Colonel Fielding’s surrender is still disputed. Some on his own side accused him of treachery for not aiding the Royalist attempts to lift the siege and indeed he was put on court marshal after the surrender. Others however state he simply wanted to preserve as much men, powder and arms for the king’s army as possible, seeing how valuable they were. The debate is speculation; Edward Hyde, later Earl of Clarendon states in his memoirs that Fielding sneaked out of Reading the night before the surrender and spoke to the King personally, explaining he could negotiate good terms. The King according to Hyde told him to get them if he could, for it may well preserve the garrison and its weapons. But the court marshal was eventually called by the King, so it would be difficult to conceive Hyde’s story as true, because the King was not a two-faced man to his loyal supporters. There is no reason for the King to order his court marshal if he accepted and understood why Fielding was accepting terms. John Gwyn, a common solider had his views on Fielding, “…Yet Fielding was no more concerned (when the King’s relieving party attacked the Parliamentarians) at it than if he had been but a neuter to look on and see them fight; and although they broke their truce with us on the other side of the town, in shooting thrice at our Royal Sconce with their great guns, yet he would not stir, nor consent to make any opposition against them; which is sufficient demonstration that he designed to render up the garrison quietly to the enemy…” Whatever happened, Fielding had a strong and principled supporter. The King’s nephew Prince Rupert intervened before Fielding’s execution and obtained a reprieve through the King. Fielding lived on, fighting with the royalists as a common soldier, losing his command but not his life. Remaining loyal after this suggests Fielding was true to his King and Rupert, who was a highly intelligent and competent soldier himself, seems to have understood Fielding’s predicament. It seems clear, that wanting to preserve his garrison for the King’s further use, along with as much powder, arms and baggage that he could, Fielding did not break his truce. Indeed he seems to have been a soldier of great morals and the point of honour of not attacking after surrender was a genuine gentlemanly action. Had Fielding attacked, the Royalists would have lost all credibility, lost more lives, the ammunition and most importantly, it would have caused problems for any future surrendering royalist force. They would have not been trusted in view of Fielding’s breaking of terms. I think this was Fielding’s predicament and he acted honourably and should be remembered as a loyal and good man. Back to Table of Contents -- King or Parliament # 6 Back to King or Parliament List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2004 by Mark Turnbull. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com