is endorsed, 'Production by Niniane Chirnesyde. XIII April 1608.'
Another is Letter V, endorsed 'produced by Ninian Chirnside,' a fact
first noted by Mr. Anderson. Yet another is the letter in twelve torn
pieces. Logan, in the first of these three letters, requests Chirnside
to find a letter which Bower lost in Dunglas. The letter imperils
Logan's life and lands. The date is September 23, and purports, falsely,
to be written before Logan goes to London (1605). Sprot explained that
he forged the letters, that Chirnside might blackmail Logan's executors,
and make them forgive him the debts which (as Logan's will proves) he
owed to the estate.
Here we cite the letter of the twelve fragments. It is, of course, a
forgery by Sprot, to enable Chirnside to terrorise his creditors, Logan's
executors. But, as it directly implicates Chirnside himself in the
Gowrie conspiracy, probably he disliked it, and tore it up. Yet the
artist could not part with his work; it still lies, now reconstructed, in
the old folio sheet of paper. The reader will remark that, like Letters
I (?), III, and V, this torn letter is a mere _pastiche_ framed (as Sprot
confessed) on ideas and expressions in Letter IV.
_Letter found among the Haddington MSS. torn into thirteen pieces_ (_one
lost_)--_these have been placed in order_, _but at least one line of the
piece is wanting_.
Brother, according to my promise the last day ve met in the kannogate I
have sent this berair to my lord vith my answer of all thingis, and, I
pray you ryde vith him till his lordschip, and bevar that he speik vith
na other person bot his lordschipis self and M.A. his lordschipis
brother, and specially let nocht his lordschipis pedagog [Mr. Rhynd] ken
ony thing of the matter, bot forder him hame agane, becawse the purpos is
parilouse, as ye knaw the danger. And yit for my ain part I protest
befoir God I sall keip trew condicion till his lordschip, and sall hasard
albeit it var to the vary skafald, and bid his lordschip tak nane other
opinion bot gude of the trustyness of this silly ald man [Bower] for I
dar baldlie concredit my lyf and all other thing I have elliss in this
varld onto his credit, and I trow he sall nocht frustrat my gude
expectacion. Burn or send bak agane as I did vith you, so till meitting,
and ever I rest, Yowre brother to power redy, Restalrige.
Beseik his lordschip bavar [beware] that my lord my brother [Lord Home]
get na intelligense of thir towrnis as he lowfis all owr veillis, for be
God he vill be our greittest enemy. {217}
(A line or more wanting)
* * * * *
On the same day (August 6) Sprot withdrew a deposition (made before July
5) that the Unknown, for whom Letters I, III, V were meant, was the Laird
of Kinfauns, Sir Harry Lindsay, who, in 1603, tried to shoot Patrick
Eviot, one of the Gowrie fugitives. The Constable of Dundee (Sir James
Scrymgeour) Sprot had also accused falsely. The Letters (I (?), III, V),
he says, were 'imagined by me.'
On August 8, three ministers, Patrick Galloway, John Hall, and Peter
Hewatt, were present. The two former were now preachers of the courtly
party, the third received a pension of 500 marks from the King, after the
posthumous trial of Logan (1609), at which the five letters were
produced, but this reward may have been a mere coincidence. The
ministers Hall and Hewatt, in August 1600, had at first, as we saw,
declined to accept James's version of the affair at Gowrie House (pp.
99-103).
Sprot now confesses that he knows he is to die, deposes that no man has
promised him life, and that he has stated nothing in hope of life. With
tears he deplores that he has taken God's name in vain, in swearing to
the truth of his depositions before that of July 5. His last five
depositions under examination are 'true in all points and circumstances,
and he will go to the death with the same.'
'Further the said George Sprot remembers that in the summertide of 1601,
the Laird of Restalrig had indented with the Lord Willoughby, then
Governor of Berwick, concerning my Lord's ship then built and lying at
Berwick, whereof the Laird should have been equal partner with my Lord,
and to take voyage with the said ship, either by the Laird himself, or
some other person whom it pleased him to appoint . . . to pass to the
Indies, the Canarys, and through the Straits, for such conditions as were
set down in the indenture betwixt my Lord and him, which was framed by
Sir John Guevara,' Willoughby's cousin, the kidnapper of Ashfield in
1599.
