Bowes had met Preston, whom James sent to Elizabeth with his version of
the Gowrie affair. Bowes’s theory of it all was this: James, the Master,
‘and one other attending’ (the man of the turret) were alone in a chamber
of Gowrie House. Speech arose about the late Earl of Gowrie, Ruthven’s
father, whether by occasion of his portrait on the wall, or otherwise.
‘The King angrily said he was a traitor, whereat the youth showing a
grieved and expostulatory countenance, and haplie Scotlike words, the
King, seeing himself alone and without weapon, cried Treason!’ The
Master placed his hand on James’s mouth, and knelt to deprecate his
anger, but Ramsay stabbed him as he knelt, and Gowrie was slain, Preston
said, after Ramsay had made him drop his guard by crying that the King
was murdered. The tale of the conspiracy was invented by James to cover
the true state of the case. {96}
This Bowes only puts forth as a working hypothesis. It breaks down on
the King’s narrative to Lennox about Ruthven’s captive and hoard. It
breaks down on ‘one other attending’—the man in the turret—whatever else
he may have been, he was no harmless attendant. It breaks down on the
locked door between the King, and Lennox and Mar, which Bowes omits. It
is ruined by Gowrie’s repeated false assurances that the King had ridden
away, which Bowes ignores.
The third hypothesis, the _via media_, is impossible. There was a
deliberate plot on one side or the other. To make the theory of Bowes
quite clear, his letter is appended to this section. {97}
IX. CONTEMPORARY CLERICAL CRITICISM
The most resolute sceptics as to the guilt of the Ruthvens were the
Edinburgh preachers. They were in constant opposition to the King, and
the young Gowrie was their favourite nobleman. As to what occurred when
the news of the tragedy reached Edinburgh, early on July 6, we have the
narrative of Mr. Robert Bruce, then the leader of the Presbyterians. His
own version is printed in the first volume of the Bannatyne Club
Miscellany, and is embodied, with modifications, and without
acknowledgment (as references to such sources were usually omitted at
that period), in Calderwood’s History.
It is thus better to follow Mr. Bruce’s own account, as far as it goes.
The preachers heard the ‘bruit,’ or rumour of the tragedy, by nine
o’clock on the morning of August 6. By ten o’clock arrived a letter from
James to the Privy Council: the preachers were called first ‘before the
Council of the town,’ and the King’s epistle was read to them. ‘_It bore
that his Majesty was delivered out of a peril_, and therefore that we
should be commanded to go to our Kirks, convene our people, ring bells,
and give God praises.’ While the preachers were answering, the _Privy_
Council sent for the Provost and some of the _Town_ Council.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account