o the English Privy Council, who restored them to
Robert Oliphant. The brother of Robert, Oliphant of Bauchiltoun,
represented him in his absence, and, in 1611, Robert got some measure of
restitution from Heron.

We know no more of Mr. Robert Oliphant. {77} His freedom of talk was
amazing, but perhaps he had been drinking when he told the story of his
connection with the plot. By 1608 nothing could be proved against him in
London: in 1600, had he not fled from Edinburgh in December, something
might have been extracted. We can only say that his version of the case
is less improbable than Henderson's. Henderson--if approached by Gowrie,
as Oliphant is reported to have said that he _was_--could not divulge the
plot, could not, like Oliphant, a gentleman, leave Perth, and desert his
employment. So perhaps he drifted into taking the _role_ of the man in
the turret. If so, he had abundance of time to invent his most
improbable story that he was shut up there in ignorance of the purpose of
his masters.

Henderson was not always of the lamblike demeanour which he displayed in
the turret. On March 5, 1601, Nicholson reports that 'Sir Hugh Herries,'
the lame doctor, 'and Henderson fell out and were at offering of
strokes,' whence 'revelations' were anticipated. They never came, and,
for all that we know, Herries may have taunted Henderson with Oliphant's
version of his conduct. He was pretty generally suspected of having been
in the conspiracy, and of having failed, from terror, and then betrayed
his masters, while pretending not to have known why he was placed in the
turret.

It is remarkable that Herries did not appear as a witness at the trial in
November. He was knighted and rewarded: every one almost was rewarded
out of Gowrie's escheats, or forfeited property. But that was natural,
whether James was guilty or innocent; and we repeat that the rewards,
present or in prospect, did not produce witnesses ready to say that they
saw Henderson at Falkland, or in the tumult, or in the turret. Why men
so freely charged with murderous conspiracy and false swearing were so
dainty on these and other essential points, the advocates of the theory
of perjury may explain. How James treated discrepancies in the evidence
we have seen. His account was the true account, he would not alter it,
he would not suppress the discrepancies of Henderson, except as to the
dagger. Witnesses might say this or that to secure the King's pri