This article was jointly written with Philip Ashford.
Porlock appears to have been home to a group of Quakers in the early 1660s, if not before. Joseph Besse recorded how in 1662 William Kent, John Leworthy and Mary Webster of Porlock were sent to prison for being absent from public worship at the parish church;1 the surname Webster is a mistake and should be Webber, for which the evidence appears in a recently discovered letter sent from Ilchester Gaol.2 The importance of this information is that it predates by six years the evidence exhaustively portrayed in Stephen Morland’s Somersetshire Quarterly Meeting 1668-1699. Furthermore, whilst references are found in that publication to William Kent and Mary Webber,3 it is the only known reference to John Leworthy being a Quaker.4 It is also worth pointing out that John Whiting’s book, Persecution exposed: in some memoirs relating to the sufferings of John Whiting, and many others of the people called Quakers, for conscience sake, in the west of England, &c. with memoirs of many eminent Friends deceased, and other memorable matters and occurrences . . . to the Year 1696 5makes no reference to these nonconformists from Porlock.
The charges of non payment of tithes and contumacy were ecclesiastical misdemeanours, but as the penalties the Church courts could impose, penance and excommunicate, were totally inappropriate for Quakers as they were without any effect, so the authorities resorted to imprisonment. Evidence for the incarceration in 1662 in the county gaol at Ilchester through the mechanism of Quarter Sessions cannot be found in the order book as this is missing from the series held at the Somerset Heritage Centre.6 Writs issued by the sheriff also do not survive for this period.7 Quarter Sessions rolls that normally contain examinations and informations, etc, do survive for the 1660s and 1670s but do not mention these Porlock people.8 However, as the offences also involved the Church the evidence lies elsewhere. What more is known of these early Quakers from Porlock?
William Kent was a miller of Porlock. After his release from gaol he is recorded as a trusted member of the monthly Friends meeting in Minehead in 1668 and he attended the general meeting in Ilchester in 1670.9 At the same time as William Kent was attending Quaker meetings in Somerset in 1668 he was experiencing further judicial proceedings. Along with other Minehead and Dunster Quakers he was charged with finding £40, a considerable amount and beyond the reach of many people, to satisfy the court that he was not in contempt of the legal process which continued into 1669. However, he appears not to have paid the fine and to have been incarcerated for a second time as he died in prison in 1671 and his death recorded as ‘William Kent of Porlock died a prisoner’ on 5 Nov. 1670.10 He caused his will to be made in 1670, no doubt anticipating he would not survive a second period in gaol. Unusually, the overseers of that will did not come from the locality of Porlock but were Quakers from around the county of Somerset, showing William’s wider Christian links within the Quaker community. In his will he wanted his
debts and legacies paid and funerall performed shall be all Imployed paid and delivered to such persons and to and for such uses and shalbe for the advantage of the Everlasting truth of God and for the reliefe and maintenance of the profesers thereof my deare brethren and Sisters in the Spirit and life of truth caled Quakers at such time and in such manner as my said Executors (or any two of them) shall see cause in this County especially in the Westerpars thereof together with the advice and consent of my dearly beloved freinds and bretheren John Anderdon of Bridgwater Gouldsmith William Beaton of Puddimore yeoman Jasper Bat of Street yeoman William Leddon of Wythell yeoman and Mathew Perim of Ivelchister Yeoman or the most part of them All which I doe hereby appoint and desire to be overseers of this my last Will and Testament.
