contain many peculiarities of spelling which are not
Logan's, but are Sprot's. The very dotting of the 'i's' is Sprot's, not
Logan's. The long 's' of Logan is heavily and clumsily imitated. There
is a distinct set of peculiarities never found in Logan's undisputed
letters: in Sprot's own letters always found. The hand is more rapid and
flowing than that of Logan. Not being myself familiar with the Scottish
handwriting of the period, my own opinion is of no weight, but I conceive
that the general effect of Logan's hand, in 1586, is not precisely like
that of the plot-letters.

My point, however, is that, in 1609, Sprot's forgeries were clever enough
to baffle witnesses of unblemished honour, very familiar with the genuine
handwriting of Logan. The Rev. Alexander Watson, minister of the Kirk of
Coldinghame (where Logan was wont to attend), alleged that '_the
character of every letter_ resembles perfectly Robert's handwrit, _every
way_.' The spelling, which was peculiar, was also Logan's as a rule.
Mr. Watson produced three genuine letters by Logan, before the Lords of
the Articles (who were very sceptical), and satisfied them that the
plot-letters were the laird's. Mr. Alexander Smith, minister of
Chirnside, was tutor to Logan's younger children; he gave identical
evidence. Sir John Arnott, Provost of Edinburgh, a man of distinction
and eminence, produced four genuine letters by the Laird, 'agreeing
perfectly in spelling and character with the plot-letters. The sheriff
clerk of Berwick, William Home, in Aytoun Mill (a guest, I think, at
Logan's 'great Yules'), and John Home, notary in Eyemouth, coincided.
The minister of Aytoun, Mr. William Hogg, produced a letter of Logan to
the Laird of Aytoun, but was not absolutely so certain as the other
witnesses. 'He thinks them' (the plot-letters) 'like [to be] his
writing, and that the same appear to be very like his write, by the
conformity of letters and spelling.' {243a}

Thus, at the examination of Logan's real and forged letters, as at the
examination of Queen Mary's real and Casket letters, in spelling and
handwriting 'no difference was found.' Yet the plot-letters were all
forged, and Mr. Anderson shows that, though 'no difference was _found_,'
many differences existed. Logan had a better chance of acquittal than
Mary. The Lords of the Articles, writes Sir Thomas Hamilton to the King
(June 21, 1609), 'had preconceived hard opinions of Restalrig's process.'