Fen and Upland – Part 2

LONGSTANTON: THE FIELDS FARMING, SOCIAL LIFE AND THE CHURCHES BETWEEN THE SIXTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES

We are able to give a more detailed picture of the life of the farming community in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in one village in our area, Long Stanton, thanks to Miss H. Margaret Clark, whose research essay is summarized and quoted from in what follows. Long Stanton consisted of two parishes and four manors, two large and two small, but it still formed one agricultural unit. Twelve field names are mentioned in docu­ments from the years 1581 to 1613. These were all unhedged Open Fields, divided in a kaleidoscope of ‘strips’ farmed by different people. In reality there were four of these open fields in existence in the sixteenth century. They were Mare Field, the largest single field ; Dale Field, the far end of which was called Allhallow, Hollow or Farr Field ; Michelow with Littlemore at its north-east end ; and Stanwell Field, also called Great Mare Field or Haverill Field; Possel Field adjoined Stanwell and in the rotation of cultivation they were one unit. The twelth named field was the Innholmes or Innams; this included both open field strips and closes. The name suggests that this ground was added to the existing arable by cultivation of the waste early in the middle ages. For some reason it was not incorporated in the existing open fields. The sixteenth century four field system, Miss Clark suggests, may have developed out of an older two or three field system because of the division of the village into two parishes ; “the names Allhallows (Long Stanton All Saints) and Michelow (Long Stanton St. Michael), lying on each side of the parish boundary of the two parishes, are suggestive”. Clearly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the field system of Long Stanton was undergoing changes. By the end of the eighteenth century ‘there are two parishes, and in each of them there are three fields, a fallow field, an autumn field and a spring field. Thus Michelow Field and Littlemore Field and Haverill Field— lie in St. Michaels, and Mare Field and Hill Field and Dale Field in All Saints.”
The village fields were probably some 80% or more arable and there were 150 acres of waste and fen, Cow Fen in the north-west corner of All Saints Parish. Meadow land usually lay along the streams, and certain strips in the open fields, usually those too wet for arable, were cultivated leys. Miss Clark has been able to show from air photographs and documents that the balks, or ingress roads, which run mainly south-west and north­east, perhaps “as drove roads leading down to the fen for summer commoning”, reveal the sixteenth century pattern of the roads of the village. Just as the open field pattern as a whole was changing so was that of the ‘strips’ held by each peasant. Consolidation was taking place and adjoining lands, once held separately, were being put together to make larger ‘strips’ in single ownership. Out of 152 strips identified, 31 were of an acre or more and nearly two-thirds of half an acre or more. ‘Blocks of strips in one ownership or tenure came to be called ‘pieces’ at Long Stan­ton, and at least ten of these existed by the middle of the seven­teenth century. They were thought of as units in themselves, even if they were only temporary enclosures. One of these was Castle Piece in the occupation of Henry Edwards in 1626 which re­mained a distinct unit and was described in the eighteenth cen­tury as “containing 30 lands”. This consolidation of plough lands into larger strips and of groups of strips into pieces logically led to enclosure and the break up of the open field system with its rights of inter-commoning. “The transition from open field ‘lands’ to ‘pieces’ to closes, which may have become permanent, may be seen on the land of Sir Fulkc Greville”. Further small scale enclosure to create improved pasture was taking place. While arable in the open fields was valued at 4s an acre and the leys at just over 4s the acre, enclosed pasture was valued at sums varying from l5s to 25s an acre. The motive behind this kind of enclosure is obvious, but it did not go very far; the village remained basically an open field one, like most Cambridgeshire villages, until the Enclosure Award early in the nineteenth century. Indeed, Sir Fulke Greville’s enclosure of the common of the manor held by him aroused local protest “Sir Fulke hath all and kepes incloses where there should be comon for ye queenes Rectory and ye towne ‘; “it will be . . . to the utter undoing of most or all of us, and our prosperities for ever, with an endlesse curse to light upon th’offenders”. The protest was in vain.

How were the village lands farmed? There were “large tenant farmers of over 100 acres, like the Phypers and Edwardes, and freeholders like the Bostons”. There were “cottagers with their acre of close and acre of arable”. “Barley was the main crop. Wheat and rye were little grown in comparison with barley and, when they were grown, were grown together.” An account of 1626 for the demesne of Colville’s Manor gives the yields of different crops as barley 20 bushels, wheat and maslin 15 bushels, ‘grey pease’ 16 bushels, and ‘white pease’ l3½ bushels, all per acre. In 1794 Vancouver gave Long Stanton figures as barley 24 bushels, rye 24 bushels, wheat 18 bushels, peas and beans 16 bushels per acre. Although the arable was the most important part of the farms, stock was already significant. But the number of beasts kept varied a great deal. Nicholas Bonner left 56 sheep in his will of 1549 but William Edwardes only a ewe and lamb in 1591. William Fromant had 19 cows in 1547 but John Christmas only a single heifer in 1565. “The basic stock be­queathed to the children of a prosperous husbandman is like that which William Fromant left to each of his three daughters in 1547 “10 ewea, 2 mylch kyen, 2 steeryes, a baye horse colt and a pyed meare colt”.
“So the economy at Long Stanton was based on the growing of barley, peas and beans, and a little wheat, and on the raising of sheep, cows and pigs, products which were eked out by hens, ducks and geese in the yard, and the bees of the beekeepers.”

Miss Clark has studied the rise in Long Stanton’s population in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and the social changes that accompanied it. 39 people were taxed in 1542; there were 42 families in 1563 and 56 houses in 1662. The 38 taxpayers of 1524 can be divided into three groups thirty paid £4 or less, seven between £4 and £10 and two paid far more, Christopher Burgoyne £26 and another £29. By the end of the sixteenth century “at least seven tenants held farms of  about 100 acres, besides Buckleys farm, called ‘the Greete farm’, on Cheney’s manor alone”. Intensity of family feeling helped to consolidate farms and assisted the family’s rise in the world. Robert Boston in his will of 1593 “provided that no part of the premises be alienated ‘soe longe as there be anie alive of my name or bloude’”. John Edwardes, who died in 1570, was a husbandman, but his son Henry, who died in 1626, was a yeoman, as were two grandsons. Other families declined in wealth and status. “The division between rich and poor, social group and social group, was not a rigid one. The marriages show that. Two Edwardes daughters married Wingfields, who were small husbandmen, in the seven­teenth century. Nor were the terms ‘yeoman’, ‘husbandman’, and ‘labourer’ rigidly used. It was comparatively easy to slip from one group to the next”. Incidentally ‘labourer’ in Long Stanton was not used for one supporting himself by wages, necessarily. William Wingfield of the Green Row had a free cottage, and also held lease from Hatton of £4 per annum, which his widow maintained’’.
The background to this social change is interesting. Leases were long, 21 years, and rents at least between 1590 and 1629 were static. About this time copyhold property became leasehold. Miss Clark has noted another change: doweries left in wills tended to be in kind early in the sixteenth century and to become cash payments by the end of the century. Even “labourers like William Persefalle in 1642 left his daughter 40s, while Wil­liam Wingfield of the Green Row left his three daughters £3 or £4 each”. At the other end of the scale “John Phipers, ‘yeoman’, in 1608 left two of his daughters £40 each on marriage”. “In so far as it is possible to generalize, a ‘husbandman’s’ provision for his daughter tended to be £5 or over, in the first decades of the seventeenth century, and ‘labourers’ with leases on the side, like Wingfield of the Green Row, left somewhat less. Cottages with an acre or so might leave a few shillings”.

