'throwing the
Master's sword out of his hand, thinking to have stricken him therewith,'
when Ramsay entered, and wounded the Master, who was driven down the
stairs, and there killed by Erskine and Herries. Gowrie then invaded the
room with seven others: James was looking for the Master's sword, {59}
which had fallen, but he was instantly shut into the turret by his
friends, and saw none of the fight in which Gowrie fell. After that
Lennox and the party with hammers were admitted, and--the tumult
appeased--James rode back, through a dark rainy night, to Falkland.

[Picture: The Gallery Chamber and the Turret, Gowrie House]

V. HENDERSON'S NARRATIVE

The man in the turret had vanished like a ghost. Henderson, on the day
after the tragedy, was also not to be found. Like certain Ruthvens, Hew
Moncrieff, Eviot, and others, who had fought in the death-chamber, or
been distinguished in the later riot, Henderson had fled. He was, though
a retainer of Gowrie, a member of the Town Council of Perth, and
'chamberlain,' or 'factor,' of the lands of Scone, then held by Gowrie
from the King. To find any one who had seen him during the tumult was
difficult or impossible. William Robertson, a notary of Perth, examined
in November before the Parliamentary Committee, said then that he only
saw Gowrie, with his two drawn swords, and seven or eight companions, in
the forecourt of the house, and so, 'being afraid, he passed out of the
place.' The same man, earlier, on September 23, when examined with other
citizens of Perth, had said that he followed young Tullibardine and some
of his men, who were entering the court 'to relieve the King.' {60} He
saw the Master lying dead at the foot of the stair, and saw Henderson
'come out of the said turnpike, over the Master's belly.' He spoke to
Henderson, who did not answer. He remembered that Murray of Arbany was
present. Arbany, before the Parliamentary Committee in November, said
nothing on this subject, _nor did Robertson_. His evidence would have
been important, had he adhered to what he said on September 23. But,
oddly enough, if he perjured himself on the earlier occasion (September
23), he withdrew his perjury, when it would have been useful to the
King's case, in the evidence given before the Lords of the Articles, in
November. Mr. Barbe, perhaps misled by the sequence of versions in
Pitcairn, writes: 'Apparently it was only when his memory had been
stimulated