Calderwood has preserved for us the objections taken by sceptics to the King’s narrative. {111} First, the improbability of a _murderous_ conspiracy, by youths so full of promise and Presbyterianism as Gowrie and his brother. To Gowrie’s previous performances we return later. The objection against a scheme of murder hardly applies to a plan for kidnapping a King who was severe against the Kirk. The story of the pot of gold, and the King’s desire to inspect it and the captive who bore it, personally, and the folly of thinking that one pot of gold could suffice to disturb the peace of the country, are next adversely criticised. We have already replied to the criticism (p. 40). The story was well adapted to entrap James VI. The improbabilities of Ruthven’s pleas for haste need not detain us: the King did not think them probable. Next it was asked ‘Why did James go alone upstairs with Ruthven?’ He may have had wine enough to beget valour, or, as he said, he may have believed that he was being followed by Erskine. The two reasons may well have combined. ‘Why did not Gowrie provide better cheer, if forewarned?’ (by Henderson?) it was asked. To give the impression, we reply, that he was taken by surprise, and that the King came uninvited and unexpected. ‘Why did Ruthven aim a dagger at James, and then hold parley?’ Because he wanted to frighten the King into being ‘at his will.’ ‘How could Ruthven trust the King, with the armed man alone in the turret?’ What else could he do? He locked them in, and was, through the failure of the man, in a quandary which made clear reflection necessary—and impossible. ‘It was strange that the man had not been trained in his task.’ If Oliphant is correctly reported, he had been trained, but ‘fainted.’ ‘Why bind the King with a garter?’ In helpless pursuit of the forlorn idea of capturing him. ‘Why execute the enterprise when the courtiers were passing the window?’ Ruthven could not have known that they were coming at that moment; it was Gowrie’s ill-timed falsehoods, to the effect that the King had ridden away, which brought them there. Gowrie had not allowed for Henderson’s failure. ‘How could the King struggle successfully with the stalwart Master?’ He fought for his life, and Ruthven probably even then did not wish to injure him bodily. ‘Why was not the Master made prisoner?’ James answered this question when ‘posed’ by Mr. Bruce. His blood was up, and he said ‘Strike!’ ‘The Earl likewise might, after he was stricken, have been preserved alive.’ Perhaps—by miracle; he died instantly. The discrepancies as to the dagger and the opening of the window we have already treated, also the locking and unlocking, or leaving unlocked, of the chamber door, giving on the dark staircase, after Ruthven’s last hurried entrance (p. 69).