardlie beleue him a traitor. + +Secondlie if yor Lordship knew wt quhat accompt and good opinioun of all +gude men he passit sobirlie and quyetlie out of his . . . how wiselie and +godlie he behauit him self in all natiounis quhairsoever he come, how he +sufferit in Rome itself . . . for the treuth of his religion . . . as I +am sure he . . . be suspect to be a traittor. + +Thirdlie to quhat end suld my lord of Gourie have maid hes leving frie, +brocht hame furniture and ornamenttis for his hous and payit all his. . . +fatheris debtis and setlit himself to be a gude iusticiar in his awin +landis as is notoriouslie knawin gif wtin the space of twa monethis +haveing scairslie . . . countrie he suld resolue to . . . & murther his +Prince be . . . cause and sa to quyt his countrie his leving his welth +his . . . & lyfe, lat be the ruitting out of his name & posteritie for +evir. + + + +APPENDIX C. +FIVE LETTERS FORGED BY SPROT, AS FROM LOGAN + + + [_Preserved in the General Register House_, _Edinburgh_] + + (1) _Robert Logan of Restalrig to_ . . . + +Rycht Honorabill Sir,—My dewty with servise remembred. Pleise yow +onderstand, my Lo. of Gowry and some vtheris his Lo. frendis and veill +villeris, qha tendaris his Lo. better preferment, ar vpon the resolucion +ye knaw, for the revenge of that cawse; and his Lo. hes vrettin to me +anent that purpose, qhairto I vill accorde, incase ye vill stand to and +beir a part: and befoir ye resolve, meet me and M.A.R. in the Cannogat on +Tysday the nixt owk, and be als var as ye kan. Indeid M.A.R. spak with +me fowr or fywe dayis syn, and I hew promised his Lo. ane answar within +ten dayis at farrest. As for the purpose how M.A.R. and I hes sett down +the cowrse, it vill be ane very esy done twrne, and nocht far by that +forme, vith the lyke stratagem, qhairof ve had conference in Cap. h. Bot +incase ye and M.A.R. forgader, becawse he is someqhat consety, for Godis +saik be very var vith his raklese toyis of Padoa: For he tald me ane of +the strangest taillis of ane nobill man of Padoa that ever I hard in my +lyf, resembling the lyk purpose. I pray yow, Sir, think nathing althocht +this berare onderstand of it, for he is the special secretair of my lyf; +His name is Lard Bower, and vas ald Manderstonis man for deid and lyf, +and evin so now for me. And for my awin part, he sall knaw of all that I +do in this varld, so lang as ve leif togidder, for I mak him my howsehald +man: He is veill vorthy of credit, and I recommend him to yow. Alvyse to +the purpose, I think best for our plat that ve meet all at my house of +Fastcastell; for I hew concludit with M.A.R. how I think it sall be +meittest to be convoyit quyetest in ane bote, be sey; at qhilk tyme vpon +swre adwartisment I sall hew the place very quyet and veill provydit; and +as I receve yowr answer I vill post this berair to my Lo. and therfoir I +pray yow, as ye luf yowr awin lyf, becawse it is nocht ane matter of +mowise, be circumspect in all thingis, and tak na feir bot all sall be +veill. I hew na vill that ather my brother or yit M.W.R. my Lo. ald +pedagog knaw ony thing of the matter, qhill all be done that ve vald hew +done; and thane I cair nocht qha get vit, that lufis vs. Qhen ye hew +red, send this my letter bak agane vith the berar, that I may se it brunt +my self, for sa is the fasson in sic errandis; and if ye please, vryyt +our (?) answer on the bak herof, incase ye vill tak my vord for the +credit of the berair: and vse all expedicioun, for the twrne vald nocht +be lang delayit. Ye knaw the kingis hwnting vill be schortly, and than +sall be best tyme, as M.A.R. has asswred me, that my Lo. has resolved to +interpryse that matter. Lwking for yowr answer, committis yow to +Chrystis haly protectioun. Frome Fastcastell, the awchtan day of July +1600. + +(Sic subscribitur) Yowris to vtter power redy + + RESTALRIGE. + +On the back ‘Sprott,’ ‘bookit’ (2). + + * * * * * + + (2) _Robert Logan of Restalrig to Laird Bower_. + +Lard Bower,—I pray yow hast yow hast to me abowt the erand I tald yow, +and ve sall confer at lenth of all thingis. I hew recevit an new letter +fra my Lo(rd) of Go(wrie) concerning the purpose that M.A. his Lo. +brothir spak to me befoir, and I perseif I may hew avantage of Dirleton, +incase his other matter tak effect, as ve hope it sall. Alvayse I beseik +yow be at me the morne at evin, for I hew asswred his lo. servand, that I +sall send yow over the vatter vithin thre dayis, vith an full resolucion +of all my vill, anent all purposes; As I sall indeid recommend yow and +yowr trustiness till his lo. as ye sall find an honest recompense for +yowr panes in the end. I cair nocht for all the land I hew in this +kingdome, incase I get an grip of Dirleton, for I estem it the plesantest +dwelling in Scotland. For Goddis cawse, keip all thingis very secret, +that my lo. my brothir get na knawlege of owr purposes, for I (wald?) +rather be eirdit quik. And swa lwking for yow, I rest till meitting. +Fra the Kannogait, the xviij day of July. + +(Sic subscribitur) Yowris to power redy + + RESTALRIGE. + +I am verie ill at eise and thairfoir speid yow hither. + +On the back ‘Sprott,’ ‘Secund,’ ‘bookit.’ + + * * * * * + + (3) _Robert Logan of Restalrig to_ . . . . + +Rycht honorable Sir,—All my hartly duty vith humbill servise remembred. +Sen I hew takin on hand to interpryse vith my lo(rd) of Go(wrie) yowr +speciall and only best belowed, as ve hew set down the plat alredy, I +vill request yow that ye vill be very circumspek and vyse, that na man +may get ane avantage of vs. I dowt nocht bot ye knaw the perell to be +bayth lyf, land and honowr, incase the mater be nocht vyslie vsed: And +for my avin part, I sall hew an speciall respek to my promise that I hew +maid till his Lo. and M.A. his lo(rdschipis) brother, althocht the +skafald var set vp. If I kan nocht vin to Fakland the first nycht, I +sall be tymelie in St Johnestoun on the morne. Indeid I lipnit for my +lo(rd) himself or ellise M.A. his lo. brother at my howse of +Fast(castell) as I vret to them bayth. Alwyse I repose on yowr +advertysment of the precyse day, vith credit to the berar: for howbeit he +be bot ane silly ald gleyd carle, I vill answer for him that he sall be +very trew. I pray yow, sir, reid and ather bwrne or send agane vith the +berare; for I dar haserd my lyf and all I hew ellise in the varld on his +message, I hew sik pruif of his constant trewth. Sa committis yow to +Chrystis holy protectioun. Frome the Kannogait the xxvij day of July +1600. + +(Sic subscribitur) + + Yowris till all power vt humbill servise redy + RESTALRIGE. + +I vse nocht to vryt on the bak of ony of my letteris concerning this +errand. + +On the back ‘Sprott,’ ‘bookit’ (3). + + * * * * * + + (4) _Robert Logan of Restalrig to the Earl of Gowrie_. + +My Lo.—My maist humbill dewtie vith servise in maist hartly maner +remembred. At the resset of yowr lo(rdchipis) letter I am so comforted, +especially at your Lo: purpose communicated onto me thairin, that I kan +nather vtter my joy nor find myself habill how to enconter yowr lo. vith +dew thankis. Indeid my lo. at my being last in the town M.A. your lo. +brother imperted somqhat of yowr lo(rdschipis) intentioun anent that +matter onto me; and if I had nocht bene busyed abowt sum turnis of my +avin, I thoght till hew cummit over to S. Jo. and spokin vith your +lo(rdschip). Yit alvayse my lo. I beseik your lo. bayth for the saifty +of yowr honowr, credit and mair nor that, yowr lyf, my lyf, and the lyfis +of mony otheris qha may perhapis innocently smart for that turne +eftirwartis, incase it be reveilled be ony; and lykvyse, the vtter +vraking of our landis and howsis, and extirpating of owr names, lwke that +ve be all alse sure as yowr lo. and I myself sall be for my avin part, +and than I dowt nocht, bot vith Godis g(race) we sall bring our matter +till ane fine, qhilk sall bring contentment to vs all that ever vissed +for the revenge of the Maschevalent massakering of our deirest frendis. +I dowt nocht bot M.A. yowr lo. brother hes informed yowr lo. qhat cowrse +I laid down, to bring all your lo(rdschipis) associatis to my howse of +Fast(castell) be sey, qhair I suld hew all materiallis in reddyness for +thair saif recayving a land, and into my howse; making as it ver bot a +maner of passing time, in ane bote on the sey, in this fair somer tyde; +and nane other strangeris to hant my howse, qhill ve had concluded on the +laying of owr plat, quhilk is alredy devysed be M.A. and me. And I vald +viss that yowr lo. wald ather come or send M.A. to me, and thareftir I +sowld meit yowr lo. in Leith, or quyetly in Restal(rig) qhair ve sowld +hew prepared ane fyne hattit kit, vt succar, comfeitis, and vyn; and +thereftir confer on matteris. And the soner ve broght owr purpose to +pass it ver the better, before harwest. Let nocht M.W.R. yowr awld +pedagog ken of your comming, bot rather vald I, if I durst be so bald, to +intreit yowr lo. anis to come and se my avin howse, qhair I hew keipit my +lo(rd) Bo(thwell) in his gretest extremityis, say the King and his +consell qhat they vald. And incase God grant vs ane hapy swccess in this +errand, I hope baith to haif yowr lo. and his lo., vith mony otheris of +yowr loveries and his, at ane gude dyner, before I dy. Alvyse I hope +that the K(ingis) bwk hunting at Falkland, this yeir, sall prepair sum +daynty cheir for ws, agan that dinner the nixt yeir. _Hoc jocose_, till +animat yowr lo. at this tyme; bot eftirvartis, ve sall hew better +occasion to mak mery. I protest, my lo. before God, I viss nathing vith +a better hart, nor to atchive to that qhilk yowr lo. vald fane atteyn +onto; and my continewall prayer sall tend to that effect; and vith the +large spending of my landis gudis, yea the haserd of my lyf, sall not +afray me fra that, althocht the skaffold var alredy sett