[To TnE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR-1
Sin,—Cromwell was hardly a cruel man, and even in chivalry, at least of a sort, does not seem to have been altogether lacking. Is he not said to have given timely warning to a house of religious ladies to disperse, and by this means secured them from rough usage, saying to the officer he sent to give such notice : "1 like not war with women "? But is it fair to denounce Charles II. as cruel ? The number of political executions in requital of his father's illegal murder (for the illegality of this act read the Chief Baron's charge to the jury at the trial of Major-General Harrison) was really remarkably few ; and I venture to say that not many Kings would have treated Milton so indulgently. Again, can James II. be con- sidered such a monster of cruelty? In spite of Lord Macaulay's brilliant periods, it is impossible to deny that the Western rebels were in overt armed rebellion, and had, moreover, pro- claimed the King a murderer—and of his own brother. Can it be wondered if James took a terrible vengeance on these fanatics, remembering t19.t similar fanatics had brought his father to the scaffold ? At is a strange theory that Dissenters must never be punished like other men. The Irishmen whom Cromwell's soldiers slaughtered were Papists, so—" Serve them right," say a good many people. Monmouth's 'rabble were mostly members of dissenting sects, therefore Feversham, Kirke, and "the devil in wig and gown" were murderers ; as was poor Governor Eyre. This seems to me strange.—rI am, 2 Grotes Place, Blackheath p,, S.E., May 15t7" P.S.—Is there not a resemblance between Cromwell and William the Conqueror ? Both men had lofty ideals, •both hated needless cruelty, yet when roused to fury by' resistance, both could be guilty of merciless acts.
Previous page
