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-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '31033-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/31033-h.htm | 10847 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p0b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 196043 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p0s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 31473 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p116b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 221992 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p116s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 27532 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p138b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 132384 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p138s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 37544 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p150ab.jpg | bin | 0 -> 160480 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p150as.jpg | bin | 0 -> 23593 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p150bb.jpg | bin | 0 -> 206021 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p150bs.jpg | bin | 0 -> 25537 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p154b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 266556 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p154s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 25735 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p15b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 66496 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p15s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 23636 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p176b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 292853 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p176s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 32028 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p17b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 43291 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p17s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 22182 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p192b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 218558 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p192s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 28515 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p196b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 424815 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p196s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 37718 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p202b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 257846 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p202s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 29191 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p210b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 214478 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p210s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 26067 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p33b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 257432 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p33s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 33802 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p4b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 144567 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p4s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 29264 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p59b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 69906 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p59s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 15734 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p82b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 152247 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31033-h/images/p82s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 21306 bytes |
35 files changed, 10847 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/31033-h/31033-h.htm b/31033-h/31033-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1db1319 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/31033-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,10847 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>James VI and the Gowrie Mystery, by Andrew Lang</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + P.gutsumm { margin-left: 5%;} + P.poetry {margin-left: 3%; } + H1, H2 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + H3, H4, H5 { + text-align: left; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + table { border-collapse: collapse; } +table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;} + td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;} + td p { margin: 0.2em; } + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-weight: normal; + color: gray; + } + img { border: none; } + img.dc { float: left; width: 50px; height: 50px; } + div.gapspace { height: 0.8em; } + div.gapline { height: 0.8em; width: 30%; } + div.gapshortdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; + margin-left: 40%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid; } + div.gapdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 50%; + margin-left: 25%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; margin-left:40%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + .citation {vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + img.floatleft { float: left; + margin-right: 1em; + margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.floatright { float: right; + margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.clearcenter {display: block; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em} + --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<pre> + +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: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JAMES VI AND THE GOWRIE MYSTERY*** +</pre> +<p>Transcribed from the 1902 Longmans, Green, and Co. edition by +David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p0b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"The Gowrie Coat of Arms. In the ‘Workman’ MS." +title= +"The Gowrie Coat of Arms. In the ‘Workman’ MS." +src="images/p0s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<h1>JAMES VI<br /> +<span class="smcap">and</span><br /> +THE GOWRIE MYSTERY</h1> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">by</span><br /> +ANDREW LANG</p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">with +gowrie’s coat of arms in colour</span>, 2 <span +class="smcap">photogravure portraits</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">and other illustrations</span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.<br /> +39 <span class="smcap">paternoster row</span>, <span +class="smcap">london</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">new york and bombay</span><br /> +1902</p> +<p style="text-align: center">All rights reserved</p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">to</span><br /> +THE LADY CECILY BAILLIE-HAMILTON<br /> +<span class="smcap">this inquiry</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">is gratefully dedicated</span></p> +<h2><!-- page vii--><a name="pagevii"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. vii</span>INTRODUCTION</h2> +<p>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 <!-- page viii--><a +name="pageviii"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +viii</span>‘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.’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page ix--><a +name="pageix"></a><span class="pagenum">p. ix</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page x--><a name="pagex"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. x</span>with the photograph of to-day, shows +the destruction wrought by wind and weather in the old +fortalice.</p> +<p>My obligations to Sir James Balfour Paul (Lyon King of Arms) +for information on points of Heraldry ought to be gratefully +acknowledged.</p> +<p>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. <a name="citation0a"></a><a href="#footnote0a" +class="citation">[0a]</a> 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.</p> +<h2><!-- page xi--><a name="pagexi"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +xi</span>CONTENTS</h2> +<table> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span +class="smcap">page</span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p><span class="smcap">Introduction</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#pagevii">vii</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">I.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Mystery and the +Evidence</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page1">1</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">II.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Slaughter of the +Ruthvens</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page11">11</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">III.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The King’s Own +Narrative</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page35">35</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">IV.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The King’s +Narrative</span>. <span class="smcap">II</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page55">55</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">V.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Henderson’s Narrative</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page60">60</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">VI.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Strange Case of Mr. Robert +Oliphant</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page71">71</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">VII.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Contemporary Ruthven +Vindication</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page80">80</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">VIII.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Theory of an Accidental +Brawl</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page94">94</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">IX.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Contemporary Clerical +Criticism</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page99">99</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">X.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Popular Criticism of the +Day</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page111">111</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">XI.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The King and the Ruthvens</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page118">118</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">XII.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Logan of Restalrig</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page148">148</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">XIII.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Secrets of Sprot</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page168">168</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">XIV.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Laird and the Notary</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page182">182</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">XV.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Final Confessions of the +Notary</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page201">201</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">XVI.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">What is Letter IV</span>?</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page232">232</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">XVII.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Inferences as to the Casket +Letters</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page240">240</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan="3"><p style="text-align: center"><!-- page xii--><a +name="pagexii"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +xii</span><i>APPENDICES</i></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">A.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Frontispiece</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page245">245</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">B.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Contemporary Ruthven +Vindication</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page252">252</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">C.</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Five Letters forged by Sprot</span>, +<span class="smcap">as from Logan</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page257">257</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p><span class="smcap">Index</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page265">265</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<h2><!-- page xiii--><a name="pagexiii"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. xiii</span>ILLUSTRATIONS</h2> +<table> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p style="text-align: center"><i>IN +COLOURS</i></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Gowrie’s Coat of Arms</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><i>Frontispiece</i></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p style="text-align: +center"><i>PHOTOGRAVURES</i></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">James VI.</span></p> +<p><i>From the picture painted by Paul Van Somer</i> (1621) +<i>now in the National Portrait Gallery</i></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><i>to face p.</i> <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page4">4</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Queen Anne</span></p> +<p><i>From a painting by Paul Van Somer in Queen Anne’s +Room</i>, <i>St. James’s Palace</i></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page138">138</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p style="text-align: center"><i>OTHER +ILLUSTRATIONS</i></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Falkland Palace</span></p> +<p><i>From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons</i>, +<i>Dundee</i></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page33">33</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Dirleton Castle</span></p> +<p><i>From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons</i>, +<i>Dundee</i></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page82">82</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Falkland Palace</span>: <span +class="smcap">the Courtyard</span></p> +<p><i>From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons</i>, +<i>Dundee</i></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page116">116</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Restalrig house</span></p> +<p><i>From a Photograph by W. J. Hay</i>, <i>Edinburgh</i></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page150">150</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Restalrig Village</span></p> +<p><i>From a Photograph by W. J. Hay</i>, <i>Edinburgh</i></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page150">150</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Fastcastle</span> (<i>circ.</i> +1820)</p> +<p><i>From a picture by the Rev. Mr. Thomson</i>, <i>of +Duddingston</i>, <i>in the possession of Mrs. +Blackwood-Porter</i></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page154">154</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><!-- page xiv--><a name="pagexiv"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. xiv</span><span +class="smcap">Fastcastle</span></p> +<p><i>From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons</i>, +<i>Dundee</i></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><i>to face p.</i> <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page176">176</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Fastcastle</span></p> +<p><i>From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons</i>, +<i>Dundee</i></p> +</td> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Handwriting of Logan</span> +(<i>January</i> 1585–6)</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page196">196</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Hand of Logan as forged by +Sprot</span> (second page of Letter IV)</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page202">202</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Handwriting of Sprot</span> +(<i>July</i> 5, 1608)</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page210">210</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p style="text-align: center"><i>PLANS</i></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Situation and Topography of Gowrie +House</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page15">15</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Interior of Gowrie House</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page16">16</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Gallery Chamber and the +Turret</span>, <span class="smcap">Gowrie House</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page59">59</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<p> </p> +<h2><!-- page 1--><a name="page1"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +1</span>I. THE MYSTERY AND THE EVIDENCE</h2> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page +2--><a name="page2"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 2</span>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.</p> +<p>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, <i>cherchez la femme</i>. 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:</p> +<blockquote><p>He was a brave gallant,<br /> + And he rode at the ring,<br /> +And the Bonny Earl Moray,<br /> + He might have been the King.</p> +<p>He was a brave gallant,<br /> + And he rode at the glove,<br /> +And the Bonny Earl Moray<br /> + He was the Queen’s love.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>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 <!-- page 3--><a name="page3"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 3</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page +4--><a name="page4"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +4</span>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.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p4b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"James VI" +title= +"James VI" +src="images/p4s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 5--><a name="page5"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 5</span>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 +<i>via media</i>; 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?</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 6--><a +name="page6"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 6</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 7--><a +name="page7"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 7</span>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 <i>that</i>, we shall find, +was almost, or quite, a physical impossibility.</p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation7"></a><a href="#footnote7" +class="citation">[7]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 +<!-- page 8--><a name="page8"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +8</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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, <i>comparatio literarum</i>, as in the case of the +Casket Letters. That the witnesses in 1600 did not <!-- +page 9--><a name="page9"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +9</span>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.</p> +<p>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 +<i>him</i>, 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 <!-- +page 10--><a name="page10"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +10</span>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.</p> +<h2><!-- page 11--><a name="page11"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +11</span>II. THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS</h2> +<p>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, <!-- page 12--><a +name="page12"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 12</span>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.</p> +<p>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. <a name="citation12a"></a><a +href="#footnote12a" class="citation">[12a]</a></p> +<p>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.’ <a name="citation12b"></a><a +href="#footnote12b" class="citation">[12b]</a> ‘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, <!-- page 13--><a +name="page13"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 13</span>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.</p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation13"></a><a href="#footnote13" +class="citation">[13]</a> However, if we may believe the +Royal word (which is a matter of choice), James ‘loved the +young Master like a brother.’</p> +<p>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 +<!-- page 14--><a name="page14"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +14</span>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. <a name="citation14"></a><a +href="#footnote14" class="citation">[14]</a> This was about +one o’clock in the afternoon.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p15b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Situation and topography of Gowrie House" +title= +"Situation and topography of Gowrie House" +src="images/p15s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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. <!-- page 15--><a +name="page15"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 15</span>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 <!-- page 16--><a name="page16"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 16</span>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.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p17b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Interior of Gowrie House" +title= +"Interior of Gowrie House" +src="images/p17s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 18--><a +name="page18"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 18</span>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):</p> +<blockquote><p>The Palace kythes, may nam’d be +Perth’s White Hall<br /> +With orchards like these of Hesperides.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>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. <a name="citation18"></a><a +href="#footnote18" class="citation">[18]</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 19--><a name="page19"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 19</span>whispered to, and Sir Thomas Erskine +sent a townsman to buy him a pair of green silk stockings in +Perth. <a name="citation19"></a><a href="#footnote19" +class="citation">[19]</a> He wanted to dine +comfortably.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 20--><a +name="page20"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 20</span>and a porter, +were at Gowrie House, in addition to the nobles and gentlemen who +gave this evidence.</p> +<p>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 <!-- +page 21--><a name="page21"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +21</span>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, <i>infra</i>).</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.’ <!-- page 22--><a +name="page22"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 22</span>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.</p> +<p>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, <i>Where is the +King’s horse</i>? 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 23--><a name="page23"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 23</span>centuries (as far as we know), was +any one sensible enough to ask ‘How about the King’s +horse?’</p> +<p>We return to the question, ‘Where was the +King?’</p> +<p>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.’ <a name="citation23"></a><a +href="#footnote23" class="citation">[23]</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 24--><a +name="page24"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 24</span>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.</p> +<p>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, <i>and there they were +stopped by a locked door</i>. 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.</p> +<p>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, <!-- page 25--><a +name="page25"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 25</span>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.</p> +<p>For there <i>was</i> 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, <i>caught a glimpse of a man behind the +King’s back</i>, and saw James and the Master +‘wrestling together in each other’s arms.’</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 26--><a name="page26"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 26</span>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 <i>couteau de chasse</i>, 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 <i>that</i>, 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.</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>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 +<!-- page 27--><a name="page27"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +27</span>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, <i>not</i> 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.</p> +<p>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 +<!-- page 28--><a name="page28"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +28</span>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.</p> +<p>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. <a name="citation28"></a><a href="#footnote28" +class="citation">[28]</a> 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. <!-- page 29--><a name="page29"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 29</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 30--><a +name="page30"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 30</span>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. <a +name="citation30"></a><a href="#footnote30" +class="citation">[30]</a></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 31--><a +name="page31"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 31</span>on +<i>him</i>, 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- +page 32--><a name="page32"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +32</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page +33--><a name="page33"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 33</span>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.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p33b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Falkland place" +title= +"Falkland place" +src="images/p33s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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, <!-- page 34--><a +name="page34"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 34</span>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.</p> +<h2><!-- page 35--><a name="page35"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +35</span>III. THE KING’S OWN NARRATIVE</h2> +<p>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 +<i>one other man</i>, 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 <i>the other man</i>, +the man who professed to have been with the Master and the King +in the turret.</p> +<p><!-- page 36--><a name="page36"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +36</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 37--><a name="page37"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 37</span>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.</p> +<p>There is nothing probable in the whole affair; every system, +every hypothesis is <i>difficile à croire</i>. 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 <i>murder</i> +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 <i>murder</i> <!-- page 38--><a +name="page38"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 38</span>him, his +tale, even if true, could not be easily credible.</p> +<p>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 <a name="citation38"></a><a href="#footnote38" +class="citation">[38]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 39--><a name="page39"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 39</span>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 <i>in a privy +derned house</i>, and, after locking many doors on him, left him +there and his pot with him.’</p> +<p>It might be argued that, as the man was said to be locked in a +<i>house</i>, 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 <i>house</i> often +means a <i>room</i>, 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 40--><a +name="page40"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 40</span>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.</p> +<p>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. +<a name="citation40"></a><a href="#footnote40" +class="citation">[40]</a> The King’s inferences as to +<i>popish</i> 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 <i>did</i> propose this course, but Ruthven +replied that, if others once touched the money, the <!-- page +41--><a name="page41"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 41</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>must</i> 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 <!-- page +42--><a name="page42"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +42</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 43--><a name="page43"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 43</span>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, <a name="citation42"></a><a href="#footnote42" +class="citation">[42]</a> 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—<i>but the plot could not be dropped</i>. +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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>It was all-important to the King’s case to prove <!-- +page 44--><a name="page44"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +44</span>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 <i>was</i> 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. <a name="citation44a"></a><a href="#footnote44a" +class="citation">[44a]</a> 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.’ <a name="citation44b"></a><a +href="#footnote44b" class="citation">[44b]</a> Henderson +himself later declared that Gowrie had told him to keep his ride +to Falkland secret. <a name="citation44c"></a><a +href="#footnote44c" class="citation">[44c]</a> 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 <!-- page 45--><a +name="page45"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 45</span>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.</p> +<p>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.’ <a +name="citation45"></a><a href="#footnote45" +class="citation">[45]</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 46--><a name="page46"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 46</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>prove</i> 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.</p> +<p>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 <i>insouciance</i> as to harmonising +his narrative with Henderson’s, or causing Henderson to +conform to his. ‘Cooked’ evidence, collusive +evidence, would have avoided <!-- page 47--><a +name="page47"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 47</span>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 <i>after</i> the +despatch of Henderson, but probably it was before, to judge by +Henderson’s account.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>had handled him +so hardly</i>, 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?</p> +<p>The answer is suggested by an unpublished contemporary <!-- +page 48--><a name="page48"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +48</span>manuscript, ‘The True Discovery of the late +Treason,’ <a name="citation48a"></a><a href="#footnote48a" +class="citation">[48a]</a> &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.’ <a +name="citation48b"></a><a href="#footnote48b" +class="citation">[48b]</a></p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>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 <i>alone</i> 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 <!-- page 49--><a +name="page49"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 49</span>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).</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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, <i>and often going in and out of the +chamber</i>. The Master, too, was seen on the stairs by +Craigengelt.</p> +<p>If Gowrie’s behaviour is correctly described, it might +be attributed to anxiety about a Royal meal <!-- page 50--><a +name="page50"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 50</span>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 <i>distrait</i>, 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 <i>publicly</i> 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.</p> +<p>Now, if we turn back to Sir Thomas Erskine’s <!-- page +51--><a name="page51"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +51</span>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 <i>steik</i> [shut] the door.’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 +<i>houses</i>’—‘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 <!-- page +52--><a name="page52"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +52</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>one</i> +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, <a name="citation52a"></a><a +href="#footnote52a" class="citation">[52a]</a> 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. <a +name="citation52b"></a><a href="#footnote52b" +class="citation">[52b]</a></p> +<p>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 <i>was</i> <!-- page 53--><a +name="page53"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 53</span>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 +<i>trans</i>’ (a passage), ‘the door whereof, so soon +as they had entered, <i>chekit to with ane lok</i>, then through +a gallery, whose door also <i>chekit to</i>, through a chamber, +and the door thereof <i>chekit to</i>, also,’ and thence +into the turret of which he ‘also locked the door.’ +<a name="citation53"></a><a href="#footnote53" +class="citation">[53]</a></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>While we cannot explain these things, <i>that</i> 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 <!-- page 54--><a +name="page54"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 54</span>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.</p> +<p><span class="smcap">Note</span>.—<i>The Abbey of +Scone</i>. 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 (<i>Registrum Magni +Sigilli</i>, 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 (<i>Reg. Mag. +Sig.</i> 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?</p> +<h2><!-- page 55--><a name="page55"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +55</span>IV. THE KING’S NARRATIVE—II. THE +MAN IN THE TURRET</h2> +<p>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, ‘<i>avowing now +that the King behoved to be at his will</i>, <i>and used as he +list</i>; 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.’</p> +<p>If this tale is true, murder was not intended, unless James +resisted: the King was only being <i>threatened</i> 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. <!-- +page 56--><a name="page56"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +56</span>His conviction was believed to have been procured in a +dastardly manner, later to be explained.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 +<i>the other man</i>, 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, <!-- page 57--><a name="page57"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 57</span>believed that Ruthven never went far +from the door. James believed, indeed averred, that he ran +downstairs, and consulted Gowrie.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page +58--><a name="page58"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 58</span>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. <a +name="citation58"></a><a href="#footnote58" +class="citation">[58]</a>)</p> +<p>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 +<i>him</i>. They were now <!-- page 59--><a +name="page59"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 59</span>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, <a name="citation59"></a><a +href="#footnote59" class="citation">[59]</a> 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.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p59b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"The Gallery Chamber and the Turret, Gowrie House" +title= +"The Gallery Chamber and the Turret, Gowrie House" +src="images/p59s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<h2><!-- page 60--><a name="page60"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +60</span>V. HENDERSON’S NARRATIVE</h2> +<p>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.’ <a name="citation60"></a><a href="#footnote60" +class="citation">[60]</a> He saw the Master lying dead at +the foot of the stair, and saw Henderson <!-- page 61--><a +name="page61"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 61</span>‘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, <i>nor did +Robertson</i>. 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. +. . . ’ <a name="citation61a"></a><a href="#footnote61a" +class="citation">[61a]</a></p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation61b"></a><a href="#footnote61b" +class="citation">[61b]</a></p> +<p><!-- page 62--><a name="page62"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +62</span>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, <i>infra</i>).</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 63--><a +name="page63"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 63</span>him on his +return from Falkland, at about ten o’clock in the morning +of August 5.</p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation63a"></a><a href="#footnote63a" +class="citation">[63a]</a> 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.</p> +<blockquote><p>Blow, Galloway, the trumpet of the Lord!</p> +</blockquote> +<p>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. <a +name="citation63b"></a><a href="#footnote63b" +class="citation">[63b]</a></p> +<p><!-- page 64--><a name="page64"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +64</span>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.</p> +<p>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 +<i>him</i> 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, <a name="citation64"></a><a href="#footnote64" +class="citation">[64]</a> and <!-- page 65--><a +name="page65"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 65</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 66--><a +name="page66"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 66</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page +67--><a name="page67"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 67</span>not +help? Woe betide thee, thou wilt make us all die.’ <a +name="citation67a"></a><a href="#footnote67a" +class="citation">[67a]</a></p> +<p>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. <a name="citation67b"></a><a href="#footnote67b" +class="citation">[67b]</a> Henderson slunk out when Ramsay +came in. He adds that it was <i>his</i> 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).</p> +<p><!-- page 68--><a name="page68"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +68</span>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?’ +‘<i>Sir</i>, <i>it is but a promise</i>,’ 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, <i>according to promise</i>) 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page +69--><a name="page69"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +69</span>below, <a name="citation69a"></a><a href="#footnote69a" +class="citation">[69a]</a> 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 <i>that</i> 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.’ <a +name="citation69b"></a><a href="#footnote69b" +class="citation">[69b]</a> Henderson’s first +deposition was one of these which <!-- page 70--><a +name="page70"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 70</span>James printed +with his own narrative, and thus treated <i>en prince</i>. +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.</p> +<p>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?</p> +<p>But <i>was</i> 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.</p> +<h2><!-- page 71--><a name="page71"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +71</span>VI. THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. ROBERT OLIPHANT</h2> +<p>Suppose that men like the Ruthvens, great and potent nobles, +had secretly invited their retainer, Andrew Henderson, to take +the <i>rôle</i> 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, <!-- page +72--><a name="page72"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 72</span>now +far from sane, revealed the real or imagined conspiracy.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>What then, if the Gowries offered to Henderson the +<i>rôle</i> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page +73--><a name="page73"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 73</span>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.</p> +<p>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. <a name="citation73"></a><a href="#footnote73" +class="citation">[73]</a> ‘Mr. Alexander Wilky in the +Canongate for John Wilky, tailor there, 200<i>l.</i>, 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.’</p> +<p>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<i>l.</i> that John Wilky +shall not further molest Lyn.</p> +<p><!-- page 74--><a name="page74"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +74</span>Now what had Oliphant said?</p> +<p>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. <a name="citation74a"></a><a href="#footnote74a" +class="citation">[74a]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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. +<a name="citation74b"></a><a href="#footnote74b" +class="citation">[74b]</a> 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.</p> +<p><!-- page 75--><a name="page75"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +75</span>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, <i>who was in the secret</i>, <i>and had +taken the turret part</i>, 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.’ <a +name="citation75"></a><a href="#footnote75" +class="citation">[75]</a></p> +<p>Of Oliphant we learn no more till about June <!-- page 76--><a +name="page76"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 76</span>1608. +At that time, the King, in England, heard a rumour that he had +been connected with the conspiracy. A Captain Patrick Heron +<a name="citation76"></a><a href="#footnote76" +class="citation">[76]</a> 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 <i>quart decuria</i>; 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 <!-- page 77--><a +name="page77"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 77</span>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.</p> +<p>We know no more of Mr. Robert Oliphant. <a +name="citation77"></a><a href="#footnote77" +class="citation">[77]</a> 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 +<i>was</i>—could not divulge the plot, could not, like +Oliphant, a gentleman, leave Perth, and desert his +employment. So perhaps he drifted into taking the +<i>rôle</i> 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.</p> +<p>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’ <!-- page +78--><a name="page78"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 78</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 79--><a +name="page79"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 79</span>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.</p> +<h2><!-- page 80--><a name="page80"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +80</span>VII. THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN VINDICATION</h2> +<p>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. <a name="citation80"></a><a href="#footnote80" +class="citation">[80]</a> 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?</p> +<p>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 +<!-- page 81--><a name="page81"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +81</span>the Government instantly ordered the publication to be +suppressed. . . . ’</p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation81"></a><a href="#footnote81" +class="citation">[81]</a> 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.’</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 82--><a name="page82"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 82</span>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).</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p82b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Dirleton Castle" +title= +"Dirleton Castle" +src="images/p82s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>The Master, the apology goes on, whom the King had sent for +‘divers times before, and on August 5,’ <!-- page +83--><a name="page83"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 83</span>rode +early to Falkland, accompanied by Andrew Ruthven, and <i>Andrew +Henderson</i>. 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, ‘<i>for what occasion he knew +not</i>,’ 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.’ <a +name="citation83"></a><a href="#footnote83" +class="citation">[83]</a> This fact was stated by +Craigengelt himself, <!-- page 84--><a name="page84"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 84</span>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.’</p> +<p>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 ‘<i>knew nothing</i>.’</p> +<p>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 <!-- page +85--><a name="page85"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 85</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 86--><a +name="page86"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 86</span>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, <i>supra</i>). 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!”’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Cranstoun, according to the apologist, first entered <!-- page +87--><a name="page87"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 87</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p><!-- page 88--><a name="page88"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +88</span>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 <i>a servant of James</i> 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.</p> +<p>Though the narrative of the contemporary apologist for the +Ruthvens appears absolutely to lack evidence for its assertions, +it reveals, on analysis, a <!-- page 89--><a +name="page89"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 89</span>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 <i>him</i> 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.</p> +<p>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. <i>To omit this certain fact is necessary for +the apologist’s purpose</i>. 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 <!-- page 90--><a name="page90"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 90</span>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 <i>ruse</i>, and is +murdered.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 91--><a name="page91"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 91</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 92--><a name="page92"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 92</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 93--><a +name="page93"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 93</span>arrive at +Perth after twelve instead of about ten o’clock.</p> +<p>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. <a name="citation93"></a><a +href="#footnote93" class="citation">[93]</a></p> +<h2><!-- page 94--><a name="page94"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +94</span>VIII. THE THEORY OF AN ACCIDENTAL BRAWL</h2> +<p>So far, the King’s narrative is least out of keeping +with probability.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.’ <a +name="citation94"></a><a href="#footnote94" +class="citation">[94]</a> But Mr. Barbé also argues +that James had invented the pot of gold story before he left <!-- +page 95--><a name="page95"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +95</span>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 <i>via media</i>, no room for the +theory of accident.</p> +<p>The <i>via media</i>, 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 <!-- page 96--><a +name="page96"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 96</span>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.</p> +<p>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. <a name="citation96"></a><a +href="#footnote96" class="citation">[96]</a></p> +<p><!-- page 97--><a name="page97"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +97</span>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.</p> +<p>The third hypothesis, the <i>via media</i>, 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. <a name="citation97"></a><a +href="#footnote97" class="citation">[97]</a></p> +<h2><!-- page 99--><a name="page99"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +99</span>IX. CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM</h2> +<p>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.</p> +<p>It is thus better to follow Mr. Bruce’s own account, as +far as it goes.</p> +<p>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. ‘<i>It bore that his Majesty was delivered +out of a peril</i>, and therefore that we should be commanded to +go to our Kirks, <!-- page 100--><a name="page100"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 100</span>convene our people, ring bells, and +give God praises.’ While the preachers were +answering, the <i>Privy</i> Council sent for the Provost and some +of the <i>Town</i> Council.</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>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).</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p><!-- page 101--><a name="page101"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +101</span>‘They’ (the Council) ‘said it should +be sufficient to read his Majesty’s letter.’</p> +<p>This appears to mean that the preachers would content the +Lords by merely reading James’s letter aloud to the +public.</p> +<p>‘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 <i>report</i> +be true.”’</p> +<p>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 <i>letter</i>, and merely to talk, conditionally, of the +possible truth of the <i>report</i>, or +‘bruit.’ This appears to have been a +<i>verbal</i> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 102--><a +name="page102"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 102</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>they</i> doubted his word, the King’s character +would, to the godly, seem no better than that of a mendacious +murderer.</p> +<p>From a modern point of view, the ministers, if doubtful, had a +perfect right to be silent, and <!-- page 103--><a +name="page103"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 103</span>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.</p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation103"></a><a href="#footnote103" +class="citation">[103]</a> 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.</p> +<p>‘But Henderson saved the King’s life,’ +replied the Comptroller to Mr. Bruce.</p> +<p>‘As to that I cannot tell,’ said Mr. Bruce, and +<!-- page 104--><a name="page104"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +104</span>added that, if Henderson took the dagger from Ruthven, +he deserved to die for not sheathing it in Ruthven’s +breast.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>‘Suppose,’ said the Comptroller, ‘Henderson +goes back from that deposition?’</p> +<p>‘Then his testimony is the worse,’ said Mr. +Bruce.</p> +<p>‘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? <a +name="citation104"></a><a href="#footnote104" +class="citation">[104]</a> 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 <i>infra</i>, +p. 128).</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>He was left to inform himself, but Calderwood says, that the +story about Craigengelt’s dying confession was +untrue. Bruce had frankly given the <!-- page 105--><a +name="page105"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 105</span>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 +<i>Restalrig</i>, a place close to Edinburgh and Leith, went into +banishment. <a name="citation105a"></a><a href="#footnote105a" +class="citation">[105a]</a> If he stayed with the Laird of +Restalrig, he had, as will presently appear, a strange choice in +friends (pp. 148–167).</p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation105b"></a><a href="#footnote105b" +class="citation">[105b]</a> But they bowed to the law, and +so would he—‘for the present.’</p> +<p>The Puritans in England would not <i>preach</i> 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 <!-- page 106--><a +name="page106"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 106</span>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 +<i>would</i> 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?</p> +<p>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 <i>he</i> +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,’ <!-- page 107--><a +name="page107"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 107</span>said Mr. +Robert, ‘<i>for ye might have had some secret +cause</i>.’ <a name="citation107a"></a><a +href="#footnote107a" class="citation">[107a]</a></p> +<p>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 +<i>preach</i> his belief: would not apologise from the +pulpit. ‘I give it but a doubtsome trust,’ he +said.</p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation107b"></a><a href="#footnote107b" +class="citation">[107b]</a></p> +<p>‘Had you a purpose to slay my Lord?’—that +is, Gowrie.</p> +<p>‘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.’</p> +<p>‘What say ye then concerning Mr. Alexander?’</p> +<p>‘I grant I was art and part in Mr. Alexander’s +slaughter, for it was in my own defence.’</p> +<p><!-- page 108--><a name="page108"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +108</span>‘Why brought you not him to justice, seeing you +should have God before your eyes?’</p> +<p>‘I had neither God nor the Devil, man, before my eyes, +but my own defence.’</p> +<p>‘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.’</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 109--><a +name="page109"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 109</span>the door of +the chamber, and he told Ramsay to strike; we have no assurance +that the wounds were deadly.</p> +<p>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 <i>that</i> 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 <!-- page 110--><a +name="page110"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 110</span>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. <a name="citation110"></a><a +href="#footnote110" class="citation">[110]</a> 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.</p> +<h2><!-- page 111--><a name="page111"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 111</span>X. POPULAR CRITICISM OF THE +DAY</h2> +<p>Calderwood has preserved for us the objections taken by +sceptics to the King’s narrative. <a +name="citation111"></a><a href="#footnote111" +class="citation">[111]</a> First, the improbability of a +<i>murderous</i> 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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>The improbabilities of Ruthven’s pleas for haste need +not detain us: the King did not think them probable.</p> +<p>Next it was asked ‘Why did James go alone upstairs with +Ruthven?’</p> +<p>He may have had wine enough to beget valour, or, as he said, +he may have believed that he was <!-- page 112--><a +name="page112"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 112</span>being +followed by Erskine. The two reasons may well have +combined.</p> +<p>‘Why did not Gowrie provide better cheer, if +forewarned?’ (by Henderson?) it was asked.</p> +<p>To give the impression, we reply, that he was taken by +surprise, and that the King came uninvited and unexpected.</p> +<p>‘Why did Ruthven aim a dagger at James, and then hold +parley?’</p> +<p>Because he wanted to frighten the King into being ‘at +his will.’</p> +<p>‘How could Ruthven trust the King, with the armed man +alone in the turret?’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>‘It was strange that the man had not been trained in his +task.’</p> +<p>If Oliphant is correctly reported, he had been trained, but +‘fainted.’</p> +<p>‘Why bind the King with a garter?’</p> +<p>In helpless pursuit of the forlorn idea of capturing him.</p> +<p>‘Why execute the enterprise when the courtiers were +passing the window?’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p><!-- page 113--><a name="page113"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +113</span>‘How could the King struggle successfully with +the stalwart Master?’</p> +<p>He fought for his life, and Ruthven probably even then did not +wish to injure him bodily.</p> +<p>‘Why was not the Master made prisoner?’</p> +<p>James answered this question when ‘posed’ by Mr. +Bruce. His blood was up, and he said +‘Strike!’</p> +<p>‘The Earl likewise might, after he was stricken, have +been preserved alive.’</p> +<p>Perhaps—by miracle; he died instantly.</p> +<p>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).</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>‘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.’</p> +<p>It may be so, but the bulk of the evidence is on the other +side.</p> +<p>‘It is reported’ that Henderson was eating an egg +in the kitchen, and went into the town when the fray arose.</p> +<p><!-- page 114--><a name="page114"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +114</span>It is also denied, on oath, by Gowrie’s cook, who +added that he was ‘content to be hanged,’ if it could +be proved. <a name="citation114"></a><a href="#footnote114" +class="citation">[114]</a></p> +<p>The Ruthven apologist (MS.) says that Henderson was waiting on +the Lords who dined in the hall, and was <i>there</i> when <i>the +King’s servant</i> brought the news that the King had +ridden away.</p> +<p>‘The Master’s sword, after his death, was found +rusted tight in his scabbard.’</p> +<p>The Master must have been a very untidy gallant. No +authority is cited for the story.</p> +<p>The Murrays (who were well rewarded) were in Perth, +‘whether of set purpose let the reader judge.’</p> +<p>By all means let the reader judge.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>As to the good man of Pitmillie, Calderwood did not even know +his name. This is mere gossip.</p> +<p>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?</p> +<p><!-- page 115--><a name="page115"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +115</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 116--><a name="page116"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 116</span>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 <i>James</i> put him in the turret, why did he +fly?</p> +<p>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, +<i>not</i> 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)</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p116b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Falkland Palace" +title= +"Falkland Palace" +src="images/p116s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 117--><a +name="page117"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 117</span>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.’</p> +<h2><!-- page 118--><a name="page118"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 118</span>XI. THE KING AND THE +RUTHVENS</h2> +<p>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.’ <a +name="citation118"></a><a href="#footnote118" +class="citation">[118]</a> Mary herself, through the +narrative of Nau, her secretary, declares that Ruthven (then a +married <!-- page 119--><a name="page119"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 119</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p><!-- page 120--><a name="page120"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +120</span>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.’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Gowrie, naturally, rejected so perilous a practice.</p> +<p><!-- page 121--><a name="page121"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +121</span>‘You <i>must</i> confess the foreknowledge of +these things,’ said Arran, ‘or you must +die.’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>This is, briefly, the statement of a newsletter to England, +written, as usual, against the Government, and in the Protestant +interest. <a name="citation121a"></a><a href="#footnote121a" +class="citation">[121a]</a> A manuscript in the British +Museum gives a somewhat different version. <a +name="citation121b"></a><a href="#footnote121b" +class="citation">[121b]</a> 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 <!-- page 122--><a +name="page122"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 122</span>pictures, +he brake out into these words, having first fetched a deep +sigh. “<i>Cousin</i>” says he, “<i>is +there no remedy</i>? <i>Et impius haec tam culta novalia +miles habebit</i>? <i>Barbarus has +segetes</i>?” 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.</p> +<p>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, <i>not</i> 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, <i>teste</i> Godscroft.</p> +<p>However matters really stood, the Earl’s friends, <!-- +page 123--><a name="page123"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +123</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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, +<!-- page 124--><a name="page124"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +124</span>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.</p> +<p>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, <i>but Bothwell’s </i><!-- page +125--><a name="page125"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +125</span><i>success was due to Gowrie’s mother</i>, 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 126--><a +name="page126"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +126</span>proceedings. <a name="citation126"></a><a +href="#footnote126" class="citation">[126]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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 <i>Dominus Ioannes Ruthuen</i>, +<i>Scotus</i>, <i>cum signo albo in mento</i>, ‘with a +white mark on his chin.’ Then we have his luckless +tutor, Mr. Rhynd, who was tortured, <i>Scotus cum ledigine super +facie</i>. Robert Ker of Newbattle (‘Kerrus de +Heubattel’) is another of <!-- page 127--><a +name="page127"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +127</span>Gowrie’s college companions. All were +students of law. Magic was not compulsory at Padua, though +Gowrie was said to have studied that art. <a +name="citation127a"></a><a href="#footnote127a" +class="citation">[127a]</a></p> +<p>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 <i>mot</i>,’ was to the +effect that the emblem displayed, <i>in umbra</i>, or +foreshadowed, what was to be done <i>in facto</i>. 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. <a +name="citation127b"></a><a href="#footnote127b" +class="citation">[127b]</a> 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 <!-- page 128--><a +name="page128"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 128</span>amend +whatever is amiss for lack of my presence.’ <a +name="citation128a"></a><a href="#footnote128a" +class="citation">[128a]</a> Nevertheless, on December 25, +1598, Nicholson informed Cecil that Gowrie had been converted to +Catholicism. <a name="citation128b"></a><a href="#footnote128b" +class="citation">[128b]</a> 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.’</p> +<p>If so, Gowrie was, indeed, ‘a deep dissimulate +hypocrite.’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>A new complexity is added here, by a list of Scottish Catholic +nobles, ready to join an invading <!-- page 129--><a +name="page129"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 129</span>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? <a +name="citation129a"></a><a href="#footnote129a" +class="citation">[129a]</a></p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation129b"></a><a href="#footnote129b" +class="citation">[129b]</a> He is said to have <!-- page +130--><a name="page130"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +130</span>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).</p> +<p>On April 3, Gowrie was in London. <a +name="citation130a"></a><a href="#footnote130a" +class="citation">[130a]</a> 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.’ <a name="citation130b"></a><a +href="#footnote130b" class="citation">[130b]</a> 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.</p> +<p>These are rumours; it is certain that the King <!-- page +131--><a name="page131"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +131</span>(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). <a name="citation131a"></a><a +href="#footnote131a" class="citation">[131a]</a> It is also +certain that Gowrie opposed the King’s demands for money, +in a convention of June 21. <a name="citation131b"></a><a +href="#footnote131b" class="citation">[131b]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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), <a name="citation131c"></a><a +href="#footnote131c" class="citation">[131c]</a> he went to his +castle of Strabran, <!-- page 132--><a name="page132"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 132</span>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.</p> +<p>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 +<i>Gowrie’s</i> brother received from the Queen a ribbon +which she had got from the King, that <i>Mr. Alexander</i> 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.’</p> +<p>Legend does not say when, or in what year this occurred. +But the fancy of authors has identified <!-- page 133--><a +name="page133"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 133</span>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.’ <a name="citation133"></a><a +href="#footnote133" class="citation">[133]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 134--><a name="page134"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 134</span>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.’ <a +name="citation134a"></a><a href="#footnote134a" +class="citation">[134a]</a></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.’ <a +name="citation134b"></a><a href="#footnote134b" +class="citation">[134b]</a></p> +<p><!-- page 135--><a name="page135"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +135</span>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 <!-- page 136--><a +name="page136"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 136</span>at 4 <span +class="smcap">a.m.</span> and visiting his sovereign at seven in +the morning?</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>‘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.’</p> +<p>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?</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 137--><a +name="page137"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 137</span>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.</p> +<p>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. <a name="citation137"></a><a +href="#footnote137" class="citation">[137]</a> 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 <!-- page 138--><a +name="page138"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +138</span>King’s approach. Then the Master entered, +and Gowrie went out to meet the King.</p> +<p>The rest we know, as far as evidence exists.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p138b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Queen Anne of Denmark" +title= +"Queen Anne of Denmark" +src="images/p138s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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 <i>liaison</i> 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 <!