His
punishment did not indeed last long, nor was it allowed to affect his
military rights. An order for his restoration to the Council had been
signed on the very day of Hislop's death (though he did not take his
seat again till July), but his civil powers had not been renewed.
Westerhall was one of those who had in the previous year been empowered
by royal commission to try prisoners, and his commission was still
running when Claverhouse was disgraced. But on April 20th General
Drummond was appointed to the supreme authority in all the southern and
western shires, and his appointment was expressly declared to cancel all
other civil commissions previously granted. Unless, therefore, some
particular reservation had been made in Westerhall's favour, of which
there is no existing record, he had no more jurisdiction than
Claverhouse, and both were equally guilty of breaking the law. It was,
indeed, still open to Claverhouse to act as he had acted with John
Brown--to put the abjuration oath, and, on its being refused, to order
the recusant to instant execution. There is no mention by any of the
Covenanting writers that this oath was offered to Hislop. But unless it
was, it is difficult to see how either Westerhall or Claverhouse could
have been empowered to kill him. Nor is it likely that the latter,
knowing well how many sharp eyes were on the look-out in Edinburgh to
catch him tripping, would have ventured on so flagrant a breach of the
law.
Pages:
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157