vp, befoir I +sowld falsify my promise to yowr lo. and perswade yowr lo(rdschip) +therof. I trow yowr lo. hes ane pruife of my constancy alredy or now. +Bot my lo. qharas your lo. desyris in yowr letter, that I craif my lo. my +brotheris mynd anent this matter, I alvterly disasent fra that that he +sowld ever be ane counsalowr therto; for in gude fayth, he vill newer +help his frend nor harme his fo. Yowr lo. may confyde mair in this ald +man, the beirer heirof, my man La(ird) Bowr, nor in my brother; for I +lippin my lyf and all I hew ells in his handis; and I trow he vald nocht +spair to ryde to Hellis yet to plesour me; and he is nocht begylit of my +pairt to him. Alvyse, my lo. qhen yowr lo. hes red my letter, delyver it +to the berair agane, that I may se it brunt vith my awin ein; as I hew +sent yowr Lo: letter to yowr Lo. agane; for so is the fassone I grant. +And I pray yowr lo. rest fully perswaded of me and all that I hew +promesed; for I am resolved, howbeit it ver to dy the morne. I man +intreit yowr lo. to expede Bowr, and gif him strait directioun, on payn +of his lyf, that he tak never ane vink sleip, qhill he se me agane; or +ellise he vill vtterly vndo vs. I hew alredy sent an other letter to the +gentill man yowr lo. kennis, as the berare vill informe yowr lo. of his +answer and forvardness vith yowr lo.; and I sall schaw yowr lo. forder, +at meting, qhen and qhair yowr lo. sall think meittest. To qhilk tyme +and ever committis yowr lo. to the proteccioun of the Almychtie God. +From Gwnisgrene, the twenty nynt of Julij 1600. + +(Sic subscribitur) Your lo. awin sworne and bundman to obey and serve vt +efauld and ever redy seruise to his vttir power till his lyfis end. + + RESTALRIGE. + +Prayis yowr lo. hald me excused for my vnsemly letter, qhilk is nocht sa +veil vrettin as mister var: For I durst nocht let ony of my vryteris ken +of it, but tuke twa syndry ydill dayis to it my self. + +I vill never foryet the gude sporte that M.A. yowr lo: brother tald me of +ane nobill man of Padoa, it comiss sa oft to my memory. And indeid it is +a parastevr to this purpose ve hew in hand. + +On the back ‘Sprott,’ ‘bookit’ (4). + + * * * * * + + (5) _Robert Logan of Restalrig to_ . . . + +Rycht honorabill Sir,—My hartly dewty remembred. Ye knaw I tald yow at +owr last meitting in the Cannogat that M.A.R. my lo. of Go(wries) brother +had spokin vith me, anent the matter of owr conclusion; and for my awin +part I sall nocht be hindmest; and sensyne I gat ane letter from his lo. +selff, for that same purpose; and apon the resset tharof, onderstanding +his lo. frankness and fordvardness in it, God kennis if my hart vas nocht +liftit ten stagess! I postit this same berare till his lo. to qhome ye +may concredit all yowr hart in that asveill as I; for and it var my very +sowl, I durst mak him messinger therof, I hew sic experiense of his +treuth in mony other thingis: He is ane silly ald gleyd carle, bot vonder +honest: And as he hes reportit to me his lo. awin answer, I think all +matteris sall be concluded at my howse of Fa(stcastell); for I and M.A.R. +conclude that ye sowld come vith him and his lo. and only ane other man +vith yow, being bot only fowr in company, intill ane of the gret fisching +botis, be sey to my howse, qher ye sall land as saifly as on Leyth +schoir; and the howse agane his lo. comming to be quyet: And qhen ye ar +abowt half a myll fra schoir, as it ver passing by the howse, to gar set +forth ane vaf. Bot for Godis sek, let nether ony knawlege come to my lo. +my brotheris eiris, nor yit to M.W.R. my lo. ald pedagog; for my brother +is kittill to scho behind, and dar nocht interpryse, for feir; and the +other vill disswade vs fra owr purpose vith ressonis of religion, qhilk I +can newer abyd. I think thar is nane of a nobill hart, or caryis ane +stomak vorth an pini, bot they vald be glad to se ane contented revenge +of Gray Steillis deid: And the soner the better, or ellse ve may be +marrit and frustrat; and therfor, pray his lo(rdschip) be qwik and bid +M.A. remember on the sport he tald me of Padoa; for I think vith my self +that the cogitacion on that sowld stimulat his lo(rdschip). And for +Godis cawse vse all yowr cowrses _cum discrecione_. Fell nocht, sir, to +send bak agan this letter; for M.A. leirit me that fasson, that I may se +it distroyed my self. Sa till your comming, and ever, committis yow +hartely to Chrystis holy protection. From Gwnisgrene, the last of July +1600. + +On the back ‘xiij Aprilis 1608 producit be Ninian Chirnesyde (8).’ + +Also ‘Sprott,’ ‘Fyft. bookit.’ + + + + +INDEX + + +ABBOT, Dr. George, present when Sprot was hanged, 177, 226; his pamphlet +containing official account of Sprot’s trial and examinations, 178 + +Abercromby, Robert (the King’s saddler), said to have brought James to +Perth to ‘take order for his debt,’ 83, 84, 159 + +Agnew, Sir Stair, cited, 241 + +Analysis of Letter IV, 232–239 + +Anderson, Rev. Mr., finds the torn letter from Logan to Chirnside, 174; +on Letter IV., 236, 237, 238; on the Logan plot-letters, 241, 242, 243 + +Angus, Earl of, involves Gowrie’s father in a conspiracy with him, 121, +122; under the spells of witchcraft, 198, 199 + +Anne of Denmark, Queen (wife of James VI), her attributed relations with +the Earl Moray, 2; and with Gowrie and the Master of Ruthven, 3, 133, +134, 138; romantic story of her ribbon on the Master’s neck, 132; invites +Gowrie to Court, 133, 134; sorrow for the slaying of the Ruthvens, 5, +133, 138; plots against the Earl of Mar, 138, 139 + +Arms, Gowrie’s, 245 _et seq._ + +Arnott, Sir John (provost of Edinburgh), on the Logan plot-letters, 243; +at the trial of Logan, 250 + +Arran (Capt. James Stewart), his influence over James, 119; his treachery +to Gowrie’s father, 120–123; receives that nobleman’s forfeited estate, +123; driven into retirement, 123 + +Arran, Earl of, Bothwell’s (James Hepburn) proposal to him to seize Mary, +cited, 71 + +Ashfield, kidnapped by Lord Willoughby, cited, 139 + +Atholl, Earl of (married to Gowrie’s sister Mary), 123; in alliance with +Bothwell and Gowrie against James, 125; manifesto to the Kirk, 125; +letters from James, 134, 135 + +Auchmuty, John, in attendance on James, 12 + + * * * * * + +BAILLIE, John, of Littlegill, implicated by Sprot with Logan, 202, 203; +denies receiving a letter from Logan, 209 + +Baldi, Ottavio, his letter to James on the Gowrie emblem at Padua, 246, +247, 251 + +Balgonie. _See_ Graham of Balgonie. + +Barbé, Mr. Louis, on Henderson’s and the Master’s ride to Falkland, 45; +his view of the notary Robertson’s evidence respecting Henderson, 61 +note; as to the theory of an accidental brawl, 94; on James and the pot +of gold tale, 95; on Bruce’s interrogation of the King, 109; on the +invitation from the King to Gowrie, Atholl, and others to join him at +Falkland, 135 + +Baron (Gowrie’s retainer), in the chamber fight, 87; hanged, 87 + +Bell, John, Logan’s memorandum to him, 174, 195 + +Beza, Gowrie with, at Geneva, 180 + +Bisset, Mr., quoted, on the notary Robertson’s evidence respecting +Henderson, 61 note + +Bothwell, Francis Stewart Earl of, aided by Gowrie’s mother and sister +captures James at Holyrood, 124, 125; manifesto to the Kirk, 125; his +list of Scottish Catholic nobles ready for the invasion of Scotland, 128; +other proposals of invasion, 129; vague hints at his aim to change the +dynasty, 140; his whereabouts in 1600, 147 note; on terms with Logan of +Restalrig, 154, 155, 156; charged with practising witchcraft against the +King’s life, 198; report as to a secret candidate for James’s crown, 251 + +Bothwell, James Hepburn Earl of, his proposal to Arran to seize Mary, +cited, 71 + +Bower, James (a retainer of Logan’s), custodian of compromising letters +between Logan and Gowrie, 164, 174, 176, 177, 195; bearer of Gowrie’s +letter to Logan, 183, 188, 191; letter from Logan, 183, 184; Sprot’s +account of Logan and Bower’s scheme to get possession of Dirleton, 189; +with Logan at Coldinghame after the tragedy, 195; custodian of Ruthven’s +and Clerk’s letters to Logan, 202; blamed for the selling of Fastcastle, +204; letter from Logan reproaching him for indiscretions of speech, 211, +212 + +Bower, Valentine, employed by his father James to read Logan’s letters, +213 + +Bowes, Sir William (English Ambassador), no friend of James’s, 96; his +hypothesis respecting the Gowrie tragedy, 96; letter to Sir John Stanhope +on same matter, 97 note + +Brown, Professor Hume, on the Logan plot-letters, 241 + +Brown, Robert (James’s servant), part in the Gowrie mystery, 31 + +Bruce, Rev. Robert (Presbyterian minister), his cross-examination of +James on the Gowrie tragedy, 38; allows that James was not a conspirator, +95; explains to James the reasons for the preachers’ refusal to thank God +for his delivery from a ‘plot,’ 101; sceptical of the veracity of James’s +narrative, 102, 103; will believe it if Henderson is hanged, 103, 104, +106, 226; goes into banishment, 105; tells Mar in London he is content to +abide by the verdict in the Gowrie case, but is not persuaded of Gowrie’s +guilt, 105; meets the King in Scotland, and tells him he is convinced, on +Mar’s oath, that he is innocent, 106; interrogates the King, 107; refuses +to make a public apology in the pulpit and is banished to Inverness, 108, +250; his ‘Meditations,’ 110 note; asks Lord Hamilton to head the party of +the Kirk, 177; prophecies, 249 + +Burnet (Burnet’s father), on the Gowrie mystery, 249, 250 + +Burnet, Bishop, quoted, on Gowrie’s claims to a Royal pedigree, 249, 250 + +Burton, Dr. Hill, on James VI, 5; on Logan’s plot-letters, 169 + + * * * * * + +CALDERWOOD, Rev. David (Presbyterian minister), on James’s narrative of +the Gowrie affair, 36, 37; on the man in the turret, 62; rejects the +story of Craigengelt’s dying confession, 104; view of the objections +taken by