-- page 139--><a +name="page139"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 139</span>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, <i>par amours</i>. 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 140--><a name="page140"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 140</span>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.</p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation140a"></a><a href="#footnote140a" +class="citation">[140a]</a> 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.</p> +<p>Once more there are hints, very vague, that, in 1593, Bothwell +aimed at changing the dynasty. <a name="citation140b"></a><a +href="#footnote140b" class="citation">[140b]</a> The fable +that Gowrie was a maternal grandson of Margaret Tudor, widow of +James IV, by Henry Stewart, <!-- page 141--><a +name="page141"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 141</span>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 <i>father’s</i> debts (80,000<i>l.</i> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 142--><a +name="page142"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 142</span>paid +interest on the debts, ‘he had already paid many sums of +money.’ James had already restored to Gowrie the +valuable lands of Scone. <a name="citation142"></a><a +href="#footnote142" class="citation">[142]</a></p> +<p>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 <i>him</i> 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 <!-- page +143--><a name="page143"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +143</span>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 <i>had</i> ridden +homewards?</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Thus Gowrie may well have wished to revenge his father; his +mother had once already helped to <!-- page 144--><a +name="page144"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 144</span>betray +James to an attack of the most insulting nature; he himself was +strong for the Kirk, over which James was playing the despot; +<i>or</i>, 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.’</p> +<p>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; <!-- page 145--><a name="page145"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 145</span>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 <i>had</i> to go on, even under +circumstances very unfavourable. There was no place for +repentance.</p> +<p>Thus considered, the conspiracy looks like the plot of a +romance, not without meritorious points, but painfully +amateurish.</p> +<p>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. <!-- page 146--><a +name="page146"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 146</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 147--><a +name="page147"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 147</span>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. <a name="citation147"></a><a +href="#footnote147" class="citation">[147]</a></p> +<h2><!-- page 148--><a name="page148"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 148</span>XII. LOGAN OF RESTALRIG</h2> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 149--><a +name="page149"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +149</span>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.</p> +<p>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. <!-- page 150--><a name="page150"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 150</span>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.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p150ab.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Restalrig House" +title= +"Restalrig House" +src="images/p150as.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p150bb.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Restalrig Village" +title= +"Restalrig Village" +src="images/p150bs.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 151--><a name="page151"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 151</span>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 <!-- page +152--><a name="page152"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +152</span>visitor about ‘the Great Logan,’ meaning +that Laird who now comes into the sequel of the Gowrie +mystery.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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. <a name="citation152"></a><a +href="#footnote152" class="citation">[152]</a> He somehow +escaped death and forfeiture, when Kirkcaldy was gibbeted after +the fall of the castle. In 1577, <!-- page 153--><a +name="page153"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 153</span>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<i>l.</i> that he would not attempt to escape. Later, +Logan was again surety that Lord Robert would return after +visiting his dominions, the Orkney Islands. <a +name="citation153"></a><a href="#footnote153" +class="citation">[153]</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 154--><a name="page154"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 154</span>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.</p> +<p>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?)</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p154b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Fastcastle (circ. 1820)" +title= +"Fastcastle (circ. 1820)" +src="images/p154s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 155--><a +name="page155"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 155</span>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. <a +name="citation155a"></a><a href="#footnote155a" +class="citation">[155a]</a></p> +<p>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. <a name="citation155b"></a><a href="#footnote155b" +class="citation">[155b]</a> 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 <i>murder</i> the King. ‘But for +conscience sake and worldly honesty, I must first be <!-- page +156--><a name="page156"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +156</span>absolved of my natural allegiance.’ (April +27, 1598; again, October 20, 1598.) <a name="citation156"></a><a +href="#footnote156" class="citation">[156]</a></p> +<p>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, <i>noscitur a +sociis</i>, ‘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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 157--><a name="page157"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 157</span>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. <a +name="citation157"></a><a href="#footnote157" +class="citation">[157]</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 158--><a +name="page158"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 158</span>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.</p> +<p>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. <a name="citation158"></a><a +href="#footnote158" class="citation">[158]</a></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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<i>l.</i> Scots. He is the burgess of <!-- page 159--><a +name="page159"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 159</span>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 <i>sui profusus</i>. +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.’ <a +name="citation159"></a><a href="#footnote159" +class="citation">[159]</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 160--><a +name="page160"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 160</span>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. <a +name="citation160a"></a><a href="#footnote160a" +class="citation">[160a]</a></p> +<p>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. <a name="citation160b"></a><a +href="#footnote160b" class="citation">[160b]</a></p> +<p><!-- page 161--><a name="page161"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +161</span>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. <a +name="citation161"></a><a href="#footnote161" +class="citation">[161]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>He died, and his children by his first wives dissociated +themselves from his executorship. The <!-- page 162--><a +name="page162"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 162</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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. <a +name="citation162"></a><a href="#footnote162" +class="citation">[162]</a> 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 <i>not</i> written the guilty +letters: he himself had forged them. This was all before +July 5, 1608, while Mr. Robert Oliphant lay in <!-- page 163--><a +name="page163"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 163</span>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.</p> +<p>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, <i>given by him from memory +only</i>, of a letter from Gowrie to Logan (<i>not</i> 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 <!-- page 164--><a +name="page164"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 164</span>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. <a +name="citation164"></a><a href="#footnote164" +class="citation">[164]</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 165--><a +name="page165"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 165</span>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.</p> +<p>Meanwhile what had Sprot really said, under private +examination, between July 5 and August 12, 1608, when he was +executed?</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Consequently the results of criticism of his confession may +here be stated with brevity. The persevering student, the +reader interested in odd <!-- page 166--><a +name="page166"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 166</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>all</i> 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 <i>genuine</i> 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 +<i>is</i> genuine, <i>in substance</i>, 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 <!-- page 167--><a +name="page167"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 167</span>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 <i>in substance</i>, +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.</p> +<h2><!-- page 168--><a name="page168"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 168</span>XIII. THE SECRETS OF +SPROT</h2> +<p>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 +<i>publicly</i> 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, <!-- +page 169--><a name="page169"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +169</span>and attested to be in his handwriting, in 1609. +But there were also remarkable variations.</p> +<p>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 +<i>quoted</i> in 1608, and the letters <i>produced</i> as his in +1609, had always been matters of comment and criticism.</p> +<p>As to the letters of 1609, Mr. Tytler wrote, ‘their +import cannot be mistaken; <i>their authenticity has never been +questioned</i>; 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). <a name="citation169"></a><a +href="#footnote169" class="citation">[169]</a> 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 <!-- page 170--><a name="page170"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 170</span>letters (except one, No. IV) was +denied by the very man, Sprot, in whose possession most of them +were originally found. <a name="citation170"></a><a +href="#footnote170" class="citation">[170]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 171--><a +name="page171"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 171</span>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.</p> +<p>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, <i>he was to be allowed a free exit from +Fastcastle</i>. 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. <!-- page 172--><a name="page172"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 172</span>The cliffs are steep, the sea is +deep, and tells no tales.</p> +<p>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 +<i>did</i> 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 <i>might</i> +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.</p> +<p>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, <!-- page 173--><a name="page173"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 173</span>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.</p> +<p>Yet Calderwood’s version (or rather that of his +anonymous authority in MS.) was literally accurate. Sprot, +in <i>private</i> 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.</p> +<p>The actual circumstances have remained unknown and are only to +be found in the official, but <i>suppressed</i>, 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 <!-- page 174--><a name="page174"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 174</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>private</i> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 175--><a name="page175"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 175</span>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 <i>quoted from +memory by Sprot under private examination</i>. 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. +<i>This</i> 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.</p> +<p>All this has presently to be proved in detail.</p> +<p>As the Government (a fact unknown to our historians) possessed +all the alleged Logan letters <!-- page 176--><a +name="page176"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 176</span>and papers +<i>before</i> 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.’</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p176b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Fastcastle" +title= +"Fastcastle" +src="images/p176s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>This letter, <i>as thus cited</i>, is not among the five later +produced in 1609; it is a blurred reminiscence of parts of +<i>two</i> of them. The reason of these discrepancies is +that the letter is quoted in the Indictment, <i>not</i> 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 <!-- page 177--><a name="page177"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 177</span>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 <i>false quotation +of the MS. confession</i>. Sprot really said that he kept +the stolen letter (IV) ‘<i>till</i>’ 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 178--><a name="page178"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 178</span>published by Bradewood, London, in +1608, and is reprinted by Pitcairn.</p> +<p>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, ‘<i>of some papers found upon him</i>.’ +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.</p> +<p>No letters, we say, are mentioned by Sir William Hart, in +Abbot’s tract (1608), <i>as having been produced</i>. +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.’</p> +<p>To this there used to be no reply. But now we know the +actual and discreditable truth. The Government <!-- page +179--><a name="page179"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +179</span>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.</p> +<p>Next, Hart cites, <i>as Logan’s answer to Gowrie’s +first letter</i> (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 <!-- page 180--><a +name="page180"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +180</span>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 <i>not</i> 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 +<i>private</i> report ran thus: ‘Demanded where is that +letter which Restalrig wrote to the Earl of Gowrie, <i>whereupon +the said George Sprot wrote and forged the missives +produced</i>?’ (August 10).</p> +<p>The real letter of Logan to Gowrie, the only <!-- page +181--><a name="page181"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +181</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>did not include among them Letter IV</i> +(Logan to Gowrie July 29, 1600). <i>That</i> 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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<h2><!-- page 182--><a name="page182"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 182</span>XIV. THE LAIRD AND THE +NOTARY</h2> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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), <!-- page 183--><a name="page183"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 183</span>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. <a name="citation183"></a><a +href="#footnote183" class="citation">[183]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 184--><a +name="page184"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 184</span>‘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 <i>new</i> 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 <i>eirdit quick</i>,’ that is, buried +alive (p. 205).</p> +<p>Now we shall show, later, the source whence Sprot probably +borrowed this phrase as to Lord Home, and being <i>eirdit +quick</i>, 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 <!-- page 185--><a +name="page185"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 185</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Sprot was so false, that Government might conceive his very +confession of having forged the letters <!-- page 186--><a +name="page186"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 186</span>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 <i>contents</i> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 187--><a name="page187"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 187</span>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.’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>them</i>, he could terrify them by +threatening to show the forged Logan letters, as genuine, to the +Government, <!-- page 188--><a name="page188"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 188</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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, <!-- +page 189--><a name="page189"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +189</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>after</i> +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. <!-- page 190--><a +name="page190"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 190</span>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.’</p> +<p>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?</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 191--><a name="page191"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 191</span>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, ‘<i>and there stayed three +days</i>, 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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Had the news of August 6 been that the King had mysteriously +disappeared, we may conceive that <!-- page 192--><a +name="page192"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 192</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p192b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Fastcastle" +title= +"Fastcastle" +src="images/p192s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 193--><a +name="page193"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 193</span>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.</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>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 <i>that</i> +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 <i>kidnap</i> the +King. That was commonly regarded as a harmless +constitutional practice, not justifying the slaughter of the +Ruthvens. From the first, Government insisted that +<i>murder</i> was intended. In the Latin indictment of the +dead Logan this is again dwelt on; Fastcastle is only to be the +<!-- page 194--><a name="page194"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +194</span>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.’</p> +<p>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, <i>in substance</i>, there is +only rumour, later to be discussed, to hint that Logan was in any +way connected with Gowrie.</p> +<p>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 +<i>this</i> 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, <!-- page 195--><a name="page195"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 195</span>Logan let Bower keep the damning +paper for months. If this be true, we can only say <i>quos +Deus vult perdere prius dementat</i>. People do keep +damning letters, constant experience proves the fact.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- +page 196--><a name="page196"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +196</span>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 +<i>eikit</i>’ (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. <i>He grants +that he wrote another copy with his course hand</i>, <i>copied +from his copy</i>, 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.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p196b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Handwriting of Logan (January 1585–6)" +title= +"Handwriting of Logan (January 1585–6)" +src="images/p196s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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, <!-- page 197--><a +name="page197"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 197</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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, <!-- page 198--><a name="page198"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 198</span>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). <a +name="citation198"></a><a href="#footnote198" +class="citation">[198]</a></p> +<p>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 <i>had</i> 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, +<i>Ninian</i> 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 <!-- page 199--><a +name="page199"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 199</span>a similar +charm. <a name="citation199a"></a><a href="#footnote199a" +class="citation">[199a]</a> 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. <a name="citation199b"></a><a href="#footnote199b" +class="citation">[199b]</a></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 200--><a name="page200"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 200</span>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.</p> +<h2><!-- page 201--><a name="page201"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 201</span>XV. THE FINAL CONFESSIONS OF +THE NOTARY</h2> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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, +<!-- page 202--><a name="page202"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +202</span>Errol, and Huntly. <a name="citation202"></a><a +href="#footnote202" class="citation">[202]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>(Let it be remembered that Sprot has not yet introduced Letter +IV into his depositions, though that was by far the most +important.)</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p202b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Hand of Logan as forged by Sprot" +title= +"Hand of Logan as forged by Sprot" +src="images/p202s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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’ <!-- page 203--><a +name="page203"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 203</span>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. <a name="citation203"></a><a href="#footnote203" +class="citation">[203]</a> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 204--><a name="page204"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 204</span>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.’</p> +<p>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<i>l.</i> (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.’</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 205--><a +name="page205"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 205</span>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.’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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, <i>for I rather be eirdit +quik</i>’—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 <!-- page 206--><a +name="page206"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +206</span>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. <a +name="citation206a"></a><a href="#footnote206a" +class="citation">[206a]</a></p> +<p>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. <a name="citation206b"></a><a href="#footnote206b" +class="citation">[206b]</a></p> +<p>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, <!-- page 207--><a name="page207"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 207</span>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.’</p> +<p>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, <i>which was a great knell to my +heart</i>, that since her coming to the town, she knew that I had +been in some dealing with <!-- page 208--><a +name="page208"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 208</span>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.</p> +<p>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, +‘<i>for I had rather be eirdit quick than either my Lord or +she knew anything of it</i>.’</p> +<p>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, <i>for I</i> (<i>sic</i>) +<i>rather be eirdit quik</i>.’ The phrase recurs in +another of the forged letters not produced in court.</p> +<p>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, <!-- page 209--><a +name="page209"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 209</span>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.</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 210--><a name="page210"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 210</span>declare that Logan would ruin his +family. He only remembered, as to the Yule supper, a +quarrel between Logan and Willie Home.</p> +<p>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’?</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p210b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Handwriting of Sprot" +title= +"Handwriting of Sprot" +src="images/p210s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>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 <!-- page 211--><a +name="page211"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 211</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 212--><a +name="page212"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 212</span>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 <i>debosch</i> yourself, you +would not make such merryness, and play the companion in London, +as you do so near his Majestie.”’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p><!-- page 213--><a name="page213"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +213</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Matthew could not remember having ridden to <!-- page 214--><a +name="page214"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 214</span>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.</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>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.”’</p> +<p><!-- page 215--><a name="page215"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +215</span>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.’</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 +<!-- page 216--><a name="page216"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +216</span>folio sheet of paper. The reader will remark +that, like Letters I (?), III, and V, this torn letter is a mere +<i>pastiche</i> framed (as Sprot confessed) on ideas and +expressions in Letter IV.</p> +<p><i>Letter found among the Haddington MSS. torn into thirteen +pieces</i> (<i>one lost</i>)—<i>these have been placed in +order</i>, <i>but at least one line of the piece is +wanting</i>.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Beseik his lordschip bavar [beware] that my lord my brother +[Lord Home] get na intelligense <!-- page 217--><a +name="page217"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 217</span>of thir +towrnis as he lowfis all owr veillis, for be God he vill be our +greittest enemy. <a name="citation217"></a><a href="#footnote217" +class="citation">[217]</a></p> +<p>(A line or more wanting)</p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p>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.’</p> +<p>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).</p> +<p>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.’</p> +<p><!-- page 218--><a name="page218"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +218</span>‘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.</p> +<p>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, <!-- page 219--><a +name="page219"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 219</span>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.</p> +<p>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 +<i>carried</i>’ (excited), ‘and his mind has ever +been set on passing out of the country this year past,’ +that is since the Gowrie affair.</p> +<p>Now all this tale has much <i>vraisemblance</i>. The +facts about Logan’s adventure with Willoughby, <!-- page +220--><a name="page220"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +220</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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, <i>was the letter of Logan to +Gowrie</i>, <i>whereon</i>, <i>as model</i>, <i>the rest were +forged</i>? 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 <!-- page 221--><a +name="page221"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 221</span>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).</p> +<p>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; +<a name="citation221"></a><a href="#footnote221" +class="citation">[221]</a> <!-- page 222--><a +name="page222"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 222</span>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.’ <a +name="citation222"></a><a href="#footnote222" +class="citation">[222]</a> ‘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.</p> +<p>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 +‘<i>till</i> he framed three new letters upon it,’ +after which he does not say what he did with it.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 223--><a +name="page223"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 223</span>truth of +all his depositions since July 5. But if <i>this</i> 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 +‘<i>till</i>’ 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 ‘<i>he +believes</i> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page +224--><a name="page224"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +224</span>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.’ <a +name="citation224"></a><a href="#footnote224" +class="citation">[224]</a></p> +<p>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 <i>also</i> endorsed in Sprot’s ordinary +everyday hand, very firm and clear, thus:</p> +<p>‘This is copyitt off the principal’ (the +original), ‘lykeas the note writtin upon the bak is writtin +by me, George Sprott.’</p> +<p>There is, in fact, another ‘note on the back,’ in +ink more faded, on a dirty rubbed part of the paper.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 225--><a name="page225"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 225</span>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 +<i>postscript</i> to the original Letter IV, a passage which is +really in the <i>text</i> 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.</p> +<p>The originals were also found, for it will not be argued that +Government employed another forger to forge them from +Sprot’s copies in <!-- page 226--><a +name="page226"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +226</span>‘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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 227--><a name="page227"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 227</span>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. <a name="citation227a"></a><a +href="#footnote227a" class="citation">[227a]</a> 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.’ <a name="citation227b"></a><a +href="#footnote227b" class="citation">[227b]</a> Had Andrew +Henderson swung, constant to his confession, the Presbyterian +sceptics would have found similar reasons for disbelief.</p> +<p>What are <i>we</i> 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.</p> +<p>Yet all this is not satisfactory.</p> +<p>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—<!-- page 228--><a name="page228"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 228</span>for purposes of profligacy. +These proceedings gave rise to gossip. The Laird must be +selling his lands to evade forfeiture. He <i>must</i> 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, +<i>née</i> 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.</p> +<p>So far, all is clear. But, in April 1608, Sprot has +blabbed and is arrested. The forgeries are found <!-- page +229--><a name="page229"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +229</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 230--><a +name="page230"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 230</span>long +concealed it, did he say where it was, after all hope of life was +over?</p> +<p>The answer can only be conjectural. Some might guess +thus: till <!-- page 231--><a name="page231"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 231</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>now</i>, 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.</p> +<p>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 <i>handwriting</i> of +Letter IV. His remark that he kept Logan’s letter +only <i>till</i> he forged others on it, as a model, certainly +implies that he did not keep it <i>after</i> he had done his +forgeries, and therefore that our Letter IV is, confessedly, +<i>not</i> Logan’s original. Certainly it is not.</p> +<h2><!-- page 232--><a name="page232"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 232</span>XVI. WHAT IS LETTER IV?</h2> +<p>The crucial question now arises, <i>What is Letter +IV</i>? 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 <i>all</i> 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 <i>three</i> 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 <!-- page +233--><a name="page233"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 233</span>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.