Nor is there any word in this
despatch to show that Claverhouse had any previous knowledge of Brown or
was acting on particular information. The real question, and the only
question, is, was Claverhouse legally--not morally, that belongs to
another part of the case--was he legally justified in ordering the man
to be shot? To this there can be but one answer, so long as the phrase
"legal justification" bears the meaning it has hitherto borne for those
who use the English tongue: both by the spirit and the letter of his
commission he was justified in what he did. By the law of the Government
whose servant Claverhouse then was, the death of John Brown on that
Ayrshire moor was as lawful an act as the death on the scaffold of any
prisoner to-day found guilty by a jury of his countrymen. In October,
1684, the Covenanters had published a declaration, drawn up by Renwick,
of their intention to do unto all their enemies whom they could lay
hands on, civil no less than military, as their enemies had done and
should do unto them; and the deliberate murder of two troopers of the
Life Guards in the following month had shown (what, to be sure, can have
needed very little proof) that this was no idle threat.[58] An Act,
therefore, was hastily passed to the effect that, "Any person who owns
or will not disown the late treasonable declaration on oath, whether
they have arms or not, be immediately put to death, this being always
done in the presence of two witnesses, and the person or persons having
commission to that effect.
Pages:
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152