He also left a legacy of £40 to the Friends, which in 1673 was distributed amongst men who had contributed to the building of Friend’s meeting houses in Ilminster and Stoke St Gregory.11 The group of associates, or ‘dearly beloved freinds and bretheren’ mentioned in his will were leading lights in the Friends movement in Somerset. John Anderdon used his home as a Friends meeting place in the 1660s,12 William Beaton received George Fox, no less, in his house in 1668 but died in prison in 1681,13 Jasper Batt (1621-1702) had been a Baptist but ‘laboured in many parts’ and as a Quaker held meetings in his house,14William Leddon also held meetings in his house and was imprisoned for non-payment of tithes prior to 168315 and Mathew Perin was a Taunton mercer who died in 1696.16
The Kent family of Porlock and surrounding parishes was extensive in the 17th century but it has not been possible to construct a comprehensive family tree. It is likely that William Kent (mentioned above) was the son of Edward Kent and baptised on 4 May 1611 at Porlock. William, if he was living in Porlock at the time, does not appear in the Protestation Return of 1641. Although this was 14 years before George Fox’s followers arrived in the West Country in 1655, was he trying to avoid giving his protestation because of his alternative religious beliefs? Walter Kent, who married Willmot Spurrier in Porlock in March 1595, also did not sign the Protestation, although his two sons, Henry and Robert, born in 1595 and 1604 respectively, did. There appears to have been only one Walter Kent in Porlock in the 17th century. In 1621, a Walter Kent, tailor, was a bond guarantor for a marriage licence in the village.17 In 1642, in a will not proved until 1652, Walter Kent of Porlock (who was buried there on 21 Oct. 1650) bequeathed 12d to the poor of Porlock, and a bible for the use of his son Henry and his son Robert. To his daughter, Agnes Brayley, he left some household items.18 Agnes had married John Brayley alias Widlake in Porlock on 22 Jan. 1634/5. In Agnes Brayley’s will of 1698, she requested to be buried in the Quaker burial ground in Minehead, so it is likely that she was a practising Quaker like her father.19 This notion is confirmed by the fact that in September 1687 she was advised by Friends how to donate £40 to fellow Quakers after her death so that the community was sure to receive it.20 They needed to wait at least another 10 years for the generous gift.
A further Porlock Quaker who was gaoled was John Leworthy. The Kent and Leworthy family were related following the marriage of Nicholas Kent and Catherine Leworthie at Porlock on 29 May 1632. However, little more is known of this family, nor is it clear how Nicholas was related to Walter or William. A William Letworlye (sic) did not sign Porlock’s Protestation21 but did support the 1641 petition for episcopacy.22 No William Leworthie’s appear in Porlock parish registers. However, two John Leworthies appear in the Protestation return.23 One, a mason, was buried in Porlock in 1654. The other, John Leworthie of ‘Warewood’ or ‘Wearwood’, probably the woods around Porlock Weir and therefore possibly a woodsman, had a family with Joan between the 1630s and 1650s and he was buried in Porlock on 8 March 1667/8. This may have been the imprisoned Quaker.
Mary Webster was the third imprisoned Quaker according to Besse but Webster is not a Porlock name in the 17th century. The facts are quite clear. David Webber of Bossington married Mary Watts at Porlock on 20 April 1652; this is the Mary Webber in question. In a letter written by John Seaver from Ilchester Gaol, Mary Webber was stated to be still in prison for non-attendance at church, as was her husband, David, on a completely different conviction of non-payment of tithes, an action brought by Dr Hamnet Ward M.D.,24 rector of Porlock from 1662-1672.25 The letter is dated 27 Dec. 1669 and reads:
I thanke yow for returning your lettre But there is a mistake [...] apprehencion for yow writ in your lettre the widdow webber who I write to yow that shee was Mary Webb alias Webber and is and was the wife of david webber who is a Quaker and is now in prison concerning docter ward f[or] tythe And his wife Mary webber is here for not goeing to church; And shee is willing to conform; The proceedings was about 3 or 4 yeere agou which yow may see upon the booke of proceedings of your court and who is procter in the case and what the cost is; and it shalbe paid unto yow in hand before yow doth act for her enlargment for in any court of Judicature through his Majesties dominions and defendant may have a supersedias to set him at Liberty out of prison before virdict or Judgment entered or the person taken in execucion and then; if the person hath good sureties to satisfie ye debt according to returne of the write; I have sent to Doctor Ward by perswasions of some of her relacions but hee will not consent without she will Lay downe for what her husband is in durance for; which is unreasonable for she was never charged with her husband or by her owne selfe for tithe But with William Kent and one more upon one prosecucion for not goeing to church; soe that I pray yow to send me an answere in writting that it may satisfie her friends; And although the woman is poore if yow can sett her at Liberty your charge shall be double paid unto yow before yow doth act in any thing soe I rest ...
