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 soon as they returned from Edinburgh, destroy every
inch of paper connected with the conspiracy? One letter at least
(Logan’s to Gowrie, July 29) was not burned, according to Sprot, but was
later stolen by himself from Bower; though he reserved _this_ confession
to the last day of his life but two. We might have expected Logan to
take the letter from Bower as soon as they met, and to burn or, for that
matter, swallow it if no fire was convenient! Yet, according to Sprot,
in his final confession, Logan let Bower keep the damning paper for
months. If this be true, we can only say _quos Deus vult perdere prius
dementat_. People do keep damning letters, constant experience proves
the fact.
After Bower had met Logan in his melancholy mood, he rode away, and
remained absent for four days, on what errand Sprot did not know, and
during the next fortnight, while Scotland was ringing with the Gowrie
tragedy, Sprot saw nothing of Logan.
Next, Logan went to church at Coldinghame, on a Sunday, and met Bower:
next day they dined together at Gunnisgreen. Bower was gloomy. Logan
said, ‘Be it as it will, I must take my fortune, and I will tell you,
Laird Bower, the scaffold is the best death that a man can die.’ Logan,
if he said this, must have been drunk; he very often was.
It was at this point, in answer to a question, that Sprot confessed that
Logan’s letter to Bower (No. II) was a forgery by himself. The actual
letter, Sprot said, was dictated by Logan to him, and he made a
counterfeit copy in imitation of Logan’s handwriting. We have stated the
difficulties involved in this obvious falsehood. Sprot was trying every
ruse to conceal his alleged source and model, Letter IV.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account