Part I.—Lowestoft in the 14th Century.—Rise and Fall of Yarmouth.

Part II.—Rise of Lowestoft.—Parliamentary War with Yarmouth.

Part III.—The Lay Subsidies.

Part I.—Lowestoft in the 14th Century.

Lowestoft lies hid in oblivion for some 300 years after her appearance in Domesday. During this time great changes had taken place in the country at large as well as in Lowestoft. A new regime had been established, under which Saxon and Angle, Dane and Norman, had been welded into one nation, and laws and institutions were in force, which are familiar features in our present legal and political system. Although still 500 years from the present time, England, in Edward III.’s reign, was much more like the England of to-day than the country described in Domesday. Foreign trade had sprung up. Wheat and wool were grown in large quantities and exported from Yarmouth and other ports. The penny was no longer the only silver coin, and gold coins of several different sizes and values were in circulation. Last, and not least, the herring fishery was being carried on to a very large extent on this coast, and was an object of national and international importance.It is in the middle of Edward III.’s reign that Lowestoft appears for the second time in our national records. But she is no longer the insignificant agricultural village of Domesday. She is evidently a rising little town, in the modern sense of the word, carrying on a sea trade of some importance in fish and other light merchandise. She had ceased for some years to be “Royal demesne,” and was now the property of the King’s cousin—John, Duke of Brittany and Earl of Richmond—to whom the manor of Gorleston and the rest of the Royal estates in this neighbourhood had been given by the King’s grandfather, Edward I.

It was at this time that she was brought into prominence by a long Parliamentary contest with Yarmouth about the right to buy and land herrings at Lowestoft from foreign and west country fishermen anchored in the roads opposite her shore, then called Kirkley Road.

That you may understand the full import of the circumstances which brought about this contest with Yarmouth we must take a glance at the history of that town up to that period.

Rise of Yarmouth.

The origin of Yarmouth is unique; the bar of a wide Estuary, a sandbank in the sea, seized upon for human habitation before even nature herself had trusted it with any vegetation beyond a few patches of marram grass to bind the sand together.

Who the bold fishermen were—whether Angles or Danes (probably Danes) who first dared to build cottages on such a site we know not, nor when the occupation of this sandbank first began. The name of the “Cerdick Sands” which the Saxons had given it, implies that it was well above water in the earliest part of the Saxon period, whether Cerdick did or not pay his traditionary visit to this spot. It must have been in that condition several years before the time of Edward the Confessor, when, as we have already learnt from Domesday, Yarmouth was a town of some wealth and importance. The following well approved tradition of the origin of Yarmouth is given by an old writer (Jeakes) in his History of the Cinque Ports.

“Beside the staple trade of these towns (the Cinque Ports) consisting much in fishing, not only of fresh fish at home, but of herring every year in the season thereof at Yarmouth, where bringing them ashore in the sale and delivery among the multitude, divers differences and stirs arose for want of a settled order in that town, or as tradition still reports, before there was any town or any show of a town than some huts and cabins set up near the waterside like the booths and huts in a fair; and that during the time of the herring fair there the Ports were forced to agree and join together yearly to elect and send thither their Bailiffs to abide there during the herring season allowing them a certain sum for their expenses.”

The rapid growth of Yarmouth from a few fishermen’s “huts and cabins” to one of the most important and populous sea ports in the country was evidently due to her great natural advantages. She possessed a large and deep harbour, with a long natural quay, the inside face of the sandbank. Her position commanded the entrance to four rivers which were navigable by light craft for many miles into Norfolk and Suffolk. Last but not least the town was most conveniently situated as a rendezvous for fishermen coming from the Cinque ports, and other places in the South of England, as well as from France and Holland to take part in the autumnal herring harvest.

From William the Conqueror downwards our Kings were well aware of the importance of Yarmouth, for the defence of the East Coast, and of the value of the herring fishery. Charters and ordinances were issued to regulate the autumnal Herring Fair, and to insure its being conducted on strictly free-trade principles, while the Yarmouth merchants made good use of their position as the seat of the trade, and produced in a few years a fleet of ships and sailors, which in Edward the III.’s time was able to take a leading part in our naval history.

We first hear of Yarmouth’s naval exploits in her quarrels with the Cinque Ports. After Yarmouth had obtained “Home Rule” under the charter of King John, she resented being any longer nursed by the Barons of the Cinque Ports, in the management of the autumnal Herring Fair, and she grudged the rights given to the western fishermen to use her harbour and her denes during the season for their own advantage.

In times when it was a common practice for Parliament and the Crown to give special privileges to towns or other bodies, without providing any adequate means for securing their enjoyment, the practice of taking the law into your own hands, which is proverbially a mistake in these days, was the only means by which the possessors of privileges could maintain them, and accordingly we find Yarmouth and the Cinque ports repeatedly engaged in what can only be described as naval wars, arising from some conflict in the provisions of their respective charters.

In 1281 Yarmouth was fined £1,000 for doing divers trespasses and damages to the Cinque Ports upon the south coast as far as Shoreham, Portsmouth and other places.

In 1303 we find Yarmouth sending ships to join the Royal fleet which was to escort Edward I. to Flanders. Having put the King ashore the Yarmouth and the Cinque Ports men, being well equipped for fight take the opportunity of paying off old scores by engaging in a furious battle in which 25 Yarmouth ships were burnt. According to another account 37 Yarmouth ships were greatly damaged and £15,000 worth of loss inflicted.

We have other evidence of Yarmouth’s naval power in the reign of Edward III. In 1337 Yarmouth supplies Edward III. with 20 “men of war” (as they were called) to carry the King’s ambassadors to Hainault. On their return they did a little privateering business on their own account and took two Flemish ships laden with provisions for Scotland, and killed the Bishop of Glasgow who was unfortunately on board one of them.

