still more galling humiliation was the omission of his name from the new privy council on 9 April; but a reconciliation having been patched up at the time of the threatened invasion by Monmouth and Argyll, a special order was on 11 May given to admit him (Napier, iii. 443).
These circumstances must be borne in mind in view of the charges which have been made against Claverhouse in connection with the drowning of two women, Margaret Maclachlan and Margaret Wilson, on the sands of the Solway Frith, for refusing to take the abjuration oath. These women were sentenced on 18 April at a court where David Graham, his sheriff depute and brother, sat as one of the judges; they were remanded by the privy council on 1 May, and recommended to the royal mercy, but they were nevertheless executed on 11 May. Whether they were executed because James, now king, refused to interpose, is unknown. The fact that the execution took place within the jurisdiction of Claverhouse, and that his brother was one of the judges at the trial, necessarily associated his name with the execution in popular tradition. Nor have the apologisers of Claverhouse recognised the exact circumstances of his relation to it. But for his quarrel with Queensberry, the issue of the special commission, and his omission from the new privy council, it would have been difficult to believe that he was not in some degree responsible for the execution. Napier has tried less to disprove the connection of Claverhouse with the execution than to show that it never took place at all; but a pamphlet published by the Rev. Archibald Stewart in 1869, ‘History vindicated in the Case of the Wigtown Martyrs,’ must be regarded as establishing the fact of the execution beyond doubt. There is no evidence that the women were prosecuted directly or indirectly at the instance of Claverhouse; there is nothing to show that he was in the district while the case was under consideration or in suspense, and it is impossible to state whether he even knew anything of the case till all was over. All that can be positively affirmed is that the act in accordance with which they were condemned to death was one which had his full approval, and that one of the judges was his brother who enjoyed his full confidence, and up till then had acted under his special directions; but apart from this there is the widest room for conjecture as to what Claverhouse did do or would have done. While the case of these two women was in suspense Claverhouse was concerned in the summary execution of John Brown (1627?–1685) [q. v.], of Priestfield, ‘the Christian carrier.’ Professor Aytoun published an appendix to the second edition of his ‘Lays of the Scottish Cavaliers,’ in which he maintained that the details were mythical, and even Brown's existence doubtful. The preservation of a letter by Claverhouse himself is conclusive of the opposite. ‘On Friday last,’ he says, on 3 May, ‘amongst the hills beyond Douglas and Ploughlands, we pursued two fellows a great way through the mosses, and in end seized them. They had no arms about them, and denied they had any. But being asked if they would take the abjuration, the eldest of the two, called John Brown, refused; nor would he swear not to rise against the king, but said he knew no king. Upon which and there being found bullets and match in his house, and treasonable papers, I caused shoot him dead; which he suffered very unconcernedly’ (ib. i. 141, iii. 457). This summary procedure has been condemned and defended in ignorance of the facts. Brown was executed in accordance with the act passed in November, authorising the summary execution of all who refused to take the oath. Claverhouse was thus simply giving practical effect to an act which had been passed on his own recommendation. Claverhouse, in his letter, only records the bare outlines of the occurrence; Wodrow states that he shot Brown with his own hand, because the prayers and exhortations of Brown had unsteadied the nerves of the troopers; but Walker represents Brown as having been shot by a file of six soldiers. Some of the other details of their narrative have no doubt been distorted; but there is no reason to doubt that the execution took place in presence of Brown's wife and children, and that Claverhouse shot Brown with his own hand is not by any means improbable. Possibly he may have done so in a moment of irritation, or to cut short a painful scene. The whole occurrence is recorded by Claverhouse as a mere matter of course, and although the execution of John Brown roused special execration against him, this was rather on account of the high reputation of Brown than because the deed was one of exceptional severity. Bishop Burnet, a connection of Claverhouse, who allows him some valuable qualities, mentions his extraordinary rigour against the presbyterians, ‘even to the shooting many on the highway, that refused the oath required of them’ (Own Time, ed. 1838, p. 510). The other person captured at the same time as John Brown proved to be his nephew, who, somewhat to Claverhouse's embarrassment, at once agreed to take the oath. ‘I was convinced,’ writes Claverhouse, ‘that he was guilty, but saw not how to proceed against him. Wherefore after he had