Now this ship of Lord Willoughby's, at all events, was a real ship; and
here is a grain of fact in the narrative of Sprot. The ship was built by
Lord Willoughby to protect English commerce from the piracies of the
Dunkirkers. On March 28, 1601, he writes from Berwick to Cecil, 'The
respect of my country and the pity of those hurt by such' (the
Dunkirkers) 'persuaded me to build a ship, and moves me now to offer to
serve her Majesty at as reasonable a rate as any ship of 140 tons, with
sixteen pieces of artillery, and 100 men can be maintained with. . . .
If this offer seem good to you and the Council, my ship shall presently
be fitted, if not I purpose to dispose otherwise of her' (to Logan),
'being not able to maintain her.' ('Border Calendar,' ii. 738). On
April 19, Willoughby wrote that he had pursued, with his ship, a pirate
which had carried an English prize into the Forth. But he cannot,
unaided, maintain the ship, even for one summer. On June 14, Willoughby
'took a great cold' in his ship, lying at the haven mouth, awaiting a
wind, and died suddenly. On July 20, Carey says that his body has been
placed, with all honourable rites, on board his ship.
It appears, then, that Willoughby, unable to maintain his ship, and not
subsidised by Government, in the summer of 1601 admitted Logan to a half
of the venture, carrying great expenses. Logan settled the business at
Robert Jackson's house, in Bridge Street, Berwick, being accompanied by
Sprot, Bower, and Matthew Logan. Matthew said privately to Sprot, 'Wae's
me that ever I should see this day, that the Laird should grow a seaman!
I wot not what it means, for it is for no good, and I fear this shall be
one of the sorrowful blocks that ever the Laird made. It is true that I
have oft thought that the Laird would pass away, for he is minded to sell
all that he has, and would to God that he had never been born, what
should he do with such conditions, to go or to send to the sea? He might
have lived well enough at home. I find he has ever been _carried_'
(excited), 'and his mind has ever been set on passing out of the country
this year past,' that is since the Gowrie affair.
Now all this tale has much _vraisemblance_. The facts about Logan's
adventure with Willoughby, stopped by Willoughby's death, were easily
verifiable. Logan, at his death, owned a ship, rated at 500 marks (so we
read in his inventory), but this can hardly have been the ship of
Willoughby. He was restless, excited, selling land to supply a maritime
enterprise.
At this time Lady Restalrig was deeply distressed, she wished Logan at
the Indies, if only he would first settle Flemington on herself. 'If it
be God's will, I desire never to have a child to him,' she said. 'I have
a guess what this mystery means, woe's me for his motherless children,'
that is, children of former marriages. Later, Lady Restalrig had a
daughter, Anna, by Logan.
Matthew Logan, as usual, denied every word attributed to him by Sprot,
except regrets for his own condition. Matthew could do no less to save
his own life.
On August 9, before other witnesses, and the Rev. Messrs. Galloway, Hall,
and Hewatt, Sprot solemnly confessed to having forged the letters in
Logan's hand (then in possession of his examiners). On August 10, the
same clergymen and many Lords, and Hart, being present, Sprot came to the
point at last. Where, he was asked, after a prayer offered, at his
request, by Mr. Galloway, _was the letter of Logan to Gowrie_, _whereon_,
_as model_, _the rest were forged_? Now he had not previously mentioned,
as far as the reports go, a letter of Logan to Gowrie, as the model of
his forgeries. He had mentioned, as his model, the brief harmless letter
of Gowrie to Logan. On August 9, he had been very solemnly told that he
was to die, and that he would see the faces of the Lords of the Council
no more. Probably, after they left him, he told, to a minister or a
servant in the gaol, the fact that he had used, as his model, a letter
from Logan to Gowrie. The result was that he did again see, on August
10, the Lords of the Council, who asked him 'where the letter now was.'
This is Letter IV, the letter of Logan to Gowrie, of July 29, 1600.
Sprot, in place of answering directly, cited from memory, and
erroneously, the opening of the letter. He had read it, while it was
still unfinished, in July 1600, at Fastcastle. Logan, who had been
writing it, was called by Bower, went out, and thrust it between a bench
and the wall: there Sprot found, read, and restored the unfinished
epistle to its place. But the letter is dated 'from Gunnisgreen,' at the
conclusion. Logan, according to Sprot, left Gunnisgreen one day at the
end of July, 1600, or beginning of August, thence rode to Fastcastle, and
thence, next day, to Edinburgh (p. 190).
