214 Appendix X 



struggle. The pamphlet entitled Colchester's Tears charges Sir 

 Charles Lucas with cruelty to the inhabitants of the town during 

 the siege, but it deserves very little credit. However, Clarendon, 

 in the extract quoted on p. 158, accuses Lucas of considerable harsh- 

 ness. But Rushworth quotes a letter saying ' the Lords Goring 

 and Capel carry things very high and peremptorily, but Sir Charles 

 Lucas more moderate' (1181). 



Colchester capitulated on August 27, 1648, and Lisle and Lucas 

 were shot on August 28 by sentence of a court-martial. By the 

 terms of the capitulation (quoted in the note to p. 49), the superior 

 officers had rendered themselves to mercy, so this execution was 

 not a breach of the terms of the capitulation. Fairfax gives two 

 reasons for the execution : the first, ' satisfaction of military justice ' ; 

 the second, ' avenge for the innocent blood they have caused to be 

 spilt, and the trouble, damage, and mischief they have brought 

 upon the town, this country, and the kingdom ' (Rushworth, vol. 

 vii, p. 1243). The first of these reasons evidently refers to the 

 breach of parole with which Fairfax charged Lucas. If the argu- 

 ment stated above holds good, this had been superseded by an 

 engagement to the Parliament, and it would have been juster to 

 leave the punishment of the breach of that engagement to the Par- 

 liament. The second reason given for the sentence, the punishment 

 for raising a civil war (satisfaction of political justice, as it might 

 be termed), is obviously a subject which should have been reserved 

 for the judgment of a political authority like the Parliament rather 

 than decided by a General, or a council of war. Parliament might 

 have condemned Lucas, as it afterwards condemned Hamilton 

 and Capel, and the justice of the sentence could hardly have been 

 impeached, except by those who are prepared to hold that it is in no 

 case just to impose the penalty of death on the leaders of a civil 

 war. With reference to the personal share of Fairfax in this sentence, 

 it may be pointed out that Clarendon says that ' the manner of taking 

 the lives of these worthy men was generally imputed to Ireton, who 

 swayed the General, and was upon all occasions of an unmerciful 

 and bloody nature ' (Rebellion, xi, 109). , In Mercurius Pragmaticus 

 for October 3-10, 1648, the following statement is made : ' In 

 (that) unworthy act it's said his Excellency had no hand, but only 

 the council of war, by the special instigation of Ireton, Rains- 

 borough, and Whalley.' An account of the death of Lucas is 

 given in Mercurius Pragmaticus for August 29 to September 5, 

 1648. It will be seen that the conclusion here adopted differs 

 from that arrived at in the note to p. 49, in granting that the com- 

 1 osition might be fairly considered to put an end to the engagement 

 of Sir Charles to Lord Fairfax. 



A paper on The Case of Lucas and Lisle, by Mr. J. H. Round, is 



