in the 'Morton
haugh,' when he heard the town bell call the citizens to arms. But
Gowrie must have acted in great haste, Logan not knowing, till, say,
August 2 or 3, the date of a plot that exploded on August 5.

Gowrie may have thought, as Lord Maxwell said when arranging his escape
from Edinburgh Castle, 'Sic interprysis are nocht effectuat with
deliberationis and advisments, bot with suddane resolutionis.'

It is very important, we must freely admit, as an argument against the
theory of carrying James to Logan's impregnable keep of Fastcastle, that
only one question, in our papers, is asked as to the provisioning of
Fastcastle, and _that_ merely as to the supply of drink! Possibly this
had been ascertained in Sprot's earlier and unrecorded examinations
(April 19-July 5). One poor hogshead of wine (a trifle to Logan) had
been sent in that summer; so Matthew Logan deponed. As Logan had often
used Fastcastle before, for treasonable purposes, he was not (it may be
supposed) likely to leave it without provisions. Moreover these could be
brought by sea, from Dirleton, where Carey (August 11) says that Gowrie
had stored 'all his provision.' Moreover Government did not wish to
prove intent to _kidnap_ the King. That was commonly regarded as a
harmless constitutional practice, not justifying the slaughter of the
Ruthvens. From the first, Government insisted that _murder_ was
intended. In the Latin indictment of the dead Logan this is again dwelt
on; Fastcastle is only to be the safe haven of the murderers. This is a
misreading of Letter IV, where Fastcastle is merely spoken of as to be
used for a meeting, and 'the concluding of our plot.'

Thus it cannot be concealed that, on July 29 (granting Letter IV to have
a basis), the plot, as far as Logan knew, was 'in the air.' If
Fastcastle was to be used by the conspirators, it must have been taken in
the rough, on the chance that it was provided, or that Gowrie could bring
his own supplies from Dirleton by sea. This extreme vagueness undeniably
throws great doubt on Logan's part in the plot; Letter IV, if genuine,
being the source of our perplexity. But, if it is not genuine, that is,
_in substance_, there is only rumour, later to be discussed, to hint that
Logan was in any way connected with Gowrie.

We left Bower and Logan conversing dolefully some days after the failure
of the plot. At this point the perhaps insuperable difficulty arises,
why did they not, as