Now Logan, in the letter (IV), says that he took two days to write it.
One day would be at Fastcastle, when he was interrupted; the other, the
day of dating, at Gunnisgreen. This, however, does not tally with
Sprot's account (p. 190) of Logan's movements (Nine Wells, Gunnisgreen,
Fastcastle, Edinburgh), if these are the days of writing Letter IV. Yet,
if Sprot forged Letter IV, he knew where he dated it from; {221} if the
Government had it forged, they knew, from Sprot's confession, that it
should have been dated from Fastcastle. Perhaps we should not bear too
heavily on this point. A man may mention the wrong name by inadvertence,
or the clerk, by inadvertence, may write the wrong name. Mr. Mark Napier
in his essay on this matter twice or thrice prints 'Logan' for 'Sprot,'
or 'Sprot' for 'Logan.' {222} 'Fastcastle,' in Sprot's confession, may
be a slip of tongue or pen for 'Gunnisgreen,' or he may have been
confused among the movements to and from Gunnisgreen and Fastcastle. The
present writer finds similar errors in the manuscript of this work.
Sprot next alleged that, three months after the Gowrie affair, Logan bade
Bower hunt among his papers for this very letter. He had been at
Berwick, with Lord Willoughby, and Bower told Sprot that he was 'taking
order' with all who knew of his part in the Gowrie plot. Here is the old
difficulty. Why was the letter kept for one moment after Bower brought
it back? Why leave it with Bower for three months? At all events, as
Bower could not read, Sprot helped him to look for the letter, found it,
and kept it '_till_ he framed three new letters upon it,' after which he
does not say what he did with it.
Here Sprot cited, from memory, but not accurately, more of Letter IV.
The existence of such errors is not remarkable. Sprot again swore to the
truth of all his depositions since July 5. But if _this_ story is true,
how can it be true that Logan was at ease in his mind, after burning the
letter from Alexander Ruthven, and another from Father Andrew Clerk,
Jesuit, as Sprot previously swore? There was still Letter IV, lost,
unburned, a haunting fear. It may be suggested that Sprot only kept this
letter '_till_' he had made his forgeries on its model, and then, in a
later search, pretended to find and returned it, having first copied it
out in Logan's hand; that copy being our Letter IV. Sprot first would
make a copy, in his ordinary hand, of the letter, then restore the
original, and, after Logan's death, copy his copy, in imitation of
Logan's hand, and frame I, III, V, and the torn letter on his copy of IV.
Finally, Sprot said that '_he believes_ this letter is in his chest among
his writings, because he left it there when he was taken by Watty Doig
and deposes that it is closed and folded within a piece of paper.' Sprot
said this on August 10. On August 12 he was hanged. Now was this
letter, on which he forged three others, found 'in his kist,' before his
death? That it was so found, we have direct evidence, though not from
the best of sources.
In the year 1713, an aged nobleman, Lord Cromarty, published a defence of
the King's conduct in the Gowrie affair. Lord Cromarty, in 1713, was
aged eighty-three. Born about 1630, he remembered the beginnings of the
Civil War, and says that the Covenanters, about 1640-1645, made great
political capital out of King James's alleged guilt in the slaughter of
the Ruthvens. Later, Lord Cromarty occupied, in the Restoration, the
highest judicial offices, and, as Clerk Registrar, had access to public
documents. He was an old courtier, he may have been forgetful, he may
have been unscrupulous, but, as to the letter in Sprot's kist, he writes
'the letter was found there by the Sheriff Depute, who was ordered by Sir
William Hart, Lord Justice of Scotland, to seize the said chest, and make
search for this letter, which he found, and delivered to the King's
Advocate, Sir Thomas Hamilton.' {224}
Now this Sir Thomas Hamilton was the ancestor of the Earl of Haddington,
who inherits many of his papers. Among these we find a copy, in Sprot's
'course hand,' or rapid current hand, of Letter IV, and another of Letter
I, but no such copies of II, III. and V. Each of these is endorsed by
James Primrose, Clerk of Council, is endorsed by Sprot, in faded ink, and
is _also_ endorsed in Sprot's ordinary everyday hand, very firm and
clear, thus:
'This is copyitt off the principal' (the original), 'lykeas the note
writtin upon the bak is writtin by me, George Sprott.'
There is, in fact, another 'note on the back,' in ink more faded, on a
dirty rubbed part of the paper.
