, of three of the slain Earl's retainers, three weeks after the
events. No such testimony is now reckoned of value, but it will be shown
that the statements made by the tortured men only compromise the Earl and
his brother incidentally, and in a manner probably not perceived by the
deponents themselves. They denied all knowledge of a plot, disclaimed
belief in a plot by the Earl, and let out what was suspicious in a casual
way, without observing the import of their own remarks.

Finally, we have the evidence of the only living man, except the King,
who was present at the central point of the occurrences. That this man
was a most false and evasive character, that he was doubtless amenable to
bribes, that he was richly rewarded, I freely admit. But I think it can
be made probable, by evidence hitherto overlooked, that he really was
present on the crucial occasion, and that, with all allowances for his
character and position, his testimony fits into the facts, while, if it
be discarded, no hypothesis can account for _him_, and his part in the
adventure. In short, the King's tale, almost incredible as it appears,
contains the only explanation which is not demonstrably impossible. To
this conclusion, let me repeat, I am drawn by no sentiment for that
unsentimental Prince, 'gentle King Jamie.' He was not the man to tell
the truth, 'if he could think of anything better.' But, where other
corroboration is impossible, by the nature of the circumstances, facts
corroborate the King's narrative. His version 'colligates' them; though
extravagant they become not incoherent. No other hypothesis produces
coherency: each guess breaks down on demonstrated facts.

II. THE SLAUGHTER OF THE RUTHVENS

In the month of August 1600 his Majesty the King of Scotland, James,
sixth of that name, stood in more than common need of the recreation of
the chase. Things had been going contrary to his pleasure in all
directions. 'His dearest sister,' Queen Elizabeth (as he pathetically
said), seemed likely 'to continue as long as Sun or Moon,' and was in the
worst of humours. Her minister, Cecil, was apparently more ill disposed
towards the Scottish King than usual, while the minister's rival, the
Earl of Essex, had been suggesting to James plans for a military
demonstration on the Border. Money was even more than normally scarce;
the Highlands were more than common unruly; stories of new conspiracies
against the King's liberty wer