The existence of such errors is not remarkable. Sprot again swore to the truth of all his depositions since July 5. But if _this_ story is true, how can it be true that Logan was at ease in his mind, after burning the letter from Alexander Ruthven, and another from Father Andrew Clerk, Jesuit, as Sprot previously swore? There was still Letter IV, lost, unburned, a haunting fear. It may be suggested that Sprot only kept this letter '_till_' he had made his forgeries on its model, and then, in a later search, pretended to find and returned it, having first copied it out in Logan's hand; that copy being our Letter IV. Sprot first would make a copy, in his ordinary hand, of the letter, then restore the original, and, after Logan's death, copy his copy, in imitation of Logan's hand, and frame I, III, V, and the torn letter on his copy of IV.

Finally, Sprot said that '_he believes_ this letter is in his chest among his writings, because he left it there when he was taken by Watty Doig and deposes that it is closed and folded within a piece of paper.' Sprot said this on August 10. On August 12 he was hanged. Now was this letter, on which he forged three others, found 'in his kist,' before his death? That it was so found, we have direct evidence, though not from the best of sources.

In the year 1713, an aged n.o.bleman, Lord Cromarty, published a defence of the King's conduct in the Gowrie affair. Lord Cromarty, in 1713, was aged eighty-three. Born about 1630, he remembered the beginnings of the Civil War, and says that the Covenanters, about 16401645, made great political capital out of King James's alleged guilt in the slaughter of the Ruthvens. Later, Lord Cromarty occupied, in the Restoration, the highest judicial offices, and, as Clerk Registrar, had access to public doc.u.ments. He was an old courtier, he may have been forgetful, he may have been unscrupulous, but, as to the letter in Sprot's kist, he writes 'the letter was found there by the Sheriff Depute, who was ordered by Sir William Hart, Lord Justice of Scotland, to seize the said chest, and make search for this letter, which he found, and delivered to the King's Advocate, Sir Thomas Hamilton.' {224}

Now this Sir Thomas Hamilton was the ancestor of the Earl of Haddington, who inherits many of his papers. Among these we find a copy, in Sprot's 'course hand,' or rapid current hand, of Letter IV, and another of Letter I, but no such copies of II, III. and V. Each of these is endorsed by James Primrose, Clerk of Council, is endorsed by Sprot, in faded ink, and is _also_ endorsed in Sprot's ordinary everyday hand, very firm and clear, thus:

'This is copyitt off the princ.i.p.al' (the original), 'lykeas the note writtin upon the bak is writtin by me, George Sprott.'

There is, in fact, another 'note on the back,' in ink more faded, on a dirty rubbed part of the paper.

Now certainly the last endorsation was written by Sprot either on August 11 or August 12, 1600. He had not the original or this copy by him on August 10, or on August 11 when examined, for on August 10 he could only give a version of Letter IV from memory, and erroneously, the version cited in his indictment. On August 11 he still had not the original or his copy, for he quoted from memory, what he believed to be a _postscript_ to the original Letter IV, a pa.s.sage which is really in the _text_ of Letter IV. He could not have made this error if, at that hour of August 11, he had either the original of Letter IV, or his exact copy before him, nor would there have been any reason why he should quote from memory, if Government had the doc.u.ments. Yet he re-endorsed his copies of Letters I and IV before his death. This endors.e.m.e.nt is firm and clear, the text of the two copies is fainter and much of the paper more rubbed, as if from being kept in the pocket. The copies are older than the final endors.e.m.e.nt on the copies. It follows that the Sheriff Depute found these two copies (I, IV) and the originals, in Sprot's kist, and brought them to Sprot's examiners after that hour of August 11, when he could only quote from memory. He then endorsed them formally, one of the last acts of his life.

