In order to properly understand the history of the Logans of Restalrig, one must understand the politics of the day, including the attempt on the life of King James VI of Scotland on 5 August 1600, known  to some as the "Gowrie Conspiracy", and the "Gowrie Mystery" to others. 

A. Biographical information of 7th Laird of Restlrig
B. Other key players
    1.  The King: James IV of SCT and James I of ENG
    2.  Ministers and Justices 
    3.  The Ruthvens (Earl Gowrie)
    4.  George Sprot, notary 

C. The king's claims
D. Those who defended the Logans
E. The evidence of Sprot
F. The modern review of the evidence/handwritting
G. What happened to Logan's children
H. The Forfeiture 
I. The Reversal of Attainder
 

A. The last Laird of Restalrig: "Old Rugged and Dangerous"

Robert Logan's father died in 1561 when Robert was but six years of age and he was raised by his step-father, Lord Home and his mother Lady Agnes Gray, along with his younger brother John.  Robert's mother produced a son, Alexander, with Lord Home which made Robert and Alexander half-brothers.  Robert and Alexander remained close throughout their years.  Robert was a well educated man, well aware of social events of his day, and unfortunately deeply steeped in political intrigue of the Royal Court.  It is believed by this author that Lord Home (Robert's step-father) was executed for his involvement with Mary Stuart in 1573.

As early as 1573 (at the age of 18), Logan was involved in holding the Castle of Edinburgh for Mary Stuart against the English, alongside his step-father Lord Alexander Home.  We can only assume that Logan escaped the hanging that was due him because of his age (21 was considered having reached majority) or some deal was struck to spare Logan.  Thus began his life of intrigue.

Logan has been characterized by Protestant factions as being a "debosed [sic] drunked man".  He was considered the "wildest of the wild" and a very dangerous and powerful man.  He has been characterized as something of a pirate, but his behavior was overlooked mostly because "he was a man of substance and of a good house" and Logan further strengthened his support by alliances. Lord Willoughby described Logan as: "a vain lose man, a greate favourer of thefes reputed, yet a man of good clan, as they (the Scots) here tearme it, and a gud felow".  Considering all his irresponsible behavior, one would expect to find Logan having financial troubles and owing great sums of money to others.  Oddly, we find him "putting others to the horn", in other words, he was a lender of money. 

Logan was a firm supporter of Queen Mary and the Catholic party, involving himself in numerous Catholic plots, though he was reported to be friendly to the Protestants of his day.  But, Logan was also known for lending shelter to Protestant firebrand, wild Frank Stewart, Earl of Bothwell.  It is this authors opinion that Logan was loyal to those interests that best served his interests, be they Catholic or Protestant.  He was not a particularly religious man.  To imply that Logan's religious leanings were Catholic because he was unable to embrace the changes wrought by the Reformation would be nothing short of a guess.  But the facts are that Logan was very young during the Reformation (1560), and at this time the collegiate church that his family built and supported was destroyed by the Protestant General Assembly; there were English troops (and English allies)  camped all over Restalrig, his family estate, during the Seige of Leith; and his step-father had apparent ties to the Catholics.  Religion, in that age, was political.  Politics were different than we know it today.  Intrigue and plots against the King were common, very common.  It was accepted practice to kidnap a Monarch if you wanted to forward a differing agenda.  Kidnapping was a minor crime, but murdering a King is a different matter; murder is considered High Treason and is punishable by anything they can think to do to you.  This distinction is a very important one and will be discussed later when we examine the King's claims.

Logan's first wife divorced him, for reasons I've not discovered, after giving him one son in 1577.  His second wife produced four children in 9  years of marriage, before she died.  His third, and last wife, was quoted in 1601 as having said: "If it be God's will, I desire never to have a child to him (Logan)".  Apparently God was not listening, as she later had a daughter with Logan. 

Knights Templar/Masonic Connection

When Elias II was Abbot of Holyrood an event took place, which is largely ignored in Scottish History. In 1309 while the south of Scotland was overrun by the troops of Edward II the trial of the Knight Templars took place. It is from this trial that some curious light is thrown upper the inner life of the Order. The details of the trial ordered by Clement V is given in a very rare book entitled Concila”

The inquisitors were perhaps a bit impatient to hear about the devil, the cat and the curious story of the Skulls.

There is a strange story told which is traditionally linked with the Templars: A great lady of Maraclea was loved by a Templar, a lord of Sidon, but she died in her youth and on the night of her burial this wicked lover crept to the grave, dug up her body and violated it. Then a voice from the void bade him to return in nine months time for he would find a son. He obeyed the injunction and at the appointed time he opened the grave again and found a head on the leg bones of the skeleton-a skull and crossbones. The same voice bade him to guard it well for it would be the giver of good things. And so he carried it away with him and it protected him from his enemies. It passed into the possession of the Order” (This version of the story is from War, freemasonry and the ancient Gods, p305)

This story became connected to the Order and is mentioned in the inquisitions records and in the versions held by the freemasons, which adopted the skull and crossbones and often employed it as a device on tombstones.

When Sir Logan’s skeleton was rediscovered at South Leith Church. During the restoration of the Church in 1847 or 1848. The Jaw bone was missing and a explanation of this can be found in the ceremony of installation in the Masonic cross degree of the Knight Templar of Jerusalem under the obligations of the Masonic Order. The obligation start In the name of the blessed trinity and in commemoration of St John of Jerusalem, the first faithful soldier of and martyr of Jesus Christ. I do solemnly promise and swear that I will never illegally reveal the secrets of a Knight Templar to a Royal Arch mason…if ever I wilfully violate this, my solemn compact as a brother Knight Templar, mat my skull be sown asunder with a rough saw, my brains be taken out and put on a charger to be consumed by the scorching sun and my skull in another charger in commemoration of St John of Jerusalem, that first faithful soldier and martyr of our Lord and Saviour…” The penal sign, which is to draw the forefinger or the thumb across the forehead, is indicative of the penalty of having the skull sawn asunder.

