Cromwell and Cambridge Destructive Behaviour

Cromwell and Cambridge

Destructive Behaviour

by Raymond Tong

Much was written by royalist pamphleteers and others both during and after the Civil War, about the destructive behaviour of the Parliamentary forces, and inevitably with the Restoration a good deal of vandalism came to be attributed to Cromwell personally. As a result in spite of the propagandist nature of many of the stories, Legends gradually evolved linking his name with acts of destruction, for which, due to time and place, he could not possibly have been responsible. Few of the ruins he is reported to have produced were ever visited by him, while much of the iconoclasm with which he has been associated in popular imagination seems to have derived from a confusion of his name with that of Thomas Cromwell, who was involved with the destruction of the monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII.

As far as Cambridge is concerned, some of the anti-Cromwell material originated from a work entitled Querela Cantabrigiensis, which was edited by Dr. John Barwick of St. John's College. It was fist published separately in 1646, and then in the same year was reissued as part of Mercurius Rusticus, a royalist publication produced at Oxford. Dr. Barwick was devoted to the royalist cause, and after Leaving Cambridge in February 1644 was for a time engaged in taking secret royalist correspondence between London and Oxford. It would therefore be difficult to regard him as an unbiased observer. The Parliamentary authorities in London were aware of Barwicks presence, but apparently regarded him as being fairly harmless. However the tarnishing effect after 1660 of the sort of virulent antiParliamentarian writing contained in Querela Cantabrigiensis and similar royalist publications has been both considerable and longlasting. Indeed it was not until the nineteenth century that historians became obviously critical of such accounts and, to use Thomas Carlyle's words 'began to wipe away its blubberings and inexactitudes a little.'

Even today the stigma of destruction lingers on. While recognising that by putting Cambridge into a state of defence Cromwell preserved it from the ravages of war, C.W. Scott-Giles in his history of Sidney Sussex College nevertheless finds it necessary to observe that he 'worked havoc with the peace and beauty of Cambridge.' The words 'worked havoc' are evocative, but on investigation they are very far from the truth. As regards the beauty of Cambridge, it is evident that this was little affected by Cromwell's measures for the defence of the town The castle was situated outside the main area of both the town and the colleges, and had already been there for centuries. Even the addition of earthworks and a barracks could hardly have made much impact on the beauty of the surrounding scenery. Perhaps the only justifiable reason for complaint was the fact that some building materials intended for the rebuilding of Clare College were commandeered for the fortifications. But it is likely that any expression of protest came mostly from those opposed to Parliament, and happily in 1653, following a petition to Cromwell, the college was paid £ 500 for timber and damage sustained. Doubtless the loss of the bridges over the Cam may have also angered some royalist, especially in St John's, King's and Queens', colleges that had land on both sides of the river, but clearly their removal did not seriously detract from the beauty of the town.

Equally in considering Cromwell's effect on the peace of Cambridge, it is evident that far from causing havoc he was responsible to a considerable extent for maintaining a situation in which people continued to live normal lives, both in the town and the university. Throughout the Civil War there was never any fighting in the streets of Cambridge, nor indeed any serious disturbances. Royalist colleges such as St John's, Peterhouse, Jesus and Queens', and royalist sympathisers in other colleges, naturally disliked the presence of a Parliamentary garrison, but this was probably not the feeling of most Cambridge people. Cromwell's troops were carefully recruited from the counties of the Eastern Association. They were well-disciplined and generally believed in the cause for which they fought. It is also likely that they would be particularly well-behaved while in Cambridge, owing to the fact that it was their headquarters. It is consequently difficult to believe the complaint recorded in Querela Cantabrigiensis that muskets were deliberately discharged into the windows of colleges. Certainly the punishment for such behaviour, if it ever occurred, would have been very severe. Perhaps the matter which caused most friction was the military presence in King's, Trinity and Jesus. Although, as in the royalist head quarters at Oxford, only officers were quartered in the colleges, it appears that parades were sometimes held in the courts and in wet weather in the college buildings. Such circumstances must have been a little unsettling for the colleges concemed, but were obviously insignificant when compared With the fierce fighting that was experienced by the armies on both sides.

What was most surprising about Cromwell's relationship with Cambridge University was the fact that he appeared so complacent about the presence of a large number of royalist sympathisers. This complacency seems to have been shared for a good many months by other members of Parliament, who possibly felt that the counties of the Eastern Association were so solidly behind the parliamentary cause that there was nothing to fear from their presence. The problem would not have arisen if the royalist in the University had left Cambridge on or before the Parliamentary occupation, in the same way that Parliamentary sympathisers in Oxford University had hastily left Oxford in a body before the occupation of the town by the army of Charles I. It was undoubtedly a compliment to the fairness and good behaviour of the Parliamentary forces that the Cambridge royalist decided to remain, but their continued presence must inevitably have been an embarrassment to the Eastern Association. Against the background of an increasingly bitter civil war, it was a situation that could not continue, and it is a wonder that it went on for so long.

However in May 1643 it became necessary to imprison the Vice-Chancellor for arranging the printing in Cambridge of certain of His Majesty's Declarations. The last quarter of 1643 after Pym had signed the Solemn League and Covenant in exchange for Scottish military aid, proved to be a difficult period politically. It was for political, rather than for moral or religious, reasons that the 'regulation ' of Cambridge University eventually took place. On 2 January 1644 Parliament passed an ordinance giving the Earl of Manchester, who in the previous August had replaced Lord Grey of Warke as Major General of the Eastern Association, the power to remove unsuitable clergymen in the eastern counties and to evict from Cambridge University men who were 'scandalous in their lives' or opposed to Parliament.

On the whole it appears that the Earl of Manchester, and those assisting him, acted responsibly in the way in which these powers were used. Although there were numerous expulsions and new appointments, the work of the University proceeded in a fairly tranquil manner and the standard of scholarship was maintained. Even Clarendon, an adviser to both Charles I and Charles II, was able to pay tribute to 'the harvest of extraordinary good and sound knowledge in all parts of learning; the many who were wickedly introduced applied themselves to the study of good learning and the practice of piety'.

Raymond Tong worked for the British Council in a number of countries and is now retired. His last post was regional director for the Eastern Region of England.

Cromwell and Cambridge

Destructive Behaviour

Further reading