_Brief remarks on the parish churches of Marshland and Holland_; _with a
short sketch of the history of the town and castle of Wisbeach_.
By those who have visited Marshland, nothing, perhaps, has been more
admired than its parish churches, some of which are very large and
stately: that of _Walpole St. Peters_ is eminently so, and deemed one of
the most beautiful parish or country churches in the kingdom. It is
built of freestone, and consists of a nave, two aisles, and a chancel,
all covered with lead. The tower corresponds with the other parts of the
building, being a very handsome stone structure embattled. This edifice
was founded near the close of the reign of Henry V. and completed in the
first or second year of that of his successor. In one of the upper
windows of the south aisle of this church is said to be a most absurd and
profane representation of the Supreme Being, habited in a loose purple
gown, with a long beard, resting his right hand on a staff of gold, and
crowned with glory; pointing out the forefinger of his left hand, as
dictating to the Virgin Mary, who is seated before him, with a pen in her
hand, and paper on a desk before her. The Deity stands at the door or
entrance of a castle, embattled, and with turrets, surrounded by a wall
embattled; within this wall is the virgin; and many angels are looking
down from the tower.—Here it may be observed, that when superstition has
taken hold of the mind, there is scarce any thing too absurd to be
imagined, or too impious to be received. Sad and shocking must be the
state of religion in a country where men are employed in making pictures
or images of the deity, or where such images and pictures are preserved,
or suffered to exist in places of worship. It would not, surely, be to
the discredit of the minister and parishioners of Walpole to have the
above preposterous and profane representation defaced, or removed.
Marshland indeed must not be thought singular, among the several
districts of this flat and stoneless country, for the largeness,
stateliness, and elegance of its churches. The case is much the same in
the adjoining district of _Holland_ in Lincolnshire, and in most of the
northern parts of Cambridgeshire. In no part of England are to be seen
larger or handsomer country churches. They are mostly built with good
freestone, and yet there is no freestone, or any other stones here to be
found, but what have been brought from a great distance. Where the
stones used in building these churches were procured, seems to be unknown
to the men of this generation. They must have been brought a very great
way, and conveyed by water carriage, as the expence would otherwise have
been enormous and unsupportable. Some, indeed, will tell us, that the
masons and carpenters worked then for a _penny a day_, and that other
labour was in the same proportion; but they seem to forget that their
penny was worth a great deal more than ours. Money, in this country, has
greatly sunk in its value since that time. A penny would then, probably,
go as far as 2s. or half a crown of our money; so that, at any rate, the
expence of the erection of these churches must have been very great, and
such as the present inhabitants, with all their boasted wealth and
resources, would hardly (or rather, not at all) be equal to.
With sumptuous seats and magnificent palaces it does not appear that this
country did ever much abound. Its strength might be too much exhausted
in building churches, to admit of undertaking any other very expensive
edifices. The Castle of Wisbeach seems to be almost the only exception;
which, though situated a few yards out of the limits of Marshland, it may
not be altogether improper to give here a short sketch of its history, as
well as that of Wisbeach itself.
Of that town little is known before the conquest. Sometime previous to
that event, and in the early part of the same century (the 11th) it is
said to have been given to the Convent of Ely (along with other large and
important possessions in the different counties of Cambridge, Norfolk and
Suffolk) by _Oswy_ and _Leoflede_, the parents of _Alwyn_, afterwards
bishop of Elmham, upon his admission into the said convent. As the
property of a convent, or monastery, it may be presumed to have been of
old a very _religious_ town; which character it seems still in no small
degree to retain, though in a different way.