Careful study of the wills has given Miss Clark a picture of the houses of the village and their contents. It seems that the rebuilding of houses, partitioning off into separate rooms and equipping with improved furniture began earlier in Long Stanton than in the west midlands. As early as 1516 there is a reference to “under the steyrys”; even if only a ladder is meant, this sug­gests an early beginning of the process of boarding over a house previously open to the ceiling, to create upper rooms. There are other references to several rooms in the house. “The extension of houses was proceeding fast among the smaller husbandmen, it was not out of the ordinary for them to have one room upstairs, or a chamber, in the second half of the sixteenth century. Two or more rooms upstairs were probably common among the most prosperous villagers. At the other end of the scale, the better off labourers were subdividing their houses into two rooms”. The will of John Hatch, labourer, made in 1662, refers to “the new house next John Bonds’ and describes how this single-roomed house should be divided if his son marries “he shall of his owne cost …. build and sctt up a sufficient Chimney in the said new house for the use of my wife”, i.e. divide the house into two rooms. The Hearth Tax Returns of 1662 show that only 21 out of 57 houses had single hearths, i.e. were houses of two or three rooms; the remainder were still larger.
Furnishings, as well as houses, were getting better. In 1555 the Priest of All Saints had ‘a grete turnede chaire’; in this he was not alone, but he was unique in possessing books. By the end of the sixteenth century “the most prosperous possessed joined beds and often had feather beds to go with them. Trundle beds came in in the seventeenth century to go with them. No-one could rival Widow Hall in magnificence, however, for in 1613 she bequeathed a bed which she had bought from George Rilands, Gentleman, who had settled in the village. She left it “with the furniture, that is the bedsted a Canopie and Curtaynes a feather bedd a flock-bedd twoe boulsters sixe pillowes a Coverlett and a paire of blanketts with a trundlebedd belonginge to the same”.
Elene Brook, the widow of a substantial husbandman, died in 1553 leaving a chair, two ‘Quysshens’ and a great leather ‘Quysshen’ among other things. By 1576 ‘painted cloths’ and hangings appear in Joan Butcher’s house. “Elizabeth Fromant has a hanging by her bed in 1592, and Agnes Fromant had a bed with painted hangings round it, as well as three other hang­ings in 1599”. “The odd half-dozen plain napkins were becom­ing common in the houses of husbandmen and yeomen”. The different situation of rich and poor, but the rise in the standard of living of both, is brought out in two wills of 1628 and 1635. Joan Blose, widow of John, who held the smallest lease, £1 a year, from Cheney’s Manor, left “a cupboard, two hutches, one bed and appurtenances, three pairs of sheets, two towels, two pillowbearers, eight yards of ‘wolinge clothe’, four yards of linen cloth, three aprons, two pewter platters, one chair, one stool, one plank, one form, one brass pan, one gown, one wollinge wheel’ and a new sheet.” The furniture is meagre enough but it in­cludes articles like the chair and the towels which would certainly not have been there a hundred years before.
The change at the upper end of the scale is shown in the goods of Katherine Stewkin, wife of the largest freeholder, who died in 1635, leaving  “one cup and six silver spoons … my long tabell and my little Joyne tabell with a ioyned formc and a settle a press Cupboard and my Joine Bedstead one feather bed and two bolsters and straw bed with mattress and corde one paryre cur­taynes and curtayne rods and the best Chestc and redd chest and my copper panne and a broad pann one Spitt and a paryre of pott rakes and my trundle bed with a redd blanket and a white one the best Coverlett and a mattris and ioyne chaire and straw-bottom charyre and my wollen wheel and my linnen wheele”.

The two developments which were to affect our area most in the sixteenth, seventeenth and later centuries were of national as well as local importance. They were the draining of the fens and the Reformation which separated English Christians from the Roman church.
The Romans had made use of the fen area for arable culti­vation. Neglect and destruction of Roman works by the English invaders and changes in the relative level of the land and the sea had turned the fen into a great mere and marsh from which countless fish and wild fowl were to be won to the benefit of the local inhabitants. At the same time land on the edge of the fcn was regularly flooded and so provided good grazing for large numbers of cattle. We have seen the references made in the 1575 Survey of Over to “the fen wherein the inhabitants of Over have been accustomed to get fodder for the keeping of their cattle in winter time” and to “cattle – sans nombre”. “In good dry years there was more grass than was needed” but the “cattle within wet years, when the fens be surrounded with water, were in danger to be starved for lack of Fodder.” To meet this eventuality the Abbot of Ramsey, in the reign of Henry VII, had divided up the manorial demesne into ‘Penny Lands’, let out on copyhold tenure, ‘to such as at that time would give most rent and farme’, to provide ‘strawe and stovcr for their cattle within wet years’. This was possible because, as the Survey makes clear, “there was no Mansion House or Manor House or place’. The jury making the Survey were most concerned about this: “at this present there is not any Capitall Mansion or Manner place or any mention thereof, other than one close of pasture contain­ing by estimacon six acres called the Berry yard which some so report to be the place where the chief house was builded yet is there at this present neither mencon of house walls, ponds, motes, orchards, gardens or any such like whereby it may be gathered that the house stood there”. Berry or Bury is certainly a name which suggests that there had been a manor house on the site, but an Abbey landlord would not require a manor house if it held the land directly. So it is not surprising that the Abbot was willing to sublet the demesne land. He did this in a way which was carefully designed to preserve a balanced local econ­omy “the aforesaid lands did he so dispersedly here an acre, and there an acre through all the fields of the Toune so as they could not make any enclosure or convert them to more commodious uses for that they had no other Landes, meadows, pastures or feedinge severall.”
The farm economy of Over clearly depended to a great degree on the feed for cattle, but “the Fishing of Willingham Meare, Darload and Cote Lake” was also important. Willingham Meare measured 324 acres. Darload lake lay “in the extreme part of the Lordship between Swalney and Shelfould and the other called Coat lake lying at the mouth of the said Meare.” The management of the fenland was of great importance to the inhabitants. An “old fenn book of  “1487” is referred to in the Survey; rules and regulations went a long way back. In 1575 there were “divers Officers belonging to the same fens, for re­forming of Injuries and maintenance of good order there”:-

“THE FEN GREEVES or MARRISH GREEVES – 6 named fen greeves who be the chief officers and overseers of the fens and commons. Their office is to see the fens and marishes avoided of cattle at such days as are appointed. That the fens be kept in good order and not over charged or fed with such cattle as by their laws are forbidden and that the ditches, draynes, Bridges, banks of the fens be repaired and scoured and amended and that there be no encroachments or other disorders in the commons.”

“THE HEYWARD – whose office is to see Dowels kept between the meadow, marish and fen grounds. To bury or cast into pitts the dead carcases of cattle. And to see the Chain of the Bridge opened and shut for such as pass in and out of the Fens.”

“THE FEN CLARKE – (commonly the Clark of the Parish Church). His office is to keepe the booke whereby the Inhabitants make dividing of their fodder fens. And at such time as he is commanded to bring the booke to the fen greeves for the time being. And to go with them until they have divided the fens and laid every man his parte.”

A General Survey of the Level, taken in 1635/6 by a Mr. Heyward, shows that Willingham too had much fenland. Some of it was shared with Rampton, just as some of Over fen was shared with Willingham. This ‘intercommoning’, as it was called, was a natural way of solving the problem of managing land lying between two parishes, over which it was difficult to draw and maintain an exact boundary. While much of Willingham fen was still ‘common’, some was already ‘several’, that is pri­vately owned. The details of the fens, given by Heyward, are as follows:

Rampton & Willingham.