sceptics to the King’s narrative, 111; on Gowrie’s entry to +Edinburgh, 130; on the confession of Sprot on the scaffold, 163, 164 +note, 227; his interpretation of Sprot’s confession, 164; on the Logan +plot-letters, 170, 172, 173 + +Cant, Mr. (antiquary), on Gowrie House, 18 + +Carey, Sir John (Governor of Berwick), respecting a treatise in +vindication of the Ruthvens, 81; informs Cecil of James’s jealousy of +Gowrie, 130; and of the Court tattle respecting the Queen and Gowrie, 133 + +Casket Letters, the, cited, 5, 7, 8; in possession of Gowrie’s father, +240; disappearance of, 241; probability of forgery, 244 + +Cecil Papers at Hatfield, the, 158 + +Cecil, Sir Robert, Queen Elizabeth’s minister, 11; communication from +Nicholson respecting Cranstoun and Henderson, 75 note; letter from Carey +respecting a treatise in vindication of the Ruthvens, 81; intrigue with +Bothwell, 147 note; with Border Scots intriguing against James, 159, 160; +Lord Willoughby’s offer of a ship if subsidised, 218 + +Chirnside, Ninian, of Whitsumlaws, 154; Logan’s letter to him, 174; +relations with Logan, 197, 199; employed by Bothwell to arrange meetings +with the wizard Graham, 198, 199; in danger after the failure of the +Gowrie plot, 203; Sprot’s forged letter of Logan’s to be used by him for +blackmailing Logan’s executors, 215 + +Christie, porter at Gowrie House on the fatal day, 21 + +Clerk, Father Andrew (Jesuit), intriguing against James, 201, 212 + +Coat of arms, Gowrie’s, 245 _et seq._ + +Colville, John, tells Cecil of Gowrie’s summons to be leader of the Kirk, +129; schemes against James, 140, 146, 155; renounces Frank Bothwell, 198 + +Corsar, John, cited, 211 + +Cowper, Rev. Mr. (minister of Perth), on Gowrie’s views as to secrecy in +plots, 144 + +Craigengelt (Gowrie’s steward), his evidence regarding the Master’s ride +to Falkland, 44; observation of the Master while the King dines, 49; at +the dinner, 65, 83, 84; his confession before execution, 103, 104; denial +of receipt of letters from James to Gowrie, 134, 135 note; on the +movements of the Gowries before the tragedy, 136; hanged, 87 + +Cranstoun of Cranstoun, Sir John, 154 + +Cranstoun Riddell, Laird of, (Logan’s father-in-law), 153 + +Cranstoun, Thomas (Gowrie’s equerry), his share in the transactions at +Gowrie House which brought about the slaughter of the Ruthvens, 20, 21, +23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; wounded by Ramsay, 74, 85; examined, tortured, +tried, and hanged at Perth, 74, 87, 155; an outlawed rebel and adherent +of Bothwell, 74 note, 155 + +Cranstoun, Wm. (Bothwellian), 155 + +Crockett, Willie, one of Sprot’s victims, 203; his account of Logan’s +Yule at Gunnisgreen, 209 + +Cromarty, Lord, his defence of James in the Gowrie affair, 223; testifies +to the finding of Sprot’s Letter IV, 224, 229 + + * * * * * + +DAVIDSON, Rev. M., cited, 249 + +Dirleton, Gowrie’s stronghold near North Berwick, 42, 43, 145 + +Doig, Watty, arrests Sprot, 162 + +Douglas, Archibald, the infamous traitor, 140; his intimacy with Logan, +154, 155, 157 + +Douglas, Archibald, of Glenbervie, 248 + +Douglas, Archibald (son of Douglas of Glenbervie), student at Padua, 126, +248 + +Douglas of Spot, 140, 156 + +Douglas, Sir Robert, and the Gowrie emblem in Padua, 127, 246, 247, 248, +251 + +Drummond of Inchaffray, at Gowrie House when the Ruthvens were killed, +19, 24, 43; letter from James, 134, 135 + +Dunbar, Earl of, his humane treatment of Sprot, 163, 170; Sprot’s +confession forwarded to him, 182; in debt to Logan, 211 + +Dunfermline, Earl of, and the preachers, 102; opposes James’s demands for +money, 131; present at Sprot’s examinations, 201, 210 + + * * * * * + +EASTER WEMYSS, Laird of, opposes James’s demands for money, 131 + +Elizabeth, Queen, 11; receives, through Preston, James’s account of the +Gowrie affair, 96; seeks to purchase the Casket Letters from Gowrie’s +father, 240; said to have granted to Gowrie the guard and honours of a +Prince of Wales, 248 + +Elphinstone (Lord Balmerino), Secretary of the Privy Council, in receipt +of James’s narrative of the Gowrie plot, 38; denies discrepancies alleged +by the preachers in the report of the tragedy, 102 + +Erskine, Sir Thomas, his share in the Gowrie slaughter, 19, 26, 27, 28, +29, 30, 31, 51, 59, 74, 85, 139 + +Erskine (Sir Thomas’s brother), his part in the tragedy, 26, 27, 28, 29 + +Essex, Earl of, 11, 105 + +Eviot, Patrick, present at the fight in the death chamber, 29, 30, 60; +proclaimed, 63 + + * * * * * + +FALKLAND Castle, 5, 12 + +Fastcastle, Berwickshire, the stronghold of Logan, where it is said James +was to have been lodged, 153, 154, 193, 194 + +Fyvie, President of the Privy Council. _See_ Dunfermline. + + * * * * * + +GALLOWAY, Rev. Patrick (the King’s chaplain), his account of the doors +passed through and locked by the Master on the way to the turret, 53; +proclaims Henderson as the man in the turret, 63; alleges that Gowrie +attempted to involve James in negotiations with the Pope, 104, 128; +reported to have induced Henderson to pretend to be the man in the +turret, 114; at Sprot’s examination, 186, 217, 220, 226 + +Galloway, William, one of Sprot’s victims, 203 + +Gardiner, Mr. S. R. (historian), on the Gowrie mystery, 5 + +Gibson (Scottish judge), kidnapping of, 145 + +Goodman, the, of Pitmillie, on the King’s knowledge of Henderson, 114 + +Gowdie, Isobel, accused of witchcraft, 198 + +Gowrie, Earl of (father of John Earl of, and the Master of Ruthven), one +of the Riccio murderers, 118; in charge of Mary at Lochleven, 118; +pardoned for his share in the Raid of Ruthven, 119; arrested and brought +to trial, 120; foul means by which his conviction was procured, 120–123; +foreknowledge of the Angus conspiracy, 121, 122; nobles charged by him +with treachery, 122; execution, 11, 55, 56, 121; the King’s debt to him, +84; after death denounced by James as a traitor, 96; the Casket Letters +in his possession, 240 + +Gowrie House, situation and topography of, 14–18; Lennox’s account of +proceedings at, on the day of the slaughter, 20 _et seq._ + +Gowrie Inn, 18 + +Gowrie, John Earl of, his attributed relations with the Queen, 3; +speculations as to his aims and character, 5, 7; and the causes leading +to his death, 5, 7; alleged plot to seize James, 7; his retainers’ +evidence thereon, 9; _the Duke of Lennox’s account of events_, 13 _et +seq._; James’s invitation to Gowrie House to see the treasure, 14; +situation and topography of his house, 15–18; observers’ accounts of his +plot said to have been aimed at the King, 20–34; the manner of his death, +31; _the King’s own narrative of the Gowrie plot_, 35 _et seq._; his +conduct in the light of that narrative, 42; the circumstance of the man +in the turret, and the plot of gold concealed from him, 41, 42, 49, 50; +Henderson sent by the Master to warn him of the King’s arrival, 43; +secrecy enjoined by him on Henderson as to the ride to Falkland, 44; +silent as to his knowledge of the King’s approach, 45; makes no +preparation for the King’s dinner 46, 49; influence of a disagreement +between him and the Master, respecting the Abbey of Scone, 48, 49; meets +the King and conducts him to Gowrie House, 49; his uneasy conduct while +the King dines, 49, 50; _account of his share in the plot drawn from +Henderson’s deposition_, 64; questions Henderson about the King, 65; bids +Henderson put on his secret coat of mail to arrest a Highlander, 65; the +contemporary _Ruthven Vindication_, 80–93; theory of an accidental brawl, +94–98; contemporary clerical and popular criticism, 99 _et seq._; alleged +attempts to entangle James in negotiations with the Pope, 104; grounds +for a hereditary feud between him and James, 118; elected provost of +Perth, 124; at Edinburgh University, 124; in alliance with Bothwell and +Atholl against James, 125; their manifesto to the Kirk, 125; goes with +his tutor Rhynd to Padua, 126; his emblem, and saying regarding it, 127; +extols the conduct of an English fanatic at Rome, 127: reported to have +been converted to Catholicism, 128; his name on Bothwell’s list of +Scottish Catholic nobles ripe for the invasion of Scotland, 129; +presented by Elizabeth, in London, with a cabinet of plate, 130; James +jealous of him on his return to Edinburgh, 131; opposes the King’s +demands for money, 131, 141; letter of invitation to Court, from the +Queen, 133; letter of invitation to Falkland from James, 134, 135; quits +Strabran for Perth, 136; movements on the morning of the tragedy, 137; +granted exemption for a year from pursuit by creditors, 141; rumour that +he was a candidate for the English throne, 141; motives of revenge urging +him to plot against James, 143; his views as to secrecy in plots, 144; +evidences of his intention to capture James and convey him to Dirleton, +145, 146; letter to Logan, 183, 184; anxious that Lord Home should be +initiated into the conspiracy, 206, 207; his arms and ambitions, 245–251; +emblem at Padua, 247, 248, 256; Tudor descent, 249; pedigree, 248, 249, +250; Bothwell’s statement implying that he was a secret candidate for +James’s crown, 251 + +Gowrie, Lady (Gowrie’s mother), aids Bothwell in capturing James at +Holyrood, 124, 125; her movements immediately prior to the tragedy, 136; +at Dirleton on August 6, 136; her suit for relief from her creditors, 141 + +Graham of Balgonie, reports the Master’s desire to be alone with the King +while inspecting the treasure, 50; picks up the garter supposed to have +been used to tie James’s hands in the turret chamber, 58; verbal +narrative of the King’s escape to the Privy Council, 101 + +Graham, Richard (wizard), accuses Bothwell of attempting James’s life by +sorcery, 198, 199 + +Gray, suspected as the man in the turret, 62 + +Gray, the Master of, reports Lennox’s doubt whether Gowrie or the King +was guilty, 116; his relations with Logan of