Of its Castle, however, no traces are known to exist before the arrival
of the Norman, with his conquering array of Frenchmen. In 1071, five
years subsequent to that event, the conqueror, it is said, built here a
stone Castle, the governor of which was dignified with the title of
_constable_, and the walls and moat were ordered to be kept in repair by
the proprietors of certain lands in West Walton, who held their estates
by a tenure to that effect. This fortress is supposed to have been
afterwards dismantled in the reign of Henry II, but upon what occasion we
are not informed. Nor have we any account of another such edifice at
Wisbeach till the reign of Henry VII, when a new Castle of brick appears
to have been built on the site of the former, between the years 1478 and
1483, by bishop Morton, already mentioned as an eminent benefactor to the
adjacent country. This new edifice became the said bishop’s palace, in
which he and several of his successors afterwards resided.
In Mary’s time the place seems to have undergone some change, but whether
so as to cease being an episcopal residence, or not, does not appear.
But we find that some part of it, at least, was then appropriated for the
confinement of heretics, that is, of protestants. The names of two of
these, who were inhabitants of the town, are still upon record. One of
them was William Woolsey, and the other Robert Pygot. They were for
sometime confined in this Castle, and afterwards removed to Ely, where
they were both burnt, and along with them a great heap of books, which
seems to imply, that one of them at least was a scholar, or considerable
reader, and that, probably, was Woolsey; for it appears that Pygot was by
trade a painter, and therefore not very likely to be possessed of many
books. He is spoken of as remarkably meek and modest, whereas Woolsey
was a person of uncommon courage and boldness, viewing the impending
danger without dismay, and setting his unfeeling persecutors, and even
death itself at defiance. He was, it seems, somewhat fearful lest the
gentleness of his fellow-sufferer should give his enemies advantage over
him and occasion his recanting; but it did not prove so: Pygot stood firm
to his principles; and when the commissioners presented a paper for him
to sign, he said, “No, that is your faith, and not mine.” They suffered,
towards the latter part of the year 1555. {91}
In the reign of Elizabeth, the then bishop, or bishops, it seems,
relinquished this castle for the use and accommodation of the civil
power; and it was then converted into a state prison for the papists, who
were charged with conspiring against her majesty’s government. Great
numbers therefore of these people suffered here a long and rigorous
imprisonment, and not a few of them miserably perished in its dreary
dungeons. That queen amply retaliated upon the papists what her sister
Mary had before inflicted upon the protestants. It is hard to say which
of these crowned sisters was the most bloody. Fox has largely described
the cruelties and atrocities of Mary’s government. Certain popish, as
well as protestant nonconformist historians have done the same in regard
to that of Elizabeth: and if the intolerance, iniquity, and cruelty of
the latter reign did not exceed those of the former, it seems pretty
clear that they fell not short of them. As to the number of victims, or
sufferers, the preponderance is evidently on the side of Elizabeth.
There was a difference, indeed, in the process or mode of immolation:
Mary had her victims burnt at the stake; whereas her protestant sister
had hers hanged, cut down alive, emboweled, and quartered. Which of the
two modes is the most humane and defensible—or rather, which of them is
the most barbarous and brutal, the present writer will not attempt to
determine. Nor will he pretend to say which of the two is attended with
the greatest degree of animal pain, as that may depend upon
circumstances. But if burning be the most cruel of all executions, as a
very able living writer has observed, it argues a defect in our laws,
which appoints this to be the punishment of petty treason, whilst the
Catholic sufferers underwent that annexed to high treason. He also
observes with respect to the greater part of those victims,—
“that the sentence of the law was strictly and literally executed
upon them. After being hanged up, they were cut down alive,
dismembered, ripped up, and their bowels literally burnt before their
faces, after which they were beheaded and quartered. The time
employed in this butchery was very considerable, and, in one
instance, lasted above half an hour.—Great numbers also of these
sufferers, (he adds) as well as other Catholics, who did not endure
capital punishment, were racked in the most severe and wanton manner,
in order to extort proofs against themselves or their brethren. It
appears, (he further observes) from the account of one of these
sufferers, that the following tortures were in use against the