So who could have removed the jawbone and carried the sentence of the Order?  Suspicion must be placed on David Lindsay (1560-1613), the first protestant minister of South Leith Parish Church. He was chaplain to James VI, he married him to Anne of Denmark in 1589 and baptised his children. Lindsay was the only one to believe that there had been an attempt made on the life of the King at the house of the Earl of Gowrie, Perth. In fact he conducted a service of thanksgiving at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh for the Kings safe return. However, none of David Lindsay’s fellow ministers believed a word of it and said so. If the Gowrie conspiracy was a hoax then the trial of the remains of Sir Robert Logan was also a farce and everyone knew it. The trial however did take place and that is a historic fact, but it wasn’t done for the reasons stated, it was for his actions at Fast Castle in trying to find Templar treasure and because of this he was condemned

David Lindsay had Masonic connections and was most likely a Mason himself. He also knew William Schew who set up the first Masonic lodges in Scotland. Not only this, David Lindsay might have been obeying the orders of the king: the monarch was and still is the head of the Masons in this country or, as today, a close relative of the Monarch and Royal Family. During the restoration of the church in 1848 many of the original gravestones within the Church were smashed. The bits used for the floors of the east porches of the church. I suspect this was done to cover up any connection with the freemasons, freemasons having an ambiguous position within the Christian church. Bearing in mind the disruption of 1843. They didn’t want any further problems. These gravestones can still be seen to this day.

As Logan’s sentence was carried out, and so his crime must have been against the Order. Whoever removed the jawbone must have been disturbed in there work. Only the marks of a rough saw were discovered on the skull of sir Robert Logan- the jaw bone being removed must have been to proof that a attempt had been made to carry out the orders of the Masonic Templar 

However the Baron’s of Leith and Restalrig the de Lestaric’s and the Logan's were in the Middle Ages both Templar knights and later the Logan family had very strong Masonic connections.

This is the possible explanation of why Sir Robert Logan is erroneously connected to the foundation of the Preceptory of St Anthony. The “Rental Book of St Anthony” which names Sir Robert Logan as founder of the Preceptory of St Anthony was simply made up from unknown sources because in the early years of the 16th century plague broke out in Leith and out of about a dozen monks only two survived because they had fled. Subsequently the people of Leith broke into the Preceptory and destroyed all their records because among them would have been Tax and debt records. So when the monks returned they had no records to base their so called Rental book on. It is only in recent years and with access to the Papal records and by using the Ballantyne Records that a truer picture has emerged as to the origins of the Preceptory of St Anthony.

In the years prior to his death, the 7th (and last) Laird of Restalrig was acting a bit strange.  He sold off major portions of his estate (some people speculate Logan did this to keep the King from confiscating his property in the event that he was caught in some nefarious act, though there is no evidence to support this speculation other than hind-sight.)  There is evidence that Logan did not enjoy owning property and also that he was raising capital to finance a sea voyage to the West Indies.  Frankly based on what I have been able to see regarding Logan's behavior, I would suggest that the man was mentally unstable, or at the very least an extremely unhappy man.

Logan died in the Canongate in July 1606 of plague and was buried at St. Mary's (now South Leith Church), and left an estate worth £ 29,042 , a very wealthy man. 

B. Key players in the Gowrie Conspriracy
and Logan Forfeiture

The King:

James I (of England) (1566-1625), King of England (1603-1625) and, as James VI, King of Scotland (1567-1625).

Born on June 19, 1566, in Edinburgh Castle, James was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her second husband, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley. When Mary was forced to abdicate in 1567, he was proclaimed King of Scotland, at the age of one year. A succession of regents ruled the kingdom until 1576, when James became nominal ruler. The boy king was little more than a puppet in the hands of political intriguers until 1581. In that year, with the aid of his favourites, James Stuart, Earl of Arran, and Esmé Stuart, Duke of Lennox, James assumed actual rule of Scotland. Scotland was at that time divided domestically by conflict between Protestants and Roman Catholics, and in foreign affairs by those favouring an alliance with France and those supporting England. In 1582 James was kidnapped by a group of Protestant nobles headed by William Ruthven, Earl of Gowrie, and was held virtual prisoner until he escaped the next year.

In 1586, by the Treaty of Berwick, James formed an alliance with his cousin, Elizabeth of England, and the following year, after the execution of his mother, he succeeded in reducing the power of the great Catholic nobles. His marriage to Anne of Denmark in 1589 brought him for a time into close relationship with the Protestants. After the Gowrie conspiracy of 1600, an alleged kidnap attempt at Gowrie House that gave the king an excellent pretext to move against the Gowrie family, James introduced bishops into the Church of Scotland, undermining its Presbyterian character, and assumed the title of Lord of the Isles to increase his control of the Highland nobility.

In 1603 Elizabeth I died childless, and James succeeded her as James I, the first Stuart king of England. In 1604 he ended England’s war with Spain, and he began the Ulster Plantation in 1607, but he could not solve the English Crown’s deep-seated political and financial problems. His choice of favourites, first Robert Carr, Viscount Rochester, and subsequently Earl of Somerset (who was imprisoned for poisoning Sir Thomas Overbury), and later George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham (who was assassinated), also led to difficulties with Parliament.

James was a natural scholar. On a visit to Cambridge in 1615 he engaged some of the University’s fellows in argument and debate. He wrote and published books on political theory and owned an extensive library. As a boy he had been taught by the renowned humanist and radical Protestant George Buchanan, who gave him an excellent education.

