rcy but overborne by Westerhall. The
question remains, how was it that the former, a masterful man and not
easy to be silenced when he was in the right, could not save this poor
lad if he had a mind to do so?

The answer is in truth not easy to find. The explanation that Westerhall
was at that particular time superior in authority to Claverhouse will
hardly serve. It is true that the latter had just then no civil
jurisdiction at all, either to condemn or pardon--no commission of
justiciary, as he wrote to Queensberry. He had been since the close of
the previous year in disgrace at headquarters, in consequence of a
quarrel between him and the Treasurer, arising out of some action of
Colonel James Douglas, the latter's brother, of which Claverhouse seems
to have expressed his disapproval rather too warmly. His name had
accordingly been removed from the list of Privy Councillors soon after
James's accession, and himself deprived of all his civil powers. 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. It must also be remembered that nei