(in substance), then, whatever the details of the Gowrie Conspiracy may
have been, a conspiracy there was. This can only be denied by ignorance.
If the enterprise fails, says the author of Letter IV, the plotters will
lose their lives, their lands and houses will be 'wrecked,' their very
names will be extirpated; and, in fact, James did threaten to extirpate
the name of Ruthven. The letter deliberately means High Treason. The
objection of Calderwood, and of all the Ruthven apologists, that Sprot
confessed to having forged _all_ the letters, we have shown to rest on
lack of information. He said, at last, that he had forged many papers
(some did not appear in Court in 1609), and that he forged _three_
letters on the model of Letter IV. These three letters may either be I,
III, and V; or III, V, and the torn letter. The case of Letter I is
peculiar. Though it contains much that is in Letter IV, and might have
been taken from it, the repetitions need not imply copying from Letter
IV. Byron and others would say the same things, on the same day, to two
or three correspondents. Letter IV is subsequent, as dated, to Letter I,
and Logan might say to the Unknown, on July 18, what, after the announced
interval of ten days, he said to Gowrie. Letter I contains this remark
on the nature of the plot: 'It is not far by' (not unlike) 'that form,
with the like stratagem, whereof we had conference in Cap. h,' which may
be Capheaton, on the English side of the Border. Probably Logan often
discussed ingenious ways of catching the King: new plots were hatched
about once a month, as Cecil's and the other correspondence of the age
abundantly proves. The plot (the letter says) is like that in a Paduan
story of a nobleman. The rest of the letter is identical with the matter
of III, IV, and V. We cannot be sure whether Letter I is one of the
three forged on IV or not.
One thing is certain, Letters III and V, to the Unknown, _are_ modelled
on IV, as is the torn letter. Sprot said this was the case, and every
reader of III, V, and the torn letter (given above) must see that he
tells the truth. These letters contain no invention at all, they merely
repeat Letter IV. Any man who could invent IV had genius enough to alter
his tunes in III, V. and the torn letter. But Sprot never deserts his
model. This is an argument for the authenticity in substance of Letter
IV. The other three contain nothing that is not in Letter IV, and
everything that is in it, except what is personal to Gowrie, and would be
inappropriate if addressed to the Unknown (I, III, V), or to Chirnside
(torn letter).
There is (1) the mention of a Paduan adventure, the basis of the plot, a
thing that Sprot is very unlikely to have invented. With all my
admiration for Sprot, I do think that the Paduan touch is beyond him.
This occurs in Letter IV, 'the good sport that M.A., your lordship's
brother, told me of a nobleman in Padua. It is a parasteur' (? _a
propos_) 'to this purpose we have in hand.' This appears in Letter I,
'reckless toys of Padua,' and in Letter V, 'bid M. A. remember on the
sport he told me of Padua.'
2. The constant applause of Bower. This is in Letter IV, and in I, III,
V, and the torn letter.
3. Meeting with Alexander Ruthven. This is in IV, and in I and V.
4. The meeting at Fastcastle, which is to be quiet and well-provisioned.
This is in IV, and in I, III, V.
5. Lord Home and Mr. Rhynd are to know nothing. This is in IV, and in
I, and V, and the torn letter, utterly needless repetition.
6. The King's hunting, the opportunity for the plot. This is in IV, and
in I, but that is natural.
7. Directions as to returning the letters. These are in IV, in I, III,
V, and the torn letter.
8. Injunctions of secrecy. These are in IV, and I, III, V, and in the
torn letter.
9. Logan will be true, 'although the scaffold were already set up.'
This is a phrase of Letter IV, and recurs in Letter III and in the torn
letter.
10. Logan's elevation of heart on receipt of Gowrie's letter. This
occurs in IV and in V.
Who can doubt that Letter IV is the source, followed servilely by the
forger, of the torn letter and I (?), III, V? If Sprot could invent the
substance of IV, why was he so chary of invention in all the other
letters?