Restalrig, 156, 157 + +Guevara, Sir John (cousin of Lord Willoughby), his share in kidnapping +Ashfield, 139; cited, 146, 218 + +Gunnisgreen, Logan of Restalrig’s residence, 162 + +Gunton, Mr. (Librarian at Hatfield), on Logan’s letters, 239, 241 + + * * * * * + +HADDINGTON, Earl of, in possession of records of Sprot’s private +examinations, 173, 174; the torn letter, 216, 217; copies of Logan’s +letters (I, IV), 224; documents written by Sprot, 241 + +Hailes, Lord, cited, 62 note; on a contemporary treatise in vindication +of the Ruthvens, 81; his romantic story concerning the Master of Ruthven, +132 + +Hall, Rev. John, his objection to acceptance of James’s narrative, 103; +restored to his pulpit, 105; present when Sprot confessed to forgery of +the Logan letters, 186; at Sprot’s examination, 217, 220, 226 + +Hamilton, Lord, asked to head the party of the Kirk, 177 + +Hamilton of Grange, at the slaughter of the Ruthvens, 19 + +Hamilton, Sir Thomas (the King’s Advocate), 64; preserves the records of +Sprot’s private examinations, 173, 174; at Sprot’s examinations, 201, +210; Sprot’s model letter delivered to him, 224 + +Hamilton, Thomas, on the doors passed through by the Master and James to +reach the turret, 52 + +Hart, Sir William (Chief Justice), his account of Sprot’s examinations +and trial, 168, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 220 + +Hay, George (lay Prior of the Chartreux in Perth), on Henderson and the +Falkland ride, 45; on Henderson’s message to Gowrie from the Master, 65; +at Perth on August 5th, 137 + +Hay, Peter, on Henderson and the Falkland ride, 45 + +Heddilstane, 196; receipts from Logan to him forged by Sprot, 199; +blackmailed by Sprot, 199 + +Henderson, Andrew, with the Master of Ruthven at Gowrie House, 43; +accompanies the Master on a mission to James at Falkland, and sent with a +message to Gowrie, 44; enjoined by Gowrie to keep this ride secret, 44, +45; Robertson’s evidence respecting his presence in the death chamber, +60, 61; other theories on the same, 61 note; his flight after the affray, +60, 62; proclaimed by Galloway as the man in the turret, 63: reasons for +his flight, 64; examined before the Lords, 64; his narrative of the +events leading to the tragedy, 64; incidents at Falkland, 65; the +Master’s message to Gowrie, 65; bidden to put on a coat of mail by +Gowrie, 66; waits on the King at dinner, 65; sent to the Master in the +gallery, 66; locked in the turret by the Master, 66; accordance of his +account of the final scenes in the tragedy with that of the King, 66; +states that he threw the dagger out of the Master’s hand, 66; +discrepancies in his later deposition, 67; in his second deposition omits +the statement that he deprived the Master of his dagger, 67; his version +of the words exchanged between the Master and James in the turret +chamber, 68; the question of his disarming the Master, 69; on what was +his confession modelled, 70; clings to the incident of the garter, 70; +the most incredible part of his narrative, 70; perils to him in listening +to treasonable proposals from the Ruthvens, 72; Robert Oliphant’s +statement contrasted with his, 75, 77; quarrels with Herries, 77, 78; +Rev. Mr. Bruce’s attitude towards his deposition, 103, 104; said to have +been induced by the Rev. Mr. Galloway to pretend to be the man in the +turret, 114; share in the Gowrie affair, 145; questioned by Moncrieff, +145 + +Henry, Prince (son of James VI and his heir), in the charge of Mar, 138 + +Heron, Captain Patrick, his career, 76 note; seizes, by commission, +Oliphant’s portable property and claps him in prison in the Gate House of +Westminster, 76; compelled to restore Oliphant’s property, 77 + +Herries, Dr., at the King’s hunt at Falkland, 12; at Gowrie House when +the Ruthvens were killed, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; his share in the +affray, 59, 85; wounded by Cranstoun, 74; quarrels with Henderson, 77; +knighted and rewarded, 78; fable of his prophecy to Beatrix Ruthven, 131 + +Hewat, Rev. Peter, accepts James’s narrative, 102, 103; at Sprot’s +examination, 186, 217, 220, 226 + +History of the Kirk of Scotland (MS.), cited, 164 + +Hogg, Rev. William (minister of Aytoun), on the Logan plot-letters, 243 + +Home, Lady, aware of Logan’s desire to obtain Dirleton, 207, 208 + +Home, (sixth) Lord, in communication with Bothwell, 129, 130, 152, 205, +206, 207 + +Home, Lord (Logan’s uterine brother), 184, 187, 205; Logan’s contempt for +him as a conspirator, 237 + +Home, William (sheriff clerk of Berwick), on the Logan plot-letters, 243 + +Horne, John (notary in Eyemouth), on the Logan plot-letters, 243 + +Horse, King James’s, his part in the Gowrie mystery, 22 + +Hudson, Mr. (James’s resident at the Court of England), interviews the +King and Henderson on the transactions in the turret chamber, 67, 69 +note; his explanation of the origin of differences between the King’s +narrative and Henderson’s evidence, 69 + +Hume of Cowdenknowes (married to Gowrie’s sister Beatrix), 124 + +Hume of Godscroft, on a message from the Earl of Angus to Gowrie’s father +in conspiracy, 121, 122 + +Hume of Manderston, 187 + +Hume of Rentoun, 196 + +Hume, Sir George, of Spot, 64 + + * * * * * + +JAMES VI of Scotland, married to Anne of Denmark, 2; early life and +character, 4; his version of the Gowrie mystery, 6; reasons for doubting +his guilt, 7; untrustworthiness of his word, 8; substantial character of +his tale, 9; love of the chase, 11; political troubles, 11; hunting +costume, 12; concerning him, _facts drawn from Lennox_, 13 _et seq._; +starts for the hunt in Falkland Park, 13; the Master of Ruthven +interviews him before the hunt, 13; goes to Gowrie’s house, 14; +_observers’ accounts of the transactions implicating him_, 20–34; his +dinner at Gowrie House, 20; goes upstairs on a quiet errand, 20; +Cranstoun’s statement that the King had ridden away, 20; search for him +in the house, 21; Gowrie confirms his departure, 22; but—the King’s horse +still in the stable, 22; heard calling from the window, 23; struggle with +the Master of Ruthven, 24, 25, 26; the man in the turret behind the +King’s back, 25; sanctions the stabbing of the Master of Ruthven by +Ramsay, 26; shut up in the turret, 29, 30; kneels in prayer in the +chamber bloody with the corpse of Gowrie, 32; _his own narrative of the +affair_, 35 _et seq._; theory of the object of the Ruthvens, 37; the +Master of Ruthven’s statement to him of the cloaked man and the pot full +of coined gold pieces, 39; suspects the Jesuits of importing foreign gold +for seditious purposes, 40; his horror of ‘practising Papists,’ 40; +hypothesis of his intended kidnapping, 37, 42; importance of the ride of +the Master and Henderson to Falkland and its concealment to the +substantiation of his narrative, 44, 45, 46; asserts Henderson’s presence +at Falkland, 46; rides, followed by Mar and Lennox, after the kill to +Perth, 47; surmises regarding Ruthven, 47; motives for the Master +acquiring his favour regarding the Abbey of Scone, 48; asks Lennox if he +thinks the Master settled in his wits, 48; pressed by the Master to come +on and see the man and the treasure, 48; met by Gowrie with sixty men, +49; presses the Master for a sight of the treasure, 49; the Master asks +him to keep the treasure a secret from Gowrie, 49; Gowrie’s uneasy +behaviour while the King dines, 49, 50; despatches Gowrie to the Hall +with the grace-cup, and follows the Master alone to the turret to view +the treasure, 50, 51; the question of the doors he passed through to +reach the turret chamber and their locking by the Master, 51, 52, 53, 54; +threatened by the Master with the dagger of a strange man in the turret +chamber, 55; denounced for the execution of the Master’s father, 56; his +harangue to the Master excusing his action, and promising forgiveness if +released, 56; Ruthven goes to consult Gowrie, leaving him in the custody +of the man, 56; questions the man about the conspiracy, 57; orders the +man to open the window, 58; the Master returns and essays to bind his +hands with a garter, 58; struggles with the Master and shouts Treason +from the window, 58; rescued by Ramsay, who wounds the Master, 59; +returns to Falkland, 59; _Henderson’s narrative of events_, 60 _et seq._; +his interview with the Master and journey to Gowrie House, 65; at dinner, +65; Henderson’s account of the struggle in the turret chamber mainly in +accord with the King’s narrative, 66; discrepancy between his and +Henderson’s accounts of the disarming of Ruthven, 69, 104; causes +Oliphant to be lodged in the Gate House, Westminster, 76; subsequently +releases him and restores his property, 76, 77; maintains his to be the +true account of the Gowrie affair and disregards discrepancies in +evidence, 78; on the way to Gowrie House had informed Lennox of Ruthven’s +tale of the pot of gold, 94; theory of his concoction of the tale, 95; +despatches Preston to Elizabeth with his version of the Gowrie affair, +96; rates the Edinburgh preachers for refusing to thank God for his +delivery from a ‘Gowrie plot,’ 101; reasons for his ferocity towards the +recalcitrant preachers, 102; his alleged ‘causes’ for the death of +Gowrie, 104; Bruce states that he is convinced, on Mar’s oath chiefly, of +his innocence, 106; under interrogation by Bruce, 107, 108; subsequent +persecution of Bruce, 109; _objections taken by contemporary sceptics to +his narrative_, 111–117; grounds for a hereditary feud between him and +Gowrie, 118; early years of his reign, 119; the Raid of Ruthven, 119; his +acquiescence in the execution of Gowrie’s father, 123; Arran’s influence +over him, 119, 123; suspected of favouring the Catholic earls of the +North, 124; Gowrie, Atholl and Bothwell in alliance against him, 125; +their manifesto to the Kirk, 125; Gowrie’s relique at Padua forwarded to +him by