In 1340 Yarmouth contributed 52 ships to the Fleet with which Edward won the battle of the Swin against France off Sluys in Holland. The admiral of this fleet was John Perebrown, a Yarmouth man, whose name appears some 15 times in the lists of Bailiffs. Edward was particularly proud of this victory. He had a new gold coinage issued to commemorate it, the first nobles struck, bearing an effigy of himself sitting in the middle of a ship, with a shield on his left arm bearing the arms of England and France.

In 1342 Edward came himself to Yarmouth and sailed with a fleet of 20 Yarmouth ships to the coast of Brittany, where he was engaged in laying siege to the town of Vannes. Having landed the king the Yarmouth ships are attacked by the French fleet, and being worsted (doubtless by a superior force) they take to flight leaving the king in the lurch. The king having managed, with the assistance of the Pope, to make a truce with France, comes home and at once summons all the owners as well as the captains and the crews of the Yarmouth ships to “answer for their contemptibly deserting him, leaving other our faithful subjects there with us in danger of our lives.”

The names of the ships and of all their owners and captains, are entered in the Kings’ writ of summons [31] and they are required to attend with all the sailors at Westminster. We do not hear of their being punished. They probably were able to satisfy the King that on this occasion discretion was the better part of valour, and we find them fighting for the King again 5 years afterwards. This was in 1347 when he was engaged in the celebrated siege of Calais.

On this occasion Yarmouth contributed no less than 43 ships to the Royal fleet and 1075 mariners, a larger number of ships and men than even London supplied.

The importance of Yarmouth at this time and the magnitude of it’s fleet relative to that of other towns is shown by the fact that the total number of ships which the Cinque Ports themselves were required to supply was 57.According to a statement in the petition of the town to Henry VII., Yarmouth had at this time 80 ships with forestages and 170 ships without. The larger ships were apparently about the size of a 100 ton ship of the present day.

These records are interesting in themselves, and are important episodes in our national history. I have quoted them for the purpose of showing the magnitude and importance of Yarmouth at this time. A town which could fit out 43 ships for the King’s Navy and man them with 1075 sailors at their own cost, (for the King only paid for the maintenance of the sailors while in his service), must have been both wealthy and populous. She had acquired her wealth and naval power almost entirely from the herring fishery, and from the large extent to which her own population was engaged in it. But the trade carried on by her merchants during the autumn season with the fish catchers and fish buyers from other towns at home and abroad contributed largely to the wealth of the town. It appears from a return which has been preserved of the amount taken for the murage tax, (a small charge on ships and merchandise added to the harbour dues towards the expense of building the town wall) that the amount received in the year 1343 during the weeks comprising the herring season was £54 6s. out of a total sum of £66 7s. 11d. collected during the twelve months. The entries show the large number of foreign vessels coming to the Autumn Fair. In five days in September in this year, 60 foreign ships entered the harbour, of which 10 were from Lombardy. [32]

The Black Plague at Yarmouth.

It was when Yarmouth was in the height of her prosperity, and the herring trade becoming more and more valuable owing to the superstitious importance attached to the rules as to fasting, that she was destined to suffer a ruinous collapse from which she did not recover for several centuries, and which deprived her for ever of the position of eminence as a naval town which she had held during the first half of the 14th century. The main cause of her fall was the loss within the space of a few months of more than half her population from the terrible epidemic known as the Black Plague. Great as was the destruction of life from this fell disease in other towns and parishes in the country, there could have been no town where the destruction of life was greater and the consequent impoverishment more felt. Probably no town in England was more favourably conditioned for the work of the destroyer. A large population of poor fishermen and sailors were crowded together in small hovels, closely packed within the walls, in double rows, separated by narrow alleys of six feet or less in breadth. This arrangement had evidently been adopted by the first occupants of the storm-swept sandbank for convenience and warmth. But it was an arrangement terribly conducive to the rapid spread of any infectious disease which had once gained a footing in the town.

In that year (1349), according to the account given a hundred and fifty years afterwards by the town’s people themselves in a petition to Henry VII., more than half the population, including many of its leading merchants fell victims to the disease.

“In the 31st (sic) year of the reign of King Edward the 3rd by a great visitation of Almighty God there was so great death of people within the same towne that there was buried in the parish church and church yard of the said towne in one year 7052 men, by reason whereof the most part of the dwelling places and the inhabitations of the said towne stode desolate, and fell into utter ruin and decay, which at this day are gardens and void grounds as evidently appeareth.” [33]

Whatever may have been the exact population of Yarmouth at the time of this terrible visitation (it could not have been more than 10 or 12,000) it must have been a very different town after 1350 to what it was in the first half of the century, and although the merchants might retain their hold upon the herring trade, the loss of so large a part of the fishing population must have made them much more dependant upon their visitors for the supply of fish in the autumn season than before.

Yarmouth Harbour Blocked Up.