The originals were also found, for it will not be argued that Government employed another forger to forge them from Sprot's copies in 'course hand.' We know that Sprot had a secondary species of blackmailing doc.u.ments, these in current hand; one of them he gave to the Goodman of Rentoun. For this, or some other purpose, he had made the 'course hand'

copies of Letters I and IV, which he endorsed just before his death, or perhaps he made them from the original, which he then destroyed or surrept.i.tiously returned. When he was examined on August 11, the three preachers, Galloway, Hall, and Hewatt, and the minister of Duddingston, Mr. Lumisden, were present. He was entreated not to perjure himself to the injury of innocent people, dead or alive, 'by making and forging of lies.' He renewed his protestations of truth, asked Mr. Galloway to pray for him, wept, and repeated his averments.

On August 12 Sprot was tried and hanged at Edinburgh. He renewed his protestations from every corner of the scaffold, in the most vigorous language. Abbot, who was present, declares that he thrice gave a loud clap with his hands while he swung, as a proof that he adhered in death to his last words. A similar story is told of Kirkcaldy of Grange, and I think in other cases. Nothing of the sort is in the first draft of the official account of his dying behaviour (a draft manifestly drawn up near the spot), nor in the official account itself.

Much value was set on dying confessions. When the preacher, Robert Bruce, refused to believe the King's account of the Gowrie tragedy, he said that one proof would satisfy him. Let Andrew Henderson, the man in the turret, be hanged. If he persisted in his confession on the scaffold, Mr. Bruce would believe. The King declined to make this abominable experiment. In Sprot's case his dying confession did not move the Kirk party. Calderwood hints that Mr. Galloway 'had the most speech to Sprot on the scaffold,' and so kept him true to a dying lie. {227a} He adds that Spottiswoode said to Galloway 'I am afraid this man make us all ashamed,' that is, by retracting his confessions. Mr. Patrick answered, 'Let alone, my Lord, I shall warrant him.' {227b} Had Andrew Henderson swung, constant to his confession, the Presbyterian sceptics would have found similar reasons for disbelief.

What are _we_ to believe? Did Sprot go wherever he went with a blasphemous lie in his mouth? A motive for such vehemence of religious hypocrisy is difficult to find. Conceivably he had promise of benefits to his family. Conceivably he was an atheist, and 'took G.o.d in his own hand.' Conceivably his artistic temperament induced him to act his lie well, as he had a lie to act.

Yet all this is not satisfactory.

Let us take the unromantic view of common sense. It is this: Logan was a restless, disappointed intriguer and debauchee. He sold his lands, some to acquire a partnership with Lord Willoughby in a vessel trading to America; this vessel, or another, is among his a.s.sets recorded in his inventory. All his lands he sold-not that he was in debt, he was a large lender-for purposes of profligacy. These proceedings gave rise to gossip. The Laird must be selling his lands to evade forfeiture. He _must_ have been engaged in the Gowrie mystery. Then Logan dies (July 1606). Bower is also dead (January 1606). It occurs to Sprot that there is money in all this, and, having lost Logan's business, the hungry Sprot needs money. He therefore makes a pact with some of Logan's debtors.

He, for pay, will clear them of their debts to Logan's executors, whom he will enable them to blackmail. Logan's descendants by two marriages were finally his heirs, with Anna, a minor, daughter of his last wife, who had hoped to have no children by him, the free-spoken Lady Restalrig, _nee_ Ker (Marion). They, of course, were robbed, by Logan's forfeiture, of 33,000 marks, owed to Logan by Dunbar and Balmerino. Meanwhile, just after Logan's death, in autumn 1606, Sprot forges Letters I, II, III, IV, V, and the torn letter, with two compromising letters to Bower, two to Ninian Chirnside, and an 'eik,' or addition, of compromising items to a memorandum on business, which, in September 1605, Logan gave to Bower and John Bell before he started for London and Paris. All these doc.u.ments, the plot-letters, I, II, III, IV, V, and the rest (which lie before me), are mere instruments of blackmail, intended to terrorise the guardians of the Logans.