It seems that in Willingham, as in Over, tile grass from the fens was supplemented by meadow grass from higher land and that this was carefully parcelled out. There exists “a Meadow Book of the severall roods of meadow with the names of the owners thereof as they lye in the severall furlongs and hides and doles in the meadows of Wivelinghani’. The names of the furlongs, given in this book, are Holt Corner, Bosted, Meadowhill, Middle furlong or Snoutfen, Upper furlong or Brink, Cottnummeadow, Seniment or further Snout, Long Stacks, Short Stacks, Flegg corner, Long swaths, Heardle meadow, Long Shellfords, Short Shellfords, Westmeadows

It will be noticed that the only privately owned fens men­tioned in the 1635/6 survey, were “an imbanked Fen – called Little Shelfords”, belonging to the heir of Sir Edward Hynd (80 acres), and “certain inclosed grounds – called the Stacks”, which were Sir Miles Sandys’. Behind this latter piece of private property lay a piece of recent history. Sir Miles had entered on his Willingham estate, by a Crown grant of 8th November 1601, for the payment of £2069. Like many landlords of the time he had evidently set about maximizing the profits from his new estates. This was to be done by insisting on the fulfillment of all copyholder obligations whatever the custom might be, and by enclosing some of the common land, so that improved privately controlled farming could take place. The tenantry objected and showed their feelings in the usual way for the time, pulling down the fence of the new enclosure, “unlawfully, ryotously, routeously and in a forcible manner.” The local disturbance must have been considerable, for the Bishop of Ely, Sir John Cotton, Anthony Page, Mark Steward and Francis Tyndall were drawn into arbitration. The award, which they made, allowed Sir Miles to enclose but he had to leave a sufficient way for ‘a great herd of cattle in the same place where formerly the way hath been for the drift of cattle’ and he was not to have any rights of feeding cattle on the remaining common pasture. So “the certain inclosed grounds’ of the 1635/6 survey were created out of the common fen some thirty years earlier. Sir Miles in return “abandoned some of his claims over the copyholders ; and in 1611 remitted the hen rent, egg rent, days works and heriots, to which they had been liable.”
The management of all this fen, so important for the liveli­hood of the villagers of Long Stanton, Swavesey, Over and Willingham, as we have seen in the case of Over, had led over the centuries to the construction of ‘ditches, drains, bridges, banks’. Richard Atkyns in Notes on the Fens of Cambridgeshire, which he made in 1604, described how “from Over to Earith leadeth a bank dividing the fens; the west parts by reason of this bank are longer drowned than them below towards Willingham be, and for that, as well as the overflowing of Ouse as also the waters from Longstanton and the parts adjoining, falling in between Over and Swasey, are thereby stayed and restrained at Earith, which in mine opinion is a cause that presseth in so vehemently at Earith Bridge to the West Waters.” “A little above Earith Bridge on the south of Ouse beginneth a good bank which leadeth thence by the river to Over Cote westward, and thence turneth southerly towards Over Town ; this bank is the usual horse way from Earith Ferry to Cambridge.” Over had the distinction of containing one of the earliest engines used to pump water in the fens. Richard Atkyns, in 1604, refers to “an engine or mill placed to cast water”, in Over, “and not far from thence another mil for the towne, both serve to good purpose and empty the water into a ditch which falleth into Willingham Mere.”
There is some evidence that the maintenance of the existing fens began to break down in the sixteenth century, whether because of natural causes or because of changes in land owner­ship brought about by the Dissolution of the Monasteries. The inhabitants of Over “in one moiste somer and an harde wynter followinge (they) loste more by death and drowning of cattell than they gayned by the fennes in three yeres.” “Because that every poor person that had parte of the fens was not able presenfly at every brake and raze of water to disburst money toward the repair of the Bank and Bridges, ditches and draines”, the inhabitants of Over agreed to establish a common fund and officers to repair the damage. This kind of action, to replace the departed powerful Church landlord, led to an increasing desire to solve the problems of the fens more radically than ever and so to renewed plans for fen drainage. It is no accident that the Sandys family who appeared as fen enclosers in Willingham in 1601-11 (see page 35) should appear as actively engaged with Francis Russell, 4th Earl of Bedford in his schemes for draining the Great Level.

It is not our purpose to retell the story of the draining of the fens by Vermuyden, the Earl of Bedford and the Adventurers, only to refer to some local incidents in the story. The Sandys family were deeply involved. In 1649 Sir Miles Sandys took the chair at meetings of the Adventurers when no Earl was present. On Friday 22nd June “Sir Miles Sandys and Sir Edward Partridge brought in a Designe and estimate in writing of the works of drayninge thought fitt to be done this Summer”. Sandys was deeply involved financially in 1645 he wrote “I could not pay £100 now if I had to go to prison. I have had to sell my land to pay my debts.” On 18 August 1649 the principal defaultors in payments due to the Adventurers included Sir Miles Sandys for £1,153.15s; he was the largest debtor. His son later wrote I owe divers sums, which my father borrowed at interest when he adventured large sums of money with the Earl of Bedford in the draining of the fens.” The trouble was that the drainage project dragged on so long, begun in the reign of James I the work was still going on during the Commonwealth. What is more it aroused local opposition.
The St. Ives Court of Sewers in 1637 allotted to the Earl of Bedford, for his part in the drainage scheme, ‘out of the common fens of or belonging to Wivelingham – 182A. 1R” and “out of the several fen grounds of or belonging to Wivelingham – 40A. 3R.”. This was typical of the way in which the Adventurers were rewarded for their investment in drainage the Earl was to get 95,000 acres of fenland altogether. It is hardly surprising that the Bishop, Dean and Chapter of Ely and the inhabitants of Over and Willingham were among the chief petitioners against the allotment of so much land to the Earl. Protests continued to be made. The Fen Office Records for June 4th 1646 contain the minute: “the petitions from the following villages or groups of villages were read 1) Cottenham, Willingham and Rampton 2) Over … 3) Swavesey and Fen Drayton, …        Resolved that whoever shall desire a copie of the ordnance for drayning the fens shall have it.
“Resolved that on Wednesday next the ordnance shall be taken into consideration. And the chairman may receive such other petitions as shall be presented from the country.’ But petitioning did not stop the beginning of draining. When the drainage operation began, we find Sir Miles Sandys writing to his son of “the country rose up against — my Lord of Bedford”; if “order be not taken, it will turn out to be a general rebellion in all the Fen towns.” By 1649 the financial difficulties of the Adventurers led to another kind of trouble: “for want of money to pay the workmen they fall into mutinies and seize upon the officers and threaten to carry them away and cutt them in pieces, in case they have not speedy payment.” During the Civil War prisoners were used to supplement the workmen employed on the drainage scheme. An Order survives for 15 October 1651 “that Thomas Bunbury and Hugh Farnham or one of them do receive at Earith one hundred and sixtysix Scotch prisoners, from Corporal Foster, for the use and service of the Company of Adventurers for draining of the Great Level of the Fens.” Quite early in the seventeenth century Protestant refugees from north-western Europe had settled in the fen area to help with drainage. Dutch prisoners taken in sea battles were added to these. An agreement for the restoration to their homes of 500 such Dutch prisoners was made in 1654. Drainage not only changed the economy of the fen villages but introduced new peoples and new ideas into the area.
The entries in Over Churchwarden’s Account Book for 1690 and 1691 are more likely to he connected with recruiting for ‘Dutch’ William’s war with James II than with continuing trouble in the fens, but they echo what might well have been entered in the 1640s and 1650s!

