POSTSCRIPT.
It may seem strange to place at the end of a work like the present,
those observations which are usually placed at the beginning, and to
add in a postscript, that general view of a subject which is generally
afforded in a preface. Except in those cases where a right
understanding of the scope and object of the work, and a clear view of
the principles upon which the author writes, are necessary to the
comprehension of that which is to follow, I greatly object to
prefaces. I do not wish to prepossess my reader in favour of my book,
nor to imbue him with my own peculiar ideas in order to gain his
assent to what is to come after. I, therefore, may as well say at the
close, where the reader is more likely to peruse it, what many others
would have said at the commencement, and having formed a very strong
and decided opinion upon a matter of history, in regard to which,
others, inconceivably to me, have adopted a different view, add a few
remarks in justification of my own judgment.
On the work itself I have little to say, except inasmuch as it is an
essay intended to prove what is really the feeling of the public in
regard to cheap literature.
I was aware, from the first, that should the experiment not succeed, I
might be met by the reply, that what the public desire is good as well
as cheap literature, and I therefore chose a subject of deep interest,
which I had pondered for some years, which was first brought to my
attention by a gallant officer[12] descended from the family which
figures most conspicuously in the foregoing pages. To those who have
really read the book and arrived fairly at these concluding pages, I
think I may venture to appeal as to whether I have spared labour,
research, and thought upon the work. I know that I have not, and I
believe the evidence thereof will be found in the tale itself.
I would have done as I have said, had it been merely because the work
was to be given to the public at a cheaper rate than usual; but there
were other strong motives for considering well every sentence I wrote.
An important point of history was involved: a point which has been
rendered dark by the passions and prejudices of partizans, who refused
to judge of it as they would judge of any other matter of evidence
brought before them.
The question is, whether the young Earl of Gowrie and his brother laid
a plot for entrapping James VI., King of Scotland, to their house at
Perth, for the purpose of murdering him, the king escaping by a
miracle, and causing them to be slain in return: or whether he laid a
plot for surprising them in their house, under the appearance of a
friendly visit, and, by a pre-arranged plan, murdered them in their
own dwelling.
I have maintained, as the reader has seen, and ever shall maintain,
that the latter was the case.
When any man is accused of a crime, it must be shown that the crime
was committed, that the accused had a sufficient motive, and that the
act is brought home to him by conclusive evidence.
The crime of which the Earl of Gowrie and his brother were accused,
was having seduced King James to their house at Perth, with the
intention of putting him to death; for the intention in such cases is
the crime.
The motive which has been assigned is the desire of succeeding to the
throne of Scotland, as the next heir. This has been tenderly touched
upon, because it was too shallow a pretence not to fail at once before
examination; but it is still clearly indicated as the motive. Gowrie
was only remotely related to James by Margaret Tudor, Queen of
Scotland, the king's great-grandmother, an English princess, whose
blood gave him no claim whatever to the Scottish throne, whatever it
might do to that of England. Moreover, the king had one son then
living, and another was born two months after. So that had the king
been killed on the fatal fifth of August, he would have been as far
from the throne of Scotland as ever.
The evidence of any crime having been committed by the Earl and his
brother, now comes to be examined; and I do not scruple to say, that
to the eyes of any man of common understanding, it not only proves
that Gowrie and his brother were innocent, but that James was guilty.
