Primitive Methodists in East Anglia

1. Beginnings
2. 1830 Riots
3. Political outcomes
4. Legacy
5. Organisation
6. Distinctive Features of the Primitive Methodists
7. Footnotes

Beginnings

The Primitive Methodist movement is usually considered to have started with a 14-hour outdoor camp meeting on a hill called Mow Cop (on the Cheshire/Staffordshire border) on March 31^st, 1807. This was organised by Hugh Bourne . The word “primitive” is used for this organisation in the sense of “back to basics”. Wesleyan Methodism was in fact the forerunner of Primitive Methodism, not the other way round as the name might imply. The word “connexion” is often used to refer to this religious grouping – they are known as the “Primitive Methodist Connexion”, often referred to familiarly simply as “The Prims” or “PMs”, or less favourably as “The Ranters” referring to their preaching style. They were also known as the Meetingers. Their first chapel was built at Tunstall in 1811.

Primitive Methodism became especially active in the areas where Wesleyan Methodism was weak, that is rural agricultural labourers (much of East Anglia), fishing towns along the east coast (such as Great Yarmouth), miners in Northumberland and Durham, potters in Staffordshire and factory operatives in Lancashire and Yorkshire.

In East Anglia, true to the movement’s roots, the first gatherings were held in the open air – Mousehold Heath for example in Norwich. Their first chapel in Norwich was at Lakenham – built in 1823. It is recorded that outdoor meetings were held in Deopham alongside the Low Common Chapel.

The first Deopham Primitive Methodist chapel was built at Low Common in Deopham in 1818¹ at a time when the movement was still in its infancy.

Mr. G. T. Goodrick who was one of the ministers of King’s Lynn Circuit in 1832, and residing at Swaffham, wrote as follows²:-

Wesleyanism with its peculiar organisation had won, — and deservedly won, her laurels, and could boast of spoils taken from the hand of the mighty, and these, too, from among the villages and cottages of many a tract of English soil, where the sound of the church-going bell was seldom heard, or if it were heard, it spoke in vain. But it will not be denied that Wesleyanism had not done all that was needed, or all that she could have done; and if the Wesleyans turned their strength to the evangelisation of large towns — so be it; they thought it best, and God is with them. But there was a class to reach, ‘a region beyond,’ which they had not penetrated; a people to whom religion was unknown except by name, whose morals were loose, and their habits vicious; a class from which the ranks of the poacher, the farm-robber, and the stack-burner were ever and anon recruited. The character of the labouring class in the agricultural counties was fearfully deteriorated; it had become almost brutish. Cock-fighting, dog-fighting, and man-fighting were cruel sports freely indulged in; the cricket club and football had their field-day on the Sabbath, and a drunken orgie at a fair was planned and provided for out of hard-earned wages weeks before its appointed day. Much has been said of the sins of the city, but if we were to care to draw the veil from country-town and village-life of seventy or eighty years ago, the seeming disparity between the moral life of city and country would vanish, or rather the sins of the former would be eclipsed by the deeper darkness of the latter.

These savage tumults were generally instigated or abetted, sometimes under a little concealment, but often avowedly, by persons of higher condition, and even by those consecrated to the office of religious instruction; and this advantage of their station was lent to defend the perpetrators against shame, or remorse, or just punishment, for the outrage.

The Primitive Methodists were often not appreciated. The following quotation⁴ highlights their predicament. Whilst there is no direct evidence that they were persecuted in Deopham, some of the language in correspondence at the end of the nineteenth century has echoes of these attitudes:-

To countenance or harbour the Primitive Methodists was to risk the displeasure of their social superiors: the squire, the parson,and perhaps the farmer. To hazard that was to hazard their employment and their home, and sundry pains and penalties which petty tyrants know so well how to inflict. To keep this new and aggressive form of Dissent out of the parish, it was deemed necessary to prohibit any one from allowing services to be held in his house. The man who disregarded the prohibition was evicted. Even to shelter the missionary or give him hospitality was to risk the loss of employment.

