CR OMWELL. .
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sra,---Mr. Capell in his letter published in the Spectator of May 13th states inaccurately a fact which forms an important part of.his ground for blamino. Cromwell; 'Ile says:"Arthur Lord Capell had surrenderecreolchester on certain conditions, oniOng them that the General, Sir Thomas Fairfax, passed his word for his life." The terms of the surrender of Colchester are given by Dr. Gardiner at p. 458 of Vol. III. of his "History of the Great, Civil War." They were that— "The Lords and gentlemen as well as the captains and other snperior officers, were to submit to mercy. To a question as to the meaning of submission to mercy, an answer was given 'that they be rendered or do render themselves to the Lqrd General or whom he may appoint without assurance of quarter/80as the Lord General may.be free to.put some immediately to the sword if he see. cause/ although his Excellency intends, chiefly and for the generality of those under that condition, to surrender them to the mercy of Parliament, and of the mercy of the Parliament and General there hath been large experience.'
In pursuance of these terms, Sir Charles Lucas and Sir' George Lisle were shot the day after the surrender. The same even- ing Sir Thomas Fairfax sent to the Earl Of Norwich and Lord Capell to assure them that they and the other superior officers Would have quarter for their, lives: (Aid, p. 463.) It is, therefore, quite incorrect to say that Sir Thomas Fairfax's promise 'was one , of the conditions on ,which Lord. Capell surreedered Colchester. On the contrary,, it was distinctly and formally brought to his notice 'that he might be put to death' if Parliament should so decide. A few' days after the etecntion of the King, Parliament set up a High Court of Justice to try Norwich, Capell, and others. They pleaded Sir Thomas Fairfax's promise of quarter, and called Sir Thomas as a witness ; he stated, however, that those who received quarter were to be free from military execution at the tjme, but riot from the judicial proceedings of a civil Court. (See Mr. Clements Markham's Life of Fairfax, p. 333,.w ere he .refers, in support of the above statement, to Sir Thomas Fair- fax's own "Short Memorial," p. 124.) The High Court con- demned Capell and the others to deatil/Petitions for mercy were presented to Parliament, and it was then, for the first time, that Cromwell had anything to do with the matter. Dr. Gardiner says that both he and Ireton were opposed to leniency in all the five cases then under the consideration of Parliament, and that the petition, in the case of Capell, was rejected without a division./ These facts are, I think, beyond question, and they put an end to Mr. capell's charges against Cromwell of dishonourable conduct and breach of the con- ditions on which Lord Capell surrendered. Whether Crom- well's action in opposing any remission of the sentence of death against Lord Capell was harsh-and ungenerous is another matter.;, it is a question of opinion, and .men, are likely, in deciding it, to be governed by tit sympathy with King or Parliament in the great contest But it should be borne in mind that the great Civil War came to an end in March, 1646, and that, after more than two years of peace, the rising which ended in the siege of Colchester was in the latter part of 1648. Men who head warlike operations against a settled Govern- i ment nmit be an 're that they are in danger of losing their lives' if they fail. Whether or not they should suffer the v penalty they ha. risked is a question of political expediency _. on the facts at the time, and can hardly be decided 'on any general principle, 'still - less on mere sentiment. ..It would appear from 'the authority quoted by Mr. Capell himself, that Cromwell based his advice on the ground of the safety of the Commonwealth, and on that alone. Mr. Capell repeatedly accuses him of "spite," "personal hate," &a ;. but gives no authority for any such conclusion, which the facts. do not seem to warrant. Nor does he show why the burden of this execution should be laid on CromWell alone. The execu- tive power at that time (1649) consisted of a Council of State of forty-one members, of whom Cromwell was one. In Parliament he was only one Member, an influential one, no doubt, but having no such position of predominance that the Acts of Parliament can fairly be assigned to him alone. He was not Protector till the end of 1653, nearly five years after the execution of Lord Capell.—I am, Sir, ttc., E. J. S.
Previous page
