The religious factions—whether Baptist, Anabaptist, Independent or Presbyterian—that had sprung up during the Commonwealth left behind them no vital seeds of dissent in the wide parish of Grasmere, although the two last had in turn held the rectorate and the pulpit. As soon, indeed, as the Episcopal Church was restored, along with the Monarchy, the people returned with apparently a willing mind, and almost unanimously, to the old order of worship. There was an exception, however, to be found in the Quakers, who were firm in refusing to re-enter the Church. George Fox, wandering on foot like an old Celtic missionary, had made his appearance in these parts in 1653, and at once his preaching (which mirrored his mystic and simple mind), united with a magnetic personality, had secured him a following. His teaching discountenanced all creeds, forms, and ritual. His meetings were, therefore, held in private houses; and so much abhorred by his followers was the "steeple-house" with its consecrated ground, as well as any fixed form of service (even the Office for the Burial of the Dead), that they often laid their dead in silence in their own garden-ground, rather than carry them to the church. As the little band grew larger, a plot of ground was, however, secured as early as 1658 at Colthouse, near Hawkshead, in Lancashire, as a graveyard
The fanatical spirit of Fox is shown perhaps in this passage, where he ascribes the inaction of these two parishioners of Grasmere, not to a generous tolerance of mind (certainly God-given), but to a direct interposition of Providence in his own favour. He likewise attributes the death of the Squire's good and gentle wife later on to God's wrath and judgment upon the husband for his persecution of the Friends. In truth, Squire Daniel was not the man to view leniently the opposition offered by the new sect to the restoration of the old form of worship. It must be allowed that the method of their preachers was not only irritating but provocative; for it was their wont, when the congregation was assembled in the "steeple-house" to rise and denounce both worship and officiating clergy as instruments of Belial; with an occasional result of This was certainly a severe judgment. How the case ended is not apparent, nor how long Wilson remained in prison. A letter exists at Rydal Hall, addressed to "Justice fleeming" and signed L.M., reproaching him for his treatment of the Quakers, especially of the four now in prison. One of these is "Wm. Willson, thy poore neighbour," of whose wife and children the Squire is admonished to have a care, since the prisoner had little but what he got by his hands—a statement which implies that Wilson was a craftsman. The Rydal Squire had at first believed that he could force the Friends back to the common worship in the old parish church by means of fines, for he had the frugal man's belief that the pocket can be made to act upon the conscience. With the passing of the Act of Uniformity (1662) and the later Conventicle and Five Mile Acts, however, he and his fellow magistrates had a powerful legal hold over them. It is clear that he caused the known Quakers of the parish to be watched. One, James Russell, brought him word that there had been These doings were not passed over by the Squire. He even tried conclusions with the most powerful of the sect, Francis Benson, of the Fold, and accordingly the latter was summoned, in 1663, along with his wife Dorothy, to appear at the Quarter Sessions to answer the charge of having been present at a meeting. The penalty of non-appearance was a fine of thirty shillings, while the fines of John Dixon and William Harrison, both of Langdale, charged with the same offence, were respectively twenty shillings and ten shillings. Francis Benson probably cleared his legal mis-demeanours by money payments, for no evidence has been found of his imprisonment. He and his family, however, remained staunch Friends. The place of his sepulchre is not known, though his death is recorded for February, 1673, of "Fould in Loughrig," in the Quaker Registers. There is a tradition of a burying-ground at the Fold, somewhere about his now vanished homestead, and it is quite possible that some members of the family might be buried there, as the early Friends not infrequently made a grave-plot on their own ground. The Fold was so much a centre A large number of Quakers travelled to Rydal in 1681 to make their Test or Declaration before Squire Daniel and his son, but the only folk of the parish among them were Bernard Benson, of Loughrigg, and Jane his wife, and "Regnald" Holme, of Clappersgate, and his wife Jane. In 1684 a Rydal man "presented" before the justices quite a concourse of people who had been present at a "Conventicle" in Langdale. Some seventeen Loughrigg and Langdale names were cited: Edward Benson of High Close (his only appearance as a Dissenter), John Dixon of Rosset in Langdale, William and James Harryson of Harry Place, "Regnald" and Jane Holme of Loughrigg, James Holme, the Willsons of Langdale, etc. Reginald Holme's name frequently appears in the Indictment Book of the Quarter Sessions, and generally in connection with secular disputes. He was, in fact, a turbulent character, little fitted to belong to the peace-loving sect, which he joined possibly from sheer love of dissent. Some items of his history have been given elsewhere. He owned the mill at Skelwith Bridge—probably then, as later, a corn-mill, though it is extremely likely that a walk-mill would be set up additionally on After the law-suit concerning the tithes, which followed upon the Restoration (see ante), in which law-suit Francis Benson was concerned, and possibly other Quakers, we have no evidence as to whether the sect continued to oppose the payment of church scot. But there is abundant evidence to show that they were resolute in non-attendance at church, and in refusal to pay the church rate or "sess" levied on the townships for the upkeep of the fabric and its walls by the representative men of the parish. The Subsidy Rolls of 1675 show that Francis Benson paid for himself and his wife Dorothy the tax of 1s. 4d., which the Government demanded From wardens' accounts and presentments we gain many particulars of the dissenters of the parish, who appear to diminish in number as time goes on. It had become necessary by 1694 to account, in the books, for the deficit caused by the Friends' non-payment; and though in the following year two of them yielded, Bernard Benson paying up the large arrears of 15s. 11d. for "Church: Sess," and Jacob Holme 7s. 6d., the "Allowance for Dissenters" appears each year on the debit side. Presentments are only available from 1702. The following extracts give the names of the non-payers of the two townships. Those of Langdale would appear in their separate presentment:— Loughrigg.
This Francis Benson, the third Friend of his name at the Fold, is the last we know of. As the old families died out or dispersed, no new adherents of the sect appear to have arisen in the parish, and dissent ceased. The only comment on non-conformity found in the registers occurs in the second volume (1687-1713). It runs:—
But only two weddings from Great Langdale are set down. Also is entered:—
The "minister" so clearly obnoxious to the registrar may have been a visitor to the valley. When a stranger entered the church in 1827 and asked the clerk if there were any Dissenters in the neighbourhood, he was told that there were none nearer than Keswick, where were some who called themselves Presbyterians; and of these the clerk professed so little knowledge that he hazarded the suggestion that they were a kind of "papishes." The clerk aforesaid was old George Mackereth, Dissent had never existed in Ambleside. The men of that town, who managed the affairs of their chapel, had no real leanings towards it, and the Restoration found them all churchmen again. The only man of the town-division who could be taxed as a non-communicant in 1675 was Roger Borwick, and he was a disreputable inn-keeper at Miller Bridge, a Roman Catholic who had once been a personal servant of the ill-fated heir of Squire John Fleming. |