we shall find that,
while modern apologists for Gowrie deny that Henderson had been at
Falkland, the contemporary Ruthven apologist insists that he had been
there.

To return to James's own narrative, he asserts Henderson's presence at
Falkland, but not from his own knowledge. He did not see Henderson at
Falkland. Ruthven, says James, sent Henderson to Gowrie just after the
King mounted and followed the hounds. Here it must be noted that
Henderson himself says that Ruthven did not actually despatch him till
after he had some more words with the King. This is an instance of
James's _insouciance_ as to harmonising his narrative with Henderson's,
or causing Henderson to conform to his. 'Cooked' evidence, collusive
evidence, would have avoided these discrepancies. James says that,
musing over the story of the pot of gold, he sent one Naismith, a surgeon
(he had been with James at least since 1592), to bring Ruthven to him,
during a check, and told Ruthven that he would, after the hunt, come to
Perth. James thought that this was _after_ the despatch of Henderson,
but probably it was before, to judge by Henderson's account.

During this pause, the hounds having hit on the scent again, the King was
left behind, but spurred on. At every check, the Master kept urging him
to make haste, so James did not tarry to break up the deer, as usual.
The kill was but two bowshots from the stables, and the King did not wait
for his sword, or his second horse, which had to gallop a mile before it
reached him. Mar, Lennox, and others did wait for their second mounts,
some rode back to Falkland for fresh horses, some dragged slowly along on
tired steeds, and did not rejoin James till later.

Ruthven had tried, James says, to induce him to refuse the company of the
courtiers. Three or four servants, he said, would be enough. The others
'might mar the whole purpose.' James was 'half angry,' he began to
entertain odd surmises about Ruthven. One was 'it might be that the Earl
his brother _had handled him so hardly_, that the young gentleman, being
of a high spirit, had taken such displeasure, as he was become somewhat
beside himself.' But why should Gowrie handle his brother hardly?

The answer is suggested by an unpublished contemporary manuscript, 'The
True Discovery of the late Treason,' {48a} &c. 'Some offence had passed
betwixt the said Mr. Alexander Ruthven' (the Master) 'and his brother,
for that the said Alexander, both