The draining of the seventeenth century was on the whole successful in its purpose of bringing new land under the plough. Sir William Dugdalc observed in his diary of a tour in the fens in 1657 that not far from Willingham onions, peas and hemp were being grown in the fen. But the fens did not seem attractive places to visitors from outside. Pepys on a visit to relatives at Wisbech in 1663 wrote in his diary of the “sad Fenns – the sad life which the people of the place do live, sometimes rowing from one spot to another and then wadeing”. His relatives lived in “a heathen place – in a sad, poor thatched cottage, like a poor barn, or stable, peeling of hemp.” He stayed at a “miserable inn” and went “to bed in a sad, cold, nasty Chamber, only the mayde was indifferent handsome, and so I had a kiss or two of her.” Celia Fiennes visiting Ely in 1698 described the country she saw “the Fens are full of water and mudd; these also encompass their grounds”. At Ely she had ‘froggs and slowworms and snails in my roome – it must needs be very unhealthy, tho’ the natives say much to the contrary which proceeds from custom and use, otherwise to persons born in up and dry countryes it must destroy like rotten sheep in consumptions and rhumes”. The tragedy was that the success of the early drainers was leading to a new series of disasters, for the ‘dry’ ground was now sinking. Flooding began again as early as January 1670 we find ‘a bill of emergency’ in the Fen Office Records, which records payment to “Jacob Eversden and George Read and John Stizall for one day and one night watching and cradging Over bank in the flood the 3rd November 1669”. A century later, in 1768, the banks at Over burst and the flood was serious.

The final dissolution of the monasteries meant the disappearance of many important landlords from our area and the parcelling out of large estates. New landlords appeared, like the Sandys and Russell families (see page 35 ff). Land which belonged to the Bishop, as opposed to the Abbey, of Ely remained his. But Long Stanton manor, for example, was taken over by Queen Elizabeth – she is said to have been entertained there by Bishop Cox in 1564 and granted to Sir Christopher Hatton. Chantries, like the one founded by Agatha de Stanton at Dry Drayton, in 1349, and gilds, like the gild of Our Lady at Knapwell which paid 2d a year for a lamp in the church, were suppressed in Edward VI’s reign. In 1554 there began a brief return to the old ways and Launcelot Ridley, the rector of Willingham, was one of the first parish priests to lose his living. With Queen Elizabeth’s accession Ridley was given a new living outside our area. His successor at Willingham, Thomas Parkinson, had conformed to the Elizabethan settlement.
The Elizabethan bishops of Ely continued the medieval practice of making visitations to enquire into the local life of the church; from these we learn that at St. Michael’s Long Stanton the paintings on the walls (images) were not at first washed out, and at Fen Drayton “Divine service is not celebrated at proper times and hours nor are there any sermons or preaching of the word of God by any of the fellows of Christ’s College who are rectors here.” Perhaps it was not surprising that Fen Drayton also lacked the essential Protestant literature, the Paraphrases of Erasmus and the book of Homilies. How many of the churches in our area still have the sixteenth or seventeenth century Bible, which the law demanded? Knapwell has a black letter Bible dated 1617. The church buildings were themselves sometimes neglected of Boxworth in 1552 it is reported that the church windows needed glass and that the place where the altar was had not been levelled. It should be remembered that the Puritans removed the altar from the east end and replaced it with a table in the body of the church. In 1561 the chancel windows of Boxworth church were decayed and the churchyard was unfenced. In the same year it was reported that Fen Drayton, while it still had no priest, at least now had a curate, John Pryest. We know about these defects because the diocesan authorities were enquiring into them and trying to remedy them.

The process of enquiry and reformation continued in the early seventeenth century. “A great perambulation (was) made round the boundaries of Over on the Tuesday in Gange (Rogation) week, 1602. The dryness of the year gave occasion to the Perambulation”. Ezra Purkins, the schoolmaster of Over, though not in Orders, was discovered in 1609 to be in the habit of conducting service in church, preaching twice on Sundays, burying, churching women and generally behaving like the Minister! It is hardly surprising, then, that Edward Tiffar, the minister of Swavesey, was required in 1610 to show that he was a sufficient preacher, that he served but one cure of souls, and that he was permitted to function as a schoolmaster. In 1624 Mr. William Power failed to read prayers at Fen Drayton on the 7th of March. In 1625 Mr. Leeds, the curate at Swavesey, was reported for saying no morning prayer on Rogation Sunday, and the Vicar, Mr. Wildblood, was ordered to rebuild the ruinous vicarage. An even odder state of affairs in Swavesey was revealed in 1626: Thomas Christian and Elizabeth Rook were married by Walter Batter “who reads prayers one day at Swavesey and another day at Over and his father preacheth accordinglie and serves cure at Swavesey for one time as his sonne doth at another and neither of them licensed neither is the son in orders.” At Madingley in 1627 Thomas Hooks, the curate who served the cure, also preached without licence. Lolworth church in 1625 needed leading and painting a bell was broken and the King’s arms were much defaced. In 1637 it was reported that Madingley chancel needed thatch and the Vicarage had the timber of a chimney set up, but neither splinted nor daubed – interesting incidental information about building materials and methods of the period.
The parson, the church and the vicarage were not the only concern of the ecclesiastical authorities. They were watchful over the lay congregation too. Sunday observance and church going was strictly enforced, but at Swavesey in 1622 there was “bowling in the churchyard on the Sabaoth and no prayers on Bartholomew day”. “Agnes, wife of Henry Smith vitailer upon Sunday 27th June 1624 did bake cakes and pyes in time of divine service”; this was at Over. In the same year Walter Rickard the miller of Conington was presented “for grinding corn on Sunday and holy days” and at Elsworth the Sabbath was prophaned by “unlawful ringing”. The Church authorities were particularly concerned with the moral behaviour of the laity; sexual lapses were publicly reported and condemned. Since there is no difference between the behaviour condemned by the Church in the early seventeenth century and that regularly reported in many modern Sunday newspapers, and since the language used in the presentations was often simple and blunt, it does not seem appropriate to give details in a work with no pretence to be fine literature.
The church’s property was not always treated reverently. in 1622 at Swavesey “Joseph Papworth (was accused of) bringing a key to unlock the steeple door without any consent of churchwardens, by means of which there is lead lost to the church – which will cost at least 10s. to repair.” At Fen Drayton in 1635 “Thomas Christian said that he pulled down some splint and tooke away a bottle of beere which was provided for procession.” He was ordered “to repair the wall at his own cost. Mr. Bell said that he kept the bottle away and said that he would runne his knife in it”! The bottle presumably was a leathern one. Maintenance and improvement of the church was still a problem. Conington reported in 1635 that “their third bell was lost 10 or 12 years ago by the running away of the bellfounder, and they have done what they could to have gotten a rate, but Mr. Watson would not agree”; while John Blackman of Swavesey appears and says that the floors (presumably of the church) are unpaved and thick of dust that he cannot keepe it clean”. On 25 July 1635 Dr. Eden, Chancellor of the diocese of Ely, issued an order to place “the parishioners of Swavesey in seats within the church there according to their conditions and estates”. The Minister, two church-wardens, Thomas Berrie, with “two such others as shall be chosen by the rest of the parishioners” were to settle the matter, and “if they shall not agree or the major part of them then Dr. Whincop, parson of Elsworth, shall be authorised to arrange it.

Evidence for opposition to the Anglican church before the Civil War is surprisingly small.  In 1621 James Papworth of Elsworth was presented ‘for going out of the church at the sacrament of baptism in a scoffing manner.” At Over in 1624 “we present Elizabeth Maddye and Marie Maddye the daughter of Henry Maddie have not received the holie communion this last Easter. Mr. Livelie saith she is an heretical recusant seduced as he is informed by her excommunicate heretical mother, Marian Maddye.” In 1638 Bishop Matthew Wren ordered a Visitation. The return for Fen Drayton will give some idea of the growing local opposition to Laudian control of the Anglican church; it suggests what the Church was trying to do to set its house in order. The spelling has been modernized and the orders of the consistory court placed in brackets beneath the individual concerned.

