him) that he deprived Ruthven of his dagger, a very improbable
tale, told falsely at first, no doubt, as Robertson the notary at first
invented his fable about meeting with Henderson, coming out of the dark
staircase. This myth Robertson narrated when examined in September, but
omitted it in the trial in November. Henderson now explained about his
first opening the wrong window, but he sticks to it that he took the
garter from Ruthven, of which James says nothing. He vows that he turned
the key of the door on the staircase, so that Ramsay could enter, whereas
Ramsay averred that he himself forced the door. Mr. Hudson (James's
resident at the Court of England), who in October 1600 interviewed both
Henderson and the King, says that, in fact, the Master had not locked the
door, on his re-entry. {67b} Henderson slunk out when Ramsay came in.
He adds that it was _his_ steel cap which was put on Gowrie's head by a
servant (there was plenty of evidence that a steel cap was thus put on).

One singular point in Henderson's versions is this: after Ruthven, in
deference to James's harangue in the turret, had taken off his hat, the
King said, 'What is it ye crave, man, if ye crave not my life?' '_Sir_,
_it is but a promise_,' answered Ruthven. The King asked 'What promise?'
and Ruthven said that his brother would explain. This tale looks like a
confusion made, by Henderson's memory, in a passage in James's narrative.
'His Majesty inquired what the Earl would do with him, since (if his
Majesty's life were safe, _according to promise_) they could gain little
in keeping such a prisoner.' Ruthven then, in James's narrative, said
'that the Earl would tell his Majesty at his coming.' It appears that
the word 'promise' in the Royal version, occurring at this point in the
story, clung to Henderson's memory, and so crept into his tale. Others
have thought that the Ruthvens wished to extort from James a promise
about certain money which he owed to Gowrie. But to extort a promise, by
secluding and threatening the King, would have been highly treasonable
and dangerous, nor need James have kept a promise made under duress.

Perhaps few persons who are accustomed to weigh and test evidence, who
know the weaknesses of human memories, and the illusions which impose
themselves upon our recollections, will lay great stress on the
discrepancies between Henderson's first deposition (in August), his
second (in November), and the statement of