Catholics in the Tower: [and probably also in the Castle of
Wisbeach:] 1. The common rack, in which the limbs were stretched by
levers. 2. The scavenger’s daughter, so called, being a hoop, in
which the body was bent until the head and feet met together. 3. The
chamber, called Little-Ease, being a hole so small that a person
could neither stand, sit, or lie straight in it. 4. The Iron
Gauntlets. In some instances needles were thrust under the
prisoner’s nails.—Sir Owen Hopton, lieutenant of the Tower, was
commonly the immediate instrument in these cruelties there; but
sometimes Elmer [ Aylmer] bishop of London directed them.” {93}
How far the bishop of Ely was concerned with similar proceedings at the
Castle of Wisbeach, we are not informed; but whether he was concerned or
not, we may presume that similar measures were pursued there. The
Wisbeach prisoners were distinguished, not only for their numbers,
amounting to some scores, at least, but also for their rank and eminence,
being mostly priests and scholars, who had been educated either at Oxford
and Cambridge, or at some of the foreign universities. Hence when their
more illiterate, or uneducated brethren, in other prisons, were called to
defend their tenets against the attacks or arguments of the clergy, they
would be expressing their wishes that some of their more learned friends,
from Wisbeach Castle, would be allowed to take their part: and when the
judge, at the trial of Barkworth, at the Old Baily, sneeringly proposed
his being tried by a _jury of priests_, “_That_ is right,” replied the
prisoner; “Your lordship knows that a complete jury of them may be found
at Wisbeach Castle.” {94a} In short, many of these catholic sufferers
under Elizabeth, appear to have been no less sincere and devout, and
even, no less unjustly treated, than those protestants, whose cruel
sufferings have rendered Mary’s reign so deservedly detestable.
For a good while after the accession of James I, Wisbeach Castle was
still used for the same purpose as above described: but between the years
1609 and 1619, it is said to have been repaired by bishop Andrews, {94b}
who probably occupied it himself for some time after. On the abolition
of the hierarchy, after the death of Charles I, it was purchased by the
memorable secretary Thurloe, who rebuilt it in its present form, from a
design of the celebrated Inigo Jones: but though still called _The
Castle_, it no longer retained any appearance of a fortress. At the
restoration it reverted to the see of Ely, but does not appear to have
been ever afterwards an episcopal residence. It was from that period
usually granted on lease to some one or other of the principal families
of the town; the Southwells, in particular had it a long while, and
resided there. Of late it has been sold, under an act of parliament, by
the late bishop, to Joseph Medworth, Esq. The detached buildings have
been since removed, and some rows of elegant houses have been erected.
The plan of a large Circus has also been laid out, about one half of
which is already built: when the design is completed it will add greatly
to the pleasantness and beauty of the town. The Castle is still
standing, and likely to stand, with what may be called fair play, as long
as any of the new buildings, although it has been built now above 150
years, and was, at the time of the sale, _stated_ (even by his lordship,
it seems) to be in a decayed and ruinous condition.
The parish church of Wisbeach, dedicated to St. Peter and St. Paul, is a
spacious handsome fabric, though of a very singular construction, being
furnished with two naves and two aisles. The naves are lofty and
separated from each other by a row of light slender pillars, with pointed
arches. The aisles are the most ancient, being divided from their
respective naves by low massy pillars, and semicircular saxon arches.
The tower is deemed very beautiful, and has been thought ancient, but its
claim to antiquity is said to be fully refuted by existing records, which
prove its erection to have been posterior to the 10th of March 1520.—On
the west side of the north entrance is a small chapel or chantry
dedicated to St. Martin, and originally endowed with lands for the
maintenance of a priest, to say masses for the soul of the founder. The
church is a vicarage, said to be heretofore worth 500_l._ a year, but
now, it seems, more than double that sum, in consequence of a late
litigation, which terminated in favour of the vicar, and the complete
discomfiture of his opponents. This is said to have occasioned not a
little ill blood between the good pastor and some of his flock; but
however that may affect them, so large an addition of income will
probably prevent his laying it very deeply to heart. It may, however,
perhaps be somewhat doubtful, if the present extraordinary juncture, and
most eventful period, be altogether the most safe or proper for the
clergy to promote or engage in these unconciliatory and offensive
litigations.
