Papers relating to William, first Earl of Gowrie, and Patrick Ruthven, his fifth and last surviving son

6 Observations on the Trial and Death of
instance of the death of the Earl of Gowrie ? anything which
could keep alive for sixteen years the bitter feeling of a deadly
feud between his children and their sovereign ? Some papers
in the Cottonian Library give a full answer to these questions.
They have been alluded to, and partly used, for the first and
only time, by Mr. Tytler ; but, to the best of my knowledge,
they have never been published. 1 I now beg to forward
transcripts of them to the Society of Antiquaries, and shall
add to the information they contain some particulars partly
derived from unpublished diplomatic correspondence of the
period. In order that these papers may be fully understood,
it will be necessary for me to go at some length into an ex-
planatory historical detail ; but the narrative will be found
to bear upon the conclusions at which we are to arrive, and,
although long, will not, I hope, be altogether without interest.
The earliest incident which is mentioned in the life of
William, Master of Ruthven, afterwards fourth Lord Ruthven
and first Earl of Gowrie, is a participation in the murder of
David Rizio. His father, Patrick, the third Lord Ruthven,
it will be universally remembered, was the chief actor in that
barbarous tragedy. Besides the political motives which in-
fluenced all the conspirators, the Ruthvens were drawn to
take part in that celebrated murder by considerations of
another kind. They were among Darnley's nearest connec-
tions by affinity on his mother's side; Patrick, Lord Ruth-
ven, having married first Janet, daughter of Archibald, Earl
of Angus, who was Darnley's grandfather. Lord Ruthven
was, therefore, his uncle by marriage, and William, the
Master of Ruthven, was his cousin. Lord Ruthven was the
1 Since this was written, I have found that No. 3 of the papers
alluded to was printed in 1827, in vol. i. of the ' Miscellany of the
Bannatyne Club,' p. 89. As the impression of the Bannatyne publica-
tions is limited to the number of the club, and the paper in question
is necessary for the proper understanding of my observations, I have
not thought this previous private printing of a small impression a suffi-
cient reason for its withdrawal.