Description of Beccles—modern improvements—probable state in the reign of
Mary; the scene of persecution—Fox’s account of the burning of three men;
their examination; sentence; articles against them; their conduct and
treatment at the stake—Remarks.
IN point of situation and general appearance, Beccles has been accounted
by some worthy to rank as the third town in Suffolk. Towards the west it
is skirted by a cliff, once washed by the estuary which separated the
eastern parts of Norfolk and Suffolk. {29} A portion of the most
elevated ground is occupied by the parish church and church-yard,
commanding a view somewhat more expanded and interesting than is common
in this part of the county. It overlooks the valley of the appropriately
designated river Waveney. The church is a handsome building, said to
have been erected about A.D. 1369. Its south porch, of rather more
recent date, affords a fine specimen of highly ornamented Gothic
architecture. {30a} A massive tower of freestone, erected early in the
sixteenth century, stands apart from the church. The other principal
buildings, for public purposes, are, a town-hall; a spacious modern gaol;
a theatre; an assembly room, to which is attached an apartment used as a
public library; a free school for instruction in “writing, cyphering, and
learning,” and in the established religion; a meeting-house belonging to
the Society of Friends, appropriated to the purpose of an infant school
room; {30b} and the meeting-houses or chapels of the Independent,
Baptist, and Wesleyan denominations of christians.
The population of Beccles, as stated in the census of 1831, was 3862, and
is considered to be gradually increasing. The town possesses the
commercial advantage of a communication by water with the sea at Yarmouth
and Lowestoft. An extensive tract of marshes, formerly held by the abbot
of Bury St. Edmund’s, as part of the manor of Beccles, has long been
vested in incorporated trustees for the benefit of the inhabitants.
There are also other lands held for charitable uses.
It is probable, that long before the arm of the sea had retired within
the humble banks of the Waveney—while Yarmouth was yet a sand-bank, swept
by the ocean—the spot in question had become the settled abode of some
who found in the adjacent waters a ready means of subsistence. {31} It
is generally supposed that the name, Beccles, was adopted with reference
to a church which had been built here at an early period. {32} Possibly
Sigebert, king of the East Angles, and founder of a monastery at Bury,
might select this place, among others, for the establishment and
propagation of the Christian faith, which he had imbibed during a
voluntary exile in France. {33} The manor and advowson of Beccles were
granted by King Edwy, about A.D. 956, to the monks of Bury, and remained
in their possession until the dissolution of the religious houses under
Henry the Eighth.
In most of its local features, as well as in its commercial, civil, and
moral interests, the town has, no doubt, greatly improved since the
period to which the close of the preceding chapter refers. Navigation
and intercourse with other inland places have been facilitated; and
trade, adapting itself to existing circumstances, has been extended.
More efficient municipal regulations, and advancing civilization, have
contributed to the preservation of order, and led to an extension of
privileges to the inhabitants. Considerable progress has been made
towards an improved system of prison discipline. {34} Schools, public
and private, have, in some degree, tended to raise the tone of society,
to soften the obdurate, and to tame the rude. The attachment to cruel,
sensual, and frivolous amusements has abated, and a regard to the
pursuits of literature and science has become perceptible. Nor can it be
reasonably doubted that the exercise of an evangelical ministry in the
separate congregation of the Independents, for nearly two centuries, and
the labours of Christian ministers of other denominations, have been
productive of incalculable moral, intellectual, and religious advantages
to the town and neighbourhood.
The aspect of the place must have been very different when Mary succeeded
to the crown of England. The parish church and its “beautiful gate,”
were then _more_ beautiful than at present. The tower, still the
characteristic local feature of the town, was fresh and fair from the
hands of the architect. Besides the wealthy abbey, there had been many
contributors to the erection of these buildings, who had evinced a zeal
in the completion of them worthy the imitation of protestants. But there
is reason to believe that to those features a strong contrast was
presented in the generally mean appearance, the gross ignorance, and
moral deformity of the town. Coarse rushes, produced by the common lands
with an abundance sufficiently indicative of an almost worthless soil,
furnished the carpet and the covering of most of the dwelling-houses.
{35a} Superstition prevailed in the public services of the sanctuary.