</p> +<p>One thing is certain, Letters III and V, to the Unknown, +<i>are</i> 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).</p> +<p><!-- page 234--><a name="page234"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +234</span>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’ (? +<i>à propos</i>) ‘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.’</p> +<p>2. The constant applause of Bower. This is in +Letter IV, and in I, III, V, and the torn letter.</p> +<p>3. Meeting with Alexander Ruthven. This is in IV, +and in I and V.</p> +<p>4. The meeting at Fastcastle, which is to be quiet and +well-provisioned. This is in IV, and in I, III, V.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>6. The King’s hunting, the opportunity for the +plot. This is in IV, and in I, but that is natural.</p> +<p>7. Directions as to returning the letters. These +are in IV, in I, III, V, and the torn letter.</p> +<p>8. Injunctions of secrecy. These are in IV, and I, +III, V, and in the torn letter.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>10. Logan’s elevation of heart on receipt of +Gowrie’s letter. This occurs in IV and in V.</p> +<p><!-- page 235--><a name="page235"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +235</span>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?</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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?</p> +<p>Is Letter IV in substance genuine? If not, why did Sprot +keep it back till the rope was noosed for <!-- page 236--><a +name="page236"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 236</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>invented</i> 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 <i>à +propos</i> 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 <i>this</i> year shall furnish the +dainty cheer; ‘<i>hoc jocose</i>!’ At this +dinner <!-- page 237--><a name="page237"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 237</span>Bothwell and Gowrie, old allies, are +to meet at Logan’s board, which may suggest that Bothwell +and Gowrie are still working together.</p> +<p>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.)</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 238--><a +name="page238"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +238</span>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 <i>in Logan’s hand</i>. 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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 239--><a +name="page239"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 239</span>September, +the Scottish Privy Council asked James to send him home again. <a +name="citation239"></a><a href="#footnote239" +class="citation">[239]</a> But Hart need not have told all +the truth to James.</p> +<p>There is a kind of rejoicing <i>naïveté</i> 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 <i>written</i> 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!</p> +<h2><!-- page 240--><a name="page240"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 240</span>XVII. INFERENCES AS TO THE +CASKET LETTERS</h2> +<p>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.</p> +<p><!-- page 241--><a name="page241"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +241</span>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,’ <i>a packet of old letters in +French</i> 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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 242--><a name="page242"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 242</span>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.</p> +<p>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 ‘<i>the character +of every letter</i> resembles perfectly Robert’s handwrit, +<i>every way</i>.’ 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 <!-- page 243--><a +name="page243"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 243</span>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.’ <a +name="citation243a"></a><a href="#footnote243a" +class="citation">[243a]</a></p> +<p>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 +<i>found</i>,’ 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.’ <a name="citation243b"></a><a +href="#footnote243b" class="citation">[243b]</a> Yet they +were convinced by the evidence of the witnesses, and by their own +eyes.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 244--><a +name="page244"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 244</span>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.</p> +<h2><!-- page 245--><a name="page245"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 245</span>APPENDICES</h2> +<h3>APPENDIX A. THE FRONTISPIECE</h3> +<p><i>Gowrie’s Arms and Ambitions</i></p> +<p>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 <span +class="smcap">Deid Schaw</span>. 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.</p> +<p>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, <span class="smcap">Tibi +Soli</span>, ‘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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- +page 246--><a name="page246"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +246</span>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 <i>Deid +Schaw</i>, is the Latin translation, <i>Facta Probant</i>. +The writer says (Note C), ‘This from an authentic copy of +his arms, <i>richly illuminated in the year</i> 1597, with his +name and titles, <i>viz.</i> “Joannes Ruthven, Comes de +Gowry, Dominus de Ruthven,” &c., in my +hands.’</p> +<p>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, <i>pointing with a sword upward to an +imperial crown</i>, with this device, <span class="smcap">Tibi +Soli</span>.’</p> +<p>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 +<i>here</i> points the sword at a crown, which is <i>Tibi +Soli</i>, ‘For thee’ (Gowrie?) +‘alone.’</p> +<p>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?</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 247--><a +name="page247"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 247</span>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.</p> +<p>‘Thus hath your Majesty now a view, <i>in umbra</i>, of +those detestable thoughts which afterwards appeared <i>in +facto</i>, according to the said Earl’s own +<i>mot</i>. 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?’ <a +name="citation247"></a><a href="#footnote247" +class="citation">[247]</a></p> +<p>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 <i>mot</i> 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.’</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 248--><a +name="page248"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 248</span>Archibald +Douglas of Glenbervie (<i>ob.</i> 1570), who was ancestor of the +Catholic Earl of Angus (<i>flor.</i> 1596). This Archibald +of Glenbervie had a son, Archibald, named in his father’s +testament, but otherwise unknown. <a name="citation248"></a><a +href="#footnote248" class="citation">[248]</a> 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 <i>mot</i> about <i>in umbra</i> and <i>in facto</i>. +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 <i>mot</i> 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.</p> +<p>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?</p> +<p>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, <!-- page 249--><a name="page249"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 249</span>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 <i>frater +noster uterinus</i>’—‘Our brother +uterine.’ ‘<i>He</i> 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.’ <a +name="citation249"></a><a href="#footnote249" +class="citation">[249]</a> 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 <i>and his issue</i>) 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 (<i>ob.</i> +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 <!-- page 250--><a name="page250"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 250</span>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.</p> +<p>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 <i>that</i> must refer to the +relationship of the Ruthvens and the King through the Angus +branch of the Douglases. <a name="citation250a"></a><a +href="#footnote250a" class="citation">[250a]</a></p> +<p>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 (<i>sic</i>) in a fencing school, +caused to be painted, for his devise, a hand and sword aiming at +a crown.’ <a name="citation250b"></a><a +href="#footnote250b" class="citation">[250b]</a> 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 <!-- page 251--><a name="page251"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 251</span>engraving upon it, which probably +had been used by the Earls of Gowrie and by their predecessors, +the Lords of Ruthven.’ <a name="citation251a"></a><a +href="#footnote251a" class="citation">[251a]</a> 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 <i>Tibi Soli</i>, +meaning ‘For Thee, O James III alone, <i>not</i> 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.</p> +<p>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, <i>that +there was a secret candidate for James’s crown</i>, and +that he expected to be himself Lieutenant of the realm of +Scotland. Bothwell was closely <i>lié</i> with Lady +Gowrie (Dorothea Stewart), and our Gowrie presently joined him in +a ‘band’ to serve Elizabeth and subdue James. <a +name="citation251b"></a><a href="#footnote251b" +class="citation">[251b]</a></p> +<h3><!-- page 252--><a name="page252"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 252</span>APPENDIX B: THE CONTEMPORARY RUTHVEN +VINDICATION</h3> +<p>(State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. +52)</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 . . .</p> +<p>The same day Mr. Alexander being send for be the king . . . +tymes befoir, raid to facland accompaneit wth <!-- page 253--><a +name="page253"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 253</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>The kingis Matie eftir this resolution raid to Perth +accompaneit wth thrie score horse quhair (?) threttie come a +lytle before him . . . remainit . . .</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 254--><a name="page254"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 254</span>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 <!-- page 255--><a name="page255"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 255</span>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p><!-- page 256--><a name="page256"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +256</span>Secondlie the opposition laid (?) be my lord himself in +the Conventioun and be the barronnis, as is thocht be his +instigacioun, against (?) his Matie.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<h3><!-- page 257--><a name="page257"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 257</span>APPENDIX C.<br /> +FIVE LETTERS FORGED BY SPROT, AS FROM LOGAN</h3> +<p style="text-align: center">[<i>Preserved in the General +Register House</i>, <i>Edinburgh</i>]</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(1) <i>Robert Logan of Restalrig +to</i> . . .</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 258--><a +name="page258"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 258</span>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.</p> +<p>(Sic subscribitur) Yowris to vtter power redy</p> +<p style="text-align: right"><span +class="smcap">Restalrige</span>.</p> +<p>On the back ‘Sprott,’ ‘bookit’ +(2).</p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">(2) <i>Robert Logan of +Restalrig to Laird Bower</i>.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 259--><a +name="page259"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 259</span>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.</p> +<p>(Sic subscribitur) Yowris to power redy</p> +<p style="text-align: right"><span +class="smcap">Restalrige</span>.</p> +<p>I am verie ill at eise and thairfoir speid yow hither.</p> +<p>On the back ‘Sprott,’ ‘Secund,’ +‘bookit.’</p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">(3) <i>Robert Logan of +Restalrig to</i> . . . .</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 260--><a name="page260"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 260</span>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.</p> +<p>(Sic subscribitur)</p> +<p style="text-align: right">Yowris till all power vt humbill +servise redy<br /> +<span class="smcap">Restalrige</span>.</p> +<p>I vse nocht to vryt on the bak of ony of my letteris +concerning this errand.</p> +<p>On the back ‘Sprott,’ ‘bookit’ +(3).</p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">(4) <i>Robert Logan of +Restalrig to the Earl of Gowrie</i>.</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 261--><a name="page261"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 261</span>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. <i>Hoc jocose</i>, 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) <!-- page 262--><a name="page262"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 262</span>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.</p> +<p>(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.</p> +<p style="text-align: right"><span +class="smcap">Restalrige</span>.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>I vill never foryet the gude sporte that M.A. yowr lo: <!-- +page 263--><a name="page263"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +263</span>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.</p> +<p>On the back ‘Sprott,’ ‘bookit’ +(4).</p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">(5) <i>Robert Logan of +Restalrig to</i> . . .</p> +<p>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 <!-- page 264--><a +name="page264"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 264</span>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 +<i>cum discrecione</i>. 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.</p> +<p>On the back ‘xiij Aprilis 1608 producit be Ninian +Chirnesyde (8).’</p> +<p>Also ‘Sprott,’ ‘Fyft. bookit.’</p> +<h2><!-- page 265--><a name="page265"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 265</span>INDEX</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">Abbot</span>, Dr. George, present when +Sprot was hanged, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page177">177</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page226">226</a></span>; his pamphlet containing official +account of Sprot’s trial and examinations, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page178">178</a></span></p> +<p>Abercromby, Robert (the King’s saddler), said to have +brought James to Perth to ‘take order for his debt,’ +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page83">83</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page84">84</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page159">159</a></span></p> +<p>Agnew, Sir Stair, cited, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page241">241</a></span></p> +<p>Analysis of Letter IV, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page232">232</a></span>–239</p> +<p>Anderson, Rev. Mr., finds the torn letter from Logan to +Chirnside, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page174">174</a></span>; on Letter IV., <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page236">236</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page237">237</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page238">238</a></span>; on the +Logan plot-letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page241">241</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page242">242</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page243">243</a></span></p> +<p>Angus, Earl of, involves Gowrie’s father in a conspiracy +with him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page121">121</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page122">122</a></span>; under the spells of witchcraft, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page198">198</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page199">199</a></span></p> +<p>Anne of Denmark, Queen (wife of James VI), her attributed +relations with the Earl Moray, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page2">2</a></span>; and with Gowrie and the Master of +Ruthven, <span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page3">3</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page133">133</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page134">134</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page138">138</a></span>; +romantic story of her ribbon on the Master’s neck, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page132">132</a></span>; invites +Gowrie to Court, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page133">133</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page134">134</a></span>; sorrow for the slaying of the +Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page5">5</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page133">133</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page138">138</a></span>; plots against the Earl of Mar, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page138">138</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page139">139</a></span></p> +<p>Arms, Gowrie’s, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page245">245</a></span> <i>et seq.</i></p> +<p>Arnott, Sir John (provost of Edinburgh), on the Logan +plot-letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page243">243</a></span>; at the trial of Logan, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page250">250</a></span></p> +<p>Arran (Capt. James Stewart), his influence over James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page119">119</a></span>; his +treachery to Gowrie’s father, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page120">120</a></span>–123; receives that +nobleman’s forfeited estate, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page123">123</a></span>; driven into retirement, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page123">123</a></span></p> +<p>Arran, Earl of, Bothwell’s (James Hepburn) proposal to +him to seize Mary, cited, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page71">71</a></span></p> +<p>Ashfield, kidnapped by Lord Willoughby, cited, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page139">139</a></span></p> +<p>Atholl, Earl of (married to Gowrie’s sister Mary), <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page123">123</a></span>; in +alliance with Bothwell and Gowrie against James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page125">125</a></span>; manifesto +to the Kirk, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page125">125</a></span>; letters from James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page134">134</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page135">135</a></span></p> +<p>Auchmuty, John, in attendance on James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page12">12</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Baillie</span>, John, of Littlegill, +implicated by Sprot with Logan, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page202">202</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page203">203</a></span>; denies receiving a letter from +Logan, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page209">209</a></span></p> +<p>Baldi, Ottavio, his letter to James on the Gowrie emblem at +Padua, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page246">246</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page247">247</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page251">251</a></span></p> +<p>Balgonie. <i>See</i> Graham of Balgonie.</p> +<p>Barbé, Mr. Louis, on Henderson’s and the +Master’s ride to Falkland, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page45">45</a></span>; his view of the notary +Robertson’s evidence respecting Henderson, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page61">61</a></span> note; as to +the theory of an accidental brawl, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page94">94</a></span>; on James and the pot of gold tale, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page95">95</a></span>; on +Bruce’s interrogation of the King, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page109">109</a></span>; <!-- page +266--><a name="page266"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 266</span>on +the invitation from the King to Gowrie, Atholl, and others to +join him at Falkland, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page135">135</a></span></p> +<p>Baron (Gowrie’s retainer), in the chamber fight, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page87">87</a></span>; hanged, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page87">87</a></span></p> +<p>Bell, John, Logan’s memorandum to him, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page174">174</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page195">195</a></span></p> +<p>Beza, Gowrie with, at Geneva, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page180">180</a></span></p> +<p>Bisset, Mr., quoted, on the notary Robertson’s evidence +respecting Henderson, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page61">61</a></span> note</p> +<p>Bothwell, Francis Stewart Earl of, aided by Gowrie’s +mother and sister captures James at Holyrood, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page124">124</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page125">125</a></span>; manifesto +to the Kirk, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page125">125</a></span>; his list of Scottish Catholic +nobles ready for the invasion of Scotland, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page128">128</a></span>; other +proposals of invasion, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page129">129</a></span>; vague hints at his aim to change +the dynasty, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page140">140</a></span>; his whereabouts in 1600, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page147">147</a></span> note; on +terms with Logan of Restalrig, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page154">154</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page155">155</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page156">156</a></span>; charged with practising +witchcraft against the King’s life, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page198">198</a></span>; report as +to a secret candidate for James’s crown, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page251">251</a></span></p> +<p>Bothwell, James Hepburn Earl of, his proposal to Arran to +seize Mary, cited, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page71">71</a></span></p> +<p>Bower, James (a retainer of Logan’s), custodian of +compromising letters between Logan and Gowrie, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page164">164</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page174">174</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page176">176</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page177">177</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page195">195</a></span>; bearer of +Gowrie’s letter to Logan, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page183">183</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page188">188</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page191">191</a></span>; letter from Logan, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page183">183</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page184">184</a></span>; +Sprot’s account of Logan and Bower’s scheme to get +possession of Dirleton, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page189">189</a></span>; with Logan at Coldinghame after +the tragedy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page195">195</a></span>; custodian of Ruthven’s and +Clerk’s letters to Logan, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page202">202</a></span>; blamed for the selling of +Fastcastle, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page204">204</a></span>; letter from Logan reproaching him +for indiscretions of speech, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page211">211</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page212">212</a></span></p> +<p>Bower, Valentine, employed by his father James to read +Logan’s letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page213">213</a></span></p> +<p>Bowes, Sir William (English Ambassador), no friend of +James’s, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page96">96</a></span>; his hypothesis respecting the +Gowrie tragedy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page96">96</a></span>; letter to Sir John Stanhope on same +matter, <span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page97">97</a></span> +note</p> +<p>Brown, Professor Hume, on the Logan plot-letters, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page241">241</a></span></p> +<p>Brown, Robert (James’s servant), part in the Gowrie +mystery, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page31">31</a></span></p> +<p>Bruce, Rev. Robert (Presbyterian minister), his +cross-examination of James on the Gowrie tragedy, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page38">38</a></span>; allows that +James was not a conspirator, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page95">95</a></span>; explains to James the reasons for +the preachers’ refusal to thank God for his delivery from a +‘plot,’ <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page101">101</a></span>; sceptical of the veracity of +James’s narrative, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page102">102</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page103">103</a></span>; will believe it if Henderson is +hanged, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page103">103</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page104">104</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page106">106</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page226">226</a></span>; goes into banishment, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page105">105</a></span>; tells Mar +in London he is content to abide by the verdict in the Gowrie +case, but is not persuaded of Gowrie’s guilt, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page105">105</a></span>; meets the +King in Scotland, and tells him he is convinced, on Mar’s +oath, that he is innocent, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page106">106</a></span>; interrogates the King, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page107">107</a></span>; refuses to +make a public apology in the pulpit and is banished to Inverness, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page108">108</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page250">250</a></span>; his +‘Meditations,’ <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page110">110</a></span> note; asks Lord Hamilton to head +the party of the Kirk, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page177">177</a></span>; prophecies, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page249">249</a></span></p> +<p>Burnet (Burnet’s father), on the Gowrie mystery, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page249">249</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page250">250</a></span></p> +<p>Burnet, Bishop, quoted, on Gowrie’s claims to a Royal +pedigree, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page249">249</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page250">250</a></span></p> +<p>Burton, Dr. Hill, on James VI, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page5">5</a></span>; on Logan’s plot-letters, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page169">169</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Calderwood</span>, Rev. David +(Presbyterian minister), on James’s narrative of the Gowrie +affair, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page36">36</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page37">37</a></span>; on the man in the turret, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page62">62</a></span>; rejects the +story of Craigengelt’s dying confession, <!-- page 267--><a +name="page267"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 267</span><span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page104">104</a></span>; view of +the objections taken by sceptics to the King’s narrative, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page111">111</a></span>; on +Gowrie’s entry to Edinburgh, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page130">130</a></span>; on the confession of Sprot on the +scaffold, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page163">163</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page164">164</a></span> note, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page227">227</a></span>; his interpretation of +Sprot’s confession, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page164">164</a></span>; on the Logan plot-letters, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page170">170</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page172">172</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page173">173</a></span></p> +<p>Cant, Mr. (antiquary), on Gowrie House, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page18">18</a></span></p> +<p>Carey, Sir John (Governor of Berwick), respecting a treatise +in vindication of the Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page81">81</a></span>; informs Cecil of James’s +jealousy of Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page130">130</a></span>; and of the Court tattle +respecting the Queen and Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page133">133</a></span></p> +<p>Casket Letters, the, cited, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page5">5</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page7">7</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page8">8</a></span>; in possession of Gowrie’s +father, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page240">240</a></span>; disappearance of, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page241">241</a></span>; +probability of forgery, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page244">244</a></span></p> +<p>Cecil Papers at Hatfield, the, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page158">158</a></span></p> +<p>Cecil, Sir Robert, Queen Elizabeth’s minister, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page11">11</a></span>; +communication from Nicholson respecting Cranstoun and Henderson, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page75">75</a></span> note; +letter from Carey respecting a treatise in vindication of the +Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page81">81</a></span>; intrigue with Bothwell, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page147">147</a></span> note; with +Border Scots intriguing against James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page159">159</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page160">160</a></span>; Lord +Willoughby’s offer of a ship if subsidised, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page218">218</a></span></p> +<p>Chirnside, Ninian, of Whitsumlaws, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page154">154</a></span>; +Logan’s letter to him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page174">174</a></span>; relations with Logan, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page197">197</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page199">199</a></span>; employed +by Bothwell to arrange meetings with the wizard Graham, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page198">198</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page199">199</a></span>; in danger +after the failure of the Gowrie plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page203">203</a></span>; +Sprot’s forged letter of Logan’s to be used by him +for blackmailing Logan’s executors, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page215">215</a></span></p> +<p>Christie, porter at Gowrie House on the fatal day, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page21">21</a></span></p> +<p>Clerk, Father Andrew (Jesuit), intriguing against James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page201">201</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page212">212</a></span></p> +<p>Coat of arms, Gowrie’s, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page245">245</a></span> <i>et seq.