Chapter 4

them on the model of IV is true; indeed the fact ought to have been discovered, on internal evidence, even by critics unaware of his confessions.

We now pursue Sprot's written deposition of July 5. He gives, as grounds of his knowledge of Logan's guilt, certain conversations among Logan's intimates, yeomen or 'bonnet lairds,' or servants, from which he inferred that Logan was engaged in treason. Again, just before Logan's death in July 1606, he was delirious, and raved of forfeiture. But Logan had been engaged in various treasons, so his ravings need not refer to the Gowrie affair. He had been on Bothwell's enterprises, and had privy dealings with 'Percy,' probably Thomas Percy, who, in 1602, secretly visited Hume of Manderston, a kinsman of Logan. That intrigue was certainly connected merely with James's succession to the English crown. But one of Logan's retainers, when this affair of Percy was spoken of among them, said, according to Sprot, that the Laird had been engaged in treason 'nearer home.'

Sprot then writes that 'about the time of the conspiracy,' Logan, with Matthew Logan, rode to Dundee, where they enjoyed a three days' drinking bout, and never had the Laird such a surfeit of wine. But this jaunt could not be part of the Gowrie plot, and probably occurred after its failure. Later, Sprot gave a different version of Logan's conduct immediately before and after Gowrie's death. Once more, after Logan's death, one Wallace asked Sprot to be silent, if ever he had heard of 'the Laird's conspiracy.' Sprot ended by confessing contritely that he had forged all the letters (except Letter IV) 'to the true meaning and purpose of the letter that Bower let me see,' a passage already quoted, and a falsehood.

What was the 'cause' for which Sprot forged? It was a purpose to blackmail, not Logan, but Logan's heirs or executors, one of whom was Lord Home. If Sprot wanted to get anything out of _them_, he could terrify them by threatening to show the forged Logan letters, as genuine, to the Government, so securing the ruin of Logan's heirs by forfeiture. He did not do this himself, but he gave forged letters, for money, to men who were in debt to the dead Logan's estate, and who might use the letters to extort remission of what they owed.

On July 15, Sprot was examined before Dunfermline, Dunbar, Hart, the King's Advocate (Sir Thomas Hamilton), and other gentlemen. He said that, about July 6, 1600, Logan received a letter from Gowrie, which, two days later, Bower showed to him at Fastcastle. This is the harmless Gowrie letter, which Sprot now quoted from memory, as it is printed in Hart's official account.

Now begins a new puzzle, caused by Sprot's dates. Of these we can only give a conjectural version, for the sake of argument. Logan received a letter from Gowrie about July 6, 1600. He returned a reply, by Bower, but when did Bower start with the reply? Let us say on July 9. Bower returned, says Sprot, 'within five days,' with 'a new letter' from Gowrie. That would bring us to July 14, but in Letters I and II, dated July 18, Logan is informing his unknown correspondent, and Bower, of the receipt of 'a new letter' from Gowrie. Why inform Bower of this, if Bower was the bearer of the new letter? But the 'new letter' mentioned in Letters I and II was brought by a retainer of Gowrie. In any case, supposing by way of conjecture that Bower returned from Gowrie about July 15, he spent the night, says Sprot, with Logan at Gunnisgreen, and next day (July 16) rode to Edinburgh with Bower, Boig of Lochend, and Matthew Logan. In Edinburgh he remained 'a certain short space,' say four days, which would bring us to July 20. Needless to say that this does not fit