Gowrie Conspiracy is the name given to one of the most singular episodes in the history of Scotland, although, the very existence of a plot is still a matter of controversy. As set forth by James VI., the details of the conspiracy are as follows. Early in the morning, on Tuesday, 5th August 1600, as his majesty was about to begin a stag-hunt in Falkland Park, Fife, Alexander Ruthven came to him with the information that, as he was walking alone near Perth, on the previous evening, he had met and seized an individual of suspicious appearance, with a pot full of foreign gold hidden under his cloak. After having confined him in 'a privy derved house,' he had hastened to Falkland to lay the matter before the king, and to request him to ride over to Perth for the purpose of taking possession of the treasure, and of examining the mysterious stranger. Though at first disinclined to believe the 'uncouth' story, James was ultimately induced, by the thought that the foreign money might betoken an agent of the pope and the Jesuits, to promise that he would accompany Ruthven to Perth. This he did at the close of the hunt, not waiting to change his horse, and riding at such speed that his attendants, amongst whom were the Duke of Lennox and the Earl of Mar, did not overtake him till within a short distance of the city. At Perth he was received by Ruthven's brother, the Earl of Gowrie, in such a manner as to make it appear that the visit was wholly unexpected, and kept waiting a long time before any refreshment was offered him. After his own dinner, and whilst the gentlemen of his retinue were still at table, James was taken by Ruthven through several rooms to a small study, which was situated on the first story, and of which one of the windows overlooked the courtyard of Gowrie House and the other a public street. On crossing the threshold the king beheld 'not a bound man, but a free man, with a dagger at his girdle.' At this moment Ruthven, having locked the door, snatched the armed man's dagger and held the point to the king's breast, telling him that he was now a prisoner, swearing many bloody oaths that if he cried or made any attempt to open a window the dagger would go to his heart, and, further, reproaching him with the murder of the first Earl of Gowrie, who had been executed for treason in 1584. At this James began to expostulate with Ruthven, who so far relented as to leave the king in the armed man's keeping, while he himself went out to consult his brother, the earl. During his absence James questioned the armed man, who protested that he had been thrust into the room without knowing for what purpose, and who willingly obeyed the order to open one of the windows, the king himself, scrupulously faithful to a promise extorted from him by Ruthven, being unwilling to do so. In a few moments Alexander returned, and, declaring that there was no help but that the king must die, produced a garter with which he attempted to bind his hands. A fierce struggle ensued, during which the armed man stood behind the king's back, 'doing nothing but trembling all the time,' and of which the result was that James was able to reach the open window and to call for help. Whilst this was going on in the study, a servant of the household had entered the hall where Gowrie still was with Lennox, Mar, and the other courtiers, and informed him that the king had ridden off to Falkland. At this the whole company hastily rose to follow, and had reached the street when the king's cries were heard. Lennox, Mar, and the other attendants at once turned back and made for the upper story by way of the main staircase, but were prevented by a barred door from reaching the king. John Ramsay, a royal retainer, had also heard his master's voice, and, finding a door open at the foot of the turret, at once entered and ran up the winding stairs. They led directly to the study, of which Ruthven had forgotten to close the entrance, and in which the hand-to-hand struggle was still going on. Drawing his hunting-knife Ramsay twice stabbed the king's antagonist, who, loosing his hold, was thrust down the stairs by James and despatched by Sir Thomas Erskine and Dr Herries, who were at that moment coming up; his last words were 'Alas, I had na wyte (blame) of it.' Scarcely had this taken place when the Earl of Gowrie appeared on the scene, bearing a drawn sword in each hand, and followed by seven of his servants. A short encounter ended with the death of the earl, who expired without uttering a word. The inhabitants of Perth, by whom Gowrie, who was their provost, was much beloved, hearing of his fate, surrounded the house and threatened revenge. But after the king had addressed them from a window, and admitted the magistrates, to whom he related the circumstances, they quietly dispersed, and James was able to return to Falkland. On the authority of the king's declaration Gowrie and Ruthven, whose dead bodies were produced at the bar, were declared traitors, and three of their servants were hanged. On the other hand, marks of royal favour were bestowed on all who had come to the king's assistance in the study. Ramsay was knighted, and subsequently created Viscount of Haddington and Earl of Holderness; Sir Thomas Erskine was raised to the peerage as Lord Dirleton, and Dr Herries received the honour of knighthood as Sir Hugh Herries of Cowsland. Henderson, the 'armed man,' after having obtained a free pardon, was rewarded with a gift of lands and a large pension.