“Mr. Thomas Dodson, curate. (To certify who they were that were married without the communion).
Robert Cropwell, Henry Barton, churchwardens.
(The carpet to be one of purple cloth of 20s. per yard to cover the table to the ground before it and a fair thick fringe suitable and a new linen cloth for the same, a new bible, Bishop Jewel’s works, a new poor box. Leets not to be warned. Accounts of churchwardens by Bill indented).
Francis Apethorpe for not keeping the chancel in sufficient repair, neither roof, windows, nor walls – did not appear (fruits ordered to be sequestrated).
(He that appeared admonished that it be repaired in the slant – sealed with wainscot to the ancient place, the rest sealed with lime and mortar, and to certify. The new Churchwardens to specify the particular decay of the walls and windows.)
Francis Apethorpe senior for refusing to pay the rate towards the repairer of the church.
(Upon hearing both sides, viz, the churchwardens and both Apethorpes, it was ordered for the future that for all rates hereafter, that they shall both together be rated for their stock after the half of the value thereof, the rest – to be exempted in respect of the Parsonage for the rates part of it referred to the suit depending)
Francis Apethorpe junior for the same.
Thomas Ratford servant of Edward Algood refusing to come to catechism.
John Charleton and Jane Chambers for the same.
Frances Apethorpe senior, Joan his wife and Francis Apethorpe junior for continually coming late to church, for not kneeling for prayers, irreverently sitting
Jane Chambers for absenting herself from her parish church and afterwards saying the churchwardens were scurvy conditioned people. (To be suspended).
William Goodgame for not kneeling when prayer and collects were read.
Dorothy Croplcy for sitting at time of prayer.
Joan Apethorpe and Francis Apethorpe for disturbing the minister in his function in uncivil and rude speeches in the church.
(That the women be not placed in the chancel, but removed convenient seats in the church).
Francis Apethorpe junior for a fame of incontinency with Emma Cole, alias Ellis.
Walter Mace for a fame of incontinency with Joan Peete.”

From the subsidy roll of 1640-1 it is clear that the Apethorpes were the wealthiest inhabitants of Fen Drayton. The subsidy raised £24 18s; £6 8s of this in small amounts. The highest payment was by Francis Apcthorpe senior, £4 10s, for goods ; the next highest was £3 by Francis Apethorpe junior, also for goods. Among others mentioned in the Visitation, Henry Barton the churchwarden was one of the three assessors for the tax and paid £1 for goods; the other two assessors were William Barton, who paid £1 10s for goods, and Edward Algood who paid £1 for goods; it was his servant who had refused catechism. Robert Cropwell, the other churchwardcn in 1638, headed the list of taxpayers, taxed on their lands, and paid £1 10s. The accounts of the receiver for the Scotch loan in 1645 are headed by Francis Apethorpe senior, paying £3; the next largest payment was by Henry Barton, of £2 13s 4d. A Mr. Robert Vallance paid £2 4s, William Raspellar £1 16s 8d., Robert Cropwell and Edward Allgood £1 each, and John Martin 10s.
From the same Visitation record we learn of offences committed in Swavesey: Richard Day laughing in service time, Robert Robinson living from his wife, Thomas Viall, John Tuck and William Linsey drinking and fighting on the Sunday before Christmas, and John Clifton drinking all day during the Christmas holiday!

Opposition to the Anglican church and opposition to Charles I’s policies merged. Knapwell, Boxworth, Oakington, Long Stanton and Rampton were among the 22 Cambridgeshire parishes which resisted the payment of Ship Money. When civil war began, some of the university plate was smuggled to the King at Oxford. Oliver Cromwell, M.P. for Cambridgeshire, tried to intercept it at a point called Lower Hedges on the Cambridge – Huntingdon road, but failed. Barnabas Oley, master of Clare and vicar of Gransden, evaded him by taking the byways. On March 12th, 1643, the villages around Cambridge received an appeal to contribute towards the cost of fortifying the town of Cambridge. The warrant delivered by Constable Norris to the Churchwardens of Fen Drayton is still in existence. “To all and every the inhabitants of Fen Drayton in the Hundred of Papworth.
“Whereas we have been enforced, by apparent grounds of approaching danger, to begin to fortify the town of Cambridge, for preventing the Enemy’s inroad, and the better to maintain the peace of this county Having in part seen your good affections to the cause, and now standing in need of your further assistance to the perfecting of the said Fortifications, which will cost at least Two-thousand pounds. We are encouraged as well as necessitated to desire a Freewill offering of a Liberal Contribution from you, for the better enabling of us to attain our desired ends, – viz, the Preservation of our county ; – knowing that every honest and well affected man, considering the vast expenses we have already been at, and our willingness to do according to our ability, will be ready to contribute his best assistance to a work of so high concernment and so good an end.
We do therefore desire that what shall be by you freely given and collected may with all convenient speed be sent to the Commissioners at Cambridge, to be employed to the use aforesaid. And so you shall further engage us to be
Yours ready to serve, OLIVER CROMWELL. THOMAS MARTIN. ( and six others)
Cambridge the 8th March, 1642/3.”

Fifteen people in Fen Drayton, between them, subscribed £1 19s 2d, duly paid over to William Welbore, one of the signatories of the appeal.
Support for the parliamentary cause was stiffened by the growth in local Puritanism. In 1642 Thomas Cromwell of Madingley was accused of ‘neglecting to come to church upon divers Sabaoth days’, but this was the last of such local cases for some years. When Parliament introduced the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643 in support of Presbyterian church organization, no less than 158 people of Over signed it. This must have been almost every householder, for the 1664 Hearth Tax shows that there were only 139 houses in Over. Robert Finch and Henry Chapman, churchwardens, and Thomas Barnes, constable, of Willingham recorded on Mar. 16th 1643: “we destroyed 40 superstitious pictures, a crucifix, 2 superstitious inscriptions, 1 pray for the soul of’ etc., 2 pictures of the Holy Ghost, and one of the Virgin Mary in brass”. Cromwell’s brother-in-law, John Desborough (Disbrowe) of Eltisley, released Henry Denne, the Baptist, who had been imprisoned in 1644 for preaching in the area. Over Baptists certainly attended the Fen Stanton congregation which had come into existence by 1645.
The Civil War led to many changes in the local clergy. Edward Martin, Master of Queens’ College, was ejected from the living of Conington in 1643 for political reasons; he returned at the Restoration. Thomas Whincop had to resign the living of Lolworth in 1644 because he also held that of Elsworth; the Puritans were attacking pluralism. John Stanton was removed from the rectory at Knapwell in 1646 “because he is incumbent of Longstow, which hath cure of souls, and liveth wholly non-resident in his church of Knapwell which he supplied by a curate”. The vicar of Swavesey was sequestered in favour of William Sampson in 1648, and John Goche or Gothe was displaced at Long Stanton All Saints in 1650 in favour of Henry Gray. A Parliamentary Commission in this year proposed the Union of the two Long Stanton parishes.
After the Parliamentary victory in the Civil War Charles I became a prisoner of the New Model Army. On June 5th 1647 he was brought to Childerley Hall, then the home of Sir John Cutts, a member of the county committee which supported the Eastern Counties Associations. Charles I spent three days at Childerley, during which time Fairfax, Cromwell and Ireton dined with him.
In the days of the Commonwealth many changes were made in Church practices. Amongst others Civil marriages were introduced. Fen Drayton Church Registers record nine such. The banns were called in the Church and a year usually elapsed before the marriage before a J.P. The Registrar of Fen Drayton in these years was a cobbler, an indication of the social upheaval which marked the times.

