ersion of that strange affair, the slaughter of the Ruthvens, is
taken entirely from the lips of sworn witnesses. We still know no more
than we did as to what passed between the moment when James and the
Master, alone, left the dining chamber, and the moment when the King
cried 'Treason!' out of the turret window.

The problem is, had James lured the Master to Falkland for the purpose of
accompanying him back to Perth, as if by the Master's invitation, and of
there craftily begetting a brawl, in which Gowrie and the Master should
perish at the hands of Ramsay? Or had the Master, with or without his
brother's knowledge, lured James to Perth for some evil end? The
question divided Scotland; France and England were sceptical as to the
King's innocence. Our best historians, like Mr. Hill Burton and Mr.
Tytler, side with the King; others are dubious, or believe that James was
the conspirator, and that the Ruthvens were innocent victims.

III. THE KING'S OWN NARRATIVE

So far we have not gained any light on the occurrences of the mysterious
interval between the moment when the King and Alexander Ruthven passed
alone through the hall, after dinner, up the great staircase, and the
moment when the King cried 'Treason!' out of the turret window. In the
nature of the case, the Master being for ever silent, only James could
give evidence on the events of this interval, James and _one other man_,
of whose presence in the turret we have hitherto said little, as only one
of the witnesses could swear to having seen a man there, none to having
seen him escaping thence, or in the tumult. Now the word of James was
not to be relied on, any more than that of the unequalled Elizabeth. If
we take the King's word in this case, it is from no prejudice in his
favour, but merely because his narrative seems best to fit the facts as
given on oath by men like Lennox, Mar, and other witnesses of all ranks.
It also fits, with discrepancies to be noted, the testimony of _the other
man_, the man who professed to have been with the Master and the King in
the turret.

The evidence of that other man was also subject, for reasons which will
appear presently, to the gravest suspicion. James, if himself guilty of
the plot, had to invent a story to excuse himself; the other man had to
adopt the version of the King, to save his own life from the gibbet. On
the other hand, James, if innocent, could not easily have a credible
story to tell.