* Ed. note: the fact of James' homosexuality has not been established beyond doubt, but it is considered true, yet there remains substantial controversy on this point between his detractors and his defenders, whose chief concern seems to be that any blemish on James' character might be seen to reflect negatively on the legitimacy of the Authorized Version of the Bible, of which James was the royal sponsor.
 

The Ministers and Justices:

The preachers of the Kirk, whose influence in Scotland was too extensive for the king to neglect, were only with the greatest difficulty persuaded to accept Jamess account of the occurrence, although he, voluntarily submitted himself.to cross-examination by one of their number. Their belief, and that of their partisans, influenced no doubt by political hostility to James, was that the king had invented the story of a conspiracy by Gowrie to cover his own design to extirpate the Ruthven family.

Hart, William, Sir, Lord Justice of Scotland

David Lindsay (1530-1613),
David Lindsay was born about the year 1530 and was a scion of the house of Edzell a branch of the family of Crawford. His grandfather, Walter, fought and died at Flodden. After studying at St Andrews he went abroad to Italy and France and imbibed the principles of the Reformation. It is not likely that he was ever ordained to the priesthood of the Roman Church, for he was never characterised as an “Apostate” a charge levelled against others among his fellow labourers but there is no conclusive evidence on the point.
David Lindsay was the first protestant minister of South Leith Parish Church. He was chaplain to James VI, he married him to Anne of Denmark in 1589 and baptised his children. Lindsay was the only one to believe that there had been an attempt made on the life of the King at the house of the Earl of Gowrie, Perth. In fact he conducted a service of thanksgiving at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh for the Kings safe return. However, none of David Lindsay’s fellow ministers believed a word of it and said so. If the Gowrie conspiracy was a hoax then the trial of the remains of Sir Robert Logan was also a farce and everyone knew it. The trial however did take place and that is a historic fact, but it wasn’t done for the reasons stated, it was for his actions at Fast Castle in trying to find Templar treasure and because of this he was condemned.  This connection to Logan is a curious one, and seems a betrayal of his own family.  The Lindsay and Logan families were very much intertwined by marriage, both before and after 1600.

The Ruthvens:

Patrick Ruthven, 3rd lord of Ruthven, (1520?–1566),was a firm supporter of Protestant doctrines. A privy councillor to Mary Queen of Scots, he took a leading part in the murder (1566) of David Rizzio and wrote a memoir of the affair, which still exists in manuscript in the British Museum. He fled to England, where he died shortly after. Associated with him in the murder was his son, William Ruthven, 4th lord of Ruthven and 1st earl of Gowrie, 1541?–1584. He also fled to England and remained there until pardoned (1567). He was head of the group of nobles who planned and carried out in 1582 what came to be known as the raid of Ruthven, in which they seized the young King James VI (later James I of England) and brought about the dismissal of Esmé Stuart, 1st duke of Lennox. Although pardoned in 1583, Gowrie began plotting again. He was tried for high treason and beheaded. Two of his sons, John Ruthven, 6th lord of Ruthven and 3rd earl of Gowrie, 1578?–1600, and Alexander Ruthven , 1580?–1600, were involved in the mysterious Gowrie conspiracy of 1600. The two brothers were murdered at their estates in Perth by the retinue of James VI, with the king in attendance. None of the various explanations offered after the murders were widely believed, though the  likeliest explanation is that the events evolved out of an unsuccessful attempt by the Ruthvens to seize the king. James VI later annexed their estates to the crown.

Scottish conspirator, was the second son of William, 4th Lord Ruthven and 1st earl of Gowrie (cr. 1581), by his wife Dorothea, daughter of Henry Stewart, 2nd Lord Methven. The Ruthven family was of ancient Scottish descent, and had owned extensive estates in the time of Wffliam the Lion; the Ruthven peerage dated from the year 1488. The 1st earl of Gowrie (? 1541I584), and his father, Patrick, 3rd Lord Ruthven (c. 1520--I566), had both been concerned in the murder of Rizzio in 1566; and both took an active part on the side of the Kirk in the constant intrigues and factions among the Scottish nobility of the period. The former had been the custodian of Mary, queen of Scots, during her imprisonment in Loch Leven, where, according to the queen, he had pestered her with amorous attentions; he had also been the chief actor in the plot known as the raid of Ruthven when King James VI. was treacherously seized while a guest at thecastle of Ruthven in 1582, and kept under restraint for several months while the earl remained at the head of the government. Though pardoned for this conspiracy he continued to plot against the king in conjunction with the earls of Mar and Angus; and he was executed for high treason on the 2nd of May 1584; his friends complaining that the confession on which he was convicted of treason was obtained by a promise of pardon from the king. His eldest son, William, 2nd earl of Gowrie, only survived till 1588, the family dignities and estates, which had been forfeited, having been restored to him in 1586.

When, therefore, John Ruthven succeeded to the earldom while still a child, he inherited along with his vast estates family traditions of treason and intrigue. There was also a popular belief, though without foundation, that there was Tudor blood in his veins; and Burnet afterwards asserted that Gowrie stood next in succession to the crown of England after King James VI. Like his father and grandfather before him, the young earl attached himself to the party of the reforming preachers, who procured his election in 1592 as provost of Perth, a post that was almost hereditary in the Ruthven family. He received an excellent education at the grammar school of Perth and the university of Edinburgh, where he was in the summer of 1593, about the time when his mother, and his sister the countess of Atholl, aided Bothwell in forcing himself sword in hand into the kings bedchamber in Holyrood Palace. A few months later Gowrie joined with Atholl and Montrose in offering to serve Queen Elizabeth, then almost openly hostile to the Scottish king; and it is probable that he had also relations with the rebellious Bothwell. Gowrie had thus been already deeply engaged in treasonable conspiracy when, in August 1594, he proceeded to Italy with his tutor, William Rhynd, to study at the university of Padua. On his way home in 1599 he remained for some months at Geneva with the reformer Theodore Beza; and at Paris he made acquaintance with the English ambassador, who reported him to Cecil as devoted to Elizabeths service, and a nobleman of whom there may be exceeding use made. In Paris he may also at this time have had further communication with the exiled Bothwell; in London he was received with marked favor by Queen Elizabeth and her ministers.