To the events of 1600 there was a sequel a few years later. In 1608 George Sprott, a notary in Eyemouth, was apprehended, condemned, and executed for being privy to a conspiracy between Gowrie and Robert Logan of Restalrig. He confessed to having seen several letters written by Logan to the earl, and to having retained one of them, but no document of the kind alluded to was actually put in at the trial. Next year, however, there were produced five letters, said to have been discovered amongst Sprott's papers, and alleged to contain proof of a plot to kidnap the king. On the strength of them Logan, who had died in the meantime, but whose mouldering bones were dug up and brought to trial, was declared to have been guilty of high-treason. From the very first the story of the conspiracy was received with incredulity by many in Scotland, and amongst these by the clergy of Edinburgh, with Robert Bruce at their head, and by the queen herself; whilst the Duke of Lennox, though he had appeared as one of the chief witnesses at the trial, asserted that 'if it were given to him to his oath, he could not say whether the practice proceeded from Gowrie or the king.' In England Elizabeth, on being informed by a special messenger of what had taken place, gave him to understand that she 'did not believe Gowrie and his brother to be so guilty as they were represented.' In France James's statement was openly ridiculed. This attitude of scepticism is still maintained by some writers, who point out that, with the exception of Burton's general remark that 'seizing upon or kidnapping a king had in that day become almost a constitutional method of effecting a change of ministry in Scotland,' nothing has ever been urged to prove that either Gowrie or Ruthven could benefit by the king's murder or captivity, whilst by the death of the earl and his brother James was freed from a debt of over £80,000, and rid of a political opponent in the person of the one, and possibly of a rival in the queen's affection in that of the other; that, whilst there is no trustworthy evidence to prove the interview in Falkland Park to have been of Ruthven's seeking, the king very shortly before had sent letters to both the brothers; that, whilst the reason alleged by the king to account for his visit to Gowrie House is palpably absurd, that given by Ruthven, who ascribed it to the matter of the debt, is reasonable; that the point which tells most against Gowrie—viz. his conduct on receiving the false information of James's departure for Falkland—is not inconsistent with innocence; that the position of the study to which the king was taken makes it incredible that it could have been selected for a criminal purpose; that in his various statements Henderson, who was produced as being, but was not generally believed to have been, the 'armed man,' contradicted not only the king and Ramsay, but himself as well; that Ruthven's dying exclamation, 'Alas, I had na wyte (blame) of it,' may reasonably be looked upon as referring to the origin of his struggle with the king; that Sprott, whose confession was the only evidence connecting Gowrie and Restalrig, was looked on as a madman by the king's warmest sympathisers; that the famous letters were not produced at his trial; that in the following year they did not at first convince the jury, who brought in a verdict of guilty against Logan only after they had been remonstrated with by the Earl of Dunbar; and, finally, that those letters bristle with discrepancies, contain no proof of a plot for the abduction of the king, whom they do not even mention, and cannot, from their dates, be made to refer to any event intended to take place till long after the 5th of August. There is yet another view adopted by those who, whilst admitting the innocence of Gowrie and Ruthven, find it difficult to believe that the king devised a plot in which he was himself to play a dangerous part. It is in substance the same as that set forth at the time by Sir William Bowes, the English agent in Edinburgh, in a letter to Sir John Stanhope. It is to the effect that there was no conspiracy on either side, but that the struggle in the study arose out of some sharp words that passed between the king and Ruthven concerning the execution of the latter's father, and that all the subsequent events were in part contrived, in part utilised, for the purpose of giving James's conduct what Bowes calls 'an honourable cloak.' See Louis A. Barbé's Tragedy of Gowrie House (Paisley, 1887).