</i></p> +<p>Colville, John, tells Cecil of Gowrie’s summons to be +leader of the Kirk, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page129">129</a></span>; schemes against James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page140">140</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page146">146</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page155">155</a></span>; renounces +Frank Bothwell, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page198">198</a></span></p> +<p>Corsar, John, cited, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page211">211</a></span></p> +<p>Cowper, Rev. Mr. (minister of Perth), on Gowrie’s views +as to secrecy in plots, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page144">144</a></span></p> +<p>Craigengelt (Gowrie’s steward), his evidence regarding +the Master’s ride to Falkland, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page44">44</a></span>; observation of the Master while the +King dines, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page49">49</a></span>; at the dinner, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page65">65</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page83">83</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page84">84</a></span>; his +confession before execution, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page103">103</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page104">104</a></span>; denial of receipt of letters from +James to Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page134">134</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page135">135</a></span> note; on the movements of the +Gowries before the tragedy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page136">136</a></span>; hanged, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page87">87</a></span></p> +<p>Cranstoun of Cranstoun, Sir John, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page154">154</a></span></p> +<p>Cranstoun Riddell, Laird of, (Logan’s father-in-law), +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page153">153</a></span></p> +<p>Cranstoun, Thomas (Gowrie’s equerry), his share in the +transactions at Gowrie House which brought about the slaughter of +the Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page20">20</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page21">21</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page23">23</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page27">27</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page28">28</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page29">29</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page30">30</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page31">31</a></span>; wounded by Ramsay, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page74">74</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page85">85</a></span>; examined, +tortured, tried, and hanged at Perth, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page74">74</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page87">87</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page155">155</a></span>; an +outlawed rebel and adherent of Bothwell, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page74">74</a></span> note, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page155">155</a></span></p> +<p>Cranstoun, Wm. (Bothwellian), <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page155">155</a></span></p> +<p>Crockett, Willie, one of Sprot’s victims, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page203">203</a></span>; his +account of Logan’s Yule at Gunnisgreen, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page209">209</a></span></p> +<p>Cromarty, Lord, his defence of James in the Gowrie affair, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page223">223</a></span>; +testifies to the finding of Sprot’s Letter IV, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page224">224</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page229">229</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Davidson</span>, Rev. M., cited, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page249">249</a></span></p> +<p>Dirleton, Gowrie’s stronghold near North Berwick, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page42">42</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page43">43</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page145">145</a></span></p> +<p>Doig, Watty, arrests Sprot, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page162">162</a></span></p> +<p>Douglas, Archibald, the infamous traitor, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page140">140</a></span>; his +intimacy with Logan, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page154">154</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page155">155</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page157">157</a></span></p> +<p><!-- page 268--><a name="page268"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +268</span>Douglas, Archibald, of Glenbervie, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page248">248</a></span></p> +<p>Douglas, Archibald (son of Douglas of Glenbervie), student at +Padua, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page126">126</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page248">248</a></span></p> +<p>Douglas of Spot, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page140">140</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page156">156</a></span></p> +<p>Douglas, Sir Robert, and the Gowrie emblem in Padua, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page127">127</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page246">246</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page247">247</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page248">248</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page251">251</a></span></p> +<p>Drummond of Inchaffray, at Gowrie House when the Ruthvens were +killed, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page19">19</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page24">24</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page43">43</a></span>; letter from James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page134">134</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page135">135</a></span></p> +<p>Dunbar, Earl of, his humane treatment of Sprot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page163">163</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page170">170</a></span>; +Sprot’s confession forwarded to him, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page182">182</a></span>; in debt to +Logan, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page211">211</a></span></p> +<p>Dunfermline, Earl of, and the preachers, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page102">102</a></span>; opposes +James’s demands for money, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page131">131</a></span>; present at Sprot’s +examinations, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page201">201</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page210">210</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Easter Wemyss</span>, Laird of, opposes +James’s demands for money, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page131">131</a></span></p> +<p>Elizabeth, Queen, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page11">11</a></span>; receives, through Preston, +James’s account of the Gowrie affair, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page96">96</a></span>; seeks to +purchase the Casket Letters from Gowrie’s father, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page240">240</a></span>; said to +have granted to Gowrie the guard and honours of a Prince of +Wales, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page248">248</a></span></p> +<p>Elphinstone (Lord Balmerino), Secretary of the Privy Council, +in receipt of James’s narrative of the Gowrie plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page38">38</a></span>; denies +discrepancies alleged by the preachers in the report of the +tragedy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page102">102</a></span></p> +<p>Erskine, Sir Thomas, his share in the Gowrie slaughter, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page19">19</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page26">26</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page27">27</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page28">28</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page29">29</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page30">30</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page31">31</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page51">51</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page59">59</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page74">74</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page85">85</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page139">139</a></span></p> +<p>Erskine (Sir Thomas’s brother), his part in the tragedy, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page26">26</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page27">27</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page28">28</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page29">29</a></span></p> +<p>Essex, Earl of, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page11">11</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page105">105</a></span></p> +<p>Eviot, Patrick, present at the fight in the death chamber, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page29">29</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page30">30</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page60">60</a></span>; proclaimed, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page63">63</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Falkland</span> Castle, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page5">5</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page12">12</a></span></p> +<p>Fastcastle, Berwickshire, the stronghold of Logan, where it is +said James was to have been lodged, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page153">153</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page154">154</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page193">193</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page194">194</a></span></p> +<p>Fyvie, President of the Privy Council. <i>See</i> +Dunfermline.</p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Galloway</span>, Rev. Patrick (the +King’s chaplain), his account of the doors passed through +and locked by the Master on the way to the turret, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page53">53</a></span>; proclaims +Henderson as the man in the turret, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page63">63</a></span>; alleges that Gowrie attempted to +involve James in negotiations with the Pope, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page104">104</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page128">128</a></span>; reported +to have induced Henderson to pretend to be the man in the turret, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page114">114</a></span>; at +Sprot’s examination, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page186">186</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page217">217</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page220">220</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page226">226</a></span></p> +<p>Galloway, William, one of Sprot’s victims, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page203">203</a></span></p> +<p>Gardiner, Mr. S. R. (historian), on the Gowrie mystery, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page5">5</a></span></p> +<p>Gibson (Scottish judge), kidnapping of, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page145">145</a></span></p> +<p>Goodman, the, of Pitmillie, on the King’s knowledge of +Henderson, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page114">114</a></span></p> +<p>Gowdie, Isobel, accused of witchcraft, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page198">198</a></span></p> +<p>Gowrie, Earl of (father of John Earl of, and the Master of +Ruthven), one of the Riccio murderers, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page118">118</a></span>; in charge +of Mary at Lochleven, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page118">118</a></span>; pardoned for his share in the +Raid of Ruthven, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page119">119</a></span>; arrested and brought to trial, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page120">120</a></span>; foul +means by which his conviction was procured, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page120">120</a></span>–123; +foreknowledge of the Angus conspiracy, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page121">121</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page122">122</a></span>; nobles +charged by him with treachery, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page122">122</a></span>; execution, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page11">11</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page55">55</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page56">56</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page121">121</a></span>; the +King’s debt to him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page84">84</a></span>; after death denounced by James as a +traitor, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page96">96</a></span>; the Casket Letters in his +possession, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page240">240</a></span></p> +<p>Gowrie House, situation and topography <!-- page 269--><a +name="page269"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 269</span>of, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page14">14</a></span>–18; +Lennox’s account of proceedings at, on the day of the +slaughter, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page20">20</a></span> <i>et seq.</i></p> +<p>Gowrie Inn, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page18">18</a></span></p> +<p>Gowrie, John Earl of, his attributed relations with the Queen, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page3">3</a></span>; +speculations as to his aims and character, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page5">5</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page7">7</a></span>; and the causes +leading to his death, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page5">5</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page7">7</a></span>; alleged plot to seize James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page7">7</a></span>; his +retainers’ evidence thereon, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page9">9</a></span>; <i>the Duke of Lennox’s account +of events</i>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page13">13</a></span> <i>et seq.</i>; James’s +invitation to Gowrie House to see the treasure, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page14">14</a></span>; situation +and topography of his house, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page15">15</a></span>–18; observers’ accounts +of his plot said to have been aimed at the King, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page20">20</a></span>–34; the +manner of his death, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page31">31</a></span>; <i>the King’s own narrative +of the Gowrie plot</i>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page35">35</a></span> <i>et seq.</i>; his conduct in the +light of that narrative, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page42">42</a></span>; the circumstance of the man in the +turret, and the plot of gold concealed from him, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page41">41</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page42">42</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page49">49</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page50">50</a></span>; Henderson +sent by the Master to warn him of the King’s arrival, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page43">43</a></span>; secrecy +enjoined by him on Henderson as to the ride to Falkland, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page44">44</a></span>; silent as to +his knowledge of the King’s approach, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page45">45</a></span>; makes no +preparation for the King’s dinner <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page46">46</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page49">49</a></span>; influence of +a disagreement between him and the Master, respecting the Abbey +of Scone, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page48">48</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page49">49</a></span>; meets the King and conducts him to +Gowrie House, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page49">49</a></span>; his uneasy conduct while the King +dines, <span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page49">49</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page50">50</a></span>; +<i>account of his share in the plot drawn from Henderson’s +deposition</i>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page64">64</a></span>; questions Henderson about the King, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page65">65</a></span>; bids +Henderson put on his secret coat of mail to arrest a Highlander, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page65">65</a></span>; the +contemporary <i>Ruthven Vindication</i>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page80">80</a></span>–93; +theory of an accidental brawl, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page94">94</a></span>–98; contemporary clerical and +popular criticism, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page99">99</a></span> <i>et seq.</i>; alleged attempts to +entangle James in negotiations with the Pope, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page104">104</a></span>; grounds +for a hereditary feud between him and James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page118">118</a></span>; elected +provost of Perth, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page124">124</a></span>; at Edinburgh University, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page124">124</a></span>; in +alliance with Bothwell and Atholl against James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page125">125</a></span>; their +manifesto to the Kirk, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page125">125</a></span>; goes with his tutor Rhynd to +Padua, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page126">126</a></span>; his emblem, and saying regarding +it, <span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page127">127</a></span>; +extols the conduct of an English fanatic at Rome, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page127">127</a></span>: reported +to have been converted to Catholicism, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page128">128</a></span>; his name +on Bothwell’s list of Scottish Catholic nobles ripe for the +invasion of Scotland, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page129">129</a></span>; presented by Elizabeth, in +London, with a cabinet of plate, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page130">130</a></span>; James jealous of him on his +return to Edinburgh, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page131">131</a></span>; opposes the King’s demands +for money, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page131">131</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page141">141</a></span>; letter of invitation to Court, +from the Queen, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page133">133</a></span>; letter of invitation to Falkland +from James, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page134">134</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page135">135</a></span>; quits Strabran for Perth, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page136">136</a></span>; movements +on the morning of the tragedy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page137">137</a></span>; granted exemption for a year from +pursuit by creditors, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page141">141</a></span>; rumour that he was a candidate +for the English throne, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page141">141</a></span>; motives of revenge urging him to +plot against James, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page143">143</a></span>; his views as to secrecy in plots, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page144">144</a></span>; +evidences of his intention to capture James and convey him to +Dirleton, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page145">145</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page146">146</a></span>; letter to Logan, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page183">183</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page184">184</a></span>; anxious +that Lord Home should be initiated into the conspiracy, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page206">206</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page207">207</a></span>; his arms +and ambitions, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page245">245</a></span>–251; emblem at Padua, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page247">247</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page248">248</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page256">256</a></span>; Tudor +descent, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page249">249</a></span>; pedigree, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page248">248</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page249">249</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page250">250</a></span>; +Bothwell’s statement implying that <!-- page 270--><a +name="page270"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 270</span>he was a +secret candidate for James’s crown, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page251">251</a></span></p> +<p>Gowrie, Lady (Gowrie’s mother), aids Bothwell in +capturing James at Holyrood, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page124">124</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page125">125</a></span>; her movements immediately prior +to the tragedy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page136">136</a></span>; at Dirleton on August 6, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page136">136</a></span>; her suit +for relief from her creditors, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page141">141</a></span></p> +<p>Graham of Balgonie, reports the Master’s desire to be +alone with the King while inspecting the treasure, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page50">50</a></span>; picks up the +garter supposed to have been used to tie James’s hands in +the turret chamber, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page58">58</a></span>; verbal narrative of the +King’s escape to the Privy Council, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page101">101</a></span></p> +<p>Graham, Richard (wizard), accuses Bothwell of attempting +James’s life by sorcery, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page198">198</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page199">199</a></span></p> +<p>Gray, suspected as the man in the turret, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page62">62</a></span></p> +<p>Gray, the Master of, reports Lennox’s doubt whether +Gowrie or the King was guilty, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page116">116</a></span>; his relations with Logan of +Restalrig, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page156">156</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page157">157</a></span></p> +<p>Guevara, Sir John (cousin of Lord Willoughby), his share in +kidnapping Ashfield, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page139">139</a></span>; cited, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page146">146</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page218">218</a></span></p> +<p>Gunnisgreen, Logan of Restalrig’s residence, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page162">162</a></span></p> +<p>Gunton, Mr. (Librarian at Hatfield), on Logan’s letters, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page239">239</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page241">241</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Haddington</span>, Earl of, in possession +of records of Sprot’s private examinations, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page173">173</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page174">174</a></span>; the torn +letter, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page216">216</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page217">217</a></span>; copies of Logan’s letters +(I, IV), <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page224">224</a></span>; documents written by Sprot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page241">241</a></span></p> +<p>Hailes, Lord, cited, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page62">62</a></span> note; on a contemporary treatise in +vindication of the Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page81">81</a></span>; his romantic story concerning the +Master of Ruthven, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page132">132</a></span></p> +<p>Hall, Rev. John, his objection to acceptance of James’s +narrative, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page103">103</a></span>; restored to his pulpit, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page105">105</a></span>; present +when Sprot confessed to forgery of the Logan letters, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page186">186</a></span>; at +Sprot’s examination, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page217">217</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page220">220</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page226">226</a></span></p> +<p>Hamilton, Lord, asked to head the party of the Kirk, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page177">177</a></span></p> +<p>Hamilton of Grange, at the slaughter of the Ruthvens, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page19">19</a></span></p> +<p>Hamilton, Sir Thomas (the King’s Advocate), <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page64">64</a></span>; preserves +the records of Sprot’s private examinations, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page173">173</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page174">174</a></span>; at +Sprot’s examinations, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page201">201</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page210">210</a></span>; Sprot’s model letter +delivered to him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page224">224</a></span></p> +<p>Hamilton, Thomas, on the doors passed through by the Master +and James to reach the turret, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page52">52</a></span></p> +<p>Hart, Sir William (Chief Justice), his account of +Sprot’s examinations and trial, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page168">168</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page177">177</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page178">178</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page179">179</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page180">180</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page181">181</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page220">220</a></span></p> +<p>Hay, George (lay Prior of the Chartreux in Perth), on +Henderson and the Falkland ride, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page45">45</a></span>; on Henderson’s message to +Gowrie from the Master, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page65">65</a></span>; at Perth on August 5th, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page137">137</a></span></p> +<p>Hay, Peter, on Henderson and the Falkland ride, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page45">45</a></span></p> +<p>Heddilstane, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page196">196</a></span>; receipts from Logan to him forged +by Sprot, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page199">199</a></span>; blackmailed by Sprot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page199">199</a></span></p> +<p>Henderson, Andrew, with the Master of Ruthven at Gowrie House, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page43">43</a></span>; +accompanies the Master on a mission to James at Falkland, and +sent with a message to Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page44">44</a></span>; enjoined by Gowrie to keep this +ride secret, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page44">44</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page45">45</a></span>; Robertson’s evidence +respecting his presence in the death chamber, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page60">60</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page61">61</a></span>; other +theories on the same, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page61">61</a></span> note; his flight after the affray, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page60">60</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page62">62</a></span>; proclaimed +by Galloway as the man in the turret, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page63">63</a></span>: <!-- page +271--><a name="page271"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +271</span>reasons for his flight, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page64">64</a></span>; examined before the Lords, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page64">64</a></span>; his +narrative of the events leading to the tragedy, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page64">64</a></span>; incidents at +Falkland, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page65">65</a></span>; the Master’s message to +Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page65">65</a></span>; bidden to put on a coat of mail by +Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page66">66</a></span>; waits on the King at dinner, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page65">65</a></span>; sent to the +Master in the gallery, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page66">66</a></span>; locked in the turret by the Master, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page66">66</a></span>; +accordance of his account of the final scenes in the tragedy with +that of the King, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page66">66</a></span>; states that he threw the dagger out +of the Master’s hand, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page66">66</a></span>; discrepancies in his later +deposition, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page67">67</a></span>; in his second deposition omits the +statement that he deprived the Master of his dagger, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page67">67</a></span>; his version +of the words exchanged between the Master and James in the turret +chamber, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page68">68</a></span>; the question of his disarming the +Master, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page69">69</a></span>; on what was his confession +modelled, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page70">70</a></span>; clings to the incident of the +garter, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page70">70</a></span>; the most incredible part of his +narrative, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page70">70</a></span>; perils to him in listening to +treasonable proposals from the Ruthvens, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page72">72</a></span>; Robert +Oliphant’s statement contrasted with his, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page75">75</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page77">77</a></span>; quarrels +with Herries, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page77">77</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page78">78</a></span>; Rev. Mr. Bruce’s attitude +towards his deposition, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page103">103</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page104">104</a></span>; said to have been induced by the +Rev. Mr. Galloway to pretend to be the man in the turret, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page114">114</a></span>; share in +the Gowrie affair, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page145">145</a></span>; questioned by Moncrieff, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page145">145</a></span></p> +<p>Henry, Prince (son of James VI and his heir), in the charge of +Mar, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page138">138</a></span></p> +<p>Heron, Captain Patrick, his career, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page76">76</a></span> note; seizes, +by commission, Oliphant’s portable property and claps him +in prison in the Gate House of Westminster, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page76">76</a></span>; compelled to +restore Oliphant’s property, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page77">77</a></span></p> +<p>Herries, Dr., at the King’s hunt at Falkland, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page12">12</a></span>; at Gowrie +House when the Ruthvens were killed, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page20">20</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page27">27</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page28">28</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page29">29</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page30">30</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page31">31</a></span>; his share in the affray, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page59">59</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page85">85</a></span>; wounded by +Cranstoun, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page74">74</a></span>; quarrels with Henderson, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page77">77</a></span>; knighted and +rewarded, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page78">78</a></span>; fable of his prophecy to Beatrix +Ruthven, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page131">131</a></span></p> +<p>Hewat, Rev. Peter, accepts James’s narrative, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page102">102</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page103">103</a></span>; at +Sprot’s examination, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page186">186</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page217">217</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page220">220</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page226">226</a></span></p> +<p>History of the Kirk of Scotland (MS.), cited, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page164">164</a></span></p> +<p>Hogg, Rev. William (minister of Aytoun), on the Logan +plot-letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page243">243</a></span></p> +<p>Home, Lady, aware of Logan’s desire to obtain Dirleton, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page207">207</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page208">208</a></span></p> +<p>Home, (sixth) Lord, in communication with Bothwell, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page129">129</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page130">130</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page152">152</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page205">205</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page206">206</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page207">207</a></span></p> +<p>Home, Lord (Logan’s uterine brother), <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page184">184</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page187">187</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page205">205</a></span>; +Logan’s contempt for him as a conspirator, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page237">237</a></span></p> +<p>Home, William (sheriff clerk of Berwick), on the Logan +plot-letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page243">243</a></span></p> +<p>Horne, John (notary in Eyemouth), on the Logan plot-letters, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page243">243</a></span></p> +<p>Horse, King James’s, his part in the Gowrie mystery, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page22">22</a></span></p> +<p>Hudson, Mr. (James’s resident at the Court of England), +interviews the King and Henderson on the transactions in the +turret chamber, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page67">67</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page69">69</a></span> note; his explanation of the origin +of differences between the King’s narrative and +Henderson’s evidence, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page69">69</a></span></p> +<p>Hume of Cowdenknowes (married to Gowrie’s sister +Beatrix), <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page124">124</a></span></p> +<p>Hume of Godscroft, on a message from the Earl of Angus to <!