These circumstances owe their importance to the light they throw on the obscurity of the celebrated Gowrie conspiracy, which resulted in the slaughter of the earl and his brother by attendants of King James at Gowrie House, Perth, a few weeks after Gowries return to Scotland in May 1600. This The event ranks among the unsolved enigmas of history. The mystery is caused by the improbabilities inherent in conany of the alternative hypotheses suggested to account spiracy. for the unquestionable facts of the occurrence; the discrepancies in the evidence produced at the time; the apparent lack of forethought or plan on the part of the chief actors, whichever hypothesis be adopted, as well as the thoughtless folly of their actual procedure; and the insufficiency of motive, whoever the guilty parties may have been. The solutions of the mystery that have been suggested are three in number: first, that Gowrie and his brother had concocted a plot to murder, or more probably to kidnap King James, and that they lured him to Gowrie House for this purpose; secondly, that James paid a surprise visit to Gowrie House with the intention, which he carried out, of slaughtering the two Ruthvens; and thirdly, that the tragedy was the outcome of an unpremeditated brawl following high words between the king and the earl, or his brother. To understand the relative probabilities of these hypotheses regard must be had to the condition of Scotland in the year 1600. Here it can only be recalled that plots to capture the person of the sovereign for the purpose of coercing his actions were of frequent occurrence, more than one of which had been successful, and in several of which the Ruthven family had themselves taken an active part; that the relations between England and Scotland were at this time more than usually strained, and that the young earl of Gowrie was reckoned in London among the adherents of Elizabeth; that the Kirk party, being at variance with James, looked upon Gowrie as an hereditary partisan of their cause, and had recently sent an agent to Paris to recall him to Scotland as their leader; that Gowrie was believed to be James' rival for the succession to the English crown. Moreover, as regards the question of motive it is to be observed, on the one hand, that the Ruthvens believed Gowries father to have been treacherously done to death, and his widow insulted by the kings favorite minister; while, on the other, James was indebted in a large sum of money to the earl of Gowries estate, and popular gossip credited either Gowrie or his brother, Alexander Ruthven, with being the lover of the queen. Although the evidence on these points, and on every minute circumstance connected with the tragedy itself, has been exhaustively examined by historians of the Gowrie conspiracy, it cannot be asserted that the mystery has been entirely dispelled; but, while it is improbable that complete certainty will ever be arrived at as to whether the guilt lay with James or with the Ruthven brothers, the most modern research in the light of materials inaccessible or overlooked till the 20th century, points pretty clearly to the conclusion that there was a genuine conspiracy by Gowrie and his brother to kidnap the king. If this be the true solution, it follows that King James was innocent of the blood of the Ruthvens; and it raises the presumption that his own account of the occurrence was, in spite of the glaring improbabilities which it involved, substantially true.

The facts as related by James and other witnesses were, in outline, as follows. On the 5th of August 1600 the king rose early to hunt in the neighborhood of Falkland Palace, about 14 m. from Perth. Just as he was setting forth in company with the duke of Lennox, the earl of Mar, Sir Thomas Erskine and others, he was accosted by Alexander Ruthven (known as the master of Ruthven), a younger brother of the earl of Gowrie, who had ridden from Perth that morning to inform the king that he bad met on the previous day a man in possession of a pitcher full of foreign gold coins, whom he had secretly locked up in a room at Gowrie House. Ruthven urged the king to ride to Perth to examine this man for himself and to take possession of the treasure. After some hesitation James gave credit to the story, suspecting that the possessor of the coins was one of the numerous Catholic agents at that time moving about Scotland in disguise. Without giving a positive reply to Alexander Ruthven, James started to hunt; but later in the morning he called Ruthven to him and said he would ride to Perth when the hunting was over. Ruthven then despatched a servant, Henderson, by whom he had been accompanied from Perth in the early morning, to tell Gowrie that the king was coming to Gowrie House. This messenger gave the information to Gowrie about ten oclock in the morning. Meanwhile Alexander Ruthven was urging the king to lose no time, requesting him to keep the matter secret from his courtiers, and to bring to Gowrie House as small a retinue as possible. James, with a train of some fifteen persons, arrived at Gowrie House about one oclock, Alexander Ruthven having spurred forward for a mile or so to announce the kings approach. But notwithstanding Hendersons warning some three hours earlier, Gowrie had made no preparations for the kings entertainment, thus giving the impression of having been taken by surprise. After a meagre repast, for which he was kept waiting an hour, James, forbidding his retainers to follow him, went with Alexander Ruthven up the main staircase and passed through two chambers and two doors, both of which Ruthven locked behind them, into a turret-room at the angle of the house, with windows looking on the courtyard and the street. Here James expected to find the mysterious prisoner with the foreign gold. He found instead an armed man, who, as appeared later, was none other than Gowries servant, Henderson. Alexander Ruthven immediately put on his hat, and drawing Hendersons dagger, presented it to the kings breast with threats of instant death if James opened a window or called for help. An allusion by Ruthven to the execution of his father, the 1st earl of Gowrie, drew from James a reproof of Ruthvens ingratitude for various benefits conferred on his family. Ruthven then uncovered his head, declaring that Jamess life should be safe if he remained quiet; then, committing the king to the custody of Henderson, he left the turret ostensibly to consult Gowrie and locked the door behind him. While Ruthven was absent the king questioned Henderson, who professed ignorance of any plot and of the purpose for which he had been placed in the turret; he also at Jamess request opened one of the windows, and was about to open the other when Ruthven returned. Whether or not Alexander had seen his brother is uncertain. But Gowrie had meantime spread the report below that the king had taken horse and had ridden away; and the royal retinue were seeking their horses to follow him. Alexander, on re-entering the turret, attempted to bind Jamess hands; a struggle ensued, in the course of which the king was seen at the window by some of his followers below in the street, who also heard him cry treason and call for help to the earl of Mar. Gowrie affected not to hear these cries, but kept asking what was the matter. Lennox, Mar and most of the other lords and gentlemen ran up the main The staircase to the kings help, but were stopped by the slaughter locked door, which they spent some time in trying of the to batter down. John Ramsay (afterwards earl of Ruthvegs. Holdernesse), noticing a small dark stairway leading directly to the inner chamber adjoining the turret, ran up it and found the king struggling at grips with Ruthven. Drawing his dagger, Ramsay wounded Ruthven, who was then pushed down the stairway by the king. Sir Thomas Erskine, summoned by Ramsay, now followed up the small stairs with Dr Hugh Herries, and these two coming upon the wounded Ruthven despatched him with their swords. Gowrie, entering the courtyard with his stabler Thomas Cranstoun and seeing his brothers body, rushed up the staircase after Erskine and Herries, followed by Cranstoun and others of his retainers; and in the melee Gowrie was killed. Some commotion was caused in the town by the noise of these proceedings; but it quickly subsided, though the king did not deem it safe to return to Falkland for some hours.