Now certainly the last endorsation was written by Sprot either on August
11 or August 12, 1600. He had not the original or this copy by him on
August 10, or on August 11 when examined, for on August 10 he could only
give a version of Letter IV from memory, and erroneously, the version
cited in his indictment. On August 11 he still had not the original or
his copy, for he quoted from memory, what he believed to be a
_postscript_ to the original Letter IV, a passage which is really in the
_text_ of Letter IV. He could not have made this error if, at that hour
of August 11, he had either the original of Letter IV, or his exact copy
before him, nor would there have been any reason why he should quote from
memory, if Government had the documents. Yet he re-endorsed his copies
of Letters I and IV before his death. This endorsement is firm and
clear, the text of the two copies is fainter and much of the paper more
rubbed, as if from being kept in the pocket. The copies are older than
the final endorsement on the copies. It follows that the Sheriff Depute
found these two copies (I, IV) and the originals, in Sprot's kist, and
brought them to Sprot's examiners after that hour of August 11, when he
could only quote from memory. He then endorsed them formally, one of the
last acts of his life.
The originals were also found, for it will not be argued that Government
employed another forger to forge them from Sprot's copies in 'course
hand.' We know that Sprot had a secondary species of blackmailing
documents, these in current hand; one of them he gave to the Goodman of
Rentoun. For this, or some other purpose, he had made the 'course hand'
copies of Letters I and IV, which he endorsed just before his death, or
perhaps he made them from the original, which he then destroyed or
surreptitiously returned. When he was examined on August 11, the three
preachers, Galloway, Hall, and Hewatt, and the minister of Duddingston,
Mr. Lumisden, were present. He was entreated not to perjure himself to
the injury of innocent people, dead or alive, 'by making and forging of
lies.' He renewed his protestations of truth, asked Mr. Galloway to pray
for him, wept, and repeated his averments.
On August 12 Sprot was tried and hanged at Edinburgh. He renewed his
protestations from every corner of the scaffold, in the most vigorous
language. Abbot, who was present, declares that he thrice gave a loud
clap with his hands while he swung, as a proof that he adhered in death
to his last words. A similar story is told of Kirkcaldy of Grange, and I
think in other cases. Nothing of the sort is in the first draft of the
official account of his dying behaviour (a draft manifestly drawn up near
the spot), nor in the official account itself.
Much value was set on dying confessions. When the preacher, Robert
Bruce, refused to believe the King's account of the Gowrie tragedy, he
said that one proof would satisfy him. Let Andrew Henderson, the man in
the turret, be hanged. If he persisted in his confession on the
scaffold, Mr. Bruce would believe. The King declined to make this
abominable experiment. In Sprot's case his dying confession did not move
the Kirk party. Calderwood hints that Mr. Galloway 'had the most speech
to Sprot on the scaffold,' and so kept him true to a dying lie. {227a}
He adds that Spottiswoode said to Galloway 'I am afraid this man make us
all ashamed,' that is, by retracting his confessions. Mr. Patrick
answered, 'Let alone, my Lord, I shall warrant him.' {227b} Had Andrew
Henderson swung, constant to his confession, the Presbyterian sceptics
would have found similar reasons for disbelief.
What are _we_ to believe? Did Sprot go wherever he went with a
blasphemous lie in his mouth? A motive for such vehemence of religious
hypocrisy is difficult to find. Conceivably he had promise of benefits
to his family. Conceivably he was an atheist, and 'took God in his own
hand.' Conceivably his artistic temperament induced him to act his lie
well, as he had a lie to act.
Yet all this is not satisfactory.
Let us take the unromantic view of common sense. It is this: Logan was a
restless, disappointed intriguer and debauchee. He sold his lands, some
to acquire a partnership with Lord Willoughby in a vessel trading to
America; this vessel, or another, is among his assets recorded in his
inventory. All his lands he sold--not that he was in debt, he was a
large lender--for purposes of profligacy. These proceedings gave rise to
gossip. The Laird must be selling his lands to evade forfeiture. He
_must_ have been engaged in the Gowrie mystery. Then Logan dies (July
1606). Bower is also dead (January 1606). It occurs to Sprot that there
is money in all this, and, having lost Logan's business, the hungry Sprot
needs money. He therefore makes a pact with some of Logan's debtors.