The real division between the English Protestant churches dates from the Commonwealth and the Restoration. The new Act of Uniformity passed in 1662 restored the Anglican church on a basis which many Puritans could not accept; organized Dissenting Churches were born, to suffer persecution of varying degree until the Act of Toleration of 1689. Robert Wilson, an occasional preacher at Over, lost his position at the Restoration, but he was a good musician and supported himself by instructing Cambridge scholars and young gentlemen in all the country round in his art. Calamy described him as ‘eminently pious and charitable and an Arch Beggar’ for Nonconformity. Others, especially the Quakers, suffered imprisonment as well as reprivation of office.
Meanwhile the restored Anglican church tried to put its own house in order: poorer livings like that of Long Stanton All Saints were augmented by Bishop Gunning of Ely. Diocesan presentments and visitations recommenced and from these we learn that, in 1662, three men of Long Stanton All Saints did commonly absent themselves from church, and that the parish had a sufficient parish clerk, but neither schoolmaster nor physician. The yearly revenue of the church was £4 10s. At St. Michael’s it was noted that the Rector Henry Gray “doth constantly observe the order of Holy Church. We have all necessaries provided and yearly income of £3 5s. 1 man doth commonly absent himself from Church. We have a sufficient parish clerk, but neither schoolmaster, physician, chirurgeon or midwife”. At the Archdeacon’s visitation of 1665 All Saints reported : “We have a silver chalice and pewter flagon and paten and a new chest with 3 locks. Our Vicar is Henry Gray: he doth preach every Sunday in his surplice and hood. He is Rector of the other parish and serves the cure himself. He is canonical in his habit and peaceable in his conversation. He doth acknowledge and maintain the King’s authority”. At St. Michael’s the report dealt with repairs needed to the church and churchyard fence. The comments on Henry Gray in these Visitation Reports are especially interesting when we remember that he was given the living under the Commonwealth, in 1650, one year after Charles I’s execution.
Reports from other parishes show a less happy picture. In 1676, Mr. Dickings, the Rector of Elsworth, failed to read divine service on Wednesdays and Fridays in Ember week, while John Papworth, the Churchwarden, lacked a surplice. In 1679 Widow Boyden of Conington was reported not coming to church and in 1682 June Ripchier of Lolworth. In the latter year Edward Grimsby and Elizabeth his wife, of Knapwell, were accused of “absenting themselves from divine service and sermon for 3 whole weeks”. It is clear from later reports that some of this neglect was due to dissent, and some of it due to growing indifference. In 1686-7 Lolworth produced a whole crop of reports John Hare ‘a common swearer, a prophane mocker’ had scoffed at the ordinance of preaching and after ‘gone away’; but Jane Ripsheire, who had done the same, was excommunicated. The accusation that Elizabeth Kidman was a railer against the Minister was dismissed. Robert Wolfe was described as ‘a common swearer and Jane Johnson had wholly deserted the church. On the other side Bishop Patrick of Ely’s Visitation of 1692 reported Mr. Bird as the Rector of Knapwell; this Mr. Bird, inducted into the Rectory in 1679, tried to bring some order into the Church records at least. He “gave this book (a paper book recording marriages) to the town of Knapwell in 1683. Faithfully collecting the Burials in Woollen, out of a paper book and transcribing them faithfully at the other end of this book. Also transcribing the Christenings out of a parchment book from the year 1680 to this present year 1683 wherein he began to be the Registrar himself.” The Church Registers of the late seventeenth century can produce some strange stories. The following must be one of the oddest of marriages “John Pearson aged above three score years was married to Ann Heard aged 16 years who was his grand-daughter, ye daughter of his wives own daughter, whom I thought to have been his wives daughter-in-law only. This remarkable marriage was solemnized in Over Church ye 3rd by virtue of LIE 3rd May 1687.
The earliest records of the local Dissenting Churches, we have hardly investigated, but a George Nash of Over, Quaker, is mentioned in 1667. The Quakers seem to have had their own burial ground in Over from this date. The Anglican Church Register records ‘Sarah the wife of Joseph Stevens was buried in George Nash his orchard September the 8th, 1667’. Many entries like this follow. The site is next to Mr. Dodson’s old house, where Quaker tombstones can still be seen in the end of the house and the old red-brick wall at the back. Presumably some building in the near neighbourhood was used as a Quaker Meeting House from about this date. In 1727 Mark Clarke of Swavesey and Samuel Webb of Knapwell conveyed to Thomas Wright Travell Fuller and others a Messuage and Premises ‘Upon this special trust and confidence for a place of Public Worship for the people called Quakers and for no other use interest or purpose whatsoever.” in 1870 it was recorded that the meetinghouse on the above estate, which had not been regularly used, had been burnt down by accident fifty years earlier “and being insured for £100 that has been invested.” An allotment in Over Field of 2A. 1R. 11P, let to Edward Few of Willingham, belonged with the Quaker property ; this was sold in 1949. There was also a Quaker Meeting House, in Swavesey, fronting the High Street, to which six acres of land in the parish were attached. When this Quaker community appeared and when they acquired the property we do not know. Their estate “was purchased by the Society of Friends of Robert Hanscombe of Swavesey” and conveyed to trustees in Swavesey, Dry Drayton, Over, Willingham, Cottenham and Cambridge, “in trust for ever hereafter to permit and suffer the People called Quakers to assemble and keep a Meetinghouse according to their usage and customs”. The meeting house site in Swavesey was sold in 1937 and the remaining six acres in June 1949 to C. W. H. Cole of Swavesey, at the same time as the Over sale. The foundation trustees at Swavesey included, as we have seen, many local people, a carpenter and three yeomen from Swavesey itself, a grocer of Willingham and another from Cambridge, a yeoman from Over and another from Dry Drayton, and two websters from Cottenham. By the later nineteenth century the trustees are maltsters, millers, farmers and, regularly recurring, Alexander Peckover of Wisbech, banker – Lord Peckover by 1912.

The Baptist congregation at Willingham has as ancient a history and a more continuous one than the Quakers. In 1662, according to notes written inside the Church’s own book, Nathaniel Bradshaw was ejected from Willingham Rectory. He continued, however, to preach locally in his own house and in neighbouring villages; now and then he visited Childerley. For five years he was unmolested and then he left for London. The Rev. Joseph Odely, ejected from Meldreth and imprisoned for five years thereafter, came to Willingham and Cottenham, where he often preached in the fields, although frequently imprisoned. Various local preachers followed him. In 1689 on the passing of the Toleration Act, Bradshaw returned to the area, living at St. Ives but coming to Willingham every Sunday ; he died in 1690, aged 71. A Rev. Henry Oasland was the local pastor between 1694 and 1711; he was buried at Oakington. The Church was now completely established and a regular succession of pastors followed; Cottenham congregation soon separated off. Willingham church records begin in 1728. It is difficult to know exactly when a regularly used local chapel was first in existence. A meeting house was built by subscribers in 1714; this was repaired with a new thatch and redecorated at a cost of £140 in 1808. Over Strict Baptist Congregation dates from 1736, when a few people met for worship. On October 5^th 1737 they gathered themselves together into a Church. Mr. Fisher, the first Minister, stayed from Oct. 1737 to 1761. The history of the Church from 1740-61 can best he told in an extract from the minute book. “From that time, death – those who turned back – persecution – contempt – and discord caused great trial, but the Lord learned us more of our own hearts -, and began to open the mouth of Brother Maulden, who was dismissed at a minister to Burwell.” ‘Dismissed’ was a technical term ; it was in no sense derogatory! In 1810 the first meeting house was pulled down. During rebuilding the congregation met in Mr Nathaniel Gifford’s barn.

