in the word at all.  And, though it is true that on May 1st (the day of Brown’s death) Argyle was in Holland, it is no less true that on the second he had left Holland for Scotland; that since April 21st the Privy Council had been well informed of his designs; that measures had been taken for putting the whole kingdom in a state of defence against him; and that arrests had been already made on account of treasonable correspondence with him.[57] But the question is not one of probabilities, and moreover against these probabilities it may be very fairly urged that Claverhouse’s own despatch proves that the nephew’s confession and the discovery of the underground armoury were not made till after the uncle’s death.  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.”  With the severity, the folly, or the injustice of such a law we are not for the moment concerned.  The fact remains that such was the law; and Claverhouse transgressed no jot of it in ordering John Brown to death.  It was no question of form of religion:  it was no question of previous misconduct.  The man would not take the oath; and he was accordingly shot in the presence of the requisite number of witnesses by the order of a competent authority.