And providence his guide
Sir: In his review of Dr Hill's God's Eng- lishman (8 August) Maurice Ashley says that he gets the impression that Cromwell was 'trying to act as a conciliator between all the parties involved' during the Putney debates.
I beg to differ. Every time I skim through the Putney debates I always get the impres- sion that Cromwell and Ireton were immov- able and non-conciliatory, that they were determined to smash the left wing movement expressed in the Leveller propaganda and voiced by the Agitators at the Putney de- bates. Ireton kept growling 'all the main thing that I speak for is because I have an eye for property'. Cromwell, when con- fronted with the demands for manhood suffrage, said, `No, no, without property a vote is anarchy'. In other words they were both uncompromising conservatives.
Dr Hill quotes Cromwell as saying, 'A noblenun, a gentleman, a yeoman: that is a good interest of the nation and a great one. The magistracy of the nation, was it not almost trampled underfoot, under despite and contempt, by men of levelling principles?' It is hard for the left to appreciate that Crom- well, a great man and a great Englishman, was also a great fascist who would not com- promise with or conciliate the left wing movement.
Nicholas Davenport Hinton Manor, nr Faringdon, Berks Sir: I am grateful to you for conferring upon me (8 August) the office of professor: American publishers and students also from time to time endow me with it. But alas I never have been a professor. I am afraid the Master of Balliol would be the first to spot this error.
Maurice Ashley University of Technology, Loughborough
Previous page