Gowries two younger brothers, William and Patrick Ruthven, fled to England; and after the accession of James to the English throne William escaped abroad, but Patrick was taken and imprisoned for nineteen years in the Tower of London. Released in 1622, Patrick Ruthven resided first at Cambridge and afterwards in Somersetshire, being granted a small pension by the crown. He married Elizabeth Woodford, widow of the 1st Lord Gerrard, by whom he had two sons and a daughter, Mary; the latter entered the service of Queen Henrietta Maria, and married the famous painter van Dyck, who painted several portraits of her. Patrick died in poverty in a cell in the Kings Bench iii 1652, being buried as Lord Ruthven. His son, Patrick, presented a petition to Oliver Cromwell in 1656, in which, after reciting that the parliament of Scotland in 1641 had restored his father to the barony of Ruthven, he prayed that his extreme poverty might be relieved by the bounty of the Protector.

The tragedy caused intense excitement throughout Scotland, and the investigation of the circumstances was followed with much interest in England also, where all the details were reported to Elizabeths ministers. The preachers of the Kirk, whose influence in Scotland was too extensive for the king to neglect, were only with the greatest difficulty persuaded to accept Jamess account of the occurrence, although he, voluntarily submitted himself to cross-examination by one of their number. Their belief, and that of their partisans, influenced no doubt by political hostility to James, was that the king had invented the story of a conspiracy by Gowrie to cover his own design to extirpate the Ruthven family. James g,ave some color to this belief, which has not been entirely abandoned, by the relentless severity with which he pursued the two younger, and unquestionably innocent, brothers of the earl. Great efforts were made by the government to prove the complicity of others in the plot. One noted and dissolute conspirator, Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig, was posthumously convicted of having been privy to the Gowrie conspiracy on the evidence of certain letters produced by a notary, George Sprot, who swore they had been written by Logan to Gowrie and others. These letters, which are still in existence, were in fact forged by Sprot in imitation of Logans handwriting; but the researches of Andrew Lang have shown cause for suspecting that the most important of them was either copied by Sprot from a genuine original by Logan, or that it embodied the substance of such a letter. If this be correct, it would appear that the conveyance of the king to Fast Castle, Logans impregnable fortress on the coast of Berwickshire, was part of the plot; and it supplies, at all events, an additional piece of evidence to prove the genuineness of the Gowrie conspiracy.

See Andrew Lang, James VI. and the Gowrie Mystery (London, 1902), and the authorities there cited; Robert Pitcairn, Criminal Trials in Scotland (~ vols., Edinburgh, 1833); David Moysie, Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, 1577-1603 (Edinburgh, 1830); Louis A. Barb, The Tragedy of Gowrie House (London, 1887); Andrew Bisset, Essays on Historical Truth (London, 1871); David Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland (8 vols., Edinburgh, I 842 1849); P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland (9 vols., Edinburgh, 1828 1843); John Hill Burton, History of Scotland (7 vols., Edinburgh, 1867-1870). W. A. Craigie has edited as Skotlands Rimur some Icelandic ballads relating to the Gowrie conspiracy. He has also printed the Danish translation of the official account of the conspiracy, which was published at Copenhagen in I6of. (R. J. M.)

The destruction of the Ruthvens was the making of the Murrays. The head of this family, the Laird of Tullibardine, ancestor to the Duke of Athole, after the slaughter of the two brothers, came to the door of Gowrie House and danced for joy. Calderwood, who reports this incident, expresses his belief that for this malignant behaviour Tullibardine is undergoing his appropriate and well-merited punishment in the other world. ‘But little cause,’ he adds, ‘has he to dance at this hour.’ This representative of a family always unpatriotic and self-seeking, obtained for his eldest son Gowrie’s hereditary office of sheriff of the county of Perth, and for one of his younger sons the barony and castle of Ruthven. His relative, Sir David Murray, ancestor of the present Earl of Mansfield, received at the same time a grant of the abbey and lands of Scone.