So far, all is clear. But, in April 1608, Sprot has blabbed and is arrested. The forgeries are found among his papers, or given up by Chirnside. Sprot confesses to the plot, to Logan's share of it, and to the authenticity of the letters and papers. He is then tortured, recants his confession, and avows the forgery of the papers. The Government is disappointed. In July, Dunbar comes down from town, treats Sprot leniently, and gives him medical attendance. Sprot now confesses to his genuine knowledge of the plot, but unflinchingly maintains that all the papers so far produced are forgeries, based on facts.

Why does he do this? He has a better chance of pardon, if he returns to the statement that they are genuine. If they are, the Government, which he must propitiate, has a far stronger hand, for the forgeries then defied detection. However, for no conceivable reason, unless it be either conscience or the vanity of the artist, Sprot now insists on claiming the letters as his own handiwork. On this point he was inaccessible to temptation, if temptation was offered. If he lies as to Letter II having been dictated by Logan, he lies by way of relapse into the habit of a lifetime, and so on other points. He keeps back all mention of Letter IV, till the last ember of hope of life is extinct.

It has not been hitherto known, either that Sprot kept back Letter IV till almost his dying day, or that he then, at last, revealed it. Lord Cromarty's averment that it was found in Sprot's kist was disbelieved.

It is true, however, and now we ask, why did Sprot keep back Letter IV to the last, and why, having so long concealed it, did he say where it was, after all hope of life was over?

The answer can only be conjectural. Some might guess thus: till Letter IV was confessed to and found, Government had not received from Sprot one sc.r.a.p of doc.u.mentary evidence that could be used against Logan's heirs.

Scoundrel as he was, Sprot could not guess that the Privy Council would use papers which were confessed forgeries to save Dunbar and Balmerino from paying some 33,000 marks to Logan's executors. The wretched Sprot had robbed the orphans on a small scale, but he would not, by producing the genuine Logan letter, enable the Lords to ruin them utterly. Bad as he was, the Laird had been kind to Sprot. Therefore he kept back, and by many a lie concealed, his real pieces of evidence, Letter IV, and I, if I is genuine. So far he acted on a remnant of natural conscience.

But Sprot, alas, had a religious conscience. He had a soul to be saved.

The preachers had prayed with him. When death was but forty-eight hours distant, he feared to die with a lie in his mouth. So _now_, at last, he spoke of Letter IV as his real model. Perhaps he hoped that it would not be found, and probably it was in some secret drawer or false bottom of his kist. It was found, and was used, along with the confessed forgeries (which even Sprot could not have antic.i.p.ated), to destroy the inheritance of the children, at Logan's posthumous trial in 1609.

But the obvious reply to this hypothesis is, that Letter IV, by the evidence of modern experts (evidence unanimous and irresistible), is just as much forged as all the rest, is just as certainly in Sprot's imitation of Logan's handwriting. This being so, why did Sprot keep it back so long, and why, having kept it back, did he, almost in his last hour, produce it, and say (if he did) that it was genuine, and his model, as it certainly was? This is the last enigma of Sprot. His motives defy my poor efforts to decipher them. Even if the substance of IV is genuine, what were Sprot's motives? I do not feel a.s.sured that Sprot really maintained the genuineness of the _handwriting_ of Letter IV. His remark that he kept Logan's letter only _till_ he forged others on it, as a model, certainly implies that he did not keep it _after_ he had done his forgeries, and therefore that our Letter IV is, confessedly, _not_ Logan's original. Certainly it is not.

XVI. WHAT IS LETTER IV?

The crucial question now arises, _What is Letter IV_? If it be genuine (in substance), then, whatever the details of the Gowrie Conspiracy may have been, a conspiracy there was. This can only be denied by ignorance.