In the eighteenth century English society benefited from the spreading effects of religious toleration, but the Churches – Anglican and Dissent alike – suffered from growing indifference on one hand and sterile, over-rationalist theological arguments on the other hand. Gunning in his Reminiscences of Cambridge remarks that most of the Parish churches within ten miles of Cambridge were served by Fellows of Colleges who “hastened back to dine in hall ; there were others who undertook two or three services.” “If the Sunday proved wet, Dr. Drop did the duty” – there was no service. The resident curate of earlier years became less and less common. All the more credit to the conscientious Dr. Farmer of Emmanuel, curate of Swavesey for many years, of whom Gunning writes:
“He made a point of attending in all weathers. He began the service punctually at the appointed time, and gave a plain practical sermon, strongly enforcing some moral duty. After service he chatted most affably with his congregation, and never failed to send some small present to such of his poor parishioners as had been kept from church through illness. After morning service he repaired to the public-house where a mutton-chop and potatoes were soon set before him these were quickly despatched, and immediately after the removal of the cloth, Mr. Dobson (his Churchwarden), and one or two of the principal farmers, made their appearance, to whom he invariably said, “I am going to read prayers, but shall be back by the time you have made the punch.” Occasionally another farmer accompanied him from church, when pipes and tobacco were in requisition until six o’clock. Taffy was then led to the door, and he conveyed his master to his rooms by half-past seven.”
The text, or notes, of an actual sermon preached in Over Church in 1762 and again in 1769 is reproduced here.
There were local parsons of other kinds, William Wimple, B.A., curate of Willingham from 1741-3 was “accused, with others of Caius College, of being an atheist and compelled by the Bishop to write a book in vindication of his faith”. His successor at Willingham, Thomas Ibbott, M.A., Cole described as “somewhat disordered in his head, and was made worse by the perverse humour of the people of the parish, who for the most part are a factious set of persons, fanatically inclined, and consequently censorious of all those of another mode of worship.” John Bowle, B.A., of Trinity College, who was curate in 1 747, was very much the same as Ibbott, says Cole! In 1753 it was stated of Willingham that “this village is noted for the great number of dissenters there inhabiting.” Cole’s accounts introduce us to other mid-eighteenth century parsons. Elsworth was lucky in 1745 “the Rev. Dr. Lunne, Archdeacon of Huntingdon and Prebendary of Lincoln is its worthy Rector and has been so for these 50 years. Is acting J.P. for this County and does not a little good in this capacity and is now in his 80th year and has three sons. One a surgeon in good practice in Cambridge and is married to a descendant of Maj. Gen.. Desbrow (one of Cromwell’s generals)…The second son is an apothecary and his third a clergyman and now curate of Conington in the next parish and who has promise of the Rectory after death of his father”. In 1774 the abuse of presentations to livings for family purposes led to a Fellow of Brazenose College, Oxford, being inducted to hold the living of Conington for a minor.

The outline story of the Church in Knapwell from the eighteenth to the twentieth century will illustrate just how a village community could suffer from neglect and misfortune, as well as showing how much a conscientious local parson could do. John Bird, the Rector of Knapwell from 1679 died a poor man in 1709; in 1713-14 a Grace passed the University Senate to give £10 from the University Chest to his widow Anne, who had been left in distress. Henry Perne was Rector from 1709-31; he was buried at Knapwell. John Perne succeeded him and rebuilt the Rectory, living in it for fourteen years. He was the last Rector of Knapwell to live in the parish. In 1745 he resigned the living on appointment elsewhere. Dr. Pulter Forrester, who succeeded, had other livings. When Knapwell Chancel fell down in 1753, he got the Bishop’s consent to contract “the great rambling old chancel to one of a smaller and more useful size The end of the chancel is built of brick the inside ceiled and new paved and neatly painted.” The way in which livings were bandied about in the eighteenth century is well illustrated by Cole’s comment on Knapwell. “The living – has been left by will for Mr. Professor Chappelow to have the next turn. I suppose he will transfer it to his nephew Mr. Musgrave – Vicar of Thriplow”. In 1770 the Rev. Edward Musgrave succeeded to Dr. Forrester. In 1773 Rev. James Barton became Rector ; he was Rector “for 13 years but he did not live in the Parish.” In 1785 the body of the church fell and services were held in a barn in the village until the church was rebuilt in red brick in 1865/6. In 1786 a Rev. Gunnis was both Patron and Rector ; he held the living until 1833. In that year the Rev. Martin Mayson of Hilton became Rector and took his own Sunday duty’ in Knapwell ; he was buried at Knapwell.
In 1857 the last tragic-comic episode in Knapwell’s church history opened: the Rev. David Craig was instituted Rector on his own petition, having obtained the patronage. He took the duty for two or three Sundays and then disappeared. Local legend says he was found at the crossroads by the Black Wind-mill in his nightshirt; he was out of his mind and was taken to a lunatic asylum. The family solicitors sent John Campbell to take charge of the living and the glebe farm of 146A. 2R. 14P. Campbell was never licensed as a curate and probably never ordained. “He lived in a vulgar manner in the tumbledown Rectory and was addicted to card playing and heavy drinking.” The Rev. Kemmis in 1911 wrote of him as “that horrible fellow Campbell”. In 1860 things took a turn for the better. Campbell disappeared when the Rev. C. R. Peters, Fellow of Jesus College, was sent to supersede him. In 1861 Rev. Henry Brown was ordained and licensed as Curate. He walked out every Sunday from Cambridge, arriving in time for the 11.0 a.m. Service, had dinner in the village, took Evensong and walked back to Cambridge. Rev. H. Brown raised £700 in the parish and from his friends to rebuild the church ; it was re-opened on May 1st 1865. There was then a regular succession of curates until Michaelmas 1879 when the tenant of the Rectory Farm went bankrupt. The farm had been so mismanaged that Craig’s solicitors were not able to relet it, so there was no money to pay a Curate. Between Christmas 1879 and Midsummer 1881 only six services were held in Knapwell Church. In 1882 the Rectory farm was sold and the living disendowed. On the death of David Craig in 1900 the living lapsed to the Crown and Rev. M. Steinman Kemmis was appointed Rector. A general repair and improvement of the Church and Churchyard was then undertaken.
In 1902 Knapwell and Conington livings were united. The achievements of Henry Brown in 1861-5 and of Steinman Kemmis in the early twentieth century stand in shining contrast to the rest of Knapwell’s church history. In spite of the long neglect Knapwell church has retained not only its Black Letter Bible of 1617, but Church Plate a silver chalice of 1569 and a pewter flagon of 1676 – and a fine linen Communion Cloth of the eighteenth century, made in Lille, with a picture of the shelling of a city

