My blood a witness still doth stand,

‘Gainst all defections in this land.’

The cases that have been cited do not exhaust the black list that might be drawn up from the accounts already referred to. They may suffice, however, to show, not indeed that Claverhouse performed the odious duties imposed upon him by his position otherwise than sternly and remorselessly, but, at least, that the most notorious of the instances which represent him as going far beyond even what the merciless laws required or authorised, as delighting in suffering and revelling in bloodshed, are demonstrably exaggerations, and that impartial investigation, whilst it may lead us to deplore the relentless severity with which he carried out the orders of the Government, does not justify us in holding him up to obloquy as a monster of cruelty.

VII
UNDER KING JAMES

Charles II. died at the beginning of February 1685, and was succeeded by his brother. As Duke of York James had been Claverhouse’s chief patron; as King, one of his first actions was to express his disapproval of the conduct to which his favourite had been urged by a ‘high, proud and peremptory humour.’ This was the result of a quarrel with Queensberry, of which the origin, trifling in itself, went back to the beginning of the previous December. At a meeting of the Privy Council, held on the 11th of that month, there was read a complaint presented by some soldiers whom Queensberry’s brother, Colonel James Douglas had turned out of his regiment, and who alleged that their commanding officer ‘had taken the arrears of their pay, and clothed and shoed some of the rest of the soldiers therewith.’ The complainant’s cause was taken up by Claverhouse, on the ground that the treatment to which they had been submitted would discourage others from entering into his Majesty’s service. This the High Treasurer resented as reflecting on the manner in which his brother had done his duty; and thus, says Fountainhall, grew the difference between him and Claverhouse.

Whatever may have been the intrinsic merits of the case, and it is but fair to state that Douglas had otherwise shown himself a zealous and capable officer, there can be no doubt that Claverhouse had put himself in the wrong, by allowing his temper to get the better of him. This he himself admitted in a letter which he wrote to James, and in which he endeavoured ‘to excuse his warmth by saying he took what was said as levelled at him.’ But after reading this account and comparing it with that which he also received, not from Queensberry, but from ‘both the Chancellor and Lundy,’ the Duke was obliged to express his regret ‘that Claverhouse was so little master of himself the other day at Council,’ and promised that when he came to Scotland he would let the offender know that his behaviour was not approved of.

James’s accession prevented his leaving London at the time, as he had apparently intended to do. It was also the cause of Queensberry’s being summoned to Court. It may be assumed that during his stay the quarrel with Claverhouse formed the subject of conversation between him and the King; but there is nothing to show that he solicited further satisfaction than had already been given him by the appointment of Douglas to the command of the forces in the western shires, in supersession of Colonel Graham. When he returned to Scotland at the end of March as Lord High Commissioner to the Scottish Parliament, he does not appear to have known that it was the King’s intention to take further cognizance of the matter.

It was from Secretary Murray that he learnt Claverhouse’s exclusion from the Privy Council, ‘to show him and others that his Majesty would support his Minister, and not suffer any to do unfit or misbecoming things.’ The letter conveying the information was written on the 5th of April. Four days later a new Commission was produced at the Board, from which none of the former Privy Councillors but Claverhouse was omitted. Amongst the better informed, there was no doubt that this was ‘because of the discords between him and the High Treasurer and his brother,’ as Fountainhall asserts. But the same authority states the ‘pretence’ to have been ‘that having married into the Lord Dundonald’s fanatic family, it was not safe to commit the King’s secrets to him.’

While thus indicating his dissatisfaction with Claverhouse, James felt that the whole quarrel was too petty to justify him in punishing with lasting disgrace a faithful servant whose valuable help he had repeatedly acknowledged. He was at special pains to let him understand that if he tendered an apology to Queensberry he should be restored to place and favour. There is no direct evidence of submission on Claverhouse’s part; but, that his better sense, or, to put it at its lowest, a saner appreciation of his own interest soon prevailed over his pride may be gathered from the fact that a royal letter, dated the 11th of May, reinstated him as Privy Councillor.