First, let it be remarked, that this evidence was all on one side,
that no defence was made on the part of the dead accused, that no
witnesses were examined on their behalf, that those on the other part
were not cross-examined. The king himself was the principal witness;
for his statement must be taken as a deposition. He declared that
Alexander Ruthven, the earl's brother, came up to him when he was
going out to hunt at Falkland, and besought him to come immediately to
Perth, as he, Alexander, had seized and imprisoned in his brother's
house, a stranger with a pitcher full of foreign gold, which he wished
to secure for the king; and that he must come privately, without
letting any one know, for he feared that the man might cry out and
call the attention of the earl, who knew nothing of the fact. James
says he determined to go, (though the tale was too absurd to obtain
credence from any rational being;) but instead of going immediately,
he continued to hunt from seven till ten o'clock; and instead of going
privately, took the whole court, all his usual attendants, and
moreover, two lacquies from the palace, together with the porter at
Falkland, and the keeper of his ale cellar. Of the conversation
between the king and Alexander Ruthven, we have no testimony but that
of James himself. It is true, as he rode towards Perth he related the
tale privately to the Duke of Lennox, when that nobleman at once
expressed his opinion of the improbability of the story; but yet the
king went on. His majesty did not send forward to announce his coming
to the young earl till he was within two miles of Perth; but then he
was met and received, not by Gowrie and his attendants in private and
alone, but by the earl as Lord Provost, at the head of the magistrates
of the town, hurriedly assembled. The king then proceeds to relate
what occurred at the earl's palace, and comments on the young
nobleman's demeanour, which, instead of being courteous, flattering,
and calculated to lull and deceive, was exactly what might be expected
from a man taken unprepared by the sudden and unannounced visit of a
sovereign, when he was about to set out on a journey of some length.
He was distant, silent, and though attentive to the king, anything but
so to the immense train he had brought with him.
After dinner the king was led by Alexander Ruthven to a chamber near
the picture gallery to repose for a little, and the king says that he
was taken through many rooms, the doors of which were all locked
behind him. The king's prudence must have been sadly at fault to go on
under such circumstances. In the chamber to which he was led,
according to the account of the king, and also that of Ramsay, was a
tall, dark, strong man, armed. The monarch described him particularly,
but implied that he was not one of his own attendants, but a stranger;
yet he remained some time conversing with Mr. Alexander Ruthven
without any apparent alarm, and suffered the young gentleman to go out
and in, he avers, to meet his brother. It is shown by the other
depositions that Gowrie was during the whole of this time, except for
one short moment, either in the hall with the large body of courtiers,
or walking with them in his gardens. At length Alexander Ruthven
assaulted the king, James declares, and attempted first to stab him
with a dagger, and then to bind his hands with two garters, saying,
coolly, "Traitor, thou must die, and therefore lay thy hands together
that I may bind thee." If we are to credit the testimony of Moyses,
one of the king's most faithful servants, there were five hundred
gentlemen in Perth on that day, of whom it would appear full three
hundred were of the family of Murray, sent for to meet the king under
the Master of Tullibardine. The rest were the king's friends and
followers, already completely in possession of Gowrie's palace. Many
of these were in the street just below the room, with the Duke of
Lennox, the Earl of Mar, Lord Lindores, and Sir Thomas Erskine.
Alexander Ruthven must have been a bold man, and not a prudent one, if
he really sought the king's death, to make so cool a proposal rather
than run him through the body with his sword, especially if the armed
man in the room was put there by himself to aid in the assassination.
The armed man, however, according to the king's account, remained
quaking and trembling; and Alexander Ruthven did not draw his sword
during the whole day. James then declares he rushed to the window,
and shouted treason, and when John Ramsay entered the room in
haste--having been informed by some one how to reach it, which none of
the others could divine--he found the younger Ruthven on his knees,
trying to stop the king's vociferation. James did not give orders to
apprehend him for trial, but to stab him, and even pointed out where
he was to be stabbed. The king, then, was locked in the cabinet, while
his friends laid wait for Gowrie to stab him likewise, when he came in
search of his brother.
The other depositions--with one exception, which I shall notice
presently--go to prove merely the facts which I have mentioned in the
preceding chapters, that Gowrie was taken by surprise, and
discontented with the king's unannounced visit, that he was unarmed
during the whole day, that when the report was spread that the king
was gone, he called for his horse, in order to ride after him with the
rest of the court, unarmed as he was, that he never left his guests
for more than a moment; and, as a very strict investigation has been
made of his occupations during the whole of the early part of the day,
it is shown that he attended the morning service at the parish church,
transacted important business with several parties, invited some
common acquaintances to dinner, dined with them calmly, made no
preparation whatever against the king's coming, and even sent two of
his servants to a distance, though he had but eight or nine in the
house, one of whom was ill in bed. In the testimony of not one of the
credible witnesses is there a word that implicates Gowrie, and there
is much to show that it was well nigh impossible he could have any
share in the attempt of his brother, if any attempt was really made.
