e have always had a
published statement by Sir William Hart, the King's Justice, with an
introduction by Dr. George Abbot, later Archbishop of Canterbury, who was
in Edinburgh, and present when Sprot was hanged. This tract was
published by Bradewood, London, in 1608, and is reprinted by Pitcairn.

After a verbose, pious, and pedantic diatribe, Abbot comes to the point.
Sprot was arrested in April 1608, first on the strength 'of some words
that fell from himself,' and, next, '_of some papers found upon him_.'
What papers? They are never mentioned in the Indictment of Sprot. They
are never alluded to in the sequel of Abbot's pamphlet, containing the
official account, by Sir William Hart, of Sprot's Trial and Examinations.
In mentioning 'some papers found upon' Sprot, Dr. Abbot 'let the cat out
of the bag,' but writers like Mr. Napier, and other sceptics of his way
of thinking, deny that any of the compromising letters were found at all.

No letters, we say, are mentioned by Sir William Hart, in Abbot's tract
(1608), _as having been produced_. Archbishop Spottiswoode, who was
present at Sprot's public trial (August 12, 1608), thought the man one of
those insane self-accusers who are common enough, and observes that he
did not 'show the letter'--that of Logan to Gowrie (IV). This remark of
Spottiswoode, an Archbishop, a converted Presbyterian, a courtier, and an
advocate for the King, has been a source of joy to all Ruthven
apologists. 'Spottiswoode saw though the farce,' they say; 'there was no
letter at all, and, courtier and recreant as he was, Spottiswoode had the
honesty to say so in his History.'

To this there used to be no reply. But now we know the actual and
discreditable truth. The Government was, in fact, engaged in a shameful
scheme to which Archbishops were better not admitted. They meant to use
this letter (IV) on a later occasion, but they also meant to use some of
the other letters which Sprot (unknown to Spottiswoode) had confessed to
be forgeries. The archiepiscopal conscience might revolt at such an
infamy, Spottiswoode might tell the King, so the Scottish Government did
not then allow the Archbishop, or the public, to know that they had any
Logan letters. No letter at all came into open and public Court in 1608.
Hart cites a short one, from Gowrie to Logan. Gowrie hopes to see Logan,
or, at least, to send a trusty messenger, 'anent the purpose you know.
But rather would I wish yourself to c