If the enterprise fails, says the author of Letter IV, the plotters will lose their lives, their lands and houses will be 'wrecked,' their very names will be extirpated; and, in fact, James did threaten to extirpate the name of Ruthven. The letter deliberately means High Treason. The objection of Calderwood, and of all the Ruthven apologists, that Sprot confessed to having forged _all_ the letters, we have shown to rest on lack of information. He said, at last, that he had forged many papers (some did not appear in Court in 1609), and that he forged _three_ letters on the model of Letter IV. These three letters may either be I, III, and V; or III, V, and the torn letter. The case of Letter I is peculiar. Though it contains much that is in Letter IV, and might have been taken from it, the repet.i.tions need not imply copying from Letter IV. Byron and others would say the same things, on the same day, to two or three correspondents. Letter IV is subsequent, as dated, to Letter I, and Logan might say to the Unknown, on July 18, what, after the announced interval of ten days, he said to Gowrie. Letter I contains this remark on the nature of the plot: 'It is not far by' (not unlike) 'that form, with the like stratagem, whereof we had conference in Cap. h,' which may be Capheaton, on the English side of the Border. Probably Logan often discussed ingenious ways of catching the King: new plots were hatched about once a month, as Cecil's and the other correspondence of the age abundantly proves. The plot (the letter says) is like that in a Paduan story of a n.o.bleman. The rest of the letter is identical with the matter of III, IV, and V. We cannot be sure whether Letter I is one of the three forged on IV or not.

One thing is certain, Letters III and V, to the Unknown, _are_ modelled on IV, as is the torn letter. Sprot said this was the case, and every reader of III, V, and the torn letter (given above) must see that he tells the truth. These letters contain no invention at all, they merely repeat Letter IV. Any man who could invent IV had genius enough to alter his tunes in III, V. and the torn letter. But Sprot never deserts his model. This is an argument for the authenticity in substance of Letter IV. The other three contain nothing that is not in Letter IV, and everything that is in it, except what is personal to Gowrie, and would be inappropriate if addressed to the Unknown (I, III, V), or to Chirnside (torn letter).

There is (1) the mention of a Paduan adventure, the basis of the plot, a thing that Sprot is very unlikely to have invented. With all my admiration for Sprot, I do think that the Paduan touch is beyond him.

This occurs in Letter IV, 'the good sport that M.A., your lordship's brother, told me of a n.o.bleman in Padua. It is a parasteur' (? _a propos_) 'to this purpose we have in hand.' This appears in Letter I, 'reckless toys of Padua,' and in Letter V, 'bid M. A. remember on the sport he told me of Padua.'

2. The constant applause of Bower. This is in Letter IV, and in I, III, V, and the torn letter.

3. Meeting with Alexander Ruthven. This is in IV, and in I and V.

4. The meeting at Fastcastle, which is to be quiet and well-provisioned.

This is in IV, and in I, III, V.

5. Lord Home and Mr. Rhynd are to know nothing. This is in IV, and in I, and V, and the torn letter, utterly needless repet.i.tion.

6. The King's hunting, the opportunity for the plot. This is in IV, and in I, but that is natural.

7. Directions as to returning the letters. These are in IV, in I, III, V, and the torn letter.

8. Injunctions of secrecy. These are in IV, and I, III, V, and in the torn letter.

9. Logan will be true, 'although the scaffold were already set up.'

This is a phrase of Letter IV, and recurs in Letter III and in the torn letter.

10. Logan's elevation of heart on receipt of Gowrie's letter. This occurs in IV and in V.

Who can doubt that Letter IV is the source, followed servilely by the forger, of the torn letter and I (?), III, V? If Sprot could invent the substance of IV, why was he so chary of invention in all the other letters?

It is clear, moreover, that the Unknown himself is derived from a line in Letter IV: 'I have already sent another letter to the gentleman your Lordship knows, as the bearer will inform you of his answer.' The bearer is always Bower, so the 'gentleman' is to be conceived as in Gowrie's neighbourhood, or on the route thither, as one bearer serves both for Gowrie and the gentleman. Therefore, before July 5, Sprot (who had no idea as to who the gentleman was) identified the 'gentleman,' the Unknown of I, III, V, with the laird of Kinfauns, near Perth, or with the Constable of Dundee; but he withdrew these imputations, craving the pardon of the accused.