The “men of wyrship” appear to have been greatly deficient in forbearance
and liberality, while a large portion of the inhabitants were
boisterously tenacious of civil rights, which they were scarcely
competent to manage. {35b} The seal of the late corporation of Beccles
Fen bears such a representation of the gaol, existing in 1584, as leaves
no room to question the account of “one having _hewed_ himself out of
it.” {36}
Prodigal of human suffering as Mary was, it was nevertheless a part of
her usual policy to make each instance of capital punishment for heresy
_tell_ as extensively as possible. Beccles, the centre of a rural
district in which the principles of protestantism had taken root, never
to be eradicated, was chosen to be the scene of the first martyrdom by
which her agents in the diocese of Norwich sought to terrify her subjects
into conformity. The account given by Fox of the occurrence, must occupy
a place in these pages. It is intimately connected with the history of
nonconformity in Beccles.
Such punishments for such offences, wherever they were inflicted, could
not fail to rouse a spirit of inquiry. Men would naturally turn from a
spectacle so horrifying to investigate the basis of the institution it
was intended to support, and to search into the expediency of intrusting
the rule of faith with human beings, whose fallibility did not abate a
particle of their bigotry. The more conspicuous the sufferings of the
martyrs were made, the more certainly and extensively did they tend to
the dissemination of truth and freedom.
The faithful historian, having recorded and done honour to the Christian
heroism of several “constant professors of Christ” who were burned at
Colchester, Stratford le Bow, Smithfield, and Gloucester, thus proceeds:—
“_Three burnt at Beckles_. {37}
“After the death of these aboue rehearsed, were three menne burnt at
Beckles in Suffolk, in one fire, about the 21 day of May, An. 1556,
whose names are hereunder specified—
“Thomas Spicer, of Winston, laborer,
“John Deny, and Edmund Poole.
“This Thomas Spicer was a single man, of the age of nineteene yeares,
and by vocation a labourer, dwelling in Winston, the countie of
Suffolke, and there taken in his maister’s house in summer, about or
anone after the rising of the sunne, (being in his bed,) by James
Ling and John Keretch of the same towne, and Wil. Dauies of Debnam,
in the saide Countie.
“The occasion of his taking was, for that he would not go to their
popish church to heare masse, and receive their idoll at the
commandement of Sir John Tirrell, Knight, of Gipping hall in
Suffolke, and certaine other Justices there, whoe sent both him and
them to Eye dungeon, in Suffolke, till at length they were all three
togither brought before Dunning, then chancellor of Norwich, and M.
Mings the Register, sitting at the town of Beckles, to be examined.
“And there the said Chancellor perswading what he coulde to turn them
from the truth, could by no meanes preuaile of his purpose. Whereby
minding in the ende to giue sentence on them, hee burst out in
teares, intreating them to remember themselues, and to turne againe
to the holie mother church, for that they were deceiued and out of
the truth, and that they shold not wilfully cast awaie themselues,
with such like words.
“Now as he was thus labouring them and seemed very loth to read the
sentence, (for they were the first that he condemned in that dioces,)
the Register there sitting by, being weary, belike, of tarying, or
else perceiuing the constant martyrs to bee at a point, called upon
the chancellor in haste, to rid them out of the waie, and to make an
ende. At the which words the chancellor read the condemnation ouer
them with teares, and deliuered them to the secular power.
“_Their Articles_.
“The articles obiected to these, and commonlie to all other condemned
in that diocesse by Doctor Hopton, Bishoppe of Norwich, and by
Dunning his chancellor, were these:
“1. First, was articulate against them that they beleeued not the
Pope of Rome to bee supreame head immediatelie under Christ in earth
of the uniuersall catholike church.
“2. Item, that they beleeued not holie bread and holie water, ashes,
palmes, and all other like ceremonies used in the church to bee good
and laudable for stirring up the people to deuotion.
“3. Item, that they beleeued not, after the words of consecration
spoken by the priest, the very naturall body of Christ, and no other
substance of bread and wine to be in the sacrament of the altar.
“4. Item, that they beleeued it to be idolatry to worship Christ in
the sacrament of the altar.
“5. Item, that they tooke bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ’s
passion.
“6. Item, that they would not followe the crosse in procession, nor
be confessed to a priest.
“7. Item, that they affirmed no mortall man to haue in himselfe free
will to do good or euill. {40}
“For this doctrine and articles aboue prefixed these three (as is
aforesaid) were condemned by doctor Dunning, and committed to the
secular power, Sir John Sylliard beinge the same time high sheriffe
of Northfolke and Suffolke.