-- +page 272--><a name="page272"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +272</span>Gowrie’s father in conspiracy, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page121">121</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page122">122</a></span></p> +<p>Hume of Manderston, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page187">187</a></span></p> +<p>Hume of Rentoun, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page196">196</a></span></p> +<p>Hume, Sir George, of Spot, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page64">64</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">James VI</span> of Scotland, married to +Anne of Denmark, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page2">2</a></span>; early life and character, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page4">4</a></span>; his version of +the Gowrie mystery, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page6">6</a></span>; reasons for doubting his guilt, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page7">7</a></span>; +untrustworthiness of his word, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page8">8</a></span>; substantial character of his tale, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page9">9</a></span>; love of +the chase, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page11">11</a></span>; political troubles, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page11">11</a></span>; hunting +costume, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page12">12</a></span>; concerning him, <i>facts drawn from +Lennox</i>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page13">13</a></span> <i>et seq.</i>; starts for the hunt +in Falkland Park, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page13">13</a></span>; the Master of Ruthven interviews +him before the hunt, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page13">13</a></span>; goes to Gowrie’s house, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page14">14</a></span>; +<i>observers’ accounts of the transactions implicating +him</i>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page20">20</a></span>–34; his dinner at Gowrie +House, <span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page20">20</a></span>; +goes upstairs on a quiet errand, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page20">20</a></span>; Cranstoun’s statement that +the King had ridden away, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page20">20</a></span>; search for him in the house, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page21">21</a></span>; Gowrie +confirms his departure, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page22">22</a></span>; but—the King’s horse +still in the stable, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page22">22</a></span>; heard calling from the window, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page23">23</a></span>; +struggle with the Master of Ruthven, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page24">24</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page25">25</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page26">26</a></span>; the man in the turret behind the +King’s back, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page25">25</a></span>; sanctions the stabbing of the +Master of Ruthven by Ramsay, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page26">26</a></span>; shut up in the turret, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page29">29</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page30">30</a></span>; kneels in +prayer in the chamber bloody with the corpse of Gowrie, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page32">32</a></span>; <i>his own +narrative of the affair</i>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page35">35</a></span> <i>et seq.</i>; theory of the object +of the Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page37">37</a></span>; the Master of Ruthven’s +statement to him of the cloaked man and the pot full of coined +gold pieces, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page39">39</a></span>; suspects the Jesuits of importing +foreign gold for seditious purposes, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page40">40</a></span>; his horror of ‘practising +Papists,’ <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page40">40</a></span>; hypothesis of his intended +kidnapping, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page37">37</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page42">42</a></span>; importance of the ride of the +Master and Henderson to Falkland and its concealment to the +substantiation of his narrative, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page44">44</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page45">45</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page46">46</a></span>; asserts Henderson’s presence +at Falkland, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page46">46</a></span>; rides, followed by Mar and Lennox, +after the kill to Perth, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page47">47</a></span>; surmises regarding Ruthven, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page47">47</a></span>; motives for +the Master acquiring his favour regarding the Abbey of Scone, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page48">48</a></span>; asks +Lennox if he thinks the Master settled in his wits, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page48">48</a></span>; pressed by +the Master to come on and see the man and the treasure, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page48">48</a></span>; met by +Gowrie with sixty men, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page49">49</a></span>; presses the Master for a sight of +the treasure, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page49">49</a></span>; the Master asks him to keep the +treasure a secret from Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page49">49</a></span>; Gowrie’s uneasy behaviour +while the King dines, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page49">49</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page50">50</a></span>; despatches Gowrie to the Hall with +the grace-cup, and follows the Master alone to the turret to view +the treasure, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page50">50</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page51">51</a></span>; the question of the doors he passed +through to reach the turret chamber and their locking by the +Master, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page51">51</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page52">52</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page53">53</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page54">54</a></span>; threatened by the Master with the +dagger of a strange man in the turret chamber, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page55">55</a></span>; denounced +for the execution of the Master’s father, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page56">56</a></span>; his harangue +to the Master excusing his action, and promising forgiveness if +released, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page56">56</a></span>; Ruthven goes to consult Gowrie, +leaving him in the custody of the man, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page56">56</a></span>; questions +the man about the conspiracy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page57">57</a></span>; orders the man to open the window, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page58">58</a></span>; the +Master returns and essays to bind his hands with a garter, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page58">58</a></span>; struggles +with the Master and shouts Treason from the window, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page58">58</a></span>; rescued by +Ramsay, who wounds <!-- page 273--><a name="page273"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 273</span>the Master, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page59">59</a></span>; returns to +Falkland, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page59">59</a></span>; <i>Henderson’s narrative of +events</i>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page60">60</a></span> <i>et seq.</i>; his interview with +the Master and journey to Gowrie House, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page65">65</a></span>; at dinner, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page65">65</a></span>; +Henderson’s account of the struggle in the turret chamber +mainly in accord with the King’s narrative, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page66">66</a></span>; discrepancy +between his and Henderson’s accounts of the disarming of +Ruthven, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page69">69</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page104">104</a></span>; causes Oliphant to be lodged in +the Gate House, Westminster, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page76">76</a></span>; subsequently releases him and +restores his property, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page76">76</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page77">77</a></span>; maintains his to be the true +account of the Gowrie affair and disregards discrepancies in +evidence, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page78">78</a></span>; on the way to Gowrie House had +informed Lennox of Ruthven’s tale of the pot of gold, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page94">94</a></span>; theory of +his concoction of the tale, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page95">95</a></span>; despatches Preston to Elizabeth +with his version of the Gowrie affair, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page96">96</a></span>; rates the +Edinburgh preachers for refusing to thank God for his delivery +from a ‘Gowrie plot,’ <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page101">101</a></span>; reasons for his ferocity towards +the recalcitrant preachers, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page102">102</a></span>; his alleged ‘causes’ +for the death of Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page104">104</a></span>; Bruce states that he is +convinced, on Mar’s oath chiefly, of his innocence, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page106">106</a></span>; under +interrogation by Bruce, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page107">107</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page108">108</a></span>; subsequent persecution of Bruce, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page109">109</a></span>; +<i>objections taken by contemporary sceptics to his +narrative</i>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page111">111</a></span>–117; grounds for a +hereditary feud between him and Gowrie, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page118">118</a></span>; early +years of his reign, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page119">119</a></span>; the Raid of Ruthven, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page119">119</a></span>; his +acquiescence in the execution of Gowrie’s father, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page123">123</a></span>; +Arran’s influence over him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page119">119</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page123">123</a></span>; suspected of favouring the +Catholic earls of the North, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page124">124</a></span>; Gowrie, Atholl and Bothwell in +alliance against him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page125">125</a></span>; their manifesto to the Kirk, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page125">125</a></span>; +Gowrie’s relique at Padua forwarded to him by Sir Robert +Douglas, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page127">127</a></span>; early correspondence with Gowrie, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page127">127</a></span>; his +alleged jealousy of Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page130">130</a></span>; gives Gowrie a year’s +respite from pursuit of his creditors, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page131">131</a></span>; thwarted +by Gowrie in his demands for money, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page131">131</a></span>; romantic story of his discovery +of the Queen’s ribbon on the Master’s neck, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page132">132</a></span>; his +letters inviting Atholl, the Master and Gowrie to Falkland, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page134">134</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page135">135</a></span>, note; his +motives for killing both the Ruthvens, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page139">139</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page140">140</a></span>; method +attributed to him by his adversaries on which he might have +carried out a plot against the Ruthvens, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page142">142</a></span>; plots +against him encouraged by the English Government, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page161">161</a></span>; his life +aimed at by witchcraft, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page198">198</a></span>. See ‘The Verie Manner +of the Erll of Gowrie,’ &c.</p> +<p>Jesuits, suspected by James of importing foreign coin for +seditious purposes, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page40">40</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Keith</span>, Andrew, at Padua, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page126">126</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page248">248</a></span></p> +<p>Ker, George (Catholic intriguer with Spain), <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page154">154</a></span></p> +<p>Ker of Newbattle, at Padua with Gowrie, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page248">248</a></span></p> +<p>Ker, Robert, of Newbattle, at Padua, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page126">126</a></span></p> +<p>Kirk, the, the King’s version of the Gowrie plot +discredited by, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page36">36</a></span></p> +<p>Kirkcaldy of Grange, in defence of Edinburgh Castle, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page152">152</a></span>; hanged on +the fall of the castle, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page153">153</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Lennox</span>, Duke of, at the +King’s hunt in Falkland Park, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page12">12</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page47">47</a></span>; his account of what followed, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page13">13</a></span> <i>et +seq.</i>; accompanies James to Gowrie House, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page14">14</a></span>; his opinion +of the Master of Ruthven and the story of the pitcher of <!-- +page 274--><a name="page274"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +274</span>gold coins, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page14">14</a></span>; at Gowrie House with the King, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page19">19</a></span>; his +version and that of others of the transactions which brought +about the deaths of Gowrie and the Master, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page20">20</a></span>–34; +questioned by James as to the sanity of the Master, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page48">48</a></span>; informed by +James of the Master’s story of the gold coins, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page94">94</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page95">95</a></span>; at the +slaughter of the Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page86">86</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page88">88</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page119">119</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page124">124</a></span>; married to Gowrie’s sister +Sophia, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page124">124</a></span></p> +<p>Lesley, suspected as the man in the turret, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page62">62</a></span></p> +<p>Letter I (Logan to—), <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page167">167</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page174">174</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page185">185</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page188">188</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page189">189</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page196">196</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page200">200</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page216">216</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page217">217</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page223">223</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page224">224</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page225">225</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page226">226</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page228">228</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page230">230</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page232">232</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page233">233</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page234">234</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page235">235</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page257">257</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page258">258</a></span></p> +<p>Letter II (Logan to Bower), <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page183">183</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page184">184</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page185">185</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page188">188</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page189">189</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page195">195</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page205">205</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page208">208</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page224">224</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page228">228</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page229">229</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page239">239</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page258">258</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page259">259</a></span></p> +<p>Letter III (Logan to—), <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page200">200</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page216">216</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page217">217</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page223">223</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page224">224</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page228">228</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page232">232</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page233">233</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page234">234</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page235">235</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page239">239</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page259">259</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page260">260</a></span></p> +<p>Letter IV (Logan to Gowrie), cited, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page166">166</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page167">167</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page170">170</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page173">173</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page174">174</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page175">175</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page176">176</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page177">177</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page178">178</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page179">179</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page181">181</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page182">182</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page186">186</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page187">187</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page190">190</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page191">191</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page192">192</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page194">194</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page195">195</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page196">196</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page197">197</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page199">199</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page202">202</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page206">206</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page207">207</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page215">215</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page221">221</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page222">222</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page223">223</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page224">224</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page225">225</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page226">226</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page228">228</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page229">229</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page230">230</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page231">231</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page232">232</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page233">233</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page234">234</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page235">235</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page236">236</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page237">237</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page238">238</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page260">260</a></span>–263</p> +<p>Letter V (Logan to—), <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page200">200</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page215">215</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page216">216</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page217">217</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page223">223</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page224">224</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page228">228</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page232">232</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page233">233</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page234">234</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page235">235</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page263">263</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page264">264</a></span></p> +<p>Lindores, at the slaughter of the Ruthvens, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page19">19</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page20">20</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page21">21</a></span></p> +<p>Lindsay, James, at Padua with Gowrie, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page126">126</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page248">248</a></span></p> +<p>Lindsay, Lord, surety for Lord Robert Stewart, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page153">153</a></span></p> +<p>Lindsay, Rev. David, sent to tell James’s story of his +escape from the Gowrie plot at the Cross, Edinburgh, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page101">101</a></span></p> +<p>Lindsay, Sir Harry, Laird of Kinfauns, Sprot withdraws his +charge against him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page217">217</a></span></p> +<p>Locke, Henry (Cecil’s go-between and agent in conspiracy +against James), <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page160">160</a></span></p> +<p>Logan, Matthew, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page187">187</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page189">189</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page193">193</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page203">203</a></span>; bearer of letters from Logan to +Bower, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page211">211</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page212">212</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page213">213</a></span>; account of Bower’s +reception of them, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page213">213</a></span>; denies every word attributed to +him by Sprot, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page213">213</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page220">220</a></span></p> +<p>Logan, Sir Robert (father of Logan of Restalrig), <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page150">150</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page205">205</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page206">206</a></span></p> +<p>Logan of Restalrig, his name on Bothwell’s list of +Catholic nobles, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page129">129</a></span>; surety for Lord Robert Stewart, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page153">153</a></span>; +marries Elizabeth Macgill, and is divorced from her, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page153">153</a></span>; on terms +both with Protestant and Catholic conspirators, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page154">154</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page155">155</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page156">156</a></span>; diplomatic +ambitions, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page156">156</a></span>; on the packed jury which acquits +Archibald Douglas, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page157">157</a></span>; relations with the Master of +Gray, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page157">157</a></span>; a partisan, with Gowrie’s +father, of Bothwell, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page157">157</a></span>; helps himself to the plate-chest +of Nesbit of Newton, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page158">158</a></span>; bound over not to put Fastcastle +in the hands of the King’s enemies, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page158">158</a></span>; his +character from Lord Willoughby, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page159">159</a></span>; intimacy with the Mowbrays, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page160">160</a></span>; sells all +his landed property at the time of the Gowrie plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page161">161</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page205">205</a></span>; erratic +behaviour previous to his death, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page161">161</a></span>; death, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page161">161</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page162">162</a></span>; +compromising papers from him found on his notary Sprot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page162">162</a></span>; under +torture Sprot confesses these papers to be his own forgeries, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page162">162</a></span>; on +examination before the Privy Council Sprot persists in +Logan’s complicity in the Gowrie plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page163">163</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page170">170</a></span>; his +exhumed remains brought into court and tried for treason, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page164">164</a></span>; +compromising letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page164">164</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page165">165</a></span>; his family forfeited, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page165">165</a></span>; production +of alleged plot-letters at his posthumous trial, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page168">168</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page175">175</a></span>; contents +<!-- page 275--><a name="page275"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +275</span>of Letter IV to Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page176">176</a></span>; use made of the letters by the +Government, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page179">179</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page181">181</a></span>; letters from and to Gowrie, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page183">183</a></span>; letter to +Bower, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page183">183</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page184">184</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page185">185</a></span>; conduct immediately before and +after Gowrie’s death, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page187">187</a></span>; his scheme to get possession of +Dirleton, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page189">189</a></span>; his keep Fastcastle, where it is +said James was to have been carried, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page193">193</a></span>; charge of conspiracy to murder +James made in the Indictment in his posthumous trial, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page193">193</a></span>; faint +evidence that he was connected with the Gowrie plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page194">194</a></span>; with Bower +at Coldinghame on the failure of the plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page195">195</a></span>; memorandum +to Bower and Bell, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page195">195</a></span>; singular behaviour in trusting +his letters to Bower, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page202">202</a></span>; burns Ruthven’s and +Clerk’s letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page202">202</a></span>; letter to Baillie of Littlegill, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page202">202</a></span>; +events at his Yule at Gunnisgreen, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page203">203</a></span>; takes Sprot into his confidence, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page204">204</a></span>; +discourages the idea of bringing Lord Home into the plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page207">207</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page208">208</a></span>; +conversation with Lady Home about Dirleton, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page208">208</a></span>; his visit +to London, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page210">210</a></span>; letter to Bower, and +Sprot’s answer, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page211">211</a></span>; fears the effect of Bower’s +rash speeches, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page212">212</a></span>; forged letters attributed to him, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page215">215</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page216">216</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page217">217</a></span>; +partner in a ship with Lord Willoughby, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page218">218</a></span>; his letter +to Gowrie the model for Sprot’s forgeries, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page177">177</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page221">221</a></span>; motives +for his sale of his lands, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page228">228</a></span></p> +<p>Logan, Robert (son of Logan of Restalrig and Elizabeth +Macgill), <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page153">153</a></span></p> +<p>Lords of the Articles, the, the Gowrie case before, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page8">8</a></span>; the Logan +trial before, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page165">165</a></span></p> +<p>Lumisden, Rev. Mr., present when Sprot confessed to forgery of +letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page186">186</a></span>; at the examination of Sprot, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page226">226</a></span></p> +<p>Lyn, tailor, Mr. Robert Oliphant’s confidences to him +about the Gowrie plot, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page73">73</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page75">75</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Macbreck</span>, witness of the attack on +Gowrie, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page29">29</a></span></p> +<p>Macgill, Elizabeth, married to Logan of Restalrig, and +divorced from him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page153">153</a></span></p> +<p>Maitland of Lethington, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page152">152</a></span></p> +<p>Man, the, in the turret, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page35">35</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page55">55</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page56">56</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page57">57</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page62">62</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page72">72</a></span></p> +<p>Mar, Earl of, at the King’s hunt at Falkland, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page12">12</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page47">47</a></span>; with James +at Gowrie House, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page23">23</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page24">24</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page26">26</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page32">32</a></span>; at the Gowrie slaughter, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page86">86</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page88">88</a></span>; assures the +preacher Bruce of the truth of the King’s narrative, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page104">104</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page105">105</a></span>; is told by +Bruce that he will accept the verdict in the Gowrie case but not +preach Gowrie’s guilt, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page105">105</a></span>; entrusted by James with the care +of Prince Henry, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page138">138</a></span>; the Queen’s plots against +him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page138">138</a></span></p> +<p>Mary of Guise (James’s grandmother), <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page118">118</a></span></p> +<p>Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page5">5</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page7">7</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page8">8</a></span>; declares that +Ruthven (Gowrie’s grandfather) persecuted her by his lust, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page119">119</a></span></p> +<p>Mason, Peter, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page190">190</a></span></p> +<p>Masson, Dr., on the Gowrie mystery, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page5">5</a></span></p> +<p>Matthew, Toby (Dean of Durham), Bothwell’s statement to +him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page251">251</a></span></p> +<p>Maul, one of Sprot’s victims, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page203">203</a></span></p> +<p>Maxwell, Lord, cited, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page193">193</a></span></p> +<p>Melville, Sir Robert, his treachery in procuring the +conviction of Gowrie’s father, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page120">120</a></span>–122</p> +<p>Moncrieff, Hew, present at the slaughter of the Ruthvens, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page29">29</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page32">32</a></span>; at the fight +in the death chamber, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page60">60</a></span>; proclaimed, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page63">63</a></span>; puzzled +regarding the Master’s early ride from Perth to Falkland, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page137">137</a></span></p> +<p>Moncrieff, John, questions Henderson as to the ride to +Falkland, <!