Shropshire Routes to Roots

4. Mysteries and evidence

Introduction

At first glance, the Cromwell letter seems straightforward enough. A soldier was sent on 'special business' from Chester to Bristol. To get there safely he needed the support of the new Lord Protector, which he obtained in the form of a letter. However, there are several problems with this interpretation.

As you try to unravel the mysteries, you may wish to have a copy of Cromwell's letter: Source and transcript in a 'popup' window above this page.

Mystery One - Why was the letter found in Ludlow documents?

Although a staunchly Royalist town, in 1646 Ludlow and its castle were besieged by a strong Parliamentary force under Colonel Birch. After skirmishes on the outskirts, the castle itself was surrendered. Subsequently, a Royalist plot in 1648 to overthrow the castle was thwarted.

The letter was found amongst Ludlow Quarter Sessions (court) papers dating from 1650. The first mystery, then, is how the letter came to be placed amongst these documents. As can be seen on Ogilby's 1675 route map from Chester to Bristol (opens in new window), James Smith's route would almost certainly have taken him through Parliamentarian Ludlow, following the course of the modern A49. Therefore, three possibilities present themselves:

1. Did James Smith accidentally lose the letter on his journey, leaving it behind in quarters in Ludlow where it was found and put amongst another batch of official papers?
2. Was James Smith's journey stalled at Ludlow? Were the people of Ludlow still loyal to the crown in 1649, such that someone apprehended James Smith and took the letter from him?
3. Did James Smith and his letter reach their destination safely, with the letter somehow finding its way into Ludlow Quarter Sessions at a later date. Perhaps the letter was being used as evidence in a court case but, if so, what was the case about? This could be checked by going through the Quarter Sessions of the period.

Mystery Two - Who really signed the letter?

The second question arises from the peculiar signature. 'Oliver Crumwel' seems very close to Oliver Cromwell, but it is different enough to raise the following four possibilities:

1. The letter is signed by Cromwell
   

   Shakespeare deliberately altered his signature from one document to the next. It was one of the fashions of the age. Cromwell's signature also varied, especially as he got older. 'Oliver Crumwel', then, could simply be another, highly unusual, example of Cromwell's signature. To check whether the signature might be his, you could try searching the John Wilson Manuscripts (opens in a new window) website to find other documents signed by Cromwell.

   However, this is not the only problem. On July 10th, 1649, Cromwell had left London for Milford Haven, on the South Wales coast. He was gathering an army for a campaign to quell the Marquis of Ormond's rebellion in Ireland. If Cromwell really did sign this letter in Chester on 16th July, why would he have made a long diversion north to the city on his way to Milford Haven?

2. Also, why does the letter talk about James Smith as a soldier for the 'states'. After the execution of Charles I in January, Cromwell immediately established England as a Commonwealth. Why did he not assert this authority by using this term to describe England in this letter? Likewise, why did Cromwell not sign the letter Lord Protector?

3. The letter was 'signed' on Cromwell's behalf by some one else
   

   On July 10th, 1649, Cromwell left London, heading for Milford Haven with an army. If James Smith had been in Chester, it is plausible that by travelling down to Bristol six days later he could intercept Cromwell's force, joining up with it and perhaps bringing supplies or information. Was James Smith sent on a mission from Chester, under Cromwell's orders? Was it decided that, in order to ensure his safety, James Smith should carry a letter signed 'per procurationem' (on behalf, by proxy) of Oliver Cromwell?

   If this is true, whoever wrote the letter on Cromwell's behalf could plausibly have made a 'mistake' in the spelling of his name. Linguists believe that in the seventeenth century, the word 'Cromwell' would have been pronounced 'K'ruml'. There was no uniform system of spelling in the seventeenth century. Writing was still phonetically based - words were spelt how they sounded when spoken. If the person who wrote this letter had never seen Cromwell's name in print, it is feasible that he would have signed the letter as the name Cromwell sounded to him i.e. Crumwel.

4. There really was an Oliver Crumwel of Chester
   

   This case would be a fluke, but not impossible. Although the name 'Crumwel' is not very common, there could have been an Oliver Crumwel dating from the era, who worked in authority and who sent a soldier to Bristol at the same time as Cromwell's army was passing through the region. The way to check this would be to comb the records of Chester archives.

   It has been suggested, by a reader of this webpage, that a relative of Oliver Cromwell, Sargeant Major Oliver Cromwell, may have been the author of the letter. This relative with the same name was a Parliamentarian officer under Colonel Morgan during and after the Civil War.

5. The letter is a total forgery
   

   The final possibility is perhaps the least likely. People do forge documents for political or financial gain. But why would someone forge a document as relatively insignificant as this? Then, why would the forger slip the letter in amongst Ludlow records, where they might never be found? And if it is a forgery, it is certainly a very crude one indeed, with no attempt to match Cromwell's signature or style.

Useful evidence

Regardless of who wrote the letter, and why it turned up in Ludlow documents, there are still two points we can gain from its existence:

1. Assuming that whoever wrote it did so in 1649, this source suggests how turbulent England was in that year. Even though he was passing through Parliamentarian territory, James Smith needed some form of protection from a high authority, whether from Cromwell himself or from his impersonator.

   The letter supports the idea that in the Civil War, territory may have been won on the battlefield, but not necessarily in the hearts of people in the area. This made the country a dangerous place for a Parliamentarian, even after the War had supposedly ended. Any evidence that James Smith was captured at Ludlow by Crown loyalists would further support this.

2. The most certain thing about the source is that it shows that nothing is certain! What seemed to be a fairly uncomplicated letter by Oliver Cromwell turns out to raise more questions than it provides answers for.

   It proves the danger of completely trusting the accuracy of an historical document. No source can be taken in isolation from the context in which it was written; every source should be compared against any other documents which may support or undermine it.

Continue

Return to top of page