Sir Robert Douglas, 127; early correspondence with Gowrie, 127; +his alleged jealousy of Gowrie, 130; gives Gowrie a year’s respite from +pursuit of his creditors, 131; thwarted by Gowrie in his demands for +money, 131; romantic story of his discovery of the Queen’s ribbon on the +Master’s neck, 132; his letters inviting Atholl, the Master and Gowrie to +Falkland, 134, 135, note; his motives for killing both the Ruthvens, 139, +140; method attributed to him by his adversaries on which he might have +carried out a plot against the Ruthvens, 142; plots against him +encouraged by the English Government, 161; his life aimed at by +witchcraft, 198. See ‘The Verie Manner of the Erll of Gowrie,’ &c. + +Jesuits, suspected by James of importing foreign coin for seditious +purposes, 40 + + * * * * * + +KEITH, Andrew, at Padua, 126, 248 + +Ker, George (Catholic intriguer with Spain), 154 + +Ker of Newbattle, at Padua with Gowrie, 248 + +Ker, Robert, of Newbattle, at Padua, 126 + +Kirk, the, the King’s version of the Gowrie plot discredited by, 36 + +Kirkcaldy of Grange, in defence of Edinburgh Castle, 152; hanged on the +fall of the castle, 153 + + * * * * * + +LENNOX, Duke of, at the King’s hunt in Falkland Park, 12, 47; his account +of what followed, 13 _et seq._; accompanies James to Gowrie House, 14; +his opinion of the Master of Ruthven and the story of the pitcher of gold +coins, 14; at Gowrie House with the King, 19; his version and that of +others of the transactions which brought about the deaths of Gowrie and +the Master, 20–34; questioned by James as to the sanity of the Master, +48; informed by James of the Master’s story of the gold coins, 94, 95; at +the slaughter of the Ruthvens, 86, 88, 119, 124; married to Gowrie’s +sister Sophia, 124 + +Lesley, suspected as the man in the turret, 62 + +Letter I (Logan to—), 167, 174, 185, 188, 189, 196, 200, 216, 217, 223, +224, 225, 226, 228, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 257, 258 + +Letter II (Logan to Bower), 183, 184, 185, 188, 189, 195, 205, 208, 224, +228, 229, 239, 258, 259 + +Letter III (Logan to—), 200, 216, 217, 223, 224, 228, 232, 233, 234, 235, +239, 259, 260 + +Letter IV (Logan to Gowrie), cited, 166, 167, 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, +177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 186, 187, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, +199, 202, 206, 207, 215, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, +231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 260–263 + +Letter V (Logan to—), 200, 215, 216, 217, 223, 224, 228, 232, 233, 234, +235, 263, 264 + +Lindores, at the slaughter of the Ruthvens, 19, 20, 21 + +Lindsay, James, at Padua with Gowrie, 126, 248 + +Lindsay, Lord, surety for Lord Robert Stewart, 153 + +Lindsay, Rev. David, sent to tell James’s story of his escape from the +Gowrie plot at the Cross, Edinburgh, 101 + +Lindsay, Sir Harry, Laird of Kinfauns, Sprot withdraws his charge against +him, 217 + +Locke, Henry (Cecil’s go-between and agent in conspiracy against James), +160 + +Logan, Matthew, 187, 189, 193, 203; bearer of letters from Logan to +Bower, 211, 212, 213; account of Bower’s reception of them, 213; denies +every word attributed to him by Sprot, 213, 220 + +Logan, Sir Robert (father of Logan of Restalrig), 150, 205, 206 + +Logan of Restalrig, his name on Bothwell’s list of Catholic nobles, 129; +surety for Lord Robert Stewart, 153; marries Elizabeth Macgill, and is +divorced from her, 153; on terms both with Protestant and Catholic +conspirators, 154, 155, 156; diplomatic ambitions, 156; on the packed +jury which acquits Archibald Douglas, 157; relations with the Master of +Gray, 157; a partisan, with Gowrie’s father, of Bothwell, 157; helps +himself to the plate-chest of Nesbit of Newton, 158; bound over not to +put Fastcastle in the hands of the King’s enemies, 158; his character +from Lord Willoughby, 159; intimacy with the Mowbrays, 160; sells all his +landed property at the time of the Gowrie plot, 161, 205; erratic +behaviour previous to his death, 161; death, 161, 162; compromising +papers from him found on his notary Sprot, 162; under torture Sprot +confesses these papers to be his own forgeries, 162; on examination +before the Privy Council Sprot persists in Logan’s complicity in the +Gowrie plot, 163, 170; his exhumed remains brought into court and tried +for treason, 164; compromising letters, 164, 165; his family forfeited, +165; production of alleged plot-letters at his posthumous trial, 168, +175; contents of Letter IV to Gowrie, 176; use made of the letters by the +Government, 179, 181; letters from and to Gowrie, 183; letter to Bower, +183, 184, 185; conduct immediately before and after Gowrie’s death, 187; +his scheme to get possession of Dirleton, 189; his keep Fastcastle, where +it is said James was to have been carried, 193; charge of conspiracy to +murder James made in the Indictment in his posthumous trial, 193; faint +evidence that he was connected with the Gowrie plot, 194; with Bower at +Coldinghame on the failure of the plot, 195; memorandum to Bower and +Bell, 195; singular behaviour in trusting his letters to Bower, 202; +burns Ruthven’s and Clerk’s letters, 202; letter to Baillie of +Littlegill, 202; events at his Yule at Gunnisgreen, 203; takes Sprot into +his confidence, 204; discourages the idea of bringing Lord Home into the +plot, 207, 208; conversation with Lady Home about Dirleton, 208; his +visit to London, 210; letter to Bower, and Sprot’s answer, 211; fears the +effect of Bower’s rash speeches, 212; forged letters attributed to him, +215, 216, 217; partner in a ship with Lord Willoughby, 218; his letter to +Gowrie the model for Sprot’s forgeries, 177, 221; motives for his sale of +his lands, 228 + +Logan, Robert (son of Logan of Restalrig and Elizabeth Macgill), 153 + +Lords of the Articles, the, the Gowrie case before, 8; the Logan trial +before, 165 + +Lumisden, Rev. Mr., present when Sprot confessed to forgery of letters, +186; at the examination of Sprot, 226 + +Lyn, tailor, Mr. Robert Oliphant’s confidences to him about the Gowrie +plot, 73, 75 + + * * * * * + +MACBRECK, witness of the attack on Gowrie, 29 + +Macgill, Elizabeth, married to Logan of Restalrig, and divorced from him, +153 + +Maitland of Lethington, 152 + +Man, the, in the turret, 35, 55, 56, 57, 62, 72 + +Mar, Earl of, at the King’s hunt at Falkland, 12, 47; with James at +Gowrie House, 23, 24, 26, 32; at the Gowrie slaughter, 86, 88; assures +the preacher Bruce of the truth of the King’s narrative, 104, 105; is +told by Bruce that he will accept the verdict in the Gowrie case but not +preach Gowrie’s guilt, 105; entrusted by James with the care of Prince +Henry, 138; the Queen’s plots against him, 138 + +Mary of Guise (James’s grandmother), 118 + +Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters, 5, 7, 8; declares that +Ruthven (Gowrie’s grandfather) persecuted her by his lust, 119 + +Mason, Peter, 190 + +Masson, Dr., on the Gowrie mystery, 5 + +Matthew, Toby (Dean of Durham), Bothwell’s statement to him, 251 + +Maul, one of Sprot’s victims, 203 + +Maxwell, Lord, cited, 193 + +Melville, Sir Robert, his treachery in procuring the conviction of +Gowrie’s father, 120–122 + +Moncrieff, Hew, present at the slaughter of the Ruthvens, 29, 32; at the +fight in the death chamber, 60; proclaimed, 63; puzzled regarding the +Master’s early ride from Perth to Falkland, 137 + +Moncrieff, John, questions Henderson as to the ride to Falkland, 44, 145; +on Gowrie’s silence as to his knowledge of the King’s approach, 45; on +Gowrie’s actions on the morning of the fatal 5th, 137 + +Montrose (Chancellor), 64; desires the preachers to thank God in their +churches for the King’s ‘miraculous delivery,’ 100 + +Montrose, the Master of, conspiring against James, 125 + +Moray, Earl, his alleged relations with Queen Anne, 2 + +Morton, Regent, confines Lord Robert Stewart in Linlithgow Castle, 153 + +Mossman, imprisoned for share in the Gowrie plot, 203 + +Mowbray, Francis, intriguing with Cecil against James, 159; imprisoned in +Edinburgh Castle, and killed in trying to escape therefrom, 160 + +Mowbray, Philip, of Barnbogle, surety for Lord Robert Stewart, 153; +intriguing with Cecil against James, 159 + +Moysie, David, probable writer of the Falkland letter, after the +slaughter of the Ruthvens, 38 note; 100 + +Murray, George, in attendance on James, 12 + +Murray, John of Arbany, in attendance on James, 12; with James at the +slaughter of the Ruthvens, 24, 25, 26, 32, 61; wounded by a Ruthven +partisan, 88 + +Murray, Sir David, on Gowrie’s speech against James’s demands for money, +131 + +Murray of Tullibardine, in Perth at the time of the Gowrie tragedy, 28 + + * * * * * + +NAISMITH (surgeon), with James at the Falkland hunt, 47 + +Napier, Mr. Mark, on Sprot’s alleged forgery of the Logan letters, 172, +173, 222; denies that any compromising letters were found, 178 + +Napier of Merchistoun, his contract as to gold-finding with Logan of +Restalrig, 171 + +Nesbit, William, of Newton, robbed by Logan, 158 + +Neville, recommends Gowrie to Cecil as a useful man, 130 + +Nicholson, George (English resident at the Court of Holyrood), his +account of James’s Falkland letter on the Gowrie case, 38; on Robert +Oliphant’s indiscretions of speech, 74; communicates to Cecil Oliphant’s +statement respecting Cranstoun and Henderson 75 note; refers to a book on +the Ruthven side published in England, 82; cites the King’s letter to the +Privy Council regarding the Gowrie plot, 100, 102; informs Cecil of +Gowrie’s conversion to Catholicism, 128 + + * * * * * + +OLIPHANT of Bauchiltoun, brother of Robert, 77 + +Oliphant, Robert, identified by the first proclamation as the man in the +turret, 62; proves an alibi, 62, 72; his confidences to tailor Lyn anent +his foreknowledge of the