CROMWELL.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sta,—The conditions of capitulation at Colchester which' I quoted from Dr. Gardiner are stated by him to be taken from "the form printed in the Lords' Journals (X. 478)." They are also to be found in Rushworth (Fourth Part, Vol. IL, pp. 1244 and 1247). There were nine articles. The third allowed "fair Quarter" to all private soldiers and officers under the rank of Captain ; the fourth provided that " the Lords and all Captains and superiour officers and Gentlemen of Quality engaged in Colchester, shall render them-' selves to the Mercy of My Lord General." The phrase rendering to mercy was explained as follows, the explanation being annexed to the articles, and referred to in Article III.:—" By rendring to Mercy we understand ; that they be rewired or render themselves to the Lord. General, or whom he shall appoint without certain assurance of Quarter ; so as 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 the Parliament." Mr. Capell says he cannot find the words in italics in the articles, and I understand him to say that "a promise of the lives of all," made in the course of the previous negotiations, was to hold good in the final terms of surrender. It is, therefore, established that Fairfax's promise of quarter for his life-was not one of the conditions on which Lord Capell surrendered Colchester, still less " one of the first conditions," and therefore the charge against Cromwell of dishonourable conduct, based on the statement that it was one of those con- ditions, cannot be sustained. A good deal of evidence could be adduced to show that the interpretation of his promise which Lord Fairfax gave at Lord Capell's trial was by no means an afterthought, but was communicated to Lord Capell by Colonel Berksted, one of Fairfax's officers, at the time when the promise was given. It was also sent to Parliament, in writing, by Fairfax in October, two months after the sur- render and four months before the trial. But after all, this is a matter which affects Fairfax rather than Cromwell, and the evidence would/ake more space than you, Sir, would be likely to allow. Cromwell was not at Colchester, nor had he anything to do with the articles of surrender, or with Fairfax's subsequent promise ; if it be remembered that Fairfax was Cromwell's commanding officer, and that Ireton and the other officers who were members of the Council of War, and con- cerned in the making of the promise of quarter, all agreed as to the meaning to be given to it, and that the Court before which the question was fully argued held that their interpretation was "clearly proved" to be the correct one, I think Cromwell cannot j stly be blamed for accepting the li interpretation they gave.e f one may judge by Clarendon's language, he would see to have thought that Ireton had much more th.7 Cromwell to do with bringing about Lord Capell's death He says of Capell and Norwich :—" Ireton, above all men, continued his insolent and dogged humour, and told them : ' If he had credit, they should all die." And again :—" Ireton's hatred was immortal ; he spake of him " (i.e., of Capell) "and against him as a man of whom he was heartily afraid." Of Cromwell, on the other hand, all that can be said is that Clarendon " intimates," or would " lead us to suppose," that he had a large share in bringing about the decision of the House (which, be it remembered, was without a division). I remain of opinion, therefore, that there is no sufficient cause shown for ascribing the unanimous decision of the House to Cromwel alone, more than to Ireton, Vane, or many others. /But I cannot leave unnoticed the much more serious charge brought against Cromwell in Mr. Capell's second letter. It is that Cromwell, in his " own letters on the Drogheda massacre coolly reports having ordered men to be burnt alive who had surrendered to quarter." This is a far worse charge than that first made, but the prin- cipal element in it will not stand a moment's examination. Cromwell says in the letter referred to (Letter CV. in Carlyle's Letters, &c.), that the men, some eighty in number, who had taken stand in a church-steeple, "being summoned to yield to mercy, refused." This is a very different matter from having surrendered to quarter. An attempt to blow up the tower having failed, Cromwell, in order to force the men out, directed that the building should be set on fire. Fifty of the eighty made their way out and were killed. Some thirty perished in the burning building. Surely it is straining language to describe this as burning men alive/War is brutal and horrible, and the storm of a town, wh n all quarter is refused, must abound in brutal and horrible incidents ; but the slaughter by fire and sword of an enemy who refuses to surrender is a very different thing from burning alive un- resisting captives who had surrendered to quarter. I am no apologist for the massacres at Drogheda and Wexford, but conduct such as is attributed to Cromwell by Mr. Capell's friend would be nothing short of fiendish.—I am, Sir, &c., E. J. S.
[We cannot continue this controversy.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