It is clear, moreover, that the Unknown himself is derived from a line in
Letter IV: 'I have already sent another letter to the gentleman your
Lordship knows, as the bearer will inform you of his answer.' The bearer
is always Bower, so the 'gentleman' is to be conceived as in Gowrie's
neighbourhood, or on the route thither, as one bearer serves both for
Gowrie and the gentleman. Therefore, before July 5, Sprot (who had no
idea as to who the gentleman was) identified the 'gentleman,' the Unknown
of I, III, V, with the laird of Kinfauns, near Perth, or with the
Constable of Dundee; but he withdrew these imputations, craving the
pardon of the accused.
Thus it stands to reason that I (?), III, V, and the torn letter are
forged on the model of IV. Sprot introduces no novelties in I, III, V,
or the torn epistle. He harps eternally on the strings of IV. The only
variation is (V) the mention of 'one other man with you,' in the proposed
sail to Fastcastle.
It is not easy for criticism to evade the conclusion that I (?), III, V,
and the torn letter are, indeed, forgeries modelled on IV. And what is
IV?
Is Letter IV in substance genuine? If not, why did Sprot keep it back
till the rope was noosed for his neck? A guess at his possible reasons
for so keeping it back (as the only real documentary evidence extant
against the orphans of Logan) we have given, but this fails if Letter IV
was a forgery: as in handwriting it was.
Then there are the contents of Letter IV. To myself, and to Mr.
Anderson, it does not seem probable, it seems hardly credible, that Sprot
could have _invented_ the contents of Letter IV. If he did, his power of
rendering character might have been envied by the author of the Waverley
Novels. In IV Logan is painted, the 'main loose man, but a good fellow,'
with a master hand. The thing is freely, largely, and spontaneously
executed. What especially moves me to think IV no invention, is the
reference to the Paduan incident or romance, 'the good sport that Mr.
Alexander told me of the nobleman of Padua, it is _a propos_ to the
purpose we have in hand.' This is casually inserted in the last words of
the postscript, not blazoned in the text, as in the forgeries confessedly
modelled on this letter. The whole tone of the letter is in keeping with
the alleged author's temperament. It is respectful, but far from
servile. Gowrie is a great Earl, but Logan is of an old and good name.
There is the genial sensualism of the man, with his promise of wine and
'a fine hattit kit' (a kind of syllabub). There is the joyous forward
glance at an anniversary dinner, with Bothwell, to which the King's
hunting of _this_ year shall furnish the dainty cheer; '_hoc jocose_!'
At this dinner Bothwell and Gowrie, old allies, are to meet at Logan's
board, which may suggest that Bothwell and Gowrie are still working
together.
The contempt for Lord Home as a conspirator--'in good faith he will never
help his friend or harm his foe'--and the praises of Bower, are
characteristic, and, here, are in place; elsewhere they are idle
repetitions, mere copies. The apology for bad writing--Logan could not
employ a secretary in this case--is natural: the two days writing agrees
with Sprot's evidence. (p. 221.)
Could Sprot have invented all this: and, in his confessed forgeries,
failed to invent anything? Would not the fertility of his genius have
hurried him into fresh developments, and characteristic details,
appropriate to the imaginary correspondent whom he addresses? These
considerations may seem a mere leaning on 'internal evidence,' and
'literary instinct,' broken reeds. But the case is buttressed by the
long and, on any theory, purposeless retention of Letter IV, the secrecy
concerning it, and the confession, so obviously true, that Letter IV is
the source and model of the forgeries. These facts have hitherto been
unknown to writers who believed the whole correspondence to be a forgery
done for the Government.