But the loss of fishermen was not the only affliction from which Yarmouth was to suffer. The continuance of her trade and even of her very existence was in peril from the blocking up of her harbour. During the whole period during which the town was itself growing, from the time of the Conquest to that of which we are now treating, the sandbank on which it was built was being gradually extended southwards, enclosing the river, and carrying its mouth further and further South, until at the beginning of the 14th century the mouth of the Yarmouth Harbour was opposite the Gunton Denes and within a mile of Lowestoft. In a few more years the mouth of the Yare would have been at Lowestoft, and Lowestoft would have occupied a more favourable position for the trade of the Yare than Yarmouth itself. Lowestoft had already taken advantage of the opportunities which the nearness of the Harbour mouth gave her of getting a share in the herring trade. The sea opposite her shore then called “Kirkley Road” offered the same resting place for wind-bound ships as it does now, and as the mouth of the Haven was always in the condition of being more or less blocked with sand, it only needed a little enterprise on the part of Lowestoft people to get fishing boats bound for Yarmouth to discharge their herrings on the Gunton denes, rather than incur the certain loss of time in waiting for the tide to carry them up to Yarmouth quay, and the danger of being wrecked at the harbour mouth.

In the early part of the century, when Yarmouth was in her most flourishing condition, she had both men and money, and she had undertaken the first of her numerous efforts to remedy this chronic trouble by cutting out a new mouth for her harbour. This mouth, which was on the north side of Corton, was kept open for some 26 years.

Although during this time the herring trade carried on by Yarmouth, with its harbour and Free Fair, was out of all proportion to that of the seaside villages in its neighbourhood, it is evident that Lowestoft and Winterton, and perhaps some of the other villages, had taken part in the international trade of the autumn season, besides catching herrings in their own boats.

The rules as to fasting during Lent, as well as on Fridays and Saturdays in every week during the year, which were strictly enforced at this time by a powerful Church, had rendered the east coast herring trade a matter of national importance. The ability to purchase red herrings for lenten fare was a necessity for the salvation, not only of the lives, but of the souls of the people. Even our soldiers when engaged in war had to observe the rules as to fasting. In 1358 we hear of 50 lasts of herring being shipped at Portsmouth for the use of the army in France. In 1429 Sir John Fastolf was serving in the Duke of Bedford’s army at the siege of Orleans. Sir John was himself of an old Yarmouth family. Several members of his family were on the lists of bailiffs for the previous century, and he is said to have had a house in Yarmouth as well as his Castle at Caister near by. His connection with Yarmouth probably enabled him to procure a supply of herrings for the army not altogether without profit to himself. At all events on Ash-Wednesday, 1429, he had charge of a train of 500 wagons of herrings on its way from Paris to Orleans. He was attacked by a large force of French at a village near Orleans. He had recourse to the tactics we have so often heard of lately in our wars in South Africa. He formed his wagons into laager, and from behind these defences the English Archers shot their arrows with such deadly effect, that they drove the enemy off with great slaughter, and Sir John got his herrings safely into camp. This was the Battle of Herrings, one of the most celebrated victories in the French wars.In order to secure an abundant provision of herrings at a cheap price, the Parliament of 1357 passed the well known Statute of Herrings, which was aimed particularly at securing the conduct of the Free Fair, and of the Yarmouth herring trade, in the interests of the country at large. It is evident from the preamble to this statute that it was aimed directly against the practice of the Yarmouth merchants “forestalling” the Fair by buying their herrings from the ships which anchored in the roads outside the harbour mouth.

In order to prevent the Yarmouth merchants supplying themselves by this means to the disadvantage of the general purchaser at the Fair, the statute enacts that the fishers after having supplied the “London Pykers” (a special exception in favour of London)—

“Shall bring all the remnant of their herring to the said fair to sell there, so that none shall sell herring in any place about the haven of Great Yarmouth by seven “Leues” (LeucÆ or Leagues) unless it be herring of their own catching.”

This prohibition against “forestalling” the Fair, although aimed directly against the Yarmouth merchants themselves, evidently applied equally to all persons coming from Lowestoft, or any other place, to buy herrings from ships in Kirkley Road. It was not, however, the intention of Parliament at this time to give any monopoly to Yarmouth; and within two years after the passing of this statute, we find that an ordinance was issued expressly exempting Lowestoft and Winterton from this prohibition.

This ordinance enacted that—

“If the fishers be in free will to sell their herrings in the said road after they be anchored there, it shall be lawful for the merchants of Lowestoft and Winterton to buy herrings of the fishers, as free as the London pycards, to serve their carts and horses that come thither from other countries, and to hang there.”

This would appear to be the earliest record in which Lowestoft appears, since Domesday, which furnishes any evidence of her having risen from the humble status she occupied at that time.Although this notice of Lowestoft does not imply that Lowestoft in 1359 was a larger place than Winterton then was, it shows very clearly that a trade in herrings, at all events during the Autumnal season, had been established here, and that it was considered of sufficient importance to deserve a special ordinance permitting its continuance, notwithstanding the statute of Herrings. It also tells us what the system of trade at Lowestoft was at this time. Lowestoft men went out to the foreign and other fishing boats when anchored in the roads, and bought and landed herrings on the Denes. Here they were sold to the “peddlers” or travelling fish merchants, who, having loaded their pack horses and their carts, started off homewards, to sell their fish as fresh as possible in distant inland towns.

The last words of the proviso “and to hang there” clearly authorised the Lowestoft merchants not only to buy fish for resale, but to supply themselves with herrings for hanging in their own fish houses.

Part II.—Rise of Lowestoft, and Parliamentary War with Yarmouth.

The free trade policy of the Statute of Herrings had not the desired effect of reducing the price of herrings, and the condition of Yarmouth was getting worst. Her haven was again becoming unnavigable, and merchants were leaving the town. On the cliff, a mile south of the mouth of the harbour, the little town of Lowestoft was growing up, and beginning to take an important share in the trade on which Yarmouth depended for her existence. It was under these circumstances that Yarmouth petitioned the King to giant her a charter which could protect her trade against the competition of Lowestoft, and mitigate the evil caused by the blocking up of the mouth of her harbour.Edward III. had every reason to befriend Yarmouth, and to prevent the ruin of an important naval town. So in 1371 he issued a Commission to enquire how far the charter demanded by Yarmouth would be advantageous or disadvantageous to the country. The Commission reported in favour of the grant, and in 1373 the charter was granted which was to put the towns of Yarmouth and Lowestoft at loggerheads for some 300 years, and involve them in bouts of costly litigation.