In connection with this tragic event a story has been handed down by tradition which has been quoted in support of the theory that the Ruthvens were the victims, not the authors, of the conspiracy by which they lost their lives, and that the hatred entertained towards them by the King was in part at least owing to his jealousy of the younger Ruthven. It is alleged that the good looks of this gallant youth had attracted the notice of the Queen, and that he stood high in her Majesty’s good graces. James, it is said, on one occasion had presented his wife with a locket suspended to a ribbon of a peculiar colour. Rambling about his garden one day, the King stumbled upon Alexander Ruthven asleep in an arbour, and perceived around his neck a ribbon of the same colour as the one he had given to the Queen. Stung with jealousy and wrath, James hobbled off, as fast as his shambling gait would allow, to find his royal consort. One of the maids of honour, however, had witnessed the scene, and saw at a glance what was passing in the King’s mind. She instantly snatched the locket from the neck of the sleeping youth, and ran with all speed by another route to the Queen’s apartment. Placing the trinket in her Majesty’s hands, she in a few hurried words told her what had taken place. The Queen put the locket among her jewels and quietly awaited the result. In a minute or two the King burst into the apartment, flushed in face and sputtering with excitement, and demanded a sight of the trinket he had presented to his wife. Anne quietly opened her jewel. box and placed the locket in his hands. Surveying it with a suspicious and puzzled look, but unable to resist the evidence of his senses as to its identity, James remarked, in words which have become proverbial, ‘Diel ha’e me, but like’s an ill mark.’ Whatever amount of truth there may be in the story, there is good reason to believe that there is no truth in the allegation that the destruction of the Ruthvens was owing to the jealousy of the King.

The two younger brothers of the unfortunate Earl fled for their lives towards the Borders, and, travelling on foot through unfrequented byways, reached Berwick on the 10th of August, four days after their flight from Dirleton. Sir John Carey, the governor of that Border fortress, writing to Secretary Cecil, says: ‘The King has made great search and lays great wait for the two younger brothers, who, not daring to tarry in Scotland, they are this day come into Berwick secretly in disguised apparel, and being brought to me they only desire that their lives may be safe, and that they may have a little oversight here till the truth of their cause may be known. And the pitiful case of the old distressed good Countess hath made me the willinger to give my consent to their stay here a while.’

Such was the vindictive hatred which James cherished towards these two innocent and helpless youths, that on his way to take possession of the English throne he issued at Burghley, where he remained several days, a proclamation, dated 27th April, 1603, commanding all sheriffs and justices to arrest ‘William and Patrick Ruthven,’ and to bring them before the Privy Council. He also warned all persons against harbouring or concealing them. William, the elder of the two, made his escape to the Continent, where he acquired a great reputation for his knowledge of chemistry. Burnet says that it was given out that he had discovered the philosopher’s stone. A turn for the study of natural science, combined with magic, was hereditary in the Ruthvens. Lord Patrick, the assassin of Rizzio, presented Queen Mary with a diamond ring, which he told her had the virtue of preserving her from poison. His son, the first Earl, was alleged to have consulted wizards for the purpose of prying into futurity, and Earl John, the conspirator, brought with him from Italy ‘a little close parchment bag full of magical characters and words of enchantment, wherein it seemed that he had put his confidence, thinking himself never safe without them, and therefore ever carried them about with him.’ Patrick, the youngest of the five sons of the Earl of Gowrie (‘Greysteil’) was arrested under the proclamation issued by the vindictive enemy of his house and carried to the Tower, where he languished without trial or even accusation for a period of nineteen years, extending from about the nineteenth to the thirty-eighth year of his age. In 1616 Patrick Ruthven obtained a grant of an annual payment of £200 ‘for apparel, books, physic, and such like necessaries,’ which sum was to be in lieu of the allowances previously made to the Lieutenant of the Tower for those purposes. Six years after this period the doors of Patrick Ruthven’s prison were at length opened, and he was set at liberty on condition that he should reside at the University of Cambridge, or within six miles of it. A few weeks later (11th September, 1622) he received an annuity of £500 ‘payable out of the Exchequer for life.’ On the 4th of February, 1623—4, he petitioned the King for an enlargement of the condition which bound him to reside at Cambridge. His request was granted, but, with the old petty jealousy of his approach to the royal presence, it was with the reservation that he should come no nearer the Court than he was permitted to do by the previous stipulation, and that he should not at any time seat himself in any place where his Majesty should not like him to be resident. He selected Somersetshire for his place of abode in the meantime. In 1624 a proposal was made, sanctioned by King James, for the establishment of a Royal Academy, and in the list of those who were to be the first Fellows sanctioned and approved by the King occurs the name of ’Patrick Ruthven.’ Nothing farther is known of his history until after the lapse of sixteen years, when James had been long dead. On the 27th of February, 1639—40, a deed was executed by him assigning £120 per annum, part of his pension of £500, to his ‘lovinge daughter, Mary Ruthven, spinster.’ This was the first notice of his having been married. It has recently been discovered that his wife was Elizabeth Woodford, ‘a fair young lady,’ widow of Thomas, first Lord Gerrard of Abbots Bromley, who died when Lord President of Wales, in 1617. But nothing is known as to how she became acquainted with the prisoner in the Tower, or where or when they were married. The lady died in 1624, leaving Patrick Ruthven a widower, with two daughters and three sons. Mary Ruthven, the younger daughter, is said to have been a young lady of extraordinary beauty. She was for some time at the Court of Queen Henrietta, and became the wife of Sir Anthony Vandyke, to whom she bore a daughter, but on the 9th of December, 1641, the very day on which the child was baptised, the great painter died. His daughter, named Justina, married Sir John Stepney of Prendergast. The gleam of sunshine which had been thrown across Patrick Ruthven’s melancholy life was thus swallowed up in darkness. Amid the turmoil of the Great Civil War, Patrick Ruthven’s pension appears to have been unpaid, and he was reduced to absolute poverty. He procured a degree of doctor of medicine and practised as a physician in London, but apparently with not much pecuniary success. Sir Harry Slingsby states in his Diary, under the year 1639, that his wife, after consulting many other medical advisers, made some ‘trials of Mr. Ruthven, a Scottish gentleman of the family of the Lord Gowrie, who made it his study in the art of physic to administer help to others, but not for any gain to himself.’ In Sanderson’s ‘Additions to Bishop Goodman,’ referring probably to the year 1651, it is stated that Patrick Ruthven ‘walks the streets poor, but well experienced in chymical physic and in other parts of learning.’ He was a fellow-student in chemistry and astrology with the celebrated Napier of Merchiston, who mentions him as a person ‘occupied in alchymie.’ It appears that in common with other leading members of his house, Patrick Ruthven was a student of those ‘mysteries of chemical philosophy which ignorance and prejudice have too often confounded with sorcery and magic.’ It is very sad to think that this inheritor and representative of some of the noblest blood in Scotland—a cousin of the King, and an accomplished philosopher—died at the. age of sixty-eight in the King’s Bench. His second son, Patrick, was twice married, but it is not known whether he left any issue. In 1656 he petitioned the Protector, Oliver Cromwell, for relief, alleging that £5,000 was due for arrears of his father’s pension. His petition was referred to the Council, but the result is not mentioned.

