609. Finally, there are letters in Logan's hand
(or in an imitation of it), addressed to James Bower and to one Ninian
Chirnside, with allusions to the plot, and there is a long memorandum of
matters of business, also containing hints about the conspiracy, in
Logan's hand, or in an imitation thereof, addressed to John Bell, and
James Bower.

Of these compromising papers, one, a letter to Chirnside, was found by
the Rev. Mr. Anderson (in 1902) torn into thirteen pieces (whereof one is
missing), wrapped up in a sheet of foolscap of the period. Mr. Anderson
has placed the pieces together, and copied the letter. Of all these
documents, only five letters (those published by Mr. Pitcairn) were
'libelled,' or founded on, and produced by the Government in the
posthumous trial of Logan (1609). Not one was produced before the jury
who tried Sprot on August 12, 1608. He was condemned, we said, merely on
his own confession. In his 'dittay,' or impeachment, and in the official
account of the affair, published in 1608, were cited fragments of two
letters _quoted from memory by Sprot under private examination_. These
quotations from memory differ, we saw, in many places from any of the
five letters produced in the trial of 1609, a fact which has aroused
natural suspicions. This is the true explanation of the discrepancies
between the plot letter cited in Sprot's impeachment, and in the
Government pamphlet on his case; and the similar, though not identical,
letter produced in 1609. The indictment and the tract published by
Government contain merely Sprot's recollections of the epistle from Logan
to Gowrie. The letter (IV) produced in 1609 is the genuine letter of
Logan, or so Sprot seems, falsely, to swear. _This_ document did not
come into the hands of Government till after the Indictment, containing
Sprot's quotation of the letter from memory, was written, or, if it did,
was kept back.

All this has presently to be proved in detail.

As the Government (a fact unknown to our historians) possessed all the
alleged Logan letters and papers _before_ Sprot was hanged, and as, at
his trial, they concealed this circumstance even from Archbishop
Spottiswoode (who was present at Sprot's public trial by jury), a great
deal of perplexity has been caused, and many ingenious but erroneous
conjectures have been invented. The Indictment or 'dittay' against
Sprot, on August 12, 1608, is a public document, but not an honest one.
It cont