invited their retainer, Andrew Henderson, to take the _role_ of the armed
man in the turret, what could Henderson have done? Such proposals as
this were a danger dreaded even by the most powerful. Thus, in March
1562, James Hepburn, the wicked Earl of Bothwell, procured, through John
Knox, a reconciliation with his feudal enemy, Arran. The brain of Arran
was already, it seems, impaired. A few days after the reconciliation he
secretly consulted Knox on a delicate point. Bothwell, he said, had
imparted to him a scheme whereby they should seize Queen Mary's person,
and murder her secretary, Lethington, and her half-brother, Lord James
Stuart, later Earl of Moray. Arran explained to Knox that, if ever the
plot came to light, he would be involved in the crime of guilty
concealment of foreknowledge of treason. But, if he divulged the plan,
Bothwell would challenge him to trial by combat. Knox advised secrecy,
but Arran, now far from sane, revealed the real or imagined conspiracy.

To a man like Henderson, the peril in simply listening to treasonable
proposals from the Ruthvens would be even greater. If he merely declined
to be a party, and kept silence, or fled, he lost his employment as
Gowrie's man, and would be ruined. If the plot ever came to light, he
would be involved in guilty concealment of foreknowledge. If he
instantly revealed to the King what he knew, his word would not be
accepted against that of Gowrie: he would be tortured, to get at the very
truth, and probably would be hanged by way of experiment, to see if he
would adhere to his statement on the scaffold--a fate from which
Henderson, in fact, was only saved by the King.

What then, if the Gowries offered to Henderson the _role_ of the man in
the turret, could Henderson do? He could do what, according to James and
to himself, he did, he could tremble, expostulate, and assure the King of
his ignorance of the purpose for which he was locked up, 'like a dog,' in
the little study.

That this may have been the real state of affairs is not impossible. We
have seen that Calderwood mentions a certain Mr. Robert Oliphant (Mr.
means Master of Arts) as having been conjectured at, immediately after
the tragedy, as the man in the turret. He must therefore have been, and
he was, a trusted retainer of Gowrie. But Oliphant at once proved an
alibi; he was not in Perth on August 5. His name never occurs in the
voluminous records of the proceedings. He is not,