George Sprot:

Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig, was posthumously convicted of having been privy to the Gowrie conspiracy on the evidence of certain letters produced by a notary George Sprott.

C.   The King's claims
“When they found occation that hes Majestie’s haill nobillis and courtiers wer gone furthe, the twa brether desyrit his Majesty to goe and sie yair cabinet. Hes Majesty, a blist soul, thinking no evil went wt yame, qr they enterit in gripis wt him wt dageris to have slain him. But……he cryit ouir ane window ‘Treasone, treasone’. In the meine tyme the foirsaid twa brether had ane man standing behind the tapestrie in armes with ane twa handed sword in his hand quha wes ordeinit, giff yair sould come any helpe, he sould keip the dore till the murder could be done. Bot it pleasit God yat he wes maid powerless and could not steir out of this place qr he stuid. In the meine tyme hes Majesty and the twa brether are at the wrestling. Thomas Erskine and John Ramsay hes Majestie’s page of honour for the tyme came running up to the cabinet and at the last the twa brether conspyreris baith wer stikit and the Lord preservit the holy innocent Prince.”

This touching description of the attempted murder of the “holy innocent Prince”  by the Earl of Gowrie and his brother, the Master of Ruthven relies entirely on the information of King James 6th himself. It is in effect the official version of events and was received with much scepticism by many people in Scotland and further afield.

D.  Those who defended the Logans

THE STORY OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH

FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE DISRUPTION        

Rev. Thomas M‘Crie, D.D., LL.D.
After 1843

The Great Historic Families of Scotland  (1887 )
THE RUTHVENS OF GOWRIE.
INTRODUCTION.
page 171

But it was not until eight years after the death of Gowrie and his brother that the most conclusive evidence of the truth of the conspiracy was brought to light. A notary named Sprot, who resided in Eyemouth, a fishing village near St. Abb's Head, hinted to several persons that he was acquainted with some secrets respecting the Gowrie conspiracy. These intimations reached the ears of the members of the Privy Council, who caused Sprot to be apprehended and examined by torture. He made a full confession of all that he knew, and produced some portions of a correspondence which Robert Logan, the laird of Restalrig, had carried on with the two brothers. A certain Laird Bower, a retainer of Logan's, had been entrusted with the perilous task of carrying these letters, and as he was unable to read or write, he had been obliged to obtain the assistance of Sprot to decipher the instructions which were addressed to him by his master. The notary, fatally for himself, had stolen some of these letters from among Bower's papers. The documents were produced, and after a careful examination by the Privy Council, declared to be in Logan's handwriting. The unfortunate notary was condemned to be hanged for misprision or concealment of treason. He adhered to his confession to the last, and after being thrown from the ladder he thrice clapped his hands in confirmation of the truth of his confession. Logan had died some years before this, but his bones were dug up and brought to the bar of the Justiciary Court, where the dead man was put on his trial for treason. He was found guilty, and by a sentence equally odious and illegal, his lands were forfeited and his posterity declared infamous. The discovery of Logan's letters was thought to have set this disputed question finally at rest; but Mr. Bisset professes to find in these documents the strongest corroboration of his disbelief of the conspiracy. Some of his arguments are ingenious and not wholly without weight, and if the letters had disappeared grave doubts might have been entertained of their genuineness. But the originals have, fortunately, been preserved and are deposited in the General Register Office, Edinburgh. It is somewhat surprising to learn that Mr. Bisset, who has taken upon him so confidently to pronounce these documents spurious, has never seen them, and has contented himself with requesting a friend to examine them for the purpose of ascertaining whether the paper on which they are written bears the watermark of the year 1600. This friend of course informed him that there was no watermark of any year on the paper. Mr. Bisset might and ought to have known, that it was not until a century after the date of the Gowrie conspiracy that a watermark with a year on it came into use. The genuineness of these letters was attested at the time by several witnesses who were acquainted with Logan's handwriting. They have repeatedly of late years been subjected to a searching scrutiny by persons skilled in deciphering ancient papers, and have been compared with undoubted specimens of Logan's handwriting, and the result has been a unanimous and unhesitating decision in favour of the genuineness of the letters. Logan, the writer of these letters, was a gentleman of ancient family, the uterine brother of Lord Home, but a reckless and unprincipled villain, a scoffer at religion, and a person of openly profligate life. (1887)