The effect of the charter was to give Yarmouth two strings to her bow against Lowestoft.

(1) It annexed to Yarmouth the “place in the high seas called Kirkley Road” i.e. the whole of the roads along the coast from Pakefield to the mouth of Yarmouth harbour, wherever that might happen to be, and gave the Yarmouth Bailiffs the right of taking the same tolls from ships discharging cargo in any part of these roads, which they were empowered to take from ships inside the harbour.

(2) It prohibited the buying and selling of herrings during the time of the Autumnal fair at any place on sea or land, within “7 leucÆ” of the town of Great Yarmouth, except at the town itself, and gave the Bailiffs authority to seize any ship &c. from which any herrings were sold in contravention of the charter.

As it was stated in the report of the Commission, on which this charter was granted, that Lowestoft was 5 “leucÆ” from Yarmouth, it is clear that it was intended to include Lowestoft in the prohibition. It is also clear than the word “leuca” was used to denote a distance of nearly two miles. There was no legally established measure of distance at this time. Our statute mile was not established until 200 years afterwards, in Queen Elizabeth’s reign.

That the Yarmouth merchants had some reason to desire the protection of their trade against the competition of Lowestoft, is shown by a statement in a letter of complaint written from Yarmouth to the Barons of the Cinque Ports some years afterwards, in which they are blamed for not enforcing the observance of the charter by their own fishermen, and requiring them to take their fish to Yarmouth, “for if they can deliver at Lowestoft, they will bring very few or none to us.” [39]

Such being the intention of the Charter you will not be surprised to learn that it met with strenuous opposition from Lowestoft.

Lowestoft Men Prosecuted by the Yarmouth Bailiffs for Contravention of this Charter.

When the foreign and west country fishing boats appeared in the Roads in the autumn, and the Lowestoft men went out, as usual, with their boats to buy herring from the ships at anchor off the denes, officers appeared from Yarmouth armed with authority from the Bailiffs, to enforce the new law, and to seize any ships selling or discharging herrings in contravention of their charter. They found a large number of Lowestoft men purchasing herrings from ships within the prohibited area, but instead of attempting to seize the ships, which was their proper remedy under the charter, they took the more prudent course of prosecuting the buyers, and some 25 Lowestoft men were summoned before the Yarmouth Bailiffs. They met the indictment brought against them by an appeal, and it was removed by writ of certiorari to the King’s court in Westminster Hall. The indictment states, after reciting the charter,—

“That on Friday next after the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist (18th October) John Botild of Lowestoft bought of John Trampt of Ostend, an alien, in the said place called Kirkley Road, which is within the 7 leuks, twenty-five lasts of new herring (value 50 pounds.) and the said alien took his boat, (value 20 shilling) out of the ship, and in the night elongated himself (i.e. ran away) to his own proper house, and hauled the boat ashore, so that the said bailiffs could not touch the said herring, nor the boat, nor the ship, to arrest them, because the aforesaid alien had by the advice of the said John Botild elongated himself, nor could they thence by any means answer it as a forteiture to the Lord the King.”

The defence of the Lowestoft men was that the prohibited area only extended as far as a place called “Stampard” (the Stanford channel?) construing the term “leuca”, as equivalent to “mile,” (which was the construction afterwards put upon it); and that the ships from which they bought herrings were lying beyond this distance. The trial of the appeal came on before the King at Westminster Hall in the Spring term of 1374, but was adjourned for further hearing; a proceeding caused probably by the congested state of business in the Law Courts, an inconvenience to suitors not unknown even at the present time. What the end of the case was we are not informed, but it evidently went against Lowestoft. Meanwhile the Lowestoft people had appealed to another power. In 1376 they presented a petition to Parliament for the repeal of the obnoxious charter.

First Revocation of Edward’s Charter to Yarmouth.

Their petition was supported by another from the Commons of the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Lincoln, Northampton, Bedford, Bucks, Leicester and other counties. Such was the importance to the country of our growing town at the end of 14th century!!

Parliament made very short work of the business, and the King was compelled to withdraw his charter. This he did in the following somewhat ungracious terms—

“Edward by the grace of God, King of England &c. Know ye that we, the liberties and privileges of the Burgesses and good men of the town of Great Yarmouth lately so by us given and granted, at the suit and voluntary clamour of certain people alleging that those privileges and liberties have been and are contrary to the profit of the republic, and to us and our people prejudicial and hurtful, in our Parliament holden at Westminister, &c. have revoked and totally made void.”

It is a curious coincidence which adds much to the interest of our story, that this petition from our old townspeople was one of the several hundred introduced in this Parliament, which is known in history as the “Good Parliament” owing to the number of popular measures which were passed by it. The popular Prince of Wales, Edward the Black Prince, was still living, and the Commons had his support against the Crown party led by his uncle, John of Gaunt.In the following year (1377) the old King dies, and Richard II., then a boy of 11, becomes our ruler. Yarmouth lost no time in taking advantage of the opportunity which the succession of a new government offered for re-opening the question. She succeeded in getting another Commission of enquiry which apparently confined its labours to hearing the Yarmouth case. Without hearing Lowestoft, they reported that Yarmouth was a “walled town capable of resisting the King’s enemies,” but that Lowestoft was, “not inclosed and was incapable of defence.” They accordingly advised that Edward’s charter should be regranted.

