the King. In the footnote
printed below, {69a} 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 _that_ 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.' {69b}
Henderson's first deposition was one of these which James printed with
his own narrative, and thus treated _en prince_. 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.

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?

But _was_ 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.

VI. THE STRANGE CASE OF MR. ROBERT OLIPHANT

Suppose that men like the Ruthvens, great and potent nobles, had secretly