G. What happened to Logan's children?

According to Major G.J.N. Logan Home:
I. Robert; born about 1577 to first wife Elizabeth McGill (who divorced Logan soon thereafter ); supposedly died "abroad" before 1645 (according to Home, though this has not been proven).
II. George; born about 1587 to second wife Jonet Ker; supposedly died 1645 (according to Home, though this has not been proven) .
III. John; born about 1588 to second wife Jonet Ker; married Elizabeth Quippo/Whippo; issue 5 children; father of the "Burncastle" line; died before November 1626.  Has this line been erroneously connected to Restalrig?
IV. Alexander; born about 1590 to second wife Jonet Ker; married ?; father of the "Cumnock" line; died after 1645 in Stenton, East Lothian.
V. Jonet; born before 1596 to second wife Jonet Ker; married the last Stewart of Minto.
VI. Anna; born between 1601-1606 to third wife, Marion Ker; still alive in 1616; fate unknown.
 

The Testament Dative of Robert Logan (the 7th) mentions children: Robert, Alexander, Jonet, and Anna.
The Forfieture does not mention any children by name.
The Reversal of Attainder mentions: Alexander, Jonet, and Anna. ("... the said children at the time of their said fathers forfeiture [1609] were all minors [less than 21], and did not at all participate in any of the crimes for which he suffered forfeiture, so that these ought in no way to be imputed to them ...")  If Alexander was a minor in 1609, why was he allowed to declare inventory for his father's testament in 1607, two years earlier??
Where did Logan Home find sons, George and John?  The Burncastle line claims to descend from John, son of Robert (the 7th).  If I am not mistaken, the clan cheif title was in this line until the last male Logan died.  Now that begs the question, if Robert Logan, the 7th, and his posterity are abolished from the Book of Arms and Nobility, how did any Logan, supposedly descended from Robert, become clan cheif?  If the Reversal of Attainder fully restored Alexander's rights, it seems he should have carried on the clan cheif title.  Another mystery.

The debate rages on.  I'm not sure if anyone really knows what happened. Apparently, John, Alexander, and Jonet made out OK, and probably Anna as well.  The question remains: what happened to Robert and George?
 
 

  H. The Forfeiture

The Court of Parliment: 24 jun 1609

"Decrees the name, memory, and dignity of the said umquhile Robert Logane of Restalrige to be extinct and abolisheit, and his arms cancellat, rivine, and deleitt furth of the buikis of Arms and Nobilitie; so that his posteritie sall be excludit, and be unable to possess or injoy ony officis, honouris, digniteis, landis, tenementis, rowmes, rentis, possessionis, or guidis, moveable, or unmoveable, richtis, and utheris, quhatsumeuir within this kingdom, inalltyme cumming; and that all the saidis, guidis, landis, rowmes, tenementis and uther guides, moveable and unmoveable, richtis and utheris quhatsumeuir pertening to the said umquhile Robert Logane of Restalrige or quhilikis micht onyways have pertenit to him at ony tyme, sen his conspyring of the said treasonable crymes, to be escheat and foirfaltit to our souerane lord to appertene and to remane perpetualie with His Majestie in propertie and this I give for dome."

I. The Reversal of Attainder

Translation of the Reveral of Attainder of Alexander, Jonet, and Anna Logan, Children of Robert, the Seventh and Last Baron [Laird] of Restalrig:

"James, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland and Defender of the Faith, to all our loyal subjects, to whom the present letters shall come, greeting, know ye, that, understanding that, on account of the process and award of forfeiture made and passed against the late Robert Logan of Restalrig and Alexander, Jonet, and Anna Logan, his lawful children, the said children were rendered incapable of enjoying and possessing any lands, officies or dignities within our Kingdoms, and calling to mind that the said children at the time of their said fathers forfeiture were all minors, and did not at all participate in any of the crimes for which he suffered forfeiture, so that these ought in no way to be imputed to them, or turned to their prejudice, therefore for divers other good causes and considerations of our special grace, favour and clemency, with the advice and consent of the Lord Commissioners for managing our affairs in our absence, we have recapacitated and reinstated, as by these presents we do reinstate, recapacitate, and restore, the foresaid Alexander, Jonet, and Anna Logan to their former good fame, and secular honours and dignities whatsoever, and we have granted, as by these presents we do grant to them our full power to bear testimony in causes, to exercise and use all other lawful acts, as well in judgment as without the same in prosecution of all their actions and causes, to be capable of holding all dignities and officies to enjoy, use, and possess, or in any manner whatever have right to all their own lands, farms, possessions and assedations whatsoever, or which they may in the future happen to acquire (otherwise than by succession to their foresaid late father, to which these presents shall in no way extend), in the same manner and as freely in all respects, as they were able to do before the award of forfeiture was pronounced against their foresaid late father;  Likewise, we of our Royal Power and Authority do relieve them and their posterity from all infamy, scandal and ignominy which could be imputed to them by reason of the said forfeiture, so that henceforth these shall in no way be turned to their loss or injury either in judgment or without the same;  wherefore We command all our lieges and subjects that none shall dare or presume to injure their good fame by word or deed, by reason of the said forfeiture under every penalty which they could incur against our Royal Majesty in this particular.  In Witness wherefore we have directed our Great Seal to be appended to the presents at Whitehall the second day of April, the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and sixteen and in the forty-ninth and fourteenth years of our reign."    [2 April 1616]

Basically Robert's minor children at the time of forfeiture (one has to wonder if this meant the year Robert's bones were convicted in 1609, or when this supposed murder attempt was made, 5 August 1600) were allowed to live a normal life, with the exception that they could inherit nothing from their father's estate (especially seeing as that the King had already taken the entire estate away!!)  This clemency did not extend to the three oldest children, sons: Robert, George, and John.