Both Mr. Anderson (who has greatly aided me by his acuteness and learned
experience of old MSS.) and myself disbelieve that Logan's hand wrote
Letter IV. The matter, the contents of Letter IV, may be Logan's, but
the existing document may be 'a Sprot after Logan.' Sprot may have
reinserted the genuine Logan IV among Bower's collection of papers,
pretended to find it, and returned it to Logan, after copying it _in
Logan's hand_. Or he may have copied it in his 'course hand' (the copy
in the Haddington MSS.), and later, in autumn 1606, after Logan's death,
have rewritten his copy in an imitation of Logan's hand. The contents,
Mr. Anderson believes, as I do, are, none the less, genuine Logan.
If readers accept these conclusions, there was a Gowrie conspiracy, and
Logan was in it. 'I trow your Lordship has a proof of my constancy
already ere now,' he says in Letter IV, and Gowrie may have had a proof,
in his early conspiracies of 1593-1594, or in a testimonial to Logan from
Bothwell, Gowrie's old ally.
But, if readers do not accept our conclusions, they may still rest,
perhaps, on the arguments adduced in the earlier chapters of this essay,
to demonstrate that neither accident nor the machinations of the King,
but an enterprise of their own, caused the Slaughter of the Ruthvens.
The infamous conduct of the Privy Council in 1608-1609 does not prove
that, in 1600, the King carried out a conspiracy in itself impossible.
I have found nothing tending to show that King James was ever made aware
of Sprot's confessions of forgery. It is true that Sir William Hart, the
Lord Justice, went to Court after Sprot's death, and, in September, the
Scottish Privy Council asked James to send him home again. {239} But
Hart need not have told all the truth to James.
There is a kind of rejoicing _naivete_ in all of James's references to
the Gowrie affair, which seems to me hardly consistent with his disbelief
in his own prowess on that occasion. If one may conjecture, one would
guess that the Privy Council and the four preachers managed to persuade
themselves, Sprot being the liar whom we know, that he lied when he
called his Logan papers forgeries. The real facts may have been
concealed from the King. Mr. Gunton, the Librarian at Hatfield, informs
me that, had he not seen Letter IV (which he is sure was _written_ by
Sprot), he does not think he should have suspected the genuineness of
Letters II and III, after comparing them with the undoubted letters of
Logan in the Cecil manuscripts. The Government and the four preachers,
with such documents in their hands, documents still apt to delude, may
easily have brought themselves to disbelieve Sprot's assertion that they
were all forgeries. Let us hope that they did!
XVII. INFERENCES AS TO THE CASKET LETTERS
The affair of Sprot has an obvious bearing on that other mystery, the
authenticity of the Casket Letters attributed to Queen Mary. As we know,
she, though accused, was never allowed to see the letters alleged to be
hers. We know that, in December 1568, these documents were laid before
an assembly of English nobles at Hampton Court. They were compared, for
orthography and handwriting, with genuine letters written by the Queen to
Elizabeth, and Cecil tells us that 'no difference was found.' It was a
rapid examination, by many persons, on a brief winter day, partly
occupied by other business. If experts existed, we are not informed that
they were present. The Casket Letters have disappeared since the death
of the elder Gowrie, in 1584. From him, Elizabeth had vainly sought to
purchase them. They were indispensable, said Bowes, her ambassador, to
'the secrecy of the cause.' Gowrie would not be tempted, and it is not
improbable that he carried so valuable a treasure with him, when, in
April 1584, he retired to Dundee, to escape by sea if the Angus
conspiracy failed.
At Dundee he was captured, after defending the house in which he was
residing. That house was pulled down recently; nothing was discovered.
But fable runs that, at the destruction of another ancient house in
Dundee, 'Lady Wark's Stairs,' _a packet of old letters in French_ was
found in a hiding hole contrived within a chimney. The letters were not
examined by any competent person, and nobody knows what became of them.
Romance relates that they were the Casket Letters, entrusted by Gowrie to
a friend. It is equally probable that he yielded them to the King, when
he procured his remission for the Raid of Ruthven. In any case, they are
lost.
