serted their reasons for acquitting the prisoner, and 1586 these were merely a recapitulation of the arguments urged by him in the course of the trial. Only they mention a third person to have been killed in the King's lodging, one William Glen, who was one of his Highness's grooms of the chamber, as well as William Tailziour, and Andrew Mackaig, mentioned in the libel.*

6

To this account, taken from the public record, I beg leave to subjoin Archbishop Spottiswood's opinion of the trial. In the estate,' says he,' matters went not much better at this time, and amongst others, nothing gave more offence than the acquitting of Mr. Archibald Douglas, by form of assize. • This man was known to be guilty of the murther

* In the brief account of the trials of Binning and Home of Spott, that is given in the abstract MSS. of Justiciary Records, there is not a word either of proof or argument. That I might throw every possible light on the trial of Douglass, I endeavoured to have recourse to the original record; but the volume of Records, or Book of Adjournal, (as it is termed,) containing the proceedings from 20th December, 1580, to 27th November, 1584, is not to be found. This vexed me the more, as Binning having been tried on the 3d of June, 1581, and the Earl of Morton having been tried before that same Court, on the very day preceding, I flattered myself with the hope of giving that trial to the public; but, from a note in the abstract MSS. taken from the volume now missing, I find that Morton's trial was not entered on the Record. MSS. Abstracts, p. 111, 113, 118. I also searched the Records of Privy Council and Justiciary, with a desire of examining their proceedings in A. D. 1567, being the year in which Ormeston, Hay, Hepburn, &c. were condemned and executed for the murder of Darnley: and I can hardly persuade myself that it is owing to accident that the records of both these Courts for this year are also missing.

1586 of the King his father, and had fled into England

six years before. The Earl of Morton, at his death, and one Binny, Mr. Archibald's own servant, who was executed about the same time, did both declare, that he was present at the doing of that wic'ked fact, for which the King had often, by his letters and ambassages, intreated the Queen of Eng• land to have him delivered, yet could not obtain it. At this time a remission being purchased to him for 'the concealing of that murther, with a letter of re'habilitation, whereby he might stand in judgement ' and plead against his forfeiture, he was in a jury held the 26th of May declared innocent, and ab'solved of the crime.

This was done by the procurement of the Prior ' of Blantire, who had obtruded himself in the Parsonage of Glasgow, whereof Mr. Archibald had • been titular, and otherwise than by his restoring ‹ could have no right in law to retain it. Many were grieved to see justice in that sort abused, for maintaining a sacrilegious possession; but to have sent him (Mr. A. Douglas) back to England, with a com'mission to reside there as ambassador for the King, which likewise was done, was an errour inexcuse able; and how he, and the Master of Gray, who C was chiefe man in that led assise, carried themselves in the Queen of Scotland's businesse, wherewith they were trusted, we will hear in the end of this ⚫ year.'*

*Spottiswood's Hist. p. 347,

John Earl of Gowry, and Mr. Alexander Ruthven, for conspiring to bereave his Majesty of life, at St. Johnston, 5th August, 1600.

THE Majesty of Rome had subsisted for many ages, 1600 and her sway extended over the fairest part of the globe, ere the punishment of treason was inflicted after the death of the traitor. And it was not till the division of the empire between Arcadius and Honorious, a period when the weakness of government increased its jealousies and its severities, that a sentence of infamy could be pronounced after death for that crime, and an action brought for wresting the estate from the heirs of the traitor. With a similar policy, James V. who had long been harrassed by his nobles, solemnly adopted this punishment as a part of our law, when he beheld the storms that were gathering round the throne from the enthusiastic spirit of religious and civil liberty that sprang up at the reformation.*

Sir Thomas Hamilton, King's advocate, produced before the Parliament, on the 4th of November, 1600, a summons of treason, duly executed, against William Ruthven, brother, and apparent heir, to the Earl of Gowry, and to Mr. Alexander Ruthven; and and against his tutors and curators, and all having interest, to hear it found and declared that the said

* Digestorum, lib. 48. tit. 4. lex. 9.; Codicis lib. 9. tit. 8. lex. 5. et seq. A. D. 397; James V. Parl. 6. chap. 69. A. D. 1540.

1600 Earl, and Mr. Alexander, had committed treason, by attempting to bereave his Majesty of life, on the 5th of August, 1600. The summons, which contains a minute narrative of the transactions of that busy day, is dated on the 26th of August, precisely three weeks after the date of the conspiracy, and the day of appearance was the 4th of November, an interval sufficient for people's minds to cool after so great an event, for the defenders preparing their defences, and for investigating the truth.

The execution of the summons was certified when it was first laid before Parliament. It was produced a second time on the 11th of November. On the 15th, the Parliament resumed the cause; and the Lord Advocate produced the following depositions that were taken before the Lords of Articles.*15)

Andrew Henderson, chamberlain to the late Earl of Gowry, deposed, that, on the night of Monday the 4th of August, he, after supper, was in the Earl of Gowry's own chamber with his Lordship and Mr. Alexander Ruthven. The Earl asked him, What he had to do to-morrow? to which he answered, to ride to Ruthven to speak with the tenants. His Lordship desired him to postpone that journey, and to be ready by four in the morning to attend Mr. Alexander to Falkland; to take Andrew Ruthven with him; to

* The Lords of Articles were a committee of the different estates of Parliament, who prepared the business that was to come before the House. They were this year chosen on the 11th of November; the depositions were produced in Parliament on the 15th; they must therefore have been emitted between the 11th and the 15th.

make haste back with what answer his Lordship's 1600 brother should order, and to leave Andrew with Mr. Alexander. They set off at the hour appointed, and arriving betimes at Falkland, the Master sent the deponent at seven o'clock to see what the King was doing. He found his Majesty in the court-yard booted, upon which he returned to the Master, saying, 'Haste you, the King is coming forth.' The Master immediately followed his Majesty, spoke with him for about a quarter of an hour, and, during the conversation, the King frequently clapped him on the shoulder. The Master then bid the deponent ride in all haste to Perth, as he loved Lord Gowry and his honour, and acquaint him that the King would be there with a slight retinue speedily, and tell the Earl to cause dinner be prepared for his Majesty. The deponent got back to Perth about ten o'clock, when his Lordship enquired anxiously what answer he had brought; what reception his brother had from the King; and what number of persons was hunting with his Majesty? The deponent* said, the answer was, to prepare dinner for the King: that the reception his brother had was courteous; and that there were sundry of his Majesty's household, and some Englishmen, hunting with the King. The Earl asked what noblemen were with the King? to which he answered, 'none but my Lord Duke.'t He then went to his own house and put off his boots, and, upon his return, the Earl ordered him to put on his, the de

* Register of Parliament, November, 1600; Cromerty's Account of Gowry's Conspiracy, p. 38. et seq.

The Duke of Lennox.

D