Gowrie plot, 73; denounces the hanging of +Cranstoun, and affirms the guilt of Henderson, 75; avers that Gowrie +proposed to him in Paris the part offered to Henderson, 75; seeks to +divert Gowrie from his project, 75; his portable property seized by +Captain Heron, and himself imprisoned, 76; released by James and goes +abroad, 76; property subsequently restored, 77; his statement contrasted +with Henderson’s, 77; cited, 144 + + * * * * * + +PADUA University, 126 + +Panton, Mr., on Henderson at Falkland, 64 note; his defence of the +Ruthvens, 80; refers to a contemporary vindication, 80 + +‘Papers relating to the Master of Gray,’ cited, 158 + +Paul, Sir James Balfour, on the Gowrie arms, 245 + +Perth, gathering of the burgesses of, before Gowrie House on the day of +the slaughter of the Ruthvens, 30, 32 + +Pitcairn, on Bruce’s interrogation of the King, 109; discovery and +publication of Logan of Restalrig’s alleged plot-letters, 169 + +Pittencrieff, Laird of, at Gowrie House on the day when the Ruthvens were +killed, 23 + +Popular contemporary criticism on the King’s narrative, 111–117 + +Preachers of Edinburgh, the, summoned before the Privy Council to hear +the King’s letter on the Gowrie plot read, 99, 100; desired by Montrose +to thank God for the King’s ‘miraculous delivery,’ 100; their reply to +that request, 100, 101; taken to task by James for refusing to thank God +for his delivery from a Gowrie ‘conspiracy,’ 101; their defence, 101, +102; James’s punishment of the recalcitrants, 102; before the King at +Stirling, 103–106; summon Gowrie home to be the leader of the Kirk, 140 + +Preston, sent by James to Elizabeth with his version of the Gowrie +affair, 96; his account to Sir William Bowes, 97 note + +Primrose (Clerk of Council), attests the record of Sprot’s examination, +201, 210 + +Privy Council, Scottish, receipt of a letter from James containing an +account of the Gowrie plot, 99; the preachers summoned to hear it read, +and desired by the Chancellor to thank God in their churches for the +King’s escape, 99, 100; report to James that the preachers will not +praise God for his delivery, 101 + + * * * * * + +RAID of Ruthven, the, 119 + +Ramsay, John, in attendance on James, 12; his share in the proceedings at +Gowrie House which led to the deaths of the Gowries, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, +29, 31, 33, 53, 97; takes part in the slaughter of the Master of Ruthven, +26, 85; kills the Earl of Gowrie, 31 + +Ray, Andrew (a bailie of Perth), at Gowrie House on the day of the +slaughter of the Ruthvens, 21, 24 + +Restalrig House, 149, 150 + +Restalrig, Lady (Logan’s wife), 189; her agitation on the knowledge of +the Logan conspiracy, 204; blames Bower for the selling of Fastcastle, +204; her postscript to Logan’s letter to Bower after his death, 215; +distressed at Logan’s conduct, 220; her daughter by Logan, 220 + +Restalrig Loch, 149, 150 + +Restalrig village, 148, 149, 150, 151 + +‘Return from Parnassus,’ the, quoted, 126 + +Rhynd, Mr. (Gowrie’s tutor), at Padua with Gowrie, 126; at Gowrie House +when the Ruthvens were killed, 32; tells of the ride to Falkland, 45, 46; +gives the key of the gallery to the Master, 66; on Gowrie’s views as to +secrecy in plots, 144 + +Robertson, Rev. Mr. (Edinburgh preacher), accepts James’s narrative, 102 + +Robertson, William (notary of Perth), his evidence of what he saw near +the death chamber, 60, 61, 97 + +Roll of Scottish scholars at Padua, 126 + +Rollock, Mr. (tutor to Gowrie and the Master), 56, 124 + +Ruthven, Alexander, the Master of (Gowrie’s brother), attributed +relations with the Queen, 3; plot to seize the King, 7; _Lennox’s +version_ of events, 13 _et seq._; interviews James before the hunt in +Falkland Park, 13; induces the King to visit Perth, to see the pot of +gold coins, 14; his actions at Gowrie House after the King’s arrival, 19; +_observers’ accounts_ of the transactions which led to his death, 24–34; +stabbed by Ramsay, 26; _James’s own narrative_ of the affair, 35 _et +seq._; the King’s interview with the Master, 39; the cloaked man and the +lure of the pot of gold pieces, 39–42; his suggested project of +kidnapping James, 42; was accompanied by Henderson in his mission to +James at Falkland, 43, 44; alleged differences with his brother over the +Abbey of Scone, 48, 49; enjoins on James to keep the treasure a secret +from Gowrie, 49; conducts the King alone to view it, 50; duplicity in +securing this privacy, 51; suspicious conduct in locking doors of rooms +passed through, 51, 52, 53; threatens the King with a dagger, 55; James +harangues him and promises forgiveness, 56; goes to consult Gowrie, +leaving James in the custody of the man in the turret, 56; returns and +essays to bind the King’s hands with a garter, 58; struggles with the +King, 58; Ramsay enters and stabs him, 59; he is driven down stairs, and +killed by Erskine and Herries, 59; further _details given by Henderson_, +62 _et seq._; his message to Gowrie by Henderson from Falkland, 65; locks +Henderson in the turret, 66; Henderson’s narrative of the struggle with +the King, 66; words exchanged with James in the turret chamber, 68; the +‘promise,’ 68; question of his disarming, 69; romantic story of the +King’s discovery of the Queen’s ribbon round his neck, 132; gossip about +his relations with the Queen, 133 + +Ruthven, Alexander (cousin of the Earl of Gowrie), at the slaughter of +the Ruthvens, 29, 32; letter to Logan, 183, 184 + +Ruthven, Andrew, with the Master, at Gowrie House, on the day of the +slaughter, 43, 157; rides with the Master and Henderson to Falkland, 45, +64, 65; asserts the despatch of Henderson by the Master from Falkland to +acquaint Gowrie of the King’s coming, 45, 46, 145 + +Ruthven, Beatrice (Gowrie’s sister), Queen Anne’s favourite maid of +honour, 13, 124, 131 + +Ruthven, Harry, present at the slaughter of the Ruthvens, 29 + +Ruthven, Lord (Gowrie’s grandfather), his part in the murder of Riccio, +118 + +Ruthven, Mary (sister of Gowrie), married to the Earl of Atholl, 123 + +Ruthven, Patrick (Gowrie’s brother), 124 + +Ruthven, Sophia (sister of Gowrie), married to Lennox, 124 + +Ruthven Vindication, the contemporary, 80–93, 252–256 + +Ruthven, William (Gowrie’s brother), 124, 129 + + * * * * * + +ST. TRIDUANA’S Chapel, 150, 151 + +Salisbury, Marquis of, in possession of genuine letters of Logan, viii, +241 + +Sanderson, William, on the Gowrie arms, 250 + +Scone, Abbey of, in the Gowrie inheritance, 48, 54 + +Scott, Rev. John, his Life of John, Earl of Gowrie, cited, 80 note, 248; +on the Gowrie arms and seal, 250, 251 + +Scott, Sir Walter, cited, 5 + +Scrymgeour, Sir James (Constable of Dundee), accused falsely by Sprot, +217 + +Smith, Rev. Alexander, on the Logan plot-letters, 242 + +Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glasgow, his opinion of Sprot, 178; kept in +the dark as to the Logan letters, 179; present at Sprot’s examination, +176, 201, 210 + +Sprot (Logan of Restalrig’s law agent), arrested by Watty Doig, 162; +confesses that he knew beforehand of the Gowrie conspiracy, 162; +tortured, and in part recants, 162; persists in maintaining Logan of +Restalrig’s complicity in the Gowrie conspiracy, 163, 170; question of +his forgery of letters to prove Logan’s guilt, 170, 171; motive for +forging the letters, 172; confesses to the forgery in private +examinations, 173; records of those examinations in possession of the +Earl of Haddington, 173; letters quoted from memory by him, 175; the +indictment against him, 176, 177; Sir William Hart’s official statement +of his trial, 177, 178; use made by the prosecution of the Logan letters, +179; his tale of Logan’s guilt, 182; sources of his knowledge, 183, 184; +discrepancies in his statements, 184, 185; preachers present at his +confession of forgery, 186; his written deposition, 186; the cause for +which he forged, 187; his conflicting dates, 188; his account of Logan +and Bower’s scheme to get Dirleton, 189; excuses for the discrepancies in +his dates, 192; asserts that Logan let Bower keep his letter to Gowrie +for months, 195; steals that letter, 194; confesses to the forgery of +Logan’s letter to Bower, 195; and to that of Logan’s memorandum to Bower +and Bell, 196; blackmailing operations, 196, 197; forges receipts from +Logan to Heddilstane for blackmailing purposes, 199; his uncorroborated +charges, 202, 203; in the confidence of Logan, 204; his account of +Logan’s revels in London, 210; goes with Matthew Logan to Bower to give +answers to Logan’s letters, 211; denies that he had received promise of +life or reward, 214; reports an incriminating conversation with Matthew +Logan, 214; confesses forging, for blackmailing purposes, Logan’s letters +to Chirnside and the torn letter, 215; swears to the truth of his last +five depositions, 217; on Logan’s ship venture with Lord Willoughby, 219; +solemnly confesses to the forgery of the letters in Logan’s hand, 220; +details respecting the letter of Logan to Gowrie on which he modelled his +forgeries, 220, 221, 222, 223; the letter found in his kist, 224; copies +endorsed by him found among the Haddington MSS., 224, 225; oral +discrepancies, 225; tried and hanged at Edinburgh, 226; protestations on +the scaffold, 226; small effect of his dying confession on the Kirk +party, 227; motives which prompted his forgeries, 227–231 + +Stewart, Colonel, his part in the arrest and the conviction of Gowrie’s +father, 11, 120, 122; dreads Gowrie’s revenge, 140 + + * * * * * + +‘THE Verie Manner of the Erll of Gowrie and his brother, their death, +&c.,’ a manuscript written in vindication of the Ruthvens, received by +Carey, and forwarded to Cecil, 81; conspectus of its arguments: Dr. +Herries shown the secret parts of Gowrie House a day or two before the +tragedy, 82; preparations by Gowrie’s retainers on the fatal day to +accompany him to Dirleton, 82; the visit of the Master to Falkland, +accompanied by Ruthven and Henderson, 83; the Master sends Henderson to +Gowrie with a message that the King will visit him ‘for what occasion he +knew not,’ 83; the Master tells Craigengelt that Abercromby brought the +King to Gowrie House to take order for his debt, 83, 84; James +accompanied to Perth by sixty horsemen, 84; Gowrie advertised of the +King’s approach by Henderson, 84; James meets Gowrie on the Inch of Perth +and kisses him, 85; a hurried dinner, 85; the keys of the house handed to +Gowrie’s retainers, 85; the slaughter of the Master in the presence of +four of James’s followers, 85; a servant of James brings the news that he +has ridden off, 85; Gowrie hears his Majesty call from the window that +the Master is killed by traitors and James himself in peril, 86; Gowrie +and Cranstoun alone permitted by James’s servants to enter the House, 86; +Sir Thomas Erskine’s dual _rôle_, 86; the true account of Gowrie’s death, +87; the question of Henderson’s presence at Falkland, 83, 87, 92; +derivation of the narrative, 87; on the payment by Gowrie of his father’s +debts, 87; points on which the narrative is false, 86–88; points ignored, +88, 89; presents a consistent theory of the King’s plot, 89; conflicting +statements, 89, 90, 91, 92; the detail of the locked door, 92 + +‘True Discourse,’ quoted on the doors leading to the turret, 52 + +‘True Discovery of the late Treason, the’ (unpublished MS.), on the +Gowrie family, 48 + +Tullibardine, Young, at the slaughter of the Earl of Gowrie, 28, 33; +effort to relieve the King, 60; helps to pacify the populace after the +tragedy, 88 + +Tytler, Mr., cited, on James VI, 5; on the King’s account of the Gowrie +tragedy, 41, 42; on Logan’s plot-letters, 169 + + * * * * * + +URCHILL, present at the slaughter of the Gowries, 19 + + * * * * * + +VINDICATION of the Ruthvens, the contemporary, 80 _et seq._, 252 _et +seq._ + + * * * * * + +WALLACE, asks Sprot for silence on Logan’s conspiracy, 187 + +Watson, Rev. Alexander, on the Logan plot-letters, 242 + +Wilky, Alexander, surety for John Wilky not to harm tailor Lyn, 73, 74 + +Wilky, John, his pursuit of tailor Lyn for revealing Robert Oliphant’s +confidences respecting the Gowrie plot, 73, 74 + +Willoughby, Lord, kidnaps Ashfield, 139; his opinion of Logan of +Restalrig, 159; builds a ship for protection of English commerce, 218; +offers the venture to Cecil if subsidised by government, 218, 219; admits +Logan to the venture, 218, 219; dies suddenly on board his ship, 219 + +Wilson (Erskine’s servant), at the slaughter of the Ruthvens, 27, 30, 31, +85 + + * * * * * + +YOUNGER, suspected as the man in the turret, 62 + + * * * * * + + _Spottiswoode & Co. Ltd. Printers_, _New-street Square_, _London_. + + + + +Footnotes: + + +{0a} Longmans, Green, & Co., 1871. + +{7} See _The Mystery of Mary Stuart_. Longmans, 1901. + +{12a} Extracted from the Treasurer’s Accounts, July, August, 1600. MS. + +{12b} The King’s Narrative, Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials of Scotland_, +ii. 210. + +{13} The King’s Narrative, _ut supra_. Treasurer’s Accounts, MS. + +{14} Lennox in Pitcairn, ii. 171–174. + +{18} The description is taken from diagrams in Pitcairn, derived from a +local volume of Antiquarian Proceedings. See, too, _The Muses’ +Threnodie_, by H. Adamson, 1638, with notes by James Cant (Perth, 1774), +pp. 163, 164. + +{19} Pitcairn, ii. 199. + +{23} The evidence of these witnesses is in Pitcairn, ii. 171–191. + +{28} Cranstoun’s deposition in Pitcairn, ii. 156, 157. At Falkland +August 6. + +{30} The adversaries of the King say that these men ran up, and were +wounded, _later_, in another encounter. As to this we have no evidence, +but we have evidence of their issuing, wounded, from the dark staircase +at the moment when Cranstoun fled thence. + +{38} Quoted by Pitcairn, ii. 209. The Falkland letter, as we show +later, was probably written by David Moysie, but must have been, more or +less, ‘official.’ Cf. p. 100, _infra_. + +{40} Many of these may be read in _Narratives of Scottish Catholics_, by +Father Forbes-Leith, S.J. + +{42} Carey to Cecil. Berwick, _Border Calendar_, vol. ii. p. 677, +August 11, 1600. + +{44a} Deposition of Craigengelt, a steward of Gowrie’s, Falkland, August +16, 1600. Pitcairn, ii. 157. + +{44b} Pitcairn, ii. p. 185. + +{44c} Pitcairn, ii. p. 179. + +{45} Barbé, p. 91. + +{48a} State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 50. + +{48b} Mr. S. R. Gardiner alone remarks on this point, in a note to the +first edition of his great History. See note to p. 54, _infra_. + +{52a} Apparently not Sir Thomas Hamilton, the King’s Advocate. + +{52b} State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 51. + +{53} Pitcairn, vol. ii. p. 249. + +{58} Mr. Scott suggested that a piece of string was found by Balgonie. +The words of Balgonie are ‘ane gartane’—a garter. He never mentions +string. + +{59} According to a story given by Calderwood, Ruthven’s sword was later +found rusted in its sheath, but no authority is given for the tale. + +{60} Pitcairn, ii. 197. + +{61a} _The Tragedy of Gowrie House_, by Louis Barbé, 1887, p. 91. + +{61b} Mr. Barbé, as we saw, thinks that Robertson perjured himself, when +he swore to having seen Henderson steal out of the dark staircase 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 first floor. Such a door existed, +according to Lord Hailes, but when he wrote (1757) no 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). + +{63a} _Privy Council Register_, vi. 149, 150. + +{63b} Pitcairn, ii. 250. + +{64} Mr. Panton, who, in 1812, published at Perth, and with Longmans, a +defence of the Ruthvens, is very strong on the improbability that +Henderson was at Falkland. Why were not the people to whose house in +Falkland he went, called as witnesses? Indeed we do not know. But as +Mr. Panton looked on the King’s witnesses as a gang of murderous +perjurers, it is odd that he did not ask himself why they, and the King, +did not perjure themselves on this point. (_A Dissertation on the Gowry +Conspiracy_, pp. 127–131.) + +{67a} Pitcairn, ii. 222, 223. + +{67b} Hudson to Cecil, Oct. 19,1600, Edinburgh. State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 78. + +{69a} _James Hudson to Sir Robert Cecil_. + + ‘. . . I have had conference of this last acsyon, first wth the + King, at lenght, & then wth Henderson, but my speache was first wth + Henderson befoar the King came over the watter, betwixt whoame I + fynde no defference but yt boath alegethe takinge the dager frome + Alexander Ruthven, wch stryf on the one part maie seame to agment + honor, & on the other to move mersy by moar merit: it is plaen yt the + King only by god’s help deffended his owin lyff wel & that a longe + tyme, or els he had lost it: it is not trew that Mr. Alex spok wth + his brother when he went owt, nor that Henderson vnlokt the door, but + hast & neglect of Mr. Alex, left it opin, wherat Sr Jhon Ramsay + entrid, & after hime Sr Tho. Ereskyn Sr Hew Haris & Wilsone. Yt 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 yt fayth. + + . . . . + + ‘Edinborow this 19 of October 1600.’ + +{69b} Pitcairn, ii. 218. + +{73} _Privy Council Register_, vi. 671. + +{74a} State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 107. + +{74b} 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_). + +{75} State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 107. + + ‘_George Nicolson to Sir Robert Cecil_. + + . . . . . + + ‘A man of Cannagate speaking that one Mr. 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. Mr. + Thomas Cranston was execute being innocent, and Henderson saued. + That therle of Gowry had moued that matter to him (Oliphant) in Paris + and here, that he had wth good reasons deverted him, that therle + thereon left him and delt wth Henderson in that matter, that + Henderson vndertooke it and yet fainted, and Mr. 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. . . . . + + ‘Edenb. the 5 of Decemb. 1600.’ + +{76} 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 Register_. + +{77} 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. + +{80} 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. + +{81} State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 52. For the +document see Appendix B. + +{83} 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. + +{93} 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 in print; and I know not whether he refers to ‘The Verie Manner +&c.,’ State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 52. The theory +of Mr. Scott (1818) is much akin to that of ‘The Verie Manner,’ which he +had never seen. + +{94} Barbé, p. 124. + +{96} State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 64. + +{97} State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 64. + + _Sir William Bowes to Sir John Stanhope_, _Sept._ 2, 1600. + +Sr I attending hir Mties embassadr toward Newcastle happened to meet wyth +Mr Preston then on his waie from his king to hir Mtie. In renewing a +former acquaintance I found hym verie willing to possesse me wyth his +report of the death of Gowrie and his brother, in the circumstances +wherof sundrie thingis occurring hardlie probable I was not curious to +lett him see that wyse men wyth vs stumbled therat. And therfor I +thought yt wysdom in the king to deliuer his honor to the warld and +especiallie to her Mtie. And in this as in other albeit I am not +ignorant that the actions of princes must chalenge the Fairest +interpretation Yet because in deed truthe symplie canne doe no wrong And +that we owe or dearest and nearest truthes to or soueraygnes in this +matter so precisely masked lett me deliuer to youe what For myne own part +I doe belieue. + +The King being readie to take horse was