The letter finishes with a postscript: ‘Let not us be worse one to the other then the turke and Jewes or any others are’ but it came to nothing as Mary remained incarcerated.
The letter states that Mary, who was a poor woman, had been in prison for some years and that Dr Ward wanted her to be accountable for her husband’s non-payment of tithes, which Seaver thought was unreasonable. Furthermore, there appears to have an effort to cause Mary Webber to recant her Quaker faith as Seaver’s letter stated that ‘she is willing to conform’.26 Perhaps this strategy worked as Mary Webber, a Porlock Quaker was alleged to have ‘attacked Friends whilst in prison in 1669’.27 Either way it did not gain her the release that was wanted. She was destined to stay in Ilchester Gaol for over a decade.
On 15 July 1673 at the Quarter Sessions held at Bridgwater, William Collins, Christopher Pittard, Walter Hodges, Agnes Colsery, David Webber, Mary Webber and John Coate ‘who were committed to the county gaol by virtue of several writs de excommunicato capiendo returnable at Westminster on several days before 25 March 1673’ were ordered to be released. The reason for their incarceration was recorded as ‘they being all excommunicated for contumacy in not appearing at the Ecclesiastical Court of the late Bishop of Bath and Wells’. The reason for their release was because ‘it has pleased the King to pardon them’.28 Were the Webbers fortunate recipients of the King’s religious toleration towards Quakers, or were there other factors at play? It is interesting, or maybe coincidental, that Ward was no longer vicar of Porlock in March 1673 as William Mitchell was instituted on 24 July 1672.29
A record of prisoners in the county gaol at Ilchester in 1672 and 1673 has some additional information to that recorded in the Quarter Sessions order book (above). David was excommunicated by ‘William late Bishopp of Bath & Wells for not appearing before William Peirs Archdeacon of Taunton in a cause at the suite of Hamnett Ward Rector of Porlocke’. Also as a result of writ in the King’s Bench brought by Thomas Tayler. Mary was excommunicated by ‘William late Bishopp of Bath & Wells for not appearing before Sir Edmund Peirce Vicar Generall in a cause betweene William Kent & the said Mary, untill the Church be satisfied as well &c’. Both David and his wife were ‘discharged by the Act of pardon there being an order at Wells Assizes . . .’.30
In 1673, Mary was disowned by the Friends for sowing discord and division and spreading ‘evill reports of truth’. Also, in the same year, her husband David was reprimanded by the Friends for ‘loose and scandalous’ conversation.31 It is likely they did return to the Porlock area, more specifically to Bossington, but they do not appear in the records of burials for Porlock. Perhaps life in Ilchester Gaol took its toll on them both as David died within a couple of years of his release as and he was buried at Selworthy on 6 Nov. 1675.32 Four days later his probate inventory describes him of Selworthy when his goods were appraised by William Hallett of Porlock and Francis Spurrier of Selworthy. David was not left a pauper after his time in gaol. He owned few possessions, those of note being £7 10s of corn that was kept in a barn, a bed worth £3 10s, a horse, two saddles, and some hoggs worth £4 19s 6d, hay £2 5s, debts ‘that is desperate’ £7 and his husbandry tools. His wife Mary was administratrix for his estate valued at £33 7s 6d.33 Perhaps the simple life fitted in with his beliefs as a Quaker.