The following Parliament (1378) was not held at Westminster as usual. The popular Prince of Wales was dead; and John of Gaunt and the Crown party were having their own way. It appears that he had got into bad relations with the citizens of London owing to the killing of a knight at Westminster by his retainers, and he thought it safer under the circumstances that the Commons should not be invited to meet there; so he got the King to summon his Parliament to meet at Gloucester. At such a distance the Commons of the Eastern Counties were not likely to attend in their full numbers; nor were those who did sit in this Parliament allowed to take the influential part in its proceedings which they had taken in the previous parliament. From these or other causes the Crown party had their own way, and Yarmouth got its charter regranted and confirmed.

Proclamation of the Charter at Lowestoft.

The task was then imposed upon the under sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk of proclaiming the obnoxious law at Lowestoft. How it was received appears from the sheriffs account of the riot which took place on the occasion, for which May day seems to have been selected, on account doubtless of it’s being a holiday, when his majesty’s liege subjects of Lowestoft would be able all to attend and listen to the royal proclamation.

“On which day the aforesaid under sheriff at Lowestoft attended to proclaim the aforesaid liberties and he openly shewed the letters patent of the Lord the King on that account, when there came Martin Terry, Stephen Shelford. Henry Freeborn, and Emma his wife, John Spencer, and Alice his wife, &c. &c. with a great company of men and women of the town aforesaid of whose names they are ignorant by the abetment and procurement of William Hannell, John Blower, Thomas de Wade, Richard Skinner, William Large &c., and violently resisted and hindered him, some saying to the sheriff they would not suffer him to depart, others forcing his letters from him and saying (among other language used on the occasion which is unfortunately or perhaps fortunately obliterated)—that if he dared any more to come for any execution of the Lord the King he should not escape. So that for fear of death he durst not execute the writ aforesaid, and they drove him then and there with a multitude of rioters, with hue and cry out of the town, casting stones at the head of his men and servants to the pernicious example and contempt of the Lord the King and against his peace.”

What does loyal Lowestoft think of this behaviour of their old town’s people, in almost the first scene in which they appear in the stage of history!! It is evident from this story that there were two classes represented in this riot, a large number of people men and women, who took an active part in it, and several leading persons, the merchants probably of the period, who “procured and abetted” them.

The treatment which the king’s proclamation and the under-sheriff met with at Lowestoft, was duly inquired into by the sheriff, but we are not informed of the punishment enforced upon the rioters. The Lowestoft people, however, lost no time in making another appeal for the assistance of the Commons. On this occasion they were supported by the Commons of the county of Norfolk, as well as by those of Suffolk.

The Charter Revoked a Second Time.

Another commission of enquiry was appointed in 1380 under the presidency of the Chief Justice Tresilian, who sat with his colleagues, representing Lowestoft and Yarmouth, one day at Norwich and on the second at Lowestoft, and heard evidence on behalf of each town. This Commission reported in favour of Lowestoft, and in the following year the Parliament, sitting at Westminster, repealed the grant, and the young king was compelled to follow the course taken by his grandfather, and declared his charter to be “revoked and utterly made void” (1381).

Yarmouth however had too much confidence in her claim on the Crown to give up the struggle, and the next year she again petitions the King to restore her charter.

The Charter Regranted a Third Time.

The young King now 17 years old, was so anxious to learn the merits of the important contest, that he himself paid a visit to Yarmouth in 1382. We do not hear that he came to Lowestoft, or that he ascertained the precise position of “the place called Kirkley Road.” He was probably shown the town walls, and the devastation caused by the plague, (which the Yarmouth people seem to have attributed to the repeal of their charter). He and his courtiers were feasted by the Bailiffs and Burgesses, with the same judicious munificence, with which 200 years afterwards they treated Leicester and the other noblemen of Elizabeth’s court, when she was staying at Norwich, and was invited to visit Yarmouth, under very similar circumstances. Richard was much impressed with what he saw and was told at Yarmouth, particularly that “a great part of the people had left the town on account of their charter having been repealed,” and in 1384 he took upon himself to issue an ordinance re-granting the charter until the next sitting of Parliament.

The Charter Revoked a Third Time.

In 1385 the Parliament met at Westminster. The Commons were still staunch in their support of Lowestoft, and the King was again compelled to revoke his ordinance, and to declare that all the charters given to Yarmouth by his grandfather and himself were utterly void.

A New Charter Granted by Richard.

The next year, however, from causes of which we are not informed, we find that a great change took place in the conditions of the contest. In the Parliament of 1386 we find the Commons themselves supporting the cause of Yarmouth, and petitioning the crown to regrant their charter, notwithstanding the persistency with which they had opposed it in previous years. The King of course acceded at once to this petition, and a new charter was granted to Yarmouth, embracing all the provisions of the charter of Edward, and welding more tightly the fetters which were intended to crush the trade of Lowestoft.

This charter has never been revoked and in 1826 it was cited by the Town Clerk of Yarmouth before the committee of the House of Commons, when the Bill for making a harbour at Lowestoft was under consideration.