“And the next day following uppon the same they were all burnt
togither in the said towne of Beckles. {41a} Whereupon it is to be
thought that the writte _de comburendo_ was not yet come downe nor
could not be, the Lord Chancellor, Bishoppe Heath, being the same
time at London. {41b} Which, if it bee true, then it is plaine, that
both they went beyond their commission that were the executioners,
and also the clergie, which were the instigatours thereof, cannot
make good that they now pretend, saying that they did nothing but by
a lawe. But this let the Lord finde out when he seeth his time.
“In the meane time, while these good men were at the stake, and had
praied, they saide their beleefe; and when they came to the reciting
of ‘the catholike church,’ Sir John Silliard spake to them; ‘That is
well said, sirs, quoth he, I am glad to heare you saie you do beleeue
the catholike church; that is the best word I heard of you yet.’
“To which his sayings, Edmund Poole answered, thogh they beleeue the
catholike church, yet doe they not beleeue in their popish church,
which is no part of Christ’s catholike church, and therefore no part
of their beliefe.
“When they rose from praier, they all went ioyfullie to the stake,
and being bound therto, and the fire burning about them, they praised
God in such an audible voice, that it was wonderful to all those that
stood by and heard them.
“Then one Robert Bacon, dwelling in the saide Beckles, a very enemie
to God’s truth, and a persecutor of his people, being there present
within hearing thereof, willed the tormentors to throwe on faggots to
stop the knaues’ breathes, as he tearmed them; so hot was his burning
charitie. But these good men, not regarding their malice, confessed
the truth, and yeelded their lives to the death, for the testimonie
of the same, very gloriouslie and ioyfullie. The which their
constancie, in the like cause, the Lord grant wee may imitate and
followe unto the ende: whether it bee death or life, to glorifie the
name of Christ. Amen.”
These were the nonconformists of their day. Ignominy and torture were,
in their estimation, preferable to the reproaches of an enslaved and
guilty soul. But it is not for the purpose of indulging an acrimonious
feeling towards the immediate or remote perpetrators of a legalized
murder that this account has been introduced. The severity of the
punishment is of minor importance, except as it places in a strong light
the fallacious and mischievous principle from which it originated. The
question is not, whether these men ought in justice to have suffered less
than they did; whether, instead of being roasted amidst the scoffs of a
depraved and deluded rabble, they should have been burnt in the hand, or
branded on the forehead, or scourged and suffered to depart; or whether
there should have been substituted for the pangs of martyrdom, only the
deprivation of some civil rights, or the exaction of “a peppercorn rent”
in testimony that they had “an interest in the services” {44} of the
national church, and in acknowledgment of their spiritual allegiance to a
blood thirsty and despotic woman. It is not whether on their submission
to such terms they should have been pitied on account of their errors,
and tolerated on the score of their sincerity and their peaceableness.
No. The inquiry which presents itself is, whether the exaction of the
very smallest possible penalty, with whatsoever name it might have been
gilded over, would not have involved the violation of a principle of
incalculable moment to the interests of religion, of justice, and of
freedom. The queen would still, if the grounds of modern nonconformity
be tenable, have outstepped her province, and have interfered with rights
derived from a source paramount to her own.
The charge brought against the Beccles martyrs was, in substance, that
their religious creed and observances differed from those of the Roman
Catholic church, which had been set forth, by public authority, for the
adoption of all. It is deserving of notice, that of the seven articles
which constitute their accusation, four relate exclusively to an
erroneous _belief_. Thus the very recesses of the heart were invaded.
The faith of the unfortunate man, who could not find the doctrines of
popery in his Bible, was extracted from him by interrogatories, and he
was compelled to expiate in the flames the crime of preserving “a
conscience void of offence towards God.” The remaining allegations
relate to outward ceremonies which these individuals regarded as
unscriptural and even idolatrous; and the observance of which, by them,
must therefore have been an abomination to the Searcher of hearts. {45}
Him they refused to mock with a worse than formal service. And for these
offences their fellow-creatures proceeded to “rid them out of the way.”
Such is bigotry in the most hideous aspect she assumes. But if the
principle be admitted, that faith or practice in religion is a fit
subject for magisterial interference, it surely savours of harshness to
censure Mary for affording her patronage to the creed she had sincerely
imbibed, and to the rites she had been taught by maternal lips to hold
sacred. Nor can there be any security that the supreme power in a state,
if invested with authority in matters of faith, shall not prefer the
licentious speculations of deism, or the delusions of the false prophet.
It is in vain to contend that the establishment of the true religion
alone is justifiable, for who is to solve the question, What is truth?
