The story of the pot of gold, and the King’s desire to inspect it and the captive who bore it, personally, and the folly of thinking that one pot of gold could suffice to disturb the peace of the country, are next adversely criticised. We have already replied to the criticism (p. 40). The story was well adapted to entrap James VI.
The improbabilities of Ruthven’s pleas for haste need not detain us: the King did not think them probable.
Next it was asked ‘Why did James go alone upstairs with Ruthven?’
He may have had wine enough to beget valour, or, as he said, he may have believed that he was
being followed by Erskine. The two reasons may well have combined.
‘Why did not Gowrie provide better cheer, if forewarned?’ (by Henderson?) it was asked.
To give the impression, we reply, that he was taken by surprise, and that the King came uninvited and unexpected.
‘Why did Ruthven aim a dagger at James, and then hold parley?’
Because he wanted to frighten the King into being ‘at his will.’
‘How could Ruthven trust the King, with the armed man alone in the turret?’