He, for pay, will clear them of their debts to Logan's executors, whom he
will enable them to blackmail. Logan's descendants by two marriages were
finally his heirs, with Anna, a minor, daughter of his last wife, who had
hoped to have no children by him, the free-spoken Lady Restalrig, _nee_
Ker (Marion). They, of course, were robbed, by Logan's forfeiture, of
33,000 marks, owed to Logan by Dunbar and Balmerino. Meanwhile, just
after Logan's death, in autumn 1606, Sprot forges Letters I, II, III, IV,
V, and the torn letter, with two compromising letters to Bower, two to
Ninian Chirnside, and an 'eik,' or addition, of compromising items to a
memorandum on business, which, in September 1605, Logan gave to Bower and
John Bell before he started for London and Paris. All these documents,
the plot-letters, I, II, III, IV, V, and the rest (which lie before me),
are mere instruments of blackmail, intended to terrorise the guardians of
the Logans.
So far, all is clear. But, in April 1608, Sprot has blabbed and is
arrested. The forgeries are found among his papers, or given up by
Chirnside. Sprot confesses to the plot, to Logan's share of it, and to
the authenticity of the letters and papers. He is then tortured, recants
his confession, and avows the forgery of the papers. The Government is
disappointed. In July, Dunbar comes down from town, treats Sprot
leniently, and gives him medical attendance. Sprot now confesses to his
genuine knowledge of the plot, but unflinchingly maintains that all the
papers so far produced are forgeries, based on facts.
Why does he do this? He has a better chance of pardon, if he returns to
the statement that they are genuine. If they are, the Government, which
he must propitiate, has a far stronger hand, for the forgeries then
defied detection. However, for no conceivable reason, unless it be
either conscience or the vanity of the artist, Sprot now insists on
claiming the letters as his own handiwork. On this point he was
inaccessible to temptation, if temptation was offered. If he lies as to
Letter II having been dictated by Logan, he lies by way of relapse into
the habit of a lifetime, and so on other points. He keeps back all
mention of Letter IV, till the last ember of hope of life is extinct.
It has not been hitherto known, either that Sprot kept back Letter IV
till almost his dying day, or that he then, at last, revealed it. Lord
Cromarty's averment that it was found in Sprot's kist was disbelieved.
It is true, however, and now we ask, why did Sprot keep back Letter IV to
the last, and why, having so long concealed it, did he say where it was,
after all hope of life was over?
The answer can only be conjectural. Some might guess thus: till Letter
IV was confessed to and found, Government had not received from Sprot one
scrap of documentary evidence that could be used against Logan's heirs.
Scoundrel as he was, Sprot could not guess that the Privy Council would
use papers which were confessed forgeries to save Dunbar and Balmerino
from paying some 33,000 marks to Logan's executors. The wretched Sprot
had robbed the orphans on a small scale, but he would not, by producing
the genuine Logan letter, enable the Lords to ruin them utterly. Bad as
he was, the Laird had been kind to Sprot. Therefore he kept back, and by
many a lie concealed, his real pieces of evidence, Letter IV, and I, if I
is genuine. So far he acted on a remnant of natural conscience.
But Sprot, alas, had a religious conscience. He had a soul to be saved.
The preachers had prayed with him. When death was but forty-eight hours
distant, he feared to die with a lie in his mouth. So _now_, at last, he
spoke of Letter IV as his real model. Perhaps he hoped that it would not
be found, and probably it was in some secret drawer or false bottom of
his kist. It was found, and was used, along with the confessed forgeries
(which even Sprot could not have anticipated), to destroy the inheritance
of the children, at Logan's posthumous trial in 1609.
But the obvious reply to this hypothesis is, that Letter IV, by the
evidence of modern experts (evidence unanimous and irresistible), is just
as much forged as all the rest, is just as certainly in Sprot's imitation
of Logan's handwriting. This being so, why did Sprot keep it back so
long, and why, having kept it back, did he, almost in his last hour,
produce it, and say (if he did) that it was genuine, and his model, as it
certainly was? This is the last enigma of Sprot. His motives defy my
poor efforts to decipher them. Even if the substance of IV is genuine,
what were Sprot's motives? I do not feel assured that Sprot really
maintained the genuineness of the _handwriting_ of Letter IV. His remark
that he kept Logan's letter only _till_ he forged others on it, as a
model, certainly implies that he did not keep it _after_ he had done his
forgeries, and therefore that our Letter IV is, confessedly, _not_
Logan's original. Certainly it is not.
XVI. WHAT IS LETTER IV?