This game of see-saw between Crown and Parliament with reference to the Yarmouth Charter, was an episode in the struggle which was going on between these Powers during the whole of the 14th century and which forms an important chapter in our constitutional history. The result of the contest as regards the fortunes of the two towns would seem to have been a complete triumph for Yarmouth; involving restrictions on the trade of Lowestoft, which were intended to deprive it of any share in the herring trade, beyond the produce of their own fishing boats. This however was by no means the actual result. The obnoxious charter proved to be perfectly harmless to Lowestoft, if not entirely useless to Yarmouth. It was beyond the power of Yarmouth to enforce it effectually. The statue of Herrings, forbidding the “forestalling” of the Free Fair by buying herrings from ships at sea, applied to the Yarmouth merchants as well as to Lowestoft men. The anomalous right given to the Yarmouth Bailiffs of exacting harbour dues from ships anchored in the sea, at a distance of several miles from their harbour mouth, must have been incapable of enforcement, without a fleet of armed bailiffs. It would appear that Yarmouth made little or no attempt to enforce the provisions of the charter against Lowestoft merchants buying herrings within the 7 leucÆ, and contented themselves with claiming harbour dues from the ships which discharged their herrings there. In this claim they had for some years the assistance of the Lowestoft merchants themselves, who undertook to farm the tolls of the town. They paid as much as £26 a year for these tolls in the years 1393–4–6. This blackmail was, however, soon reduced, and in a few years the task of collecting the tolls was left in the hands of the Yarmouth Bailiffs themselves.

In 1400 we find Yarmouth giving up altogether the attempt to enforce their charter, and entering into an agreement with Lowestoft, which gave express sanction to their purchasing herrings from ships lying off their shore. This agreement was entitled “An accord or composition between Yarmouth and Lowestoft that the latter might buy herrings in Kirkley Road upon conditions therein specified.” The Lowestoft merchants were allowed to buy fish from all ships that were not “hosted” to Yarmouth merchants i.e., from ships whose owners had not entered into engagements with Yarmouth merchants to sell their fish to them, or through them, as their agents (an arrangement, very necessary for foreigners in those days); and the Lowestoft merchants might buy also from these ships herrings which the Yarmouth “hosts” did not require for themselves, upon payment of half a mark per last to the hosts, in addition to the price of the fish. This “Composition” was formally sanctioned by the King in Council, and was issued by “Letters patent” in the 2nd. year of Henry IV. As we do not hear of any further litigation between Lowestoft and Yarmouth for 200 years, we may take it that the first contest between the two towns was closed by this agreement, whether this long truce was due to it, or to other causes.

Swinden in his history of Yarmouth ends here his story of “The Contest about Kirkley Road.” He promised another chapter in which he would have had to deal with the renewal of the contest by Yarmouth in the 16th and again in the 17th centuries. This chapter was not written. He probably found a difficulty in treating the later episodes of the story, which must have been a very sore subject between the two towns even when he was writing.

Our interest in it is now purely archÆological. The story though somewhat tedious cannot be dispensed with in a history of Lowestoft, any more than the ghost’s story in Hamlet. It is the story of the growth of Lowestoft from a small village into a fishing town of some importance to the country. Her trade was probably growing rapidly during the whole period that the contest lasted. But from the beginning of the 15th century her merchants were free to take their full share in the herring trade, and in any other trade, which the position of the town would enable them to develope; though without a harbour, her merchants, whether as fishing adventurers, or as general merchants, must have had a very limited range for their enterprises.

Part III.—Evidence Furnished by the Lay Subsidies of the Growth of Lowestoft.

Unfortunately the records of the contest between Yarmouth and Lowestoft furnish us with no information as to the actual wealth and population of Lowestoft at this period, and we have no local records to help us in forming an estimate of either. But we are not altogether at a loss for information on these important questions. Among the decayed and fragmentary relics of the old Lay Subsidy Rolls in the Record office, we have a complete detailed return for the 1st of Edward III., and another for the 15th of Henry VIII. If these Rolls do not furnish direct information as to the actual wealth and population of the town, a comparison between them furnishes good evidence of its relative status at these two periods.

Taking the Subsidy returns for 1327 from the same group of parishes, whose condition at the time of Domesday we have already noticed, we find that Yarmouth heads the list with a contribution of £18. 8. 1. Beccles follows, with a contribution of £12. 4. 9. Gorleston, with Little Yarmouth, comes next with a payment of £10. 0. 4. Then Kessingland follows with a payment of £4. 2. No other parish in the Hundred pays as much as £2. 10. Mutford, Belton, Carlton, and Corton pay £2. and upwards. Gisleham and Rushmere together pay £2. 10., and Pakefield and Kirkley are bracketed for £2. 1. Blundeston pays £1. 18., Somerleyton £1. 17., Bradwell £1. 14., and Oulton and Flixton together £1. 15. Then comes Lowestoft, with the humble contribution of £1. 9., gathered from 29 of its inhabitants. Lound, Fritton, Hopton, Gunton, Herringfleet, Burgh, and Ashby complete the lists with sums rising from 16s. to £1. 8. We can but infer from these returns that Lowestoft had not yet made any substantial advance upon the position she occupied in the Domesday survey. The small contribution which she is called upon to make, compared with Carlton Colville and Kessingland, proves conclusively that at the beginning of Edward III.’s reign she had not developed any trade in herrings or any other merchandise. Thirty years after (as we have already seen) the little town was of sufficient importance to be honoured by the issue of a Royal ordinance authorising her people to buy and land herrings in Kirkley Road. We can thus fix the date of the origin of Lowestoft as a town, in the modern sense of the word, within a year or two. If the Subsidy Rolls for the rest of this and the succeeding reigns were not defective, we should probably find that the assessment of Lowestoft rose rapidly during the latter half of the 14th century, and continued to rise throughout the next century, and at least the first half of the 16th century, so that at the time of the second Roll she had reached nearly, if not quite her full growth as a town of ancient times.