1830 Riots

In the 1830s, “Captain Swing” was organising agricultural rebellions, burning down farmsteads. Captain Swing was a rural equivalent of the Luddites – the Swing riots were rebellions against the threshing machines that were causing labourers to lose their livelihoods.
Oh Captain Swing, he’ll come in the night
To set all your buildings and crops alight
And smash your machines with all his might
That dastardly Captain Swing!⁵

It has been argued that the Primitive Methodists were a force in keeping the lawlessness of this movement in check:

Who intervened in the days when rural England was seething with disaffection, and, securing the moral regeneration of the people, averted a bloody revolution and turned men’s minds into the path of constitutional reform? The Primitive Methodists were largely instrumental in accomplishing all these things, as there is abundant evidence to show.⁶

On the other hand, E.J. Hobsbawm⁷ has been less complementary:

What we can say is this. A nonconformist congregation in a village is a clear indication of some group which wishes to assert its independence of squire and parson, for few more overt gestures of independence could then be conceived than the public refusal to attend the official church. It may be that the very existence of such a nucleus encouraged labourers to assert their rights. It may be that it furnished them with some sympathisers, perhaps among non-labourers. It may be that the mere fact of having risen in 1830 predisposed a village later to welcome religious dissidence … At all events, the connection seems established.

In a similar vein, Reginald Groves⁸ makes the point in a number of places that agricultural union leaders were often Primitive Methodist Preachers on a Sunday, and that it was the pulpit preaching that had given them the confidence and oratory skills for their union activities.

Political outcomes

Rev. F. B. Paston in 1862, referring to the area around Docking, recorded that⁹:-

The squire and the parson ruled. To eat, to drink, to sleep — this was the routine of the labourers’ life. But a few began to think and read and discuss, and got their eyes opened to discern their wants. As formulated, these were:
– the establishment of a trades union,
– direct Parliamentary representation, and
– a living wage.
Thirty years after, when Mr. Paston returned to the station, the objects aimed at had been gained. The day of emancipation for the agricultural labourers had come at last. Joseph Arch, the founder of the Labourers’ Union and a Primitive Methodist local preacher, was member for North-West Norfolk. The composition of the Parish Council showed that the long sowing and waiting had not been in vain, that the East Anglian peasant had won his freedom and knew how to use it.

Dr. Lillie Marion Springall¹⁰ wrote that:

The strength of Primitive Methodism lay in its democratic system. The church [of England]was feudal in organisation, and the labourer could never be more than its passive supporter. At the chapel he could conduct a meeting even if he were illiterate, provided he had dignity of character, an understanding of his fellow-labourers’ needs, and some capacity for public speaking. His theology might be crude, his ideas and language offensive to the more highly educated, but the local preacher spoke from his own experience to those who were living in similar circumstances and were faced with the same kind of difficulties. The discussions at class meeting and the “love feasts,” at which any could speak, helped the group to express its ideas and to gain independence of thought. In this way men came to realise the value of “learning,” and made a real though limited effort to further their own education. The red brick chapel became a centre for social forces that were opposed to both church and inn, in their drive towards democracy and temperance. In the heat of the controversies that raged during the seventies and eighties “the Primitives” may have fomented distrust and hatred in the village, but they contributed more than any other organisation to the culture of labouring people.

Another quote from Dr. Springall¹¹:

In the Primitive Methodist Connexion the majority were [trade] unionists and gave the movement a strongly religious character. The bitterness between church and chapel grew until there was open war, and the clergy were denounced from the union platform for demoralising the poor with their doles of broth and blankets, and for their shortcomings as trustees of public charities.

Canon Jessopp in 1887 wrote¹²:-

What the Society of Jesus was among the more cultured classes in the sixteenth century, what the Friars were to the masses in the towns during the thirteenth, that the Primitive Methodists are in a fair way of becoming among the labouring classes in East Anglia in our own time.