At the same time, however, a great deal transpires which shows that
Gowrie was not the injurer, but the injured. No preparation is alleged
for the commission of the crime, no force was collected, no arms laid
up, he himself was totally unarmed, his brother had only an ordinary
sword (for the dagger was said to have been snatched from the armed
man.) Andrew Ruthven, who accompanied his cousin to Falkland, was
totally unarmed, so was George Dewar, one of the Earl's servants. He
had drawn round him no great body of friends. These are all negative
testimonies to his innocence. Then again we find that when he called
for his horse to follow the king with the rest of the court, he
learned that his horse had been removed from his own house. Was this
to prevent his escape? When the very act is said to have been doing
which was intended to deprive his sovereign of life, he went unarmed
and stood under the very window of the room where it was to take
place, with a large party of the king's most attached friends--in the
midst of the royal servants! Ramsay's deposition shows that he,
Ramsay, knew at once how to find his way to the monarch; and Sir
Thomas Erskine's proves that James did not go with Mr. Ruthven alone
to the earl's cabinet, but that he, Erskine, accompanied them, and was
stationed by the king himself at the door of the chamber. It is proved
also by the various depositions, that when Erskine, Ramsay, James and
George Wilson were together in the chamber after Gowrie's death, and
before the bodies were searched, the key of the door into the gallery
was amongst them, and was used to admit the nobles from the other
side, and to exclude the earl's friends. It is not even pretended that
any keys were found upon Alexander Ruthven after his death.
Moreover, it is proved that the king, who is represented as having
been struggling for life with a traitor, was so cool, that while his
friends despatched his enemy, he put his foot upon the jesses of the
falcon, to prevent it from flying away.
Setting aside the monarch's own evidence, therefore, the testimony of
all other persons was rather in favour of Gowrie, and against the
king, than otherwise; and the proofs of the monarch having assembled a
large body of men in Perth were easily to be obtained, showing a
preconcerted plan for going to that city before Alexander Ruthven
could, by any possibility, have told the story of the pot of gold.
Moreover, that story was in itself so absurd, and many parts of the
king's statement so unlike truth; and the fact of the earl and his
brother having been slain unresisting, when they could, without
difficulty or danger, have been taken and tried according to law, was
so suspicious, that it must have seemed necessary to all James's
advisers to support his testimony by some corroborative evidence or
circumstance. No one could give any evidence of what took place in the
gallery chamber or its cabinet, but the armed man who was present; but
it would have been something to prove that the armed man was one of
Gowrie's servants. He, therefore, was to be sought for, or at least a
substitute; but unfortunately the king, in his first proclamation, had
given a very accurate account of the man's personal appearance. He was
described by the monarch as a black, grim man, and as his head was
uncovered, and James had some conversation with him, he could not be
mistaken in his complexion. David Calderwood, quoted by Mr. Scott in
his life and death of the Earl of Gowrie, declares that the king first
asserted the man was Robert Oliphant, one of Gowrie's servants.
Oliphant proved, however, that he was not in Perth that day. Two
others were then successively pointed at as the criminal, but they
freed themselves from the imputation. The next person accused was
Henry Younger, likewise one of the earl's servants; but setting out to
establish his innocence, he was met, pursued through the fields, and
put to death by a party of the king's horse. The matter now seemed
settled; the dead body was exposed at the market cross at Falkland,
and Galloway, the king's chaplain, had the assurance to address the
monarch publicly at the cross, saying, "Sir, the man who should have
helped to do the deed could not be taken alive, but now his dead body
lies before you."
It was soon proved, however, that Henry Younger was at Dundee during
the whole of the 5th of August, and another had to be sought for.