In the Roll for 1525 we find Lowestoft occupying an entirely different position with respect to her agricultural neighbours. Instead of appearing as a poor village of less taxable capacity than Somerleyton and Blundeston we find her contributing a larger amount to the subsidy for this year than all the rest of the Lothingland parishes together, even including Gorleston and Southtown. The contribution from Lowestoft is £29, just 20 times what it was in 1327. This sum was collected from 140 of her inhabitants; but there is abundant evidence from other returns that the number of persons entered as contributories in these rolls did not represent the whole number of taxable people in the town and parish upon which the subsidy was charged. The sum claimed by the Sheriff had to be collected and paid in by the parish constables, who were themselves among the larger contributors, but it was left to them, with the concurrence of the people themselves, to arrange by whom and in what proportions each person should contribute to each subsidy. Taken year by year, the burden of these subsidies was probably fairly distributed. The richer inhabitants probably contributed to every subsidy, but the power of excusal could be freely exercised by the constables in the case of the poorer townspeople. This subsidy roll not only gives us the names and payments of each contributor, but the assessment of his property on which he was charged. The total assessment amounted to about £760, of which £710 was on “movabyll goods,” and £50 on “wages and profits.” Among the higher assessments are:—John Hodden £100, Robert Bach £50, John Goddard £48, J. Jettor, jun. £48, Thomas Woods £40, William French £40, Robert Chevyr (one of the parish constables) £20. The other assessment range from £1 to £19. Sir John Browne—the Vicar—was assessed at £7. There is no assessment under £1. The number assessed at the lowest rate is 59:—23 are assessed at £2.

The name at the head of the list is John Jettor, jun. He had evidently been previously assessed at £100 or more. He was only assessed on £48 for this subsidy, “the consideration for his decay being that he had lost a ship on the sea, pryce £50.” As these assessments purported to represent the value of the “movabyll goods” i.e. all the personal property possessed by the contributors, and as the ship which John Jettor, junior, lost was valued at £50, a larger sum than the rest of his “movabyll goods” were valued at, we can form some idea of the amount of personal property possessed by the richest merchants of the town at this period.

We have another entry of a similar kind. John Robinson is only assessed at 40s. to this subsidy, because he had lost a ship valued at £28 “captured by the Scots.” We can only infer from this that this ship represented almost the whole of his property. We know from another record that at this time our merchants possessed 14 barks or doggers which used to go to Iceland to catch cod fish and ling, besides smaller boats employed in fishing near home. John Jettor’s ship was probably one of these barks, and John Robinson’s—a small fishing boat.

It is clear from these entries that at this time a ship represented a large part of the “movabyll goods” of our richer townspeople. The value of two barks would equal the highest assessment on this roll. When we consider the dangers these ships incurred, not only from the sea, but from the “Scots” and other occasional enemies, we can realise the precarious condition of the property possessed by these “fishing adventurers,” and of the town whose fortunes depended on the success of their enterprises. It may be inferred, however, from this and other evidence that the assessments to the King’s subsidies were very much of a conventional character. They doubtless represented the taxable capacity of the contributors relative to each other, but we may feel quite certain that they did not represent the full value of any persons property. The assessments were practically made by the townspeople themselves, and they would be each and all strongly interested in keeping the aggregate assessment at as low a figure as possible. At the same time, as the returns were subject to the inspection of the Sheriff, as well as the Exchequer Court in London, the range for imposition was limited. The contributions were assessed on the system of a “graduated income tax.” Persons possessed of goods above £20 in value paid 1s. in the £. Those possessing “movabyll goods,” or taxed on “wages and profits” under that amount, paid 6d. in the £. But the working men and fishermen who were assessed at only 20s. for “wages and profits” paid only 4d. No one was assessed at a lower sum than 20s. But 20s. could not represent the annual income of even the lowest paid labourer. According to Mr. Thorold Rogers the wages of the artizan at this time would be 3s. a week, or some £7 a year, and the wages of the agricultural labourer 2s. a week or about £5 a year. Even this would be much more than double the lowest assessment. We can hardly believe that the richer men undertook a much larger share of the burden than their property demanded, and we may reasonably infer that their assessments did not represent the full value of their property. But anyhow our richest merchants of those days must have been very poor men according to our modern ideas.

Lowestoft was of course still a very small town as compared with Yarmouth. As Yarmouth was exempted from all taxes during Henry VIII.’s reign on account of the expenses of her harbour, the Subsidy Rolls do not enable us to compare the wealth of the two towns. It was stated in one of their petitions about this time that a “whole Fifteenth” would amount to £100. Beccles was also at this time a much larger town than Lowestoft. In the Subsidy Roll for the previous year (1523) the town paid £73 13s. 4d., an increased payment, it is stated, of £33 4s. on a previous assessment. Beccles was evidently a rising town at this time, as well as Lowestoft. It was about this time, that the detached tower of Beccles church was begun: its building took 40 years. On the other hand Winterton, joined with Lowestoft in the ordinance of Edward III., was already left far behind. Her contribution to the subsidy for 1524 was only £3 4s.

A Market Held at Lowestoft.

It was in the early part of the 15th Century that Lowestoft first possessed a market. William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, had succeeded John of Brittany in the ownership of the old Royal demesnes in Lothingland. He obtained a grant from Henry IV. to hold a market and two annual fairs in the town. The market was doubtless held in the “Old Market” Place, which still retains its title.

The Parish Church.

