vilely 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 ke