Legacy

The legacy of the Primitive Methodists according to Joseph Ritson¹³ was:-

• Inspiring the instinct of freedom amongst the early trade union leaders;
• Fostering a healthy self-reliance and a manly independence;
• Intervening in the days when rural England was seething with disaffection by turning men’s minds to the path of constitutional reform;

East Anglia was central in promoting the Primitive Methodists’ missionary activity into Africa. The Swaffham District Meeting held in 1852 raised expectations that this could be started, but these were quashed by the Conference at York which followed shortly afterwards. Thomas Lowe, who had preached at Deopham Low Common chapel, was a central advocate of this African mission. It was said that ” because the proposition came from the little Norfolk District that it was not carried. Had it come from Nottingham or Manchester or some large District it would have been adopted.”

Organisation

Rockland, to which the Deopham chapels belonged, was made a circuit in 1833 reporting a membership of 387 persons, which had increased to 710 by 1835.
The following image shows the Rockland Circuit plan for the third quarter of 1897. Of interest to Deopham are the facts that:

• The list of preachers includes H. Phoenix of Deopham (number 41 in the list);
• It shows the Low Common Chapel stewards as being W. Mann and R. Barstard;
• the Deopham Green Chapel’s steward was W. Turner;
• Deopham Green chapel is shown as re-opening on August 1^st & 2^nd;
• At the bottom right of the page there is a note that “Chapels may not be used for holding meetings of a political character. – Con Minutes Rule 33, p. 94.”
• Camp meetings were widespread; both Low Common (September 21^st) and Deopham Green (July 19^th) held Camp Meetings that year;
• The Low Common Chapel anniversary was September 19^th.

All rights reserved by Norfolk Record Office who hold the original, Ref FX 198/1

Distinctive Features of the Primitive Methodists

• Women preachers (Robert Eason’s wife was described in the 1861 census as a “Primitive Local Preacher”);
• Outdoor camp meetings;
• Emphasis on the need to be saved from the wrath to come;
• Local (unordained) preachers played a key role;
• Infallibility of the Bible;
• Informality in religious meetings;
• Prohibition of alcohol – to the extent that their “love feasts” (which took the place of Church of England eucharists) used only bread/biscuits and water;
• Decentralised and democratic administration;
• Preachers were plainly dressed and poorly paid;
• Through a combination of discipline, preaching and education they sought to reform their members’ morality.

A document known as the Deed Poll which was ratified on February 5^th 1830 contains a formal statement of the fundamental doctrines and principles of governance for the Primitives. See here for further information.

Footnotes

1. The date of 1818 for the founding of the Deopham Common chapel seems very early considering that the Primitive Methodists did not become active in surrounding towns until later. This date of 1818 comes from the 1851 Religious Census of Religious Worship: it has not been confirmed anywhere else. ↩︎
2. G.T. Goodrick in an unpublished history of Robert Key quoted by H.B. Kendall, The Origin and History of the Primitive Methodist Church, Vol II, 1906, Pg 237. ↩︎
3. John Foster – Evils of Popular Ignorance, pp 75-6. ↩︎
4. Joseph Ritson The Romance of Primitive Methodism, 1909. Pg 168. ↩︎
5. Peter Brandon (2010). Discovering Sussex. pp 53-4. ↩︎
6. Joseph Ritson The Romance of Primitive Methodism, 1909, pg 277 ↩︎
7. E.J. Hobsbawm & George Rude Captain Swing, pp 186 ff ↩︎
8. Reginal Groves Sharpening the Sickle: The History of the Farm Workers’ Union, 1949 ↩︎
9. F.B. Paston quoted in The Origin and History of the Primitive Methodist Church, Vol II, 1906, Pg 242. Available online at:
   https://archive.org/details/originhistoryofp02kend/page/242/mode/2up. ↩︎
10. Marion Springall, Labouring Life in Norfolk Villages, 1936, pg 77. ↩︎
11. Marion Springall, Labouring Life in Norfolk Villages, 1936, pg 90. ↩︎
12. Augustus Jessopp Arcady, for Better for Worse: A Study of Rural Life in England, 1887, 6th edition, pp 77-8. This is available on-line at:- 
    https://archive.org/details/arcadyforbetter00jessgoog/mode/2up?view=theater. ↩︎
13. Joseph Ritson The Romance of Primitive Methodism 1909. Pg 277. ↩︎

Date	Change
2/1/24	Hobsbawm comments
9/12/23	Link to Deed Poll
25/11/22	Published