Thus it stands to reason that I (?), III, V, and the torn letter are forged on the model of IV. Sprot introduces no novelties in I, III, V, or the torn epistle. He harps eternally on the strings of IV. The only variation is (V) the mention of 'one other man with you,' in the proposed sail to Fastcastle.

It is not easy for criticism to evade the conclusion that I (?), III, V, and the torn letter are, indeed, forgeries modelled on IV. And what is IV?

Is Letter IV in substance genuine? If not, why did Sprot keep it back till the rope was noosed for his neck? A guess at his possible reasons for so keeping it back (as the only real doc.u.mentary evidence extant against the orphans of Logan) we have given, but this fails if Letter IV was a forgery: as in handwriting it was.

Then there are the contents of Letter IV. To myself, and to Mr.

Anderson, it does not seem probable, it seems hardly credible, that Sprot could have _invented_ the contents of Letter IV. If he did, his power of rendering character might have been envied by the author of the Waverley Novels. In IV Logan is painted, the 'main loose man, but a good fellow,'

with a master hand. The thing is freely, largely, and spontaneously executed. What especially moves me to think IV no invention, is the reference to the Paduan incident or romance, 'the good sport that Mr.

Alexander told me of the n.o.bleman of Padua, it is _a propos_ to the purpose we have in hand.' This is casually inserted in the last words of the postscript, not blazoned in the text, as in the forgeries confessedly modelled on this letter. The whole tone of the letter is in keeping with the alleged author's temperament. It is respectful, but far from servile. Gowrie is a great Earl, but Logan is of an old and good name.

There is the genial sensualism of the man, with his promise of wine and 'a fine hatt.i.t kit' (a kind of syllabub). There is the joyous forward glance at an anniversary dinner, with Bothwell, to which the King's hunting of _this_ year shall furnish the dainty cheer; '_hoc jocose_!'

At this dinner Bothwell and Gowrie, old allies, are to meet at Logan's board, which may suggest that Bothwell and Gowrie are still working together.

The contempt for Lord Home as a conspirator-'in good faith he will never help his friend or harm his foe'-and the praises of Bower, are characteristic, and, here, are in place; elsewhere they are idle repet.i.tions, mere copies. The apology for bad writing-Logan could not employ a secretary in this case-is natural: the two days writing agrees with Sprot's evidence. (p. 221.)

Could Sprot have invented all this: and, in his confessed forgeries, failed to invent anything? Would not the fertility of his genius have hurried him into fresh developments, and characteristic details, appropriate to the imaginary correspondent whom he addresses? These considerations may seem a mere leaning on 'internal evidence,' and 'literary instinct,' broken reeds. But the case is b.u.t.tressed by the long and, on any theory, purposeless retention of Letter IV, the secrecy concerning it, and the confession, so obviously true, that Letter IV is the source and model of the forgeries. These facts have hitherto been unknown to writers who believed the whole correspondence to be a forgery done for the Government.

Both Mr. Anderson (who has greatly aided me by his acuteness and learned experience of old MSS.) and myself disbelieve that Logan's hand wrote Letter IV. The matter, the contents of Letter IV, may be Logan's, but the existing doc.u.ment may be 'a Sprot after Logan.' Sprot may have reinserted the genuine Logan IV among Bower's collection of papers, pretended to find it, and returned it to Logan, after copying it _in Logan's hand_. Or he may have copied it in his 'course hand' (the copy in the Haddington MSS.), and later, in autumn 1606, after Logan's death, have rewritten his copy in an imitation of Logan's hand. The contents, Mr. Anderson believes, as I do, are, none the less, genuine Logan.

If readers accept these conclusions, there was a Gowrie conspiracy, and Logan was in it. 'I trow your Lordship has a proof of my constancy already ere now,' he says in Letter IV, and Gowrie may have had a proof, in his early conspiracies of 15931594, or in a testimonial to Logan from Bothwell, Gowrie's old ally.