It must not be thought that the story of Knapwell was typical of villages in our area; few places suffered quite as much from so many mischances. C. T. Gardner’s ‘Notes of Over’ of 1894 give the outline of a different story “The Church was restored in 1864 at a cost of £600, defrayed by the Church-wardens out of the third received by them from the Over Town Land Charity. In 1882 a new Clock with chimes was placed in the Tower at a cost of £120. The Organ was also repaired at a cost of £105. The Spire was repaired at a cost of £220, it having been injured by the electric fluid. Duplex lamps were placed in the Church at a cost of £69. There are 300 sittings.  In 1892 the Rev. Galloway, M.A., was appointed the Vicar, by whose exertion and influence the Electric Telegraph, and also the midday despatch and delivery of mails were first brought into the parish, which was a very great boon to the inhabitants” – facts and figures, but they imply a good deal of worthwhile human effort.
Similar things were happening in Swavesey at the end of the nineteenth century. The Rev. T. G. L. Lushington became Vicar in 1885 and resigned in 1895. He launched a Parish Magazine at the beginning of 1886 and from its columns we can see the Church at the centre of village life. The first number, for Jan. 1886, reported the previous month’s Sunday School Treat for the Sunday school children, their parents, the choir, the bell ringers, and others connected with the Church, and Night and Sunday Schools. In February there was a report of an entertainment given by the choir. An annual missionary tea had been held in January in the National School building, raising £3.9s. for the S.P.G. Education continued to be a concern of the Church. In March the Parish Magazine reported that Mr. Buckmaster from the Kensington Science and Art Department had given two lectures on Science and Farming. There was no charge for admission but unfortunately they were very poorly attended. “The want of a Reading Room has long been felt, and it is therefore with pleasure that we hear that it is proposed to start a good Reading Room in Swavesey before long. Under the auspices of the Primrose League, a house – has been taken for the purpose and it is hoped it will be ready on March 25th.” In May “the Diocesan Inspector came to examine our schools in Religious Knowledge…..and gave we are glad to say a most favourable report. Both the mixed school and the infants school were reported excellent”. On Tuesday June 8th a very successful choral festival was held ; in spite of many extra benches and chairs every seat was crammed and many had to leave unable to find a seat. In November it was noted that “the Night School has been reopened….we would like to take this opportunity of strongly’ advising young men and boys to make use of this opportunity of keeping up and increasing their knowledge….it is wonderful how much knowledge has been acquired during well spent evenings by many’ who have had to work hard with their hands during the day.” Seventy-five years later all the facilities of the Village College are offered to the present generation; will they make such good use of them as their grandparents did of the Night School?
Education was not the sole concern of the Parish Magazine. In August it was noted that the polling day was the 6th of July, and we were very glad to see how quietly and orderly it passed off. There is no reason why this should not always be so.” This was only the second general election in which agricultural labourers had the vote. The Parish Magazine reported local efforts to install street lighting. A. committee was formed at a public meeting; £90 was collected – “almost every household in the parish, from the poorest to the richest, contributed something” – and lamps were bought. The Parish agreed to levy a rate to maintain them and Inspectors were appointed to whom the Committee handed over their outstanding funds. In this same year, 1886, a School Penny Bank was launched ‘to bring our little ones in habits of prudence and thrift’, and a Blanket Club was formed under which any poor person could hire a blanket from November to May on deposit of 1s; 6d. was returned “if the blanket is brought back to the Vicarage in good condition on May 1st, the other 6d. will be kept to pay for washing the blanket.” There was already a Church Clothing Club in existence, which held its annual meeting on October 22nd.
All this amounts to an impressive total for one year’s work. In the same period the Magazine recounts the events of the Church year, the celebration of Lent, Easter, the Harvest Festival and Advent. Although the Church in many villages in the nine­teenth century was clearly active and Knapwell’s experiences were, perhaps, exceptional, Dissent continued to flourish, as the examples of Willingham and Swavesey xviii show.

On Jan. 13th 1830 Willingham Baptists decided to build new Meeting House. Their old thatched building was taken down and, while the new one was building on the same site, they worshipped in a barn. The congregation flourished in their new Chapel until 1860 when a gigantic quarrel broke out within the Church, which was celebrated in verse and prose. This led to the secession of a large group of members who built the Tabernacle almost opposite the Old Baptist Chapel of 1830. This was a ‘Free Church’, affiliated to the Baptist Union ; the foundation stone was laid in 1874 and the chapel opened in 1875. The first minister, Rev. William Jackson, was Spurgeon’s brother-in-law Spurgeon preached at the consecration service and returned for anniversary sermons. The total cost of the building operation was £4022.2s.2d.

                                                                         £.          s.     d.
Site                                                         461        1      2
Manse                                                    430      14      6
Tabernacle chapel                                   2925     6       6
Value of labour given (estimate)               200       0       0

                                                                           4022    2       2

The new chapel had an American organ until 1909 when a new organ was installed at a cost of £560. The Old Baptist Chapel congregation were not to be outdone; in 1874 they built a Manse for their minister at a cost of £222. 4s. Their chapel could seat about 1000 and at the peak in the late nineteenth century there seem to have been about 1200 members shared between the two Baptist congregations.
A Primitive Methodist Chapel had been built in Over in 1848. In Willingham a Methodist Society class of five women met in a barn of the White Hart inn and then in Whittlesey’s barn in Church street. This continued for some years before the present Methodist chapel was built in 1851. The original seating in this chapel was in box pews with straight backs along each side of the chapel and under the gallery which was added about 1876. The pews had seats all round, so some of the congregation sat with their backs to the preacher. Under the pulpit was the Table Pew, a box pew in which was the Lord’s Table, and here there sat a man who pitched the tunes with a pitch pipe. About 1900 the roof of the chapel was found to be slipping and the front beams were pulled back by pulleys and the roof braced without a slate being removed.

The Baptists of Swavesey had, perhaps, an even more vigorous and turbulent life than those of Willingham. The Old Meeting Place was a wooden building by the old cemetery at Boxworth End. The congregation can be traced back at least to 1789 when a meeting of Protestant Dissenters was licensed in Swavesey. On July 16, 1820 the Church, of 96 members, dissolved itself and on July 23 reformed itself “on the belief in the Trinity of persons”. This suggests that some of the original congregation had, like many eighteenth century Dissenters, become Unitarian. Certainly there were Unitarians in Swavesey (see below). In 1834 the Congregation of the Old Meeting Place agreed to accept into communion the members of a Particular Baptist congregation which had just closed down. In 1837 they agreed not to admit new members without baptism. In 1839 there was a split in the congregation and some members left to form the Bethel Baptist congregation. In 1869 the wooden Old Meeting Place was closed and a new building in the centre of the village was opened; it became known as the Strict Baptist Chapel. The move in 1869 may have been partly connected with the fact that when four members of the congregation died in 1863 there was no room left in the cemetery to bury them. The seats and floor of the old chapel were taken out and burials began inside the chapel. In 1946 the Strict Baptist Chapel was closed, but it was re-opened in 1950.
The dissolution and refoundation of 1820 seems to have left behind in Swavesey an unattached group of Unitarians. From 1831-60 a building on School (Carter’s) Lane was known as the Church of the Unitarians and when it was taken over by a Baptist Congregation in 1860 an agreement was reached that the new congregation must retain the existing Unitarian preacher while he was of good moral character. The Baptists who left the Old Meeting Place congregation in 1839 worshipped for several months in the house of Stephen Hayes. On 20 May 1840 a church was founded by Rev. Roff of Cambridge and Mr. Wright of Huntingdon; a wooden chapel to seat 100 people was opened on 30 July 1840 on land given by William Carter. The Bethel Chapel schoolroom now stands on this site. In 1851 the congregation consisted of 75 people; in l853 the chapel was enlarged owing to the increased congregation. In 1860 a group left the Bethel Congregation – these were the people who took over the Unitarian Chapel, although they called themselves Baptists still. In 1875 this ‘break-away’ congregation had 45 members in 1884 they disappeared, their chapel was sold to the Primitive Methodists. To return to the Bethel Congregation in 1868 a new chapel was built at a cost of £850 on the forecourt of the old wood chapel. In 1907 there was considerable restoration work (£110.15s.6d.), but in 1913 the Chapel was reported as in a dangerous condition. £900 was spent before the chapel was reopened on 9th October ; £500 of this had been raised by the opening.
When the Primitive Methodist Congregation in Swavesey was formed we do not know, but in 1884 they purchased the Carter’s Lane chapel, once Unitarian and later Baptist. Their services were well attended until 1914 when the Sunday School ceased and attendance dropped. Every July a Camp Meeting Sunday was celebrated and local preachers walked twelve miles to attend. At 2.0 p.m. the congregation assembled at the Swan pond for a service; they moved to Market Street for another and to the Recreation Ground for a third service. Between 5.30 and 8.0, the services were repeated all the time a band was playing. The Primitive Methodist chapel closed in 1932 and since 1934 the site has been occupied by a private bungalow.