Consequently we cannot compare the Casket Letters with genuine letters by
Mary. On the other hand, as I chanced to notice that genuine letters of
Logan's exist at Hatfield, I was enabled, by the kindness of the Marquis
of Salisbury, and of Sir Stair Agnew, to have both the Hatfield Logan
letters, and the alleged Logan letters produced in 1609, photographed and
compared, at Hatfield and at the General Register House in Edinburgh. By
good fortune, the Earl of Haddington also possesses (what we could not
expect to find in the case of the Casket Letters) documents in the
ordinary handwriting of George Sprot, the confessed forger of the
plot-letters attributed to Logan. The result of comparison has been to
convince Mr. Gunton at Hatfield, Mr. Anderson in Edinburgh, Professor
Hume Brown, and other gentlemen of experience, that Sprot forged all the
plot-letters. Their reasons for holding this opinion entirely satisfy
me, and have been drawn up by Mr. Anderson, in a convincing report. To
put the matter briefly, the forged letters present the marked
peculiarities of Logan's orthography, noted by the witnesses in 1609.
But they also 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.'
{243b} Yet they were convinced by the evidence of the witnesses, and by
their own eyes.
From the error of the Lords of the Articles, in 1609, it obviously
follows that the English Lords, at Hampton Court, in 1568, may have been
unable to detect proofs of forgery in the Casket Letters, which, if the
Casket Letters could now be compared with those of Mary, would be at once
discovered by modern experts. In short, the evidence as to Mary's
handwriting, even if as unanimously accepted, by the English Lords, as
Cecil declares, is not worth a 'hardhead,' a debased copper Scottish
coin. It is worth no more than the opinion of the Lords of the Articles
in the case of the letters attributed to Restalrig.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. THE FRONTISPIECE
_Gowrie's Arms and Ambitions_
The frontispiece of this volume is copied from the design of the Earl of
Gowrie's arms, in what is called 'Workman's MS.,' at the Lyon's office in
Edinburgh. The shield displays, within the royal treasure, the arms of
Ruthven in the first and fourth, those of Cameron and Halyburton in the
second and third quarters. The supporters are, dexter, a Goat; sinister,
a Ram; the crest is a Ram's head. The motto is not given; it was DEID
SCHAW. The shield is blotted by transverse strokes of the pen, the whole
rude design having been made for the purpose of being thus scored out,
after Gowrie's death, posthumous trial and forfeiture, in 1600.
On the left of the sinister supporter is an armed man, in the Gowrie
livery. His left hand grasps his sword-hilt, his right is raised to an
imperial crown, hanging above him in the air; from his lips issue the
words, TIBI SOLI, 'for thee alone.' Sir James Balfour Paul, Lyon,
informs me that he knows no other case of such additional supporter, or
whatever the figure ought to be called.
This figure does not occur on any known Ruthven seal. It is not on that
of the first Earl of Gowrie, affixed to a deed of February 1583-1584. It
is not on a seal used in 1597, by John, third Earl, given in Henry
Laing's 'Catalogue of Scottish Seals' (vol. i. under 'Ruthven'). But, in
Crawford's 'Peerage of Scotland' (1716), p. 166, the writer gives the
arms of the third Earl (John, the victim of August 5, 1600). In place of
the traditional Scottish motto _Deid Schaw_, is the Latin translation,
_Facta Probant_. The writer says (Note C), 'This from an authentic copy
of his arms, _richly illuminated in the year_ 1597, with his name and
titles, _viz._ "Joannes Ruthven, Comes de Gowry, Dominus de Ruthven,"
&c., in my hands.'
In 1597, as the archives of the Faculty of Law, in the University of
Padua, show, Gowrie was a student of Padua. It is also probable that, in
1597, he attained his majority. He certainly had his arms richly
illuminated, and he added to his ancestral bearings what Crawfurd
describes thus: 'On the dexter a chivaleer, garnish'd with the Earl's
coat of arms, _pointing with a sword upward to an imperial crown_, with
this device, TIBI SOLI.'