It was undoubtedly at some time during this period, that is to say, during the 15th or the first half of the 16th century, that our present parish church was built, but we have neither record or relic to fix the precise date of any part of its structure. To a certain extent the church tells its own tale. The style of architecture of the nave and aisles prove them to have been built during the Perpendicular period; during which period nearly all the most beautiful churches in Norfolk and Suffolk were built. The unfortunate arrangement by which this grand specimen of a Perpendicular church was tacked on to the small tower of an older church, shows very clearly that the reconstruction of the body of the church was undertaken to meet the requirements of an increased population. From what we now know of the state of the town in the 14th century, we can hardly suppose that the re-building and enlargement of the older church took place so early; even supposing that its Perpendicular style would admit of its having been built in the latter part of that century. From the tradition of the existence of an old inscription in the church to “Robert Inglosse, Esq., which died in anno 1365” (an evident misreading), Gillingwater and the Guide Books inform us that the church must have been built before that date—“probably soon after 1230”—a hundred years and more before the Perpendicular style was introduced. The existence however of tombstones, with inscriptions of the 14th century, in the new church, could easily be explained by their having been kept or re-placed in the new building. In order to explain the marvel that such a spacious and beautiful church should have been erected at such an early period, it has been customary to call in aid a purely imaginary factor, and to attribute its building to the munificence of St. Bartholomew’s Priory, to whom Henry I. had given the great tithes of the parish. In the 13th century these tithes were valued at seven marks, or about £14 of our present money. In the 14th, or even in the 16th century, the value of these tithes could hardly have increased to such an amount as would suggest to the most liberal-minded monks that it was their duty to build a church for the parish in return for the income they received from it. Dr. Jessop, in a recent article in the “Nineteenth Century,” has ridiculed the notion of monks building parish churches; and certainly the connection between monasteries and parish church property does not favour the view that they often felt it their duty to apply these funds to the building of any other churches than those attached to their own abbeys and priories. Dr. Jessop’s view is that our parish churches were built by the parishioners themselves. I assume that he would include in the “parishioners” the owners of property in a parish, whether resident or not. Where the founder’s name has not been handed down to posterity this probably was the case, and from what we know of the condition of our old town in the time of Henry VIII., we can have no reason to doubt their ability to incur the expense at that period (great as the expense must have been, even when labourers’ wages where at 4d. or 5d. a day), particularly when we bear in mind the powerful influence of the doctrine of good works in securing legacies for such an object. Nor was the new church built all at once. The aisles do not appear to have been built at the same time, and the chancel appears to have been an after addition, as well as the south porch.

Old Chapels.

There appear to have been two chapels in the town at this time, which the people could attend while the parish church was closed—a very little one, the chapel of the “Good Cross” at the south end of the town, and a larger one in the centre of the town, which was replaced after the Reformation by a Protestant chapel. This chapel, after having been restored and enlarged in the 17th century, was in use until St. Peter’s Chapel was built, when it was given over to secular uses, and has been since appropriated by our Corporation as their Council Chamber.

Other Structural Relics.

We have a few other structural relics still surviving in very much their original condition, which belong to this period—probably to the early part of the 15th century. These are the old vaulted cellars, which are to be seen under houses near the Town Hall. There is nothing in these structures to fix precisely the time when they were built; but they have all the character of the 14th and 15th centuries. The bricks of which the groins are made are small and roughly moulded, and would appear to belong to an early date after the revival of brick-making—a trade which seems to have been beyond the capabilities of our ancestors from the time the Romans left the country to the beginning of the 14th century. The bricks in these cellars are similar to those which are to be seen in the Yarmouth walls, which we know were placed there in 1336, and which we are informed by old records cost 20s. a last—the cost of two bricks being equal to that of one red herring at the time. There are vaulted cellars under old houses in Norwich very similar to those at Lowestoft. A large cellar of this kind is to be seen in good preservation under the house known as “The Old Bridewell,” it having been used until comparatively recent times as an underground prison. This house was built by William Applegard, the first Mayor of Norwich, in 1404. The Lowestoft cellars were evidently the basements of separate houses; although near each other they are entirely disconnected. They are much smaller, and the groins less strongly constructed than those in the Mayor’s house at Norwich. The houses above them would also have been much smaller. The doorways into these cellars are arched, and not very long ago an ancient house was in existence above one of these cellars. This house had an arched doorway, which with the vaulted cellars underneath—so like the crypts of old churches, induced the belief that these houses had a monastic or ecclesiastic origin. The doorways in the Mayors house at Norwich were of the same form. Such features were common in houses of this period, and in no way imply any monastic origin. We cannot infer from the three specimens of these cellars that survive, that there were many houses of this character in our old town, nor from what we know of the wealth of our merchants at this time, can we suppose that there were many who could indulge in expensively-constructed cellars, however convenient they might be for storing their “movabyll goods.”

We know well that Lowestoft in these old days was not what we see now, but it is as difficult to substitute any clear idea of what she was, as for a grown up man to picture himself when running about in a short frock. In order to form a tolerably correct idea of what our old town was at the beginning of the 15th century, we must dismiss altogether from our mind’s eye the large populous town with which we are acquainted, and picture to ourselves a village of small cottages with thatched roofs being gradually improved by the erection of houses of a better class. At the early part of Henry VIII.’s reign Lowestoft appears to have been a small town on the cliff, containing some 20 or 30 merchants—in a very small way of business—the richer men among them owning one or two ships; most of them having fish-houses at the bottom of the cliffs, and doing a good deal of business during the autumn season in buying fish from the foreign and west-country fishermen in the Roads, and selling it to fish merchants coming from inland towns. They would also be doing a little business with their visitors in light merchandise, which could be brought in the fishing boats, or taken away after the season was over. Profit would also be made during the season in victualling the visitors’ ships. A few handicraft tradesmen and shopkeepers and a number of working men and sailors would complete the adult population. In fact the town would be very much what it was some 60 years afterwards in Elizabeth’s time, which will be the subject of our next lecture.