Besides the parish church, there are at Wisbeach six other different
places of worship; one belonging to the _friends_, commonly called
_Quakers_, one to the _Independents_, or _Culymites_, one to the
_Wesleyan Methodists_, and three to those of the _baptist_ denomination.
Between the latter, though they all go under the same name, there yet
exist some strong shades of difference, so that very little of any thing
like good understanding or christian harmony is discoverable. Yet they
all lie, more or less, under the imputation of heterodoxy, from the great
or main body of their brethren, who are usually termed _particular
baptists_,—as well as from the rest of the right orthodox clans. Of
these three societies one belongs to a certain order or description of
arminian or general baptists, who are pretty numerous about
Leicestershire and the adjacent counties, and also in some other parts.
Except on the point of baptism, they agree very much with the Wesleyans,
and may, perhaps, without much impropriety, be called _Wesleyan
baptists_.—Another of these three societies belongs to a small party of
baptists, sometimes called _Johnsonians_, from the late John Johnson of
Liverpool, to whose peculiar tenets and spirit they are very much
attached; and they have, seemingly, but little charity or forbearance
towards any thing that does not come up to, or accord with that standard;
which may be said to be the worst trait in their character. They are
otherwise respectable, and so are the members of the society before
mentioned. Less bigotry would make both more amiable and more
respectable. The people who constitute the other baptist society assume
the name of _Unitarians_, and belong to a notable class of that
denomination which is said to be now much on the increase in different
parts of the kingdom. The leaders of this new religious class profess to
have for their main object to restore Christianity to its original
purity: they adopt a popular strain of preaching, and are by some people
looked upon as highly _evangelical_; so that, as we have had for some
time _evangelical trinitarians_, both in the church and out of it, we are
now, it seems, to have likewise _evangelical __unitarians_. Some zealots
among the orthodox will probably nibble at this, and even pronounce it
absolutely impossible; but the pastor of the said society, at Wisbeach,
is said to be ready to maintain, against the very best man among his
opponents, not only that those of his connection are really _no less
evangelical_, but even much _more so_ than any of those on whom it has
been the fashion of late years to bestow that honourable appellation.
Nothing further needs here be said on the subject: the public will have
an opportunity to judge for themselves, if any one will enter the lists,
or step forward to discuss the point with the said pastor.
To have among its inhabitants so many different religious societies or
sects, can be no real reproach to Wisbeach. The exercise of free
enquiry, and unrestrained judgement and decision in matters of religion,
must be the undoubted and unalienable birthright of every rational being,
or moral agent: nor can a diversity of religious sentiments or
persuasions be any way detrimental to the welfare of the community,
provided all parties were earnestly to concur in promoting general
harmony and goodwill among their fellow citizens. It is, however, much
to be regretted that this has been hitherto but very imperfectly learnt
and practised by most of our religious fraternities, both in the
establishment and out of it. It is too generally the case, that the
leaders of the respective parties promote among their adherents a
hostile, and not unfrequently a most rancorous spirit towards their
differing neighbours: and the higher men are placed on the scale of
orthodoxy and evangelicalism, the more apt are they in general to run
into this enormity. It would seem as if they had taken their ideas, not
from Jesus Christ, but rather from those over-zealous and mistaken
disciples who would fain have confined the name and profession, as well
as the propagation of Christianity to those, forsooth, who would _follow
them_. Wherever real liberty exists, a diversity of religious opinions
and denominations must be expected; but that would furnish no just cause
of complaint, were the above evil sufficiently guarded against by all
parties. Acts of uniformity in religion, attended with national creeds,
tests, and articles of faith, may suit the piety of popes, or the crooked
policy of despotism, but they can never accord with the rights of man, or
the true principles of freedom: they will never be admitted in a land of
liberty, and can belong only to those hateful regions inhabited by slaves
and governed by tyrants.