In Workman's MS., the figure points to the crown with the open right
hand, and the left hand is on the sword-hilt. The illuminated copy of
1597, once in the possession of Crawfurd, must be the more authentic; the
figure _here_ points the sword at a crown, which is _Tibi Soli_, 'For
thee' (Gowrie?) 'alone.'
Now on no known Ruthven seal, as we saw, does this figure appear, not
even on a seal of Gowrie himself, used in 1597. Thus it is perhaps not
too daring to suppose that Gowrie, when in Italy in 1597, added this
emblematic figure to his ancestral bearings. What does the figure
symbolise?
On this point we have a very curious piece of evidence. On June 22,
1609, Ottavio Baldi wrote, from Venice, to James, now King of England.
His letter was forwarded by Sir Henry Wotton. Baldi says that he has
received from Sir Robert Douglas, and is sending to the King by his
nephew--a Cambridge student--'a strange relique out of this country.' He
obtained it thus: Sir Robert Douglas, while at home in Scotland, had
'heard speech' of 'a certain emblem or impresa,' left by Gowrie in Padua.
Meeting a Scot in Padua, Douglas asked where this emblem now was, and he
was directed to the school of a teacher of dancing. There the emblem
hung, 'among other devices and remembrances of his scholars.' Douglas
had a copy of the emblem made; and immediately 'acquainted me with the
quality of the thing,' says Baldi. 'We agreed together, that it should
be fit, if possible, to obtain the very original itself, and to leave in
the room thereof the copy that he had already taken, which he did effect
by well handling the matter.
'Thus hath your Majesty now a view, _in umbra_, of those detestable
thoughts which afterwards appeared _in facto_, according to the said
Earl's own _mot_. For what other sense or allusion can the reaching at a
crown with a sword in a stretched posture, and the impersonating of his
device in a blackamore, yield to any intelligent and honest beholder?'
{247}
From Baldi's letter we learn that, in the device left by Gowrie at Padua,
the figure pointing a sword at the crown was a negro, thus varying from
the figure in Workman's MS., and that in the illuminated copy emblazoned
in 1597, and possessed in 1716 by Crawfurd. Next, we learn that Sir
Robert Douglas had heard talk of this emblem in Scotland, before he left
for Italy. Lastly, a _mot_ on the subject by the Earl himself was
reported, to the effect that the device set forth 'in a shadow,' what was
intended to be executed 'in very deed.'
Now how could Sir Robert Douglas, in Scotland, hear talk of what had been
done and said years ago by Gowrie in Padua? Sir Robert Douglas was
descended from Archibald Douglas of Glenbervie (_ob._ 1570), who was
ancestor of the Catholic Earl of Angus (_flor._ 1596). This Archibald of
Glenbervie had a son, Archibald, named in his father's testament, but
otherwise unknown. {248} Rather senior to Gowrie at the University of
Padua, and in the same faculty of law, was an Archibald Douglas. He may
have been a kinsman of Sir Robert Douglas, himself of the Glenbervie
family, and from him Sir Robert, while still in Scotland, may have heard
of Gowrie's device, left by him at Padua, and of his _mot_ about _in
umbra_ and _in facto_. But, even if these two Douglases were not akin,
or did not meet, still Keith, Lindsay, and Ker of Newbattle, all
contemporaries of Gowrie at Padua, might bring home the report of
Gowrie's enigmatic device, and of his _mot_ there-anent. Had the emblem
been part of the regular arms of Ruthven, Sir Robert Douglas, and every
Scot of quality, would have known all about it, and seen no mystery in
it.
It will scarcely be denied that the assumption by Gowrie of the figure in
his livery, pointing a sword at the crown, and exclaiming 'For Thee
Only,' does suggest that wildly ambitious notions were in the young man's
mind. What other sense can the emblem bear? How can such ideas be
explained?