y affects the argument as
to his guilt in the conspiracy. Of _that_ Mr. Bruce acquitted the King.
Calderwood's words (vi. 156) are 'Mr. Robert, by reason of his oaths,
thought him innocent of any purpose that day in the morning to slay them.
Yet because he confessed he had not God or justice before his eyes, but
was in a heat and mind to revenge, he could not be innocent before God,
and had great cause to repent, and to crave mercy for Christ's sake.'
The thing is perfectly clear. Bruce acquitted James of the infamous plot
against the Ruthvens. {110} What, then, was the position of the
Ruthvens, if the King was not the conspirator? Obviously they were
guilty, whether James, at a given moment, was carried away by passion or
not.

X. POPULAR CRITICISM OF THE DAY

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