If the ruler; shall Henry, or Edward, or Mary, or Elizabeth decide? Or
shall the prince be guided in his selection by the majority? In England
the suffrages may be in favour of episcopacy; in Scotland of
presbyterianism; in Ireland and in Canada of Catholicism; in India of
polytheism. Accordingly, with the exception of the last, these several
forms of religion are at present established under the authority of the
crown of Great Britain. Why does not the majority prevail in Ireland or
in India? Is the alleged idolatry of the sister island less tolerable
than that of the transatlantic colony? or are numbers of less account on
the banks of the Ganges than of the St. Lawrence?
But how multifarious and inconsistent a thing would thus be made of
religion! How are its beauty tarnished, its name degraded, and its
influence neutralized, by this admixture of earthly elements, this rude
and needless effort to grasp and to uphold its etherial principles! Is
truth thus mutable, or can it be thus bandied from hand to hand?
Whatever is established by the authority, should also be supported by the
sanctions of government. And if gentle methods prove insufficient to
check an offence _cognizable by the magistrate_, it is his duty to
augment severity in proportion to the obstinacy of the offender. If even
the dread of death fail to accomplish the desired reformation; to
mitigate the punishment is to exchange the character of a judge for that
of a tormentor, to lay aside the semblance of a wise and beneficent
discipline, and to indulge the gratification of a wanton and useless
cruelty. {48a} It would be easier, in such a case, to justify the
infliction of superadded torture, than of the lightest penalty.
It is difficult to conceive that principles leading to such results will
ever again be allowed to prevail against the liberties and lives of
Englishmen. But if, as some strangely apprehend it may, the Roman
Catholic faith should regain the ascendancy in this country, it would be
interesting and profitable to observe the course which would be adopted
by those who are at once enamoured of establishments, and at deadly feud
with popery. Some would, no doubt, be prepared, with Archdeacon Balguy,
“to defend, not popery only, but paganism itself—every _established_
religion under heaven.” {48b} But it may reasonably be supposed that
such a sentiment would, in the present day, be very generally discarded
as antiquated and untenable. The following language of a contemporary
clergyman may, probably, be considered as indicating the views with which
the supposed event would be more generally met by protestant
episcopalians. “If the presbyterians or papists were to-morrow the great
majority of the nation, and if the constituted authorities of the land,
king, lords, and commons, thinking either of these persuasions the best
religion, were to establish it by law, _I should then become a
dissenter_. With my belief in the scriptural authority of episcopacy, I
could not conscientiously be a presbyterian; and with my knowledge of the
antiscriptural doctrines of the church of Rome, _I must separate_ from
her communion.” {49} The intelligent, conscientious, and consistent
protestant would make his appeal, as did the martyrs, to the only supreme
authority. Here, he would say, placing his hand upon the word of God,
here alone, is “the religion of protestants:”
“_Here_ is the judge that stints the strife
When men’s devices fail;
Here is the bread that feeds the life
That _death cannot_ assail.” {50}
By the light of reason and in the exercise of prayer for that better
illumination which cometh from above, he would commit himself to this
safe guide. While he would value the protection, and conform to the
regulations, and discharge the imposts, of civil government, in reference
to things pertaining to its province; if for his religious profession he
endured suffering or privation, whatever its garb, its nature, or its
extent, he would resist with firmness; or succumb with reluctance, and
complain of persecution. The absence of the faggot or the rack would not
be admitted to purge away the stain of injustice. {51a} Whether debarred
of personal liberty, or of some minor privilege of citizenship; subject
to a legal slaughter, or to a legal tax; he would regard the champions of
established catholicism as trampling upon the just liberties of a
Christian man. He could give them, at best, no more that the poor praise
of having learned to imitate the Italian assassins, who beat their
victims with satchels of sand: no blood is spilt and no bones are
broken—but the sufferer dies by the operation. {51b}
“_Any sort_ of punishment, disproportioned to the offence, or where there
is no fault at all, will always be severity, unjustifiable severity, and
will be thought so by the sufferers and bystanders.” {52a} However
disguised, or modified, or attenuated may be the persecution, they will
regard it as persecution still, and will justly apply to its authors,
with whatever communion they may be connected, or whatever pretensions
they may set up, the language Milton puts into the lips of an archangel,
to whom many of the episcopal edifices are dedicated:—
“What will they, then,
But force the Spirit of grace itself, and bind
His consort liberty? What, but unbuild
His living temples, built by faith to stand,
_Their own faith_, _not another’s_?—for on earth
Who, against faith and conscience, can be heard
Infallible?” {52b}