In this exigency, Andrew Henderson, the earl's factor, volunteered, or
was persuaded, upon promise of pardon, to acknowledge himself the man
whom the king and Ramsay had seen. How this was brought about has
never been known; but he was suffered to make his deposition, and
therein told a story even more incredible than that of the king. He
said that his lord had commanded him to arm himself, to assist in
apprehending a notorious robber, and for that purpose _to suffer
himself to be locked into a closet at the top of the house_, where he
remained for about half an hour--in fact, till the king and Alexander
Ruthven came.
The other depositions clearly prove that this statement was false, as
well as absurd; for from the time of the king's arrival to the moment
at which James proceeded to the rooms above, and especially during the
last three-quarters of an hour, every moment of which is accounted
for, Gowrie never quitted the monarch's presence, except to go with
the nobles to the adjoining hall, or afterwards to drink to them by
the king's command. The contradictions between Henderson's evidence
and the statement of the king are pointed out both by Lord Hailes and
Robertson, and well summed up by Mr. Scott. The sermons of Bishop
Cowper prove that many persons in Perth denied that Henderson was in
Gowrie's palace at all after the king's arrival; and though that
worthy pastor states he had spoken with persons who saw Henderson
there, he seems not to have given information to the monarch, for whom
he was so zealous, of the names of these parties; for not one of them
was called forward to prove the truth of a tale which nobody believed.
Even James himself threw discredit upon the account, by not naming
Henderson as the armed man, though he published a statement after the
depositions were taken, and indeed with no face could the king have
done so; for he had previously stated that the man was a black, grim
man, and Henderson was a little ruddy man with a light brown beard.
Henderson was, moreover, contradicted by other witnesses upon various
points, and by the king himself upon many. Yet Henderson, we may
suppose, did James good service in some way; for we find that he was
honoured and rewarded with lands and offices, as well as Christie, the
Earl of Gowrie's porter, whose services are unknown, though strongly
suspected; and another domestic, named Dogie, of whose deeds we know
nothing.
The guilt of the Earl of Gowrie was disbelieved in Scotland all but
universally, and the accusation of magic and sorcery brought against
him was treated with the contempt it merited, except by a few persons
more curious than intelligent. Five ministers of Edinburgh refused to
offer thanks for the king's deliverance, in which they did not
believe; and, three of them suffered severely for their contumacy and
incredulity. The estates of the Earl of Gowrie were forfeited, and
divided amongst favourites, and three of the earl's faithful servants
were executed at Perth, declaring their innocence and his with their
dying breath. An annual thanksgiving was appointed in England and
Scotland, but the English laughed at the farce, and the Scotch were
indignant at the impiety. An annual feast also was held, which Weldon
mentions as follows: "Sir John Ramsay, for his good service in that
preservation, was the principal guest; and so did the king grant him
any boon he would ask that day. But he had such limitation made to his
asking, as made his suit as unprofitable as the action which he asked
it for was unserviceable to the king."
I have endeavoured, in the account of the last few days of the earl's
life, to keep as near to the truth as possible, only indicating
circumstances not absolutely proved as natural conclusions from
established facts. I have not ventured to represent the scene which
took place in the earl's gallery chamber and cabinet between his
brother and the king, for my account would probably be nearly as wide
of the truth as that of the monarch or the factor, though it might be
less absurd. But I have not felt myself bound to adhere to historical
truth in those parts of a romance which are conventionally established
as fiction. The character of Julia Douglas is purely imaginary; and
were there at present any descendants from the Regent Morton, I would
apologize for the liberties I have taken with their ancestor. The lady
whom it was proposed the earl should marry, was in reality the Lady
Margaret Douglas, daughter of the Earl of Angus; but particular
circumstances, which it would be tedious to dwell upon, prevented me
from mixing her name up with this history; and there were rumours
current, both before and after the earl's death, of another more
powerful but secret attachment, which might probably have frustrated
the views of friends under the influence of a stronger power.
T. C. Savill, Printer, 4, Chandos Street, Covent Garden.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: This man, David Drummond, was tried and condemned shortly
after, in the first justice court held by the young earl, and was
executed for his offence, June 28,1600, as appears by the chronicles
of the fair city of Perth.]