-- page 276--><a name="page276"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 276</span><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page44">44</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page145">145</a></span>; on Gowrie’s silence as to +his knowledge of the King’s approach, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page45">45</a></span>; on +Gowrie’s actions on the morning of the fatal 5th, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page137">137</a></span></p> +<p>Montrose (Chancellor), <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page64">64</a></span>; desires the preachers to thank God +in their churches for the King’s ‘miraculous +delivery,’ <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page100">100</a></span></p> +<p>Montrose, the Master of, conspiring against James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page125">125</a></span></p> +<p>Moray, Earl, his alleged relations with Queen Anne, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page2">2</a></span></p> +<p>Morton, Regent, confines Lord Robert Stewart in Linlithgow +Castle, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page153">153</a></span></p> +<p>Mossman, imprisoned for share in the Gowrie plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page203">203</a></span></p> +<p>Mowbray, Francis, intriguing with Cecil against James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page159">159</a></span>; imprisoned +in Edinburgh Castle, and killed in trying to escape therefrom, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page160">160</a></span></p> +<p>Mowbray, Philip, of Barnbogle, surety for Lord Robert Stewart, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page153">153</a></span>; +intriguing with Cecil against James, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page159">159</a></span></p> +<p>Moysie, David, probable writer of the Falkland letter, after +the slaughter of the Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page38">38</a></span> note; <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page100">100</a></span></p> +<p>Murray, George, in attendance on James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page12">12</a></span></p> +<p>Murray, John of Arbany, in attendance on James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page12">12</a></span>; with James +at the slaughter of the Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page24">24</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page25">25</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page26">26</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page32">32</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page61">61</a></span>; wounded by a Ruthven partisan, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page88">88</a></span></p> +<p>Murray, Sir David, on Gowrie’s speech against +James’s demands for money, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page131">131</a></span></p> +<p>Murray of Tullibardine, in Perth at the time of the Gowrie +tragedy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page28">28</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Naismith</span> (surgeon), with James at +the Falkland hunt, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page47">47</a></span></p> +<p>Napier, Mr. Mark, on Sprot’s alleged forgery of the +Logan letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page172">172</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page173">173</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page222">222</a></span>; denies that any compromising +letters were found, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page178">178</a></span></p> +<p>Napier of Merchistoun, his contract as to gold-finding with +Logan of Restalrig, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page171">171</a></span></p> +<p>Nesbit, William, of Newton, robbed by Logan, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page158">158</a></span></p> +<p>Neville, recommends Gowrie to Cecil as a useful man, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page130">130</a></span></p> +<p>Nicholson, George (English resident at the Court of Holyrood), +his account of James’s Falkland letter on the Gowrie case, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page38">38</a></span>; on +Robert Oliphant’s indiscretions of speech, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page74">74</a></span>; communicates +to Cecil Oliphant’s statement respecting Cranstoun and +Henderson <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page75">75</a></span> note; refers to a book on the +Ruthven side published in England, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page82">82</a></span>; cites the King’s letter to +the Privy Council regarding the Gowrie plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page100">100</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page102">102</a></span>; informs +Cecil of Gowrie’s conversion to Catholicism, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page128">128</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Oliphant</span> of Bauchiltoun, brother of +Robert, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page77">77</a></span></p> +<p>Oliphant, Robert, identified by the first proclamation as the +man in the turret, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page62">62</a></span>; proves an alibi, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page62">62</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page72">72</a></span>; his +confidences to tailor Lyn anent his foreknowledge of the Gowrie +plot, <span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page73">73</a></span>; +denounces the hanging of Cranstoun, and affirms the guilt of +Henderson, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page75">75</a></span>; avers that Gowrie proposed to him +in Paris the part offered to Henderson, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page75">75</a></span>; seeks to +divert Gowrie from his project, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page75">75</a></span>; his portable property seized by +Captain Heron, and himself imprisoned, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page76">76</a></span>; released by +James and goes abroad, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page76">76</a></span>; property subsequently restored, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page77">77</a></span>; his +statement contrasted with Henderson’s, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page77">77</a></span>; cited, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page144">144</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Padua</span> University, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page126">126</a></span></p> +<p>Panton, Mr., on Henderson at Falkland, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page64">64</a></span> note; his +defence <!-- page 277--><a name="page277"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 277</span>of the Ruthvens, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page80">80</a></span>; refers to a +contemporary vindication, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page80">80</a></span></p> +<p>‘Papers relating to the Master of Gray,’ cited, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page158">158</a></span></p> +<p>Paul, Sir James Balfour, on the Gowrie arms, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page245">245</a></span></p> +<p>Perth, gathering of the burgesses of, before Gowrie House on +the day of the slaughter of the Ruthvens, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page30">30</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page32">32</a></span></p> +<p>Pitcairn, on Bruce’s interrogation of the King, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page109">109</a></span>; discovery +and publication of Logan of Restalrig’s alleged +plot-letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page169">169</a></span></p> +<p>Pittencrieff, Laird of, at Gowrie House on the day when the +Ruthvens were killed, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page23">23</a></span></p> +<p>Popular contemporary criticism on the King’s narrative, +<span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page111">111</a></span>–117</p> +<p>Preachers of Edinburgh, the, summoned before the Privy Council +to hear the King’s letter on the Gowrie plot read, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page99">99</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page100">100</a></span>; desired by +Montrose to thank God for the King’s ‘miraculous +delivery,’ <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page100">100</a></span>; their reply to that request, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page100">100</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page101">101</a></span>; +taken to task by James for refusing to thank God for his delivery +from a Gowrie ‘conspiracy,’ <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page101">101</a></span>; their +defence, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page101">101</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page102">102</a></span>; James’s punishment of the +recalcitrants, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page102">102</a></span>; before the King at Stirling, +<span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page103">103</a></span>–106; summon Gowrie home to +be the leader of the Kirk, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page140">140</a></span></p> +<p>Preston, sent by James to Elizabeth with his version of the +Gowrie affair, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page96">96</a></span>; his account to Sir William Bowes, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page97">97</a></span> +note</p> +<p>Primrose (Clerk of Council), attests the record of +Sprot’s examination, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page201">201</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page210">210</a></span></p> +<p>Privy Council, Scottish, receipt of a letter from James +containing an account of the Gowrie plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page99">99</a></span>; the +preachers summoned to hear it read, and desired by the Chancellor +to thank God in their churches for the King’s escape, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page99">99</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page100">100</a></span>; report to +James that the preachers will not praise God for his delivery, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page101">101</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Raid</span> of Ruthven, the, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page119">119</a></span></p> +<p>Ramsay, John, in attendance on James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page12">12</a></span>; his share in +the proceedings at Gowrie House which led to the deaths of the +Gowries, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page23">23</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page24">24</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page25">25</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page26">26</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page27">27</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page29">29</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page31">31</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page33">33</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page53">53</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page97">97</a></span>; takes part in the slaughter of the +Master of Ruthven, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page26">26</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page85">85</a></span>; kills the Earl of Gowrie, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page31">31</a></span></p> +<p>Ray, Andrew (a bailie of Perth), at Gowrie House on the day of +the slaughter of the Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page21">21</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page24">24</a></span></p> +<p>Restalrig House, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page149">149</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page150">150</a></span></p> +<p>Restalrig, Lady (Logan’s wife), <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page189">189</a></span>; her +agitation on the knowledge of the Logan conspiracy, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page204">204</a></span>; blames +Bower for the selling of Fastcastle, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page204">204</a></span>; her postscript to Logan’s +letter to Bower after his death, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page215">215</a></span>; distressed at Logan’s +conduct, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page220">220</a></span>; her daughter by Logan, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page220">220</a></span></p> +<p>Restalrig Loch, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page149">149</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page150">150</a></span></p> +<p>Restalrig village, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page148">148</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page149">149</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page150">150</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page151">151</a></span></p> +<p>‘Return from Parnassus,’ the, quoted, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page126">126</a></span></p> +<p>Rhynd, Mr. (Gowrie’s tutor), at Padua with Gowrie, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page126">126</a></span>; at Gowrie +House when the Ruthvens were killed, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page32">32</a></span>; tells of the ride to Falkland, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page45">45</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page46">46</a></span>; gives the +key of the gallery to the Master, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page66">66</a></span>; on Gowrie’s views as to +secrecy in plots, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page144">144</a></span></p> +<p>Robertson, Rev. Mr. (Edinburgh preacher), accepts +James’s narrative, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page102">102</a></span></p> +<p>Robertson, William (notary of Perth), his evidence of what he +saw near the death chamber, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page60">60</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page61">61</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page97">97</a></span></p> +<p>Roll of Scottish scholars at Padua, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page126">126</a></span></p> +<p>Rollock, Mr. (tutor to Gowrie and the Master), <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page56">56</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page124">124</a></span></p> +<p><!-- page 278--><a name="page278"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +278</span>Ruthven, Alexander, the Master of (Gowrie’s +brother), attributed relations with the Queen, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page3">3</a></span>; plot to seize +the King, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page7">7</a></span>; <i>Lennox’s version</i> of +events, <span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page13">13</a></span> +<i>et seq.</i>; interviews James before the hunt in Falkland +Park, <span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page13">13</a></span>; +induces the King to visit Perth, to see the pot of gold coins, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page14">14</a></span>; his +actions at Gowrie House after the King’s arrival, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page19">19</a></span>; +<i>observers’ accounts</i> of the transactions which led to +his death, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page24">24</a></span>–34; stabbed by Ramsay, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page26">26</a></span>; +<i>James’s own narrative</i> of the affair, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page35">35</a></span> <i>et +seq.</i>; the King’s interview with the Master, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page39">39</a></span>; the cloaked +man and the lure of the pot of gold pieces, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page39">39</a></span>–42; his +suggested project of kidnapping James, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page42">42</a></span>; was +accompanied by Henderson in his mission to James at Falkland, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page43">43</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page44">44</a></span>; alleged +differences with his brother over the Abbey of Scone, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page48">48</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page49">49</a></span>; enjoins on +James to keep the treasure a secret from Gowrie, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page49">49</a></span>; conducts the +King alone to view it, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page50">50</a></span>; duplicity in securing this privacy, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page51">51</a></span>; +suspicious conduct in locking doors of rooms passed through, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page51">51</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page52">52</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page53">53</a></span>; threatens +the King with a dagger, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page55">55</a></span>; James harangues him and promises +forgiveness, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page56">56</a></span>; goes to consult Gowrie, leaving +James in the custody of the man in the turret, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page56">56</a></span>; returns and +essays to bind the King’s hands with a garter, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page58">58</a></span>; struggles +with the King, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page58">58</a></span>; Ramsay enters and stabs him, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page59">59</a></span>; he is driven +down stairs, and killed by Erskine and Herries, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page59">59</a></span>; further +<i>details given by Henderson</i>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page62">62</a></span> <i>et seq.</i>; his message to +Gowrie by Henderson from Falkland, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page65">65</a></span>; locks Henderson in the turret, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page66">66</a></span>; +Henderson’s narrative of the struggle with the King, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page66">66</a></span>; words +exchanged with James in the turret chamber, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page68">68</a></span>; the +‘promise,’ <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page68">68</a></span>; question of his disarming, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page69">69</a></span>; romantic +story of the King’s discovery of the Queen’s ribbon +round his neck, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page132">132</a></span>; gossip about his relations with +the Queen, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page133">133</a></span></p> +<p>Ruthven, Alexander (cousin of the Earl of Gowrie), at the +slaughter of the Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page29">29</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page32">32</a></span>; letter to Logan, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page183">183</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page184">184</a></span></p> +<p>Ruthven, Andrew, with the Master, at Gowrie House, on the day +of the slaughter, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page43">43</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page157">157</a></span>; rides with the Master and +Henderson to Falkland, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page45">45</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page64">64</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page65">65</a></span>; asserts the despatch of Henderson +by the Master from Falkland to acquaint Gowrie of the +King’s coming, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page45">45</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page46">46</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page145">145</a></span></p> +<p>Ruthven, Beatrice (Gowrie’s sister), Queen Anne’s +favourite maid of honour, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page13">13</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page124">124</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page131">131</a></span></p> +<p>Ruthven, Harry, present at the slaughter of the Ruthvens, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page29">29</a></span></p> +<p>Ruthven, Lord (Gowrie’s grandfather), his part in the +murder of Riccio, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page118">118</a></span></p> +<p>Ruthven, Mary (sister of Gowrie), married to the Earl of +Atholl, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page123">123</a></span></p> +<p>Ruthven, Patrick (Gowrie’s brother), <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page124">124</a></span></p> +<p>Ruthven, Sophia (sister of Gowrie), married to Lennox, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page124">124</a></span></p> +<p>Ruthven Vindication, the contemporary, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page80">80</a></span>–93, +<span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page252">252</a></span>–256</p> +<p>Ruthven, William (Gowrie’s brother), <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page124">124</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page129">129</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">St. Triduana’s</span> Chapel, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page150">150</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page151">151</a></span></p> +<p>Salisbury, Marquis of, in possession of genuine letters of +Logan, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#pageviii">viii</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page241">241</a></span></p> +<p>Sanderson, William, on the Gowrie arms, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page250">250</a></span></p> +<p>Scone, Abbey of, in the Gowrie inheritance, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page48">48</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page54">54</a></span></p> +<p>Scott, Rev. John, his Life of John, Earl of Gowrie, cited, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page80">80</a></span> <!-- +page 279--><a name="page279"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +279</span>note, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page248">248</a></span>; on the Gowrie arms and seal, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page250">250</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page251">251</a></span></p> +<p>Scott, Sir Walter, cited, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page5">5</a></span></p> +<p>Scrymgeour, Sir James (Constable of Dundee), accused falsely +by Sprot, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page217">217</a></span></p> +<p>Smith, Rev. Alexander, on the Logan plot-letters, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page242">242</a></span></p> +<p>Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glasgow, his opinion of Sprot, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page178">178</a></span>; kept +in the dark as to the Logan letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page179">179</a></span>; present at Sprot’s +examination, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page176">176</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page201">201</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page210">210</a></span></p> +<p>Sprot (Logan of Restalrig’s law agent), arrested by +Watty Doig, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page162">162</a></span>; confesses that he knew beforehand +of the Gowrie conspiracy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page162">162</a></span>; tortured, and in part recants, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page162">162</a></span>; +persists in maintaining Logan of Restalrig’s complicity in +the Gowrie conspiracy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page163">163</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page170">170</a></span>; question of his forgery of +letters to prove Logan’s guilt, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page170">170</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page171">171</a></span>; motive for +forging the letters, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page172">172</a></span>; confesses to the forgery in +private examinations, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page173">173</a></span>; records of those examinations in +possession of the Earl of Haddington, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page173">173</a></span>; letters +quoted from memory by him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page175">175</a></span>; the indictment against him, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page176">176</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page177">177</a></span>; Sir +William Hart’s official statement of his trial, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page177">177</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page178">178</a></span>; use made +by the prosecution of the Logan letters, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page179">179</a></span>; his tale +of Logan’s guilt, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page182">182</a></span>; sources of his knowledge, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page183">183</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page184">184</a></span>; +discrepancies in his statements, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page184">184</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page185">185</a></span>; preachers present at his +confession of forgery, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page186">186</a></span>; his written deposition, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page186">186</a></span>; the cause +for which he forged, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page187">187</a></span>; his conflicting dates, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page188">188</a></span>; his +account of Logan and Bower’s scheme to get Dirleton, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page189">189</a></span>; excuses +for the discrepancies in his dates, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page192">192</a></span>; asserts that Logan let Bower keep +his letter to Gowrie for months, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page195">195</a></span>; steals that letter, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page194">194</a></span>; confesses +to the forgery of Logan’s letter to Bower, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page195">195</a></span>; and to +that of Logan’s memorandum to Bower and Bell, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page196">196</a></span>; +blackmailing operations, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page196">196</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page197">197</a></span>; forges receipts from Logan to +Heddilstane for blackmailing purposes, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page199">199</a></span>; his +uncorroborated charges, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page202">202</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page203">203</a></span>; in the confidence of Logan, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page204">204</a></span>; his +account of Logan’s revels in London, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page210">210</a></span>; goes with +Matthew Logan to Bower to give answers to Logan’s letters, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page211">211</a></span>; +denies that he had received promise of life or reward, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page214">214</a></span>; reports an +incriminating conversation with Matthew Logan, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page214">214</a></span>; confesses +forging, for blackmailing purposes, Logan’s letters to +Chirnside and the torn letter, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page215">215</a></span>; swears to the truth of his last +five depositions, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page217">217</a></span>; on Logan’s ship venture +with Lord Willoughby, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page219">219</a></span>; solemnly confesses to the forgery +of the letters in Logan’s hand, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page220">220</a></span>; details +respecting the letter of Logan to Gowrie on which he modelled his +forgeries, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page220">220</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page221">221</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page222">222</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page223">223</a></span>; the letter found in his kist, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page224">224</a></span>; +copies endorsed by him found among the Haddington MSS., <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page224">224</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page225">225</a></span>; oral +discrepancies, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page225">225</a></span>; tried and hanged at Edinburgh, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page226">226</a></span>; +protestations on the scaffold, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page226">226</a></span>; small effect of his dying +confession on the Kirk party, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page227">227</a></span>; motives which prompted his +forgeries, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page227">227</a></span>–231</p> +<p>Stewart, Colonel, his part in the arrest and the conviction of +Gowrie’s father, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page11">11</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page120">120</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page122">122</a></span>; dreads Gowrie’s revenge, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page140">140</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p>‘<span class="smcap">The</span> 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, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page81">81</a></span>; conspectus of its arguments: <!-- +page 280--><a name="page280"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +280</span>Dr. Herries shown the secret parts of Gowrie House a +day or two before the tragedy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page82">82</a></span>; preparations by Gowrie’s +retainers on the fatal day to accompany him to Dirleton, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page82">82</a></span>; the visit of +the Master to Falkland, accompanied by Ruthven and Henderson, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page83">83</a></span>; the +Master sends Henderson to Gowrie with a message that the King +will visit him ‘for what occasion he knew not,’ <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page83">83</a></span>; the Master +tells Craigengelt that Abercromby brought the King to Gowrie +House to take order for his debt, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page83">83</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page84">84</a></span>; James accompanied to Perth by sixty +horsemen, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page84">84</a></span>; Gowrie advertised of the +King’s approach by Henderson, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page84">84</a></span>; James meets Gowrie on the Inch of +Perth and kisses him, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page85">85</a></span>; a hurried dinner, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page85">85</a></span>; the keys of +the house handed to Gowrie’s retainers, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page85">85</a></span>; the +slaughter of the Master in the presence of four of James’s +followers, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page85">85</a></span>; a servant of James brings the news +that he has ridden off, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page85">85</a></span>; Gowrie hears his Majesty call from +the window that the Master is killed by traitors and James +himself in peril, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page86">86</a></span>; Gowrie and Cranstoun alone +permitted by James’s servants to enter the House, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page86">86</a></span>; Sir Thomas +Erskine’s dual <i>rôle</i>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page86">86</a></span>; the true +account of Gowrie’s death, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page87">87</a></span>; the question of Henderson’s +presence at Falkland, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page83">83</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page87">87</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page92">92</a></span>; derivation of the narrative, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page87">87</a></span>; on the +payment by Gowrie of his father’s debts, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page87">87</a></span>; points on +which the narrative is false, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page86">86</a></span>–88; points ignored, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page88">88</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page89">89</a></span>; presents a +consistent theory of the King’s plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page89">89</a></span>; conflicting +statements, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page89">89</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page90">90</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page91">91</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page92">92</a></span>; the detail of the locked door, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page92">92</a></span></p> +<p>‘True Discourse,’ quoted on the doors leading to +the turret, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page52">52</a></span></p> +<p>‘True Discovery of the late Treason, the’ +(unpublished MS.), on the Gowrie family, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page48">48</a></span></p> +<p>Tullibardine, Young, at the slaughter of the Earl of Gowrie, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page28">28</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page33">33</a></span>; effort to +relieve the King, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page60">60</a></span>; helps to pacify the populace after +the tragedy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page88">88</a></span></p> +<p>Tytler, Mr., cited, on James VI, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page5">5</a></span>; on the King’s account of the +Gowrie tragedy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page41">41</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page42">42</a></span>; on Logan’s plot-letters, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page169">169</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Urchill</span>, present at the slaughter +of the Gowries, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page19">19</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Vindication</span> of the Ruthvens, the +contemporary, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page80">80</a></span> <i>et seq.</i>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page252">252</a></span> <i>et +seq.</i></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Wallace</span>, asks Sprot for silence on +Logan’s conspiracy, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page187">187</a></span></p> +<p>Watson, Rev. Alexander, on the Logan plot-letters, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page242">242</a></span></p> +<p>Wilky, Alexander, surety for John Wilky not to harm tailor +Lyn, <span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page73">73</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page74">74</a></span></p> +<p>Wilky, John, his pursuit of tailor Lyn for revealing Robert +Oliphant’s confidences respecting the Gowrie plot, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page73">73</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page74">74</a></span></p> +<p>Willoughby, Lord, kidnaps Ashfield, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page139">139</a></span>; his +opinion of Logan of Restalrig, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page159">159</a></span>; builds a ship for protection of +English commerce, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page218">218</a></span>; offers the venture to Cecil if +subsidised by government, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page218">218</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page219">219</a></span>; admits Logan to the venture, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page218">218</a></span>, +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page219">219</a></span>; dies +suddenly on board his ship, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page219">219</a></span></p> +<p>Wilson (Erskine’s servant), at the slaughter of the +Ruthvens, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page27">27</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page30">30</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page31">31</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page85">85</a></span></p> +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">Younger</span>, suspected as the man in +the turret, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page62">62</a></span></p> +<div class="gapmediumline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><i>Spottiswoode & Co. Ltd. +Printers</i>, <i>New-street Square</i>, <i>London</i>.</p> +<h2>Footnotes:</h2> +<p><a name="footnote0a"></a><a href="#citation0a" +class="footnote">[0a]</a> Longmans, Green, & Co., +1871.</p> +<p><a name="footnote7"></a><a href="#citation7" +class="footnote">[7]</a> See <i>The Mystery of Mary +Stuart</i>. Longmans, 1901.</p> +<p><a name="footnote12a"></a><a href="#citation12a" +class="footnote">[12a]</a> Extracted from the +Treasurer’s Accounts, July, August, 1600. MS.</p> +<p><a name="footnote12b"></a><a href="#citation12b" +class="footnote">[12b]</a> The King’s Narrative, +Pitcairn’s <i>Criminal Trials of Scotland</i>, ii. 210.</p> +<p><a name="footnote13"></a><a href="#citation13" +class="footnote">[13]</a> The King’s Narrative, <i>ut +supra</i>. Treasurer’s Accounts, MS.</p> +<p><a name="footnote14"></a><a href="#citation14" +class="footnote">[14]</a> Lennox in Pitcairn, ii. +171–174.</p> +<p><a name="footnote18"></a><a href="#citation18" +class="footnote">[18]</a> The description is taken from +diagrams in Pitcairn, derived from a local volume of Antiquarian +Proceedings. See, too, <i>The Muses’ Threnodie</i>, +by H. Adamson, 1638, with notes by James Cant (Perth, 1774), pp. +163, 164.</p> +<p><a name="footnote19"></a><a href="#citation19" +class="footnote">[19]</a> Pitcairn, ii. 199.</p> +<p><a name="footnote23"></a><a href="#citation23" +class="footnote">[23]</a> The evidence of these witnesses +is in Pitcairn, ii. 171–191.</p> +<p><a name="footnote28"></a><a href="#citation28" +class="footnote">[28]</a> Cranstoun’s deposition in +Pitcairn, ii. 156, 157. At Falkland August 6.</p> +<p><a name="footnote30"></a><a href="#citation30" +class="footnote">[30]</a> The adversaries of the King say +that these men ran up, and were wounded, <i>later</i>, 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.</p> +<p><a name="footnote38"></a><a href="#citation38" +class="footnote">[38]</a> 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, <i>infra</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote40"></a><a href="#citation40" +class="footnote">[40]</a> Many of these may be read in +<i>Narratives of Scottish Catholics</i>, by Father Forbes-Leith, +S.J.</p> +<p><a name="footnote42"></a><a href="#citation42" +class="footnote">[42]</a> Carey to Cecil. Berwick, +<i>Border Calendar</i>, vol. ii. p. 677, August 11, 1600.</p> +<p><a name="footnote44a"></a><a href="#citation44a" +class="footnote">[44a]</a> Deposition of Craigengelt, a +steward of Gowrie’s, Falkland, August 16, 1600. +Pitcairn, ii. 157.</p> +<p><a name="footnote44b"></a><a href="#citation44b" +class="footnote">[44b]</a> Pitcairn, ii. p. 185.</p> +<p><a name="footnote44c"></a><a href="#citation44c" +class="footnote">[44c]</a> Pitcairn, ii. p. 179.</p> +<p><a name="footnote45"></a><a href="#citation45" +class="footnote">[45]</a> Barbé, p. 91.</p> +<p><a name="footnote48a"></a><a href="#citation48a" +class="footnote">[48a]</a> State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 50.</p> +<p><a name="footnote48b"></a><a href="#citation48b" +class="footnote">[48b]</a> 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, <i>infra</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote52a"></a><a href="#citation52a" +class="footnote">[52a]</a> Apparently not Sir Thomas +Hamilton, the King’s Advocate.</p> +<p><a name="footnote52b"></a><a href="#citation52b" +class="footnote">[52b]</a> State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 51.</p> +<p><a name="footnote53"></a><a href="#citation53" +class="footnote">[53]</a> Pitcairn, vol. ii. p. 249.</p> +<p><a name="footnote58"></a><a href="#citation58" +class="footnote">[58]</a> 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.</p> +<p><a name="footnote59"></a><a href="#citation59" +class="footnote">[59]</a> 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.</p> +<p><a name="footnote60"></a><a href="#citation60" +class="footnote">[60]</a> Pitcairn, ii. 197.</p> +<p><a name="footnote61a"></a><a href="#citation61a" +class="footnote">[61a]</a> <i>The Tragedy of Gowrie +House</i>, by Louis Barbé, 1887, p. 91.</p> +<p><a name="footnote61b"></a><a href="#citation61b" +class="footnote">[61b]</a> 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, +<i>Essays in Historical Truth</i>, pp. 228–237. +Hailes, <i>Annals</i>. Third Edition, vol. iii. p. +369. Note (1819).</p> +<p><a name="footnote63a"></a><a href="#citation63a" +class="footnote">[63a]</a> <i>Privy Council Register</i>, +vi. 149, 150.</p> +<p><a name="footnote63b"></a><a href="#citation63b" +class="footnote">[63b]</a> Pitcairn, ii. 250.</p> +<p><a name="footnote64"></a><a href="#citation64" +class="footnote">[64]</a> 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. (<i>A Dissertation on the Gowry +Conspiracy</i>, pp. 127–131.)</p> +<p><a name="footnote67a"></a><a href="#citation67a" +class="footnote">[67a]</a> Pitcairn, ii. 222, 223.</p> +<p><a name="footnote67b"></a><a href="#citation67b" +class="footnote">[67b]</a> Hudson to Cecil, Oct. 19,1600, +Edinburgh. State Papers, Scotland (Elizabeth), vol. +lxvi. No. 78.</p> +<p><a name="footnote69a"></a><a href="#citation69a" +class="footnote">[69a]</a> <i>James Hudson to Sir Robert +Cecil</i>.</p> +<blockquote><p>‘. . . 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.</p> +<p>. . . .</p> +<p>‘Edinborow this 19 of October 1600.’</p> +</blockquote> +<p><a name="footnote69b"></a><a href="#citation69b" +class="footnote">[69b]</a> Pitcairn, ii. 218.</p> +<p><a name="footnote73"></a><a href="#citation73" +class="footnote">[73]</a> <i>Privy Council Register</i>, +vi. 671.</p> +<p><a name="footnote74a"></a><a href="#citation74a" +class="footnote">[74a]</a> State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 107.</p> +<p><a name="footnote74b"></a><a href="#citation74b" +class="footnote">[74b]</a> 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, <i>infra</i>).</p> +<p><a name="footnote75"></a><a href="#citation75" +class="footnote">[75]</a> State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 107.</p> +<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">‘<i>George +Nicolson to Sir Robert Cecil</i>.</p> +<p>. . . . .</p> +<p>‘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. . . . +.</p> +<p>‘Edenb. the 5 of Decemb. 1600.’</p> +</blockquote> +<p><a name="footnote76"></a><a href="#citation76" +class="footnote">[76]</a> 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 <i>Privy Council Register</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote77"></a><a href="#citation77" +class="footnote">[77]</a> The proceedings of the English +Privy Council at this point are lost, unluckily. The +Scottish records are in <i>Privy Council Register</i>, +1608–1611, s.v. Oliphant, Robert, in the Index.</p> +<p><a name="footnote80"></a><a href="#citation80" +class="footnote">[80]</a> See the Rev. Mr. Scott’s +<i>Life of John</i>, <i>Earl of Gowrie</i>. 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.</p> +<p><a name="footnote81"></a><a href="#citation81" +class="footnote">[81]</a> State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 52. For the document see +Appendix B.</p> +<p><a name="footnote83"></a><a href="#citation83" +class="footnote">[83]</a> James himself, being largely in +Abercromby’s debt, in 1594 gave him ‘twelve +monks’ portions’ of the Abbacy of +Cupar.—<i>Act. Parl. Scot.</i> iv. 83, 84.</p> +<p><a name="footnote93"></a><a href="#citation93" +class="footnote">[93]</a> Mr. Henderson, in his account of +William, Earl of Gowrie, in the <i>Dictionary of National +Biography</i>, 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.</p> +<p><a name="footnote94"></a><a href="#citation94" +class="footnote">[94]</a> Barbé, p. 124.</p> +<p><a name="footnote96"></a><a href="#citation96" +class="footnote">[96]</a> State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 64.</p> +<p><a name="footnote97"></a><a href="#citation97" +class="footnote">[97]</a> State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 64.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><i>Sir William Bowes to Sir John +Stanhope</i>, <i>Sept.</i> 2, 1600.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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 <a +name="citation98"></a><a href="#footnote98" +class="citation">[98]</a> 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. . . +.</p> +<p>From Bradley this 2de of Sept.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">Yor poore Frend to commannd.</p> +<p style="text-align: right"><span class="smcap">Will</span>M. +<span class="smcap">Bowes</span>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote98"></a><a href="#citation98" +class="footnote">[98]</a> Hypothetically?</p> +<p><a name="footnote103"></a><a href="#citation103" +class="footnote">[103]</a> Calderwood, vi. 84.</p> +<p><a name="footnote104"></a><a href="#citation104" +class="footnote">[104]</a> Pitcairn, ii. 248 <i>et +seq.</i></p> +<p><a name="footnote105a"></a><a href="#citation105a" +class="footnote">[105a]</a> Calderwood, vi. 98.</p> +<p><a name="footnote105b"></a><a href="#citation105b" +class="footnote">[105b]</a> <i>Ibid.</i> vi. 130.</p> +<p><a name="footnote107a"></a><a href="#citation107a" +class="footnote">[107a]</a> Calderwood, vi. 147.</p> +<p><a name="footnote107b"></a><a href="#citation107b" +class="footnote">[107b]</a> <i>Ibid.</i> vi. 156.</p> +<p><a name="footnote110"></a><a href="#citation110" +class="footnote">[110]</a> 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 <i>Master</i>’ (he clearly means +<i>Earl</i>) ‘of Gowrie’ (Wodrow’s ‘Life +of the Rev. Robert Bruce,’ p. 10, 1843). Calderwood +possessed, and Wodrow (<i>circ.</i> 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).</p> +<p><a name="footnote111"></a><a href="#citation111" +class="footnote">[111]</a> Calderwood, vi. 49, +66–76.</p> +<p><a name="footnote114"></a><a href="#citation114" +class="footnote">[114]</a> Pitcairn, ii. 196.</p> +<p><a name="footnote118"></a><a href="#citation118" +class="footnote">[118]</a> Bain, <i>Calendar</i>, ii. 350; +Nau, p. 59.</p> +<p><a name="footnote121a"></a><a href="#citation121a" +class="footnote">[121a]</a> <i>Form of certain Devices</i>, +&c. See <i>Papers relating to William</i>, <i>Earl of +Gowrie</i>, London, 1867, pp. 25–29.</p> +<p><a name="footnote121b"></a><a href="#citation121b" +class="footnote">[121b]</a> Form of examination and death +of William, Earl of Gowrie. British Museum, Caligula, c. +viii. fol. 23.</p> +<p><a name="footnote126"></a><a href="#citation126" +class="footnote">[126]</a> Thorpe, <i>Calendar</i>, ii. +650</p> +<p><a name="footnote127a"></a><a href="#citation127a" +class="footnote">[127a]</a> <i>De Natione Anglica et Scota +Juristarum Universitatis Patavinae</i> Io. Aloys. Andrich. +Patavii, 1892, pp. 172, 173.</p> +<p><a name="footnote127b"></a><a href="#citation127b" +class="footnote">[127b]</a> Ottavio Baldi to the King, June +22, 1609. Record Office. Venice, No. 14, +1608–1610. See <i>infra</i>, Appendix A, +‘Gowrie’s Arms and Ambitions.’</p> +<p><a name="footnote128a"></a><a href="#citation128a" +class="footnote">[128a]</a> Gowrie’s letters of 1595 +are in Pitcairn.</p> +<p><a name="footnote128b"></a><a href="#citation128b" +class="footnote">[128b]</a> State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxiii. No. 85.</p> +<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">G. Nicolson to Sir +Robert Cecil.</p> +<p style="text-align: right">Edinborough, 25 December, 1598.</p> +<p>. . . . .</p> +<p>‘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 <i>A +Short Discourse</i>, ii. 231, 232.</p> +</blockquote> +<p><a name="footnote129a"></a><a href="#citation129a" +class="footnote">[129a]</a> Simancas, iv. pp. 653, 654, +677, 680, 715.</p> +<p><a name="footnote129b"></a><a href="#citation129b" +class="footnote">[129b]</a> Compare note, p. 110, +<i>supra</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote130a"></a><a href="#citation130a" +class="footnote">[130a]</a> <i>Winwood Memorials</i>, pp. +1, 156. Hudson to Cecil. State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 19.</p> +<p><a name="footnote130b"></a><a href="#citation130b" +class="footnote">[130b]</a> <i>Border Calendar</i>, vol. +ii. May 29, 1600. Carey to Cecil.</p> +<p><a name="footnote131a"></a><a href="#citation131a" +class="footnote">[131a]</a> The whole proceedings are +printed in Arnot’s <i>Criminal Trials</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote131b"></a><a href="#citation131b" +class="footnote">[131b]</a> Nicholson to Cecil, June 22, +June 29, 1600. Tytler, vol. ix. pp. 325, 326, 1843.</p> +<p><a name="footnote131c"></a><a href="#citation131c" +class="footnote">[131c]</a> This date I infer from +Cranstoun’s statement. On August 5 he had scarcely +seen the Ruthvens, to speak to, for a fortnight.</p> +<p><a name="footnote133"></a><a href="#citation133" +class="footnote">[133]</a> <i>Border Calendar</i>, vol. ii. +p. 698, Oct. 21, 1600. Carey to Cecil.</p> +<p><a name="footnote134a"></a><a href="#citation134a" +class="footnote">[134a]</a> Calderwood, vi. 71.</p> +<p><a name="footnote134b"></a><a href="#citation134b" +class="footnote">[134b]</a> 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 <i>were</i> 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.</p> +<p><a name="footnote137"></a><a href="#citation137" +class="footnote">[137]</a> <i>Privy Council Register</i>, +vi. 194.</p> +<p><a name="footnote140a"></a><a href="#citation140a" +class="footnote">[140a]</a> Cf. p. 110, note.</p> +<p><a name="footnote140b"></a><a href="#citation140b" +class="footnote">[140b]</a> <i>Border Calendar</i>, i. +491.</p> +<p><a name="footnote142"></a><a href="#citation142" +class="footnote">[142]</a> <i>Tragedy of Gowrie House</i>, +pp. 29, 31.</p> +<p><a name="footnote147"></a><a href="#citation147" +class="footnote">[147]</a> 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 <i>infra</i>, p. 160.</p> +<p><a name="footnote152"></a><a href="#citation152" +class="footnote">[152]</a> <i>Privy Council Register</i>, +ii. 217, 218.</p> +<p><a name="footnote153"></a><a href="#citation153" +class="footnote">[153]</a> <i>Privy Council Register</i>, +ii. 622, 699.</p> +<p><a name="footnote155a"></a><a href="#citation155a" +class="footnote">[155a]</a> <i>Privy Council Register</i>, +vi. 73, 74.</p> +<p><a name="footnote155b"></a><a href="#citation155b" +class="footnote">[155b]</a> State Papers, Scotland +(Elizabeth), vol. lxvi. No. 13, No. 21.</p> +<p><a name="footnote156"></a><a href="#citation156" +class="footnote">[156]</a> <i>Hatfield Calendar</i>, viii. +147, 399.</p> +<p><a name="footnote157"></a><a href="#citation157" +class="footnote">[157]</a> For these letters of +Logan’s, see <i>Hatfield Calendar</i>, vols. iii. iv. under +‘Restalrig,’ in the Index.</p> +<p><a name="footnote158"></a><a href="#citation158" +class="footnote">[158]</a> <i>Privy Council Register</i>, +vol. v., s. v. ‘Logan’ in the Index.</p> +<p><a name="footnote159"></a><a href="#citation159" +class="footnote">[159]</a> <i>Border Calendar</i>, vol. +ii. Willoughby to Cecil, January 1, 1599.</p> +<p><a name="footnote160a"></a><a href="#citation160a" +class="footnote">[160a]</a> Pitcairn, ii. +405–407.</p> +<p><a name="footnote160b"></a><a href="#citation160b" +class="footnote">[160b]</a> See Thorpe’s +<i>Calendar</i>, vol. ii., s. v. ‘Mowbray, Francis’ +in the Index.</p> +<p><a name="footnote161"></a><a href="#citation161" +class="footnote">[161]</a> He had sold Nether Gogar in +1596.</p> +<p><a name="footnote162"></a><a href="#citation162" +class="footnote">[162]</a> Some of the papers are in the +General Register House, Edinburgh.</p> +<p><a name="footnote164"></a><a href="#citation164" +class="footnote">[164]</a> The evidence for all that +occurred to Sprot, between April and July 1608, is that of a +manuscript <i>History of the Kirk of Scotland</i>, 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.</p> +<p>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 +<i>draft</i> 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 <i>draft</i> of the account; the official +<i>printed</i> account says that there was ‘no place of +writing on the scaffold, in respect of the press and multitude of +people’ (Pitcairn, ii. 261).</p> +<p><a name="footnote169"></a><a href="#citation169" +class="footnote">[169]</a> Vol. ii. pp. 282–7.</p> +<p><a name="footnote170"></a><a href="#citation170" +class="footnote">[170]</a> Letter I is a peculiar case, and +was not, perhaps, spoken of by Sprot at all.</p> +<p><a name="footnote183"></a><a href="#citation183" +class="footnote">[183]</a> Laing, <i>Charters</i>, Nos. +1452, 1474–76, 2029.</p> +<p><a name="footnote198"></a><a href="#citation198" +class="footnote">[198]</a> <i>Hatfield Calendar</i>, iv. +659.</p> +<p><a name="footnote199a"></a><a href="#citation199a" +class="footnote">[199a]</a> Pitcairn, iii. Appendix +vii.</p> +<p><a name="footnote199b"></a><a href="#citation199b" +class="footnote">[199b]</a> <i>Border Calendar</i>, i. 486, +487.</p> +<p><a name="footnote202"></a><a href="#citation202" +class="footnote">[202]</a> Thorpe, ii. 614, 616, 617. +<i>Border Calendar</i>, i. 457.</p> +<p><a name="footnote203"></a><a href="#citation203" +class="footnote">[203]</a> <i>Privy Council Register</i>, +viii. 150–2, 605.</p> +<p><a name="footnote206a"></a><a href="#citation206a" +class="footnote">[206a]</a> Pitcairn, ii. 287, <i>n</i> +2.</p> +<p><a name="footnote206b"></a><a href="#citation206b" +class="footnote">[206b]</a> Neville to Cecil, Paris, Feb. +27, 1600. Willoughby to Cecil, Berwick, April 22, +1600. <i>Winwood Memorials</i>, p. 166. <i>Border +Calendar</i>, ii. 645.</p> +<p><a name="footnote217"></a><a href="#citation217" +class="footnote">[217]</a> The peculiarities of spelling +are those recognised as Logan’s, and easily imitated by the +forger.</p> +<p><a name="footnote221"></a><a href="#citation221" +class="footnote">[221]</a> He had not the letter before him +at this moment, and may have forgotten.</p> +<p><a name="footnote222"></a><a href="#citation222" +class="footnote">[222]</a> Spottiswoode, vol. iii. pp. 274, +282.</p> +<p><a name="footnote224"></a><a href="#citation224" +class="footnote">[224]</a> Cromarty, <i>An Historical +Account</i>, <i>&c.</i>, 92 (1713).</p> +<p><a name="footnote227a"></a><a href="#citation227a" +class="footnote">[227a]</a> Calderwood, vi. 780.</p> +<p><a name="footnote227b"></a><a href="#citation227b" +class="footnote">[227b]</a> 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.</p> +<p><a name="footnote239"></a><a href="#citation239" +class="footnote">[239]</a> <i>Melrose Papers</i>, vol. i. +pp. 72, 73.</p> +<p><a name="footnote243a"></a><a href="#citation243a" +class="footnote">[243a]</a> Pitcairn, ii. +289–290.</p> +<p><a name="footnote243b"></a><a href="#citation243b" +class="footnote">[243b]</a> <i>Ibid.</i> ii. 292.</p> +<p><a name="footnote247"></a><a href="#citation247" +class="footnote">[247]</a> <i>State Papers</i>, Venice, +R.O., No. 14, 1608–10. Hill Burton, <i>History of +Scotland</i>, vol. vi. pp. 135, 136. Note. Edition of +1870.</p> +<p><a name="footnote248"></a><a href="#citation248" +class="footnote">[248]</a> This information I owe to Mr. +Anderson, with the reference to Crawfurd, and other details.</p> +<p><a name="footnote249"></a><a href="#citation249" +class="footnote">[249]</a> Burnet’s <i>History of his +Own Time</i>, vol. i. pp. 24, 25, mdccxxv.</p> +<p><a name="footnote250a"></a><a href="#citation250a" +class="footnote">[250a]</a> <i>Papers relating to +William</i>, <i>first Earl of Gowrie</i>, p. 30. (Privately +printed, 1867.)</p> +<p><a name="footnote250b"></a><a href="#citation250b" +class="footnote">[250b]</a> Sanderson, p. 226.</p> +<p><a name="footnote251a"></a><a href="#citation251a" +class="footnote">[251a]</a> Scott, pp. 282, 284.</p> +<p><a name="footnote251b"></a><a href="#citation251b" +class="footnote">[251b]</a> <i>Border Calendar</i>, vol. i. +p. 491.</p> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JAMES VI AND THE GOWRIE MYSTERY***</p> +<pre> + + +***** This file should be named 31033-h.htm or 31033-h.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. + +</pre></body> +</html> diff --git a/31033-h/images/p0b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p0b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8fb41ef --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p0b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p0s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p0s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8039680 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p0s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p116b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p116b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9c41f51 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p116b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p116s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p116s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a27c391 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p116s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p138b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p138b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..fc0339b --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p138b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p138s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p138s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f8e7a77 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p138s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p150ab.jpg b/31033-h/images/p150ab.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4f3b9a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p150ab.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p150as.jpg b/31033-h/images/p150as.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..095518d --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p150as.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p150bb.jpg b/31033-h/images/p150bb.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e0d5ba7 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p150bb.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p150bs.jpg b/31033-h/images/p150bs.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3665b0e --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p150bs.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p154b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p154b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..ab21e64 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p154b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p154s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p154s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4addaa7 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p154s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p15b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p15b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cabec92 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p15b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p15s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p15s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1349fdb --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p15s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p176b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p176b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d95db69 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p176b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p176s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p176s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a8d2f51 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p176s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p17b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p17b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5ad5ca8 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p17b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p17s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p17s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..455c548 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p17s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p192b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p192b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..454764d --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p192b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p192s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p192s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..80ff847 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p192s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p196b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p196b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..0dd91f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p196b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p196s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p196s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f0e9381 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p196s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p202b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p202b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c5c519b --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p202b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p202s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p202s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2614d5a --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p202s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p210b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p210b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5c09dae --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p210b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p210s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p210s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a9c7611 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p210s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p33b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p33b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..6a8fabd --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p33b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p33s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p33s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..fcc91fb --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p33s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p4b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p4b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..785a5f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p4b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p4s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p4s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..308a5fa --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p4s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p59b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p59b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..57a95b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p59b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p59s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p59s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a595e49 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p59s.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p82b.jpg b/31033-h/images/p82b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7eb93b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p82b.jpg diff --git a/31033-h/images/p82s.jpg b/31033-h/images/p82s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..393d98c --- /dev/null +++ b/31033-h/images/p82s.jpg |
