ator,
addressed as 'Right Honourable Sir.' It is not certain whether this
letter was in the hands of the prosecution before the day preceding
Sprot's execution, nor is it certain whether it is ever alluded to by
Sprot under examination. But it is dated from Fastcastle on July 18, and
tells the unknown conspirator that Logan has just heard from Gowrie. It
follows that Logan had heard from Gowrie on July 18 at Fastcastle, that
he thence rode to Edinburgh, and from Edinburgh wrote his letter (II) to
Bower, bidding Bower hasten to Edinburgh, to consult. This is absurd.
Logan would have summoned Bower from Fastcastle, much nearer Bower's home
than Edinburgh. Again, in Letter I, Logan informs the unknown man that
he is to answer Gowrie 'within ten days at furthest.' That being so, he
does not need Bower in such a hurry, unless it be to carry the letter to
the Unknown. But, in that case, he would have summoned Bower from
Fastcastle, he would not have ridden to Edinburgh and summoned him
thence. Once more, Sprot later confessed, as we shall see, that this
letter to Bower was dictated to himself by Logan, and that the copy
produced, apparently in Logan's hand, was forged by him from the letter
as dictated to him. He thus contradicted his earlier statement that
Letter II was shown to him by Bower. He never says that he was in
Edinburgh with Logan on July 18. Besides, it is not conceivable that, by
dictating Letter II to Sprot, Logan would have voluntarily put himself in
the power of the notary.

This is a fair example of Sprot's apparently purposeless lying. His real
interest throughout was to persuade the Government that he was giving
them genuine Logan letters. This, however, he denied, with truth, yet he
lied variously about the nature of his confessed forgeries.

Sprot was so false, that Government might conceive his very confession of
having forged the letters to be untrue. The skill in handwriting of that
age could not detect them for impostures; Government might deem that he
had stolen genuine letters from Bower; letters which might legitimately
be produced as evidence. Indeed this charitable view is perhaps
confirmed by the extraordinary fact, to be later proved, that three
Edinburgh ministers, Mr. Hall, Mr. Hewat, and Mr. Galloway, with Mr.
Lumisden, minister of Duddingston, were present on occasions when Sprot
confessed to having forged the letters. Yet these four preachers said
nothing, as far as we he