This small group of Porlock Quakers who defied convention and refused to attend public worship, and one man refused to pay tithes to the Church, were active in the late 1650s and very early 1660s. They would have all known each other as Porlock was a relatively small community. Some appear to have collectively spent many years in Ilchester Gaol from the mid to late 1660s, undoubtedly suffering for their beliefs. The Kent family appears to have been the core of the group. It is likely that the generation prior to the dissenters were of a puritan persuasion who were not happy to sign the protestation in 1641 because of their strong views that they did not sign at all. Was Walter Kent, a literate bible reader with some quite puritanical or fundamental Christian views, who would not support the Protestation, a key figure? Was it his influence on the wider Kent family that meant William Kent and Agnes Kent (later Brayley) became Quakers? Were the Kent family of Porlock, and to a lesser extent the Brayleys and the Leworthys, important in the Quaker movement in the far west of the county? If this was the case it is something that has been missed by previous writers.
[1]. J. Besse, A collection of the sufferings of the people called Quakers: For the testimony of a good conscience vol. 1 (1753), 500.
2. S.H.C., D/D/oc packet 1669 John Seaver to the bishop’s registrar, 27 Dec. 1669.
3. S. Morland (ed.), The Somersetshire quarterly meeting of the Society of Friends 1668-1699, Somerset Record Society 75 (1978). See also D. Stevens, War and peace in west Somerset 1620-1670 (Minehead, 1988), 93-101.
4. J. Besse, A collection of the sufferings of the people called Quakers: For the testimony of a good conscience vol. 1 (1753), 500.
5. J. Whiting, Persecution exposed: in some memoirs relating to the sufferings of John Whiting, and many others of the people called Quakers, for conscience sake, in the west of England, &c. With memoirs of many eminent Friends deceased, and other memorable matters and occurrences ... to the year 1696 (1715).
6. S.H.C., Q/SO.
7. S.H.C., Q/SPW.
8. S.H.C., Q/SR.
9. Morland, Friends, 55-57, 89, 276,
10. S.H.C, Q/SO/6 Order book, 107-8, 133; T.N.A., RG6/1226 Monthly Meeting of the West Division of Somerset, burials, 1578-1841.
11. Morland, Friends, 13, 103.
12. Morland, Friends, 59.
13. Morland, Friends, 5, 264.
14. Morland, Friends, 6, 61, 263.
15. Morland, Friends, 60, 277.
16. Morland, Friends, 281.
17. S.H.C., H. Phipps, Abstracts of Bath and Wells Diocesan records 1618-1637, typescript.
18. T.N.A., PROB/11/220/551 the will of Walter Kent of Porlock, 1642.
19. T.N.A., PROB/11/448/63 the will of Agnes Braily or Brayley of Porlock, 1698.
20. Morland, Friends, 194.
21. T.L. Stoate and A.J. Howard, eds, Somerset Protestation returns and lay subsidy rolls, 1640-1641 (Almondsbury, 1975), 30.
22. Parliamentary Archives, HL/PO/JO/10/2/7B ‘Petition and remonstrances of inhabitants of County Somerset, 10 December 1641’
23. Stoate and Howard, Somerset Protestation returns, 30.
24. S.H.C., D/D/oc John Seaver to the bishop’s registrar, 27 Dec. 1669.
25. C.E.H. Chadwyk-Healey, A history of part of west Somerset (1901), 351.
26. S.H.C., D/D/oc John Seaver to the bishop’s registrar, 27 Dec. 1669.
27. Morland, Friends, 39-40 and 103-4.
28. M. Dawes ed., Quarter Sessions Records for the county of Somerset, vol. IV, Charles II, 1666-1676, S.R.S. 34 (1919), 138.
29. Clergy of the Church of England database.
30. S.H.C., DD/SAS/C795/SX/43 catalogue of the names of the prisoners in the prison and gaol of the County of Somerset, with their several charges, 1672-3.
31. Morland, Friends, 39-40 and 103-4.
32. S.H.C., D/P/sel/2/1/2 Selworthy parish register, 1653-1735.
33. S.H.C., DD/SP/1675/81 probate inventory for David Webber of Selworthy, taken 10 Nov. 1675.
Comments