[Footnote 2: This curious anecdote is given in the manuscript memoirs
of the Church of Scotland, by Mr. David Calderwood, a contemporary who
was at this time about five-and-twenty years of age, and a keen
observer of all that was passing.]
[Footnote 3: It is now the generally received opinion that the Earl of
Angus did obtain possession of the treasures of the regent Morton, and
that he spent the whole of them in acts of liberality to his fellow
exiles.]
[Footnote 4: This anecdote of court scandal is to be found in
Pinkerton's essay on what he calls the Gowrie conspiracy, in which it
was inserted on the authority of Lord Hailes. The freedom of manners
attributed to Anne of Denmark, both before and after the accession of
her husband to the throne of England, and her fondness for several
ladies of more than doubtful virtue, are mentioned by almost every
writer of the day. All agree, however, that the character of Beatrice
Ruthven, afterwards Lady Hume, one of Anne's earliest favourites, was
perfectly irreproachable.]
[Footnote 5: This anecdote of Mr. William Cowper is given by
Archbishop Spottiswood, a strong partizan of the king; and it is clear
that he mentioned it with the view of supporting, by some independent
testimony, the extraordinary statement of James himself--a statement
which would not have deceived a child, so absurd, incongruous, and
ridiculous it is, had not the friends and flatterers of the monarch
exerted themselves, with all the zeal of sycophant ambition, to
bolster up a puerile defence of his conduct, by corroborative
circumstances often as false, and sometimes as puerile.]
[Footnote 6: This same Mr. Patrick Galloway, after the earl's death,
did very imprudently go the length of saying, in a sermon preached at
the market cross of Edinburgh, referring to the murdered nobleman, "He
was an atheist, an incarnate devil, in the coat of an angel, a studier
of magic, a conjurer with devils, some of whom he had under his
command."]
[Footnote 7: If Henderson ever was at Falkland on that day, as he
afterwards swore, he must have arrived at about half-past seven, and
to have seen anything of what took place could not have quitted the
ground till after eight. Yet he had returned to Perth by ten. He was
met by Mr. John Moncrief, about that time, riding into Perth, and
stopped to speak with him, so that he performed, in two hours, a
journey which had taken Alexander Ruthven three, over the bad and
tortuous roads then existing. But the whole of the man's evidence is
invalidated by his subsequent perjury in regard to the other
transactions of that day.]
[Footnote 8: The above is actually the story which James not only told
to his courtiers, but afterwards wrote to several neighbouring
princes, and embodied in his narrative of the events of that day,
leaving his hearers and his readers the very unpleasant alternative of
looking upon him either as an idiot or a knave. Lennox, in his
deposition, very barely conceals what he thought of the story and of
the king, for believing, or pretending to believe it.]
[Footnote 9: Moyses, in his Memoirs, declares that there were no less
than five hundred gentlemen in Perth that day who bore testimony to
the truth of the king's statement, and therefore were certainly not
inimical to James. Yet we are told to believe that in presence of this
imposing force of loyal subjects (assembled, who knows how?) Gowrie
and his brother, with eight servants, attempted the king's life.]
[Footnote 10: This fact is indiscreetly suffered to appear in
Erskine's deposition, where he says, "When all was over, I said to his
majesty, I thought your majesty would have concredited more to me than
to have commanded me to await your majesty at the door, if you had
thought it not mete to take me with you." That Sir Thomas Erskine knew
more of this foul transaction than he deposed to, is indicated by a
letter from Nicholson, the Queen of England's agent in Scotland, 22nd
September, 1602, in which he mentions that the king was much disturbed
because his queen had revealed to Beatrice Ruthven some secrets told
her by Sir Thomas Erskine.]
[Footnote 11: This fact is positively asserted in Calderwood's
manuscript Memoirs, quoted by Mr. Scott.]
[Footnote 12: Lieut. Col. Cowell.]
End of Project Gutenberg's Gowrie:, by G. P. R. (George Payne Rainsford) James