wythdrawen in discourse with the +Mr of Gowrie, a learned sweet and hurtles yong gentleman, and one other +attending. Now were it by 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 Mr +abashed much to see the king so apprehend yt, whilest the king wold call +to the Lords, the Duke, 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 Sr 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 Mr 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. Mr Preston saies that vpon thar relation that the king was +slayne the earle shronke from the pursuyte, and that one of the afornamed +rushing sodainlee to the earle thrust hym through that he fell down and +dyed. This matter seeming to haue an accidentall beginning, to gyve it +an honorable cloake is pursued wyth odious treasons coniurations &c. +imputed to the dead earle, wyth the death of the Mr Stabler, Wyth making +knyghtis the actors, 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 {98} I take yt +so to be. Wherevpon maie be inferred that as the death of the twoe First +maie be excused by tendering the verie showe of hazard to the King, so is +the making of religion and iustice cloakes to cover accidentall +oversightis a matter which both heaven and earth will iudge. . . . + +From Bradley this 2de of Sept. + + Yor poore Frend to commannd. + + WILLM. BOWES. + +{98} Hypothetically? + +{103} Calderwood, vi. 84. + +{104} Pitcairn, ii. 248 _et seq._ + +{105a} Calderwood, vi. 98. + +{105b} _Ibid._ vi. 130. + +{107a} Calderwood, vi. 147. + +{107b} _Ibid._ vi. 156. + +{110} 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 himself 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 prophecy +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). + +{111} Calderwood, vi. 49, 66–76. + +{114} Pitcairn, ii. 196. + +{118} Bain, _Calendar_, ii. 350; Nau, p. 59. + +{121a} _Form of certain Devices_, &c. See _Papers relating to William_, +_Earl of Gowrie_, London, 1867, pp. 25–29. + +{121b} Form of examination and death of William, Earl of Gowrie. +British Museum, Caligula, c. viii. fol. 23. + +{126} Thorpe, _Calendar_, ii. 650 + +{127a} _De Natione Anglica et Scota Juristarum Universitatis Patavinae_ +Io. Aloys. Andrich. Patavii, 1892, pp. 172, 173. + +{127b} Ottavio Baldi to the King, June 22, 1609. Record Office. +Venice, No. 14, 1608–1610. See _infra_, Appendix A, ‘Gowrie’s Arms and +Ambitions.’ + +{128a} Gowrie’s letters of 1595 are in Pitcairn. + +{128b} State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxiii. No. 85. + + G. Nicolson to Sir Robert Cecil. + + Edinborough, 25 December, 1598. + + . . . . . + + ‘I heare Gowry is become a papist. But the K. takes little care to + this, And yet sure it importes him most to se to it, vnlest he + accompt otherwais of it than he hath cause, except he haue other + pollicy than I will conjecture.’ Compare Galloway’s sermon, in + Pitcairn, ii. 249, and _A Short Discourse_, ii. 231, 232. + +{129a} Simancas, iv. pp. 653, 654, 677, 680, 715. + +{129b} Compare note, p. 110, _supra_. + +{130a} _Winwood Memorials_, pp. 1, 156. Hudson to Cecil. State Papers, +Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 19. + +{130b} _Border Calendar_, vol. ii. May 29, 1600. Carey to Cecil. + +{131a} The whole proceedings are printed in Arnot’s _Criminal Trials_. + +{131b} Nicholson to Cecil, June 22, June 29, 1600. Tytler, vol. ix. pp. +325, 326, 1843. + +{131c} This date I infer from Cranstoun’s statement. On August 5 he had +scarcely seen the Ruthvens, to speak to, for a fortnight. + +{133} _Border Calendar_, vol. ii. p. 698, Oct. 21, 1600. Carey to +Cecil. + +{134a} Calderwood, vi. 71. + +{134b} A defender of Gowrie, Mr. Barbé, has the following ‘observes’ +upon this point. It has been asserted by Calderwood that, ‘while the +Earl was in Strathbraan, fifteen days before the fact’ (say July 20), +‘the King wrote sundry letters to the Earl, desiring him to come and hunt +with him in the wood of Falkland, which letters were found in my lord’s +pocket, as is reported, but were destroyed.’ Mr. Barbé then proves that +letters _were_ sent to Gowrie and Atholl in the last days of July. It is +certain that a letter was sent to Gowrie about July 20, possibly a +sporting invitation, not that there was any harm in an invitation to join +a hunting party. James is next accused of ‘trying to stifle the rumour’ +about this ‘letter,’ by a direct denial. This means that Craigengelt, +Gowrie’s caterer, was asked whether he knew of any man or boy who came to +Gowrie from Court, and said that he did not, a negative reply supposed to +have been elicited by the torture to which Craigengelt was certainly +subjected. We only know that at the end of July letters were sent to +Gowrie, to Inchaffray, to Atholl, and to Ruthven. Whether his reached +Gowrie or not, and what it contained, we cannot know. + +{137} _Privy Council Register_, vi. 194. + +{140a} Cf. p. 110, note. + +{140b} _Border Calendar_, i. 491. + +{142} _Tragedy of Gowrie House_, pp. 29, 31. + +{147} As to Bothwell’s whereabouts, in 1600, he left Brussels in March, +nominally to go to Spain, but, in June, the agent of the English +Government in the Low Countries was still anxious to hear that he had +arrived in Spain. When he actually arrived there is uncertain. Compare +Simancas, iv. p. 667, with State Papers, Domestic (Elizabeth) +(1598–1600), p. 245, No. 88, p. 413 (March 24, April 3, 1600), p. 434, +May 30, June 9, p. 509. Cecil meant to intrigue with Bothwell, through +Henry Locke, his old agent with Bothwell’s party, Atholl, and Gowrie +October 1593). Compare _infra_, p. 160. + +{152} _Privy Council Register_, ii. 217, 218. + +{153} _Privy Council Register_, ii. 622, 699. + +{155a} _Privy Council Register_, vi. 73, 74. + +{155b} State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 13, No. 21. + +{156} _Hatfield Calendar_, viii. 147, 399. + +{157} For these letters of Logan’s, see _Hatfield Calendar_, vols. iii. +iv. under ‘Restalrig,’ in the Index. + +{158} _Privy Council Register_, vol. v., s. v. ‘Logan’ in the Index. + +{159} _Border Calendar_, vol. ii. Willoughby to Cecil, January 1, 1599. + +{160a} Pitcairn, ii. 405–407. + +{160b} See Thorpe’s _Calendar_, vol. ii., s. v. ‘Mowbray, Francis’ in +the Index. + +{161} He had sold Nether Gogar in 1596. + +{162} Some of the papers are in the General Register House, Edinburgh. + +{164} The evidence for all that occurred to Sprot, between April and +July 1608, is that of a manuscript _History of the Kirk of Scotland_, now +in the Advocates’ Library. It is written in an early seventeenth-century +hand. Calderwood follows it almost textually up to a certain point where +the author of the MS. history says that Sprot, on the scaffold, declared +that he had no promise of benefit to his family. But Calderwood +declares, or says that others declare, that Sprot was really condemned as +a forger (which is untrue), but confessed to the Gowrie conspiracy in +return for boons to his wife and children. + +We have, of course, no evidence that anything was done by Government, or +by any one, for Mrs. Sprot and the children. The author of the MS., +which Calderwood used as he pleased, avers that Sprot denied on the +scaffold the fact that he had any promise. Neither draft nor official +account confirms the MS. history on the point of no promise. The +official _draft_ of his last moments (from its interlineations, each +signed by the Clerk of Council) appears to have been drawn up on the +spot, or hurriedly, as soon as Sprot was dead. This is the aspect of the +_draft_ of the account; the official _printed_ account says that there +was ‘no place of writing on the scaffold, in respect of the press and +multitude of people’ (Pitcairn, ii. 261). + +{169} Vol. ii. pp. 282–7. + +{170} Letter I is a peculiar case, and was not, perhaps, spoken of by +Sprot at all. + +{183} Laing, _Charters_, Nos. 1452, 1474–76, 2029. + +{198} _Hatfield Calendar_, iv. 659. + +{199a} Pitcairn, iii. Appendix vii. + +{199b} _Border Calendar_, i. 486, 487. + +{202} Thorpe, ii. 614, 616, 617. _Border Calendar_, i. 457. + +{203} _Privy Council Register_, viii. 150–2, 605. + +{206a} Pitcairn, ii. 287, _n_ 2. + +{206b} Neville to Cecil, Paris, Feb. 27, 1600. Willoughby to Cecil, +Berwick, April 22, 1600. _Winwood Memorials_, p. 166. _Border +Calendar_, ii. 645. + +{217} The peculiarities of spelling are those recognised as Logan’s, and +easily imitated by the forger. + +{221} He had not the letter before him at this moment, and may have +forgotten. + +{222} Spottiswoode, vol. iii. pp. 274, 282. + +{224} Cromarty, _An Historical Account_, _&c._, 92 (1713). + +{227a} Calderwood, vi. 780. + +{227b} In the Auchendrane case (1615), the public, partisans of the +murderers, wished the only witness to be hanged, just to see if he would +persevere in his confession. + +{239} _Melrose Papers_, vol. i. pp. 72, 73. + +{243a} Pitcairn, ii. 289–290. + +{243b} _Ibid._ ii. 292. + +{247} _State Papers_, Venice, R.O., No. 14, 1608–10. Hill Burton, +_History of Scotland_, vol. vi. pp. 135, 136. Note. Edition of 1870. + +{248} This information I owe to Mr. Anderson, with the reference to +Crawfurd, and other details. + +{249} Burnet’s _History of his Own Time_, vol. i. pp. 24, 25, mdccxxv. + +{250a} _Papers relating to William_, _first Earl of Gowrie_, p. 30. +(Privately printed, 1867.) + +{250b} Sanderson, p. 226. + +{251a} Scott, pp. 282, 284. + +{251b} _Border Calendar_, vol. i. p. 491. + + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JAMES VI AND THE GOWRIE MYSTERY*** + + +******* This file should be named 31033-0.txt or 31033-0.zip ******* + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/3/1/0/3/31033 + + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://www.gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: +http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + |