Part I.—The Parish Register.

Part II.—Lowestoft and Yarmouth at the end of the XVI Century.

Part I.—The Parish Register.

Much light has been thrown on the character of Lowestoft some 300 years ago by the copies of the parish register, published in the “Parish Magazine,” which, I doubt not, many of you have been in the habit of studying. The existing parish register dates back to 1561. The first volume of the book, so to speak, which would tell us who were living or dying in Lowestoft in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Mary, was unfortunately burnt in the fire which destroyed the old vicarage house in 1606. The register was kept from 1561 to 1583 by Mr. Benjamin Allen, the parish clerk. From this year to the end of our period it was kept by Mr. Stephen Philip, the first master of Mr. Annott’s school, of whom we shall speak again soon. Mr. Allen was probably one of the few persons in Lowestoft at the time who could write—at least, well enough to undertake such an important and responsible task. I cannot say much for his spelling, but variety rather than uniformity in spelling was as yet a fashion of the day. He belonged apparently to one of the upper, or as they would have said, one of the “bettermost” families in the town, which produced one of our naval heroes of the following century.

But Queen Elizabeth’s reign was long long ago. We know from books the principal events of her reign, as we do of some period in Roman or Grecian History. But we know little of the people, although we are of the same flesh and blood, and indebted to them for much that we now enjoy. Elizabeth’s reign covered the first 42 years of our Parish Registers; and the materials for this lecture will belong almost entirely to this period.As a stepping stone however and introduction to our subject, I propose to read to you a few lines from an account of a tour in these parts taken by a young lady about 200 years ago; a hundred years later than Elizabeth’s time. This lady was Miss Celia Fiennes, a daughter of Lord Saye and Sele. She appears to have been quite a “new woman” of the 17th century, and, I think I may safely say, the first lady who ever travelled through England as a tourist. She rode on horseback. She did not ride a bicycle for two reasons—first, because they were not made then; and secondly, because if they had been, there was no road on which they could have run a yard. This absence of roads is an important point to bear in mind, for it had much to do with the difference in the habits and character of these old people and of ourselves. Miss Fiennes rode along the roads and lanes, such as they were, accompanied by two male servants, and stayed at inns and country houses. In her tour through Suffolk and Norfolk she came from Ipswich, through Saxmundham, to Beccles, and this is a little of what she tells us about her journey:—

“Thence to Saxmunday, eight miles more. This is a pretty big market town. The wayes are pretty deep, mostly lanes, very little commons. I passed by several gentlemen’s seats. So to Bathford (she meant Blythburgh), eight miles, where is the remains of the walls of an abbey, and there is still a very fine church, &c. Thence I paused by some woods and little villages of a few scattered houses, and generally the people here are able to give so bad a direction that passengers are at a loss what way to take. They know scarce three miles from their home, and meete them where you will, and enquire how far to such a place, they tell you so farre, which is the distance from their own homes to that place. To Beckle is eight miles more, which, in all, was 36 miles from Ipswich, but exceeding long miles. They do own they are 41 measured miles. This is a little market town, but it is the third biggest town in Suffolk—Ipswich, Berrye, and this. There are no good buildings in the town, being old timber and plaster work, except Sir R. Rich’s, and one or two more. There is a bigg market Kross and a market kept. At the town’s end one posses over the river Waveney, on a wooden bridge railed with timber, and so you enter into Norfolk. Its a low, flat ground all here about, so that at the least rains they are overflowed by the river, and lie under water, as they did when I was there; so that the road lay under water, which is very unsafe for strangers to pass, by reason of the holes and quick-sands and loose bottom.”

If the houses in Beccles, and the roads across the marshes were as she describes them in the reign of William and Mary, we may be quite sure that they were no better in the time of her great grandmother. We will imagine a traveller of this still more ancient time arriving at Beccles on his way to Norwich, and who finding the road across the marshes to Gillingham quite impassable from the floods, determined to make a detour and pay a visit to Lowestoft.

In travelling from Beccles to Lowestoft, our ancient visitor would have no dangerous marsh roads to travel on. He would ride along on the high ground which skirted the fenlands on the north, on a road or trackway which had been used for hundreds of years before, probably by Britons, Romans, and Saxons, and which was the connecting link between Lothingland and Suffolk; the road that still leads over the narrow ridge or neck between Lake Lothing and Oulton Broad through Oulton to Burgh Castle and Gorleston.

When our ancient visitor arrived at this spot, he would find a narrow raised “causey,” as he would call it, (or as we still more erroneously call it “causeway”) and a bridge, [57] the first bridge built over the little gap which used to be known as the “mud ford,” and from which the bridge took its name. Taking a survey from this point, he would see on his left Oulton Fen, as it was then called, a watery wilderness of reeds and bogs, much valued by the sportsman and poachers of the period for fish and wildfowl, and undisturbed by wherries or any craft beyond the fisherman’s punt. On the right would be Lake Lothing—the “fresh water,” as the Lowestoft people then called it, a long, river-like piece of water, with deep margins of reeds and rushes, and as full of fish as Oulton Fen, with which it was connected. Turning off the main road, into the road leading to Lowestoft, he would soon come to Normanston—very much then, I expect, what it is now. The gentleman living in it then was apparently Mr. Mason, Churchwarden in 1575. Several persons appear in the register as servants of Mr. Mason buried during our period. Further on he would see the farm by the church, much the same as now, except in the character of the buildings, and then the church—very much, indeed, the same, except that it was then in very bad repair. It probably had not been restored since it was built some 100 years or more before. In 1592, in the latter part of our period, the inhabitants undertook the task of repairing it, at the expense of some £200. The churchyard would be much the same—quite full of graves—but with few headstones. Close to the churchyard our ancient visitor would see the old vicarage, which was burned down in 1606. It was occupied during the first part of our period by Mr. Nayshe, the minister of the parish, and afterwards by Mr. Bentley, the Vicar of whom I shall tell you more soon. Close to the Vicarage our visitor would see Annott’s School house, in which Mr. Philip—“Mr. Annott, his schoolmaster,” as he was always to be called according to the deed of endowment, was then living, of whom also more soon. This house has also long since disappeared. He would then reach the town, passing from Church Road into what was then Swan Lane (now Mariners’ Street). Arriving at the High Street he would dismount at the Swan Inn, on the opposite side, next Swan Score (now Mariners’ Score), and now represented by two houses, Mr. Abel’s and Mr. Shipley’s.

The Swan Inn was a very interesting old house. It had been built on the foundations of a much older house, which had one of those cellars with groined roofs already noticed, which still remains. When this old house was converted into an inn, an opening was made from the cellar into the street for beer barrels to be let down, with brick steps, still remaining.

The Trades of the Town.

Having given his horse into the care of the ostler, our visitor would enter the Swan and order dinner, unless he had dined at Beccles before starting. People dined at 10 and 11 o’clock in the morning in those days. After dining he would probably question his host about the town, its size, character and principal residents—its trade, population, &c. He would have liked much to be furnished with a guide to Lowestoft, but there was no Mr. Arthur Stebbings or Mr. Huke in those days to supply him with anything of the sort. We, however, with the register before us, are able to gather a great deal of the information which our ancient visitor wanted. If we cannot make out a complete Directory, we can make out a fairly complete list of the trades and occupations of the inhabitants during our period, and of the names of many of the persons belonging to each.

We find some 45 different trades or occupations mentioned as being carried on in the town. The number of different persons and families mentioned as belonging to them would, generally speaking, vary in proportion to the number actually engaged in each trade during the period. I would observe, however, that it was not the duty of Mr. Allen and his successors to add the trade or occupation of persons whose names he entered, but they seem to have made a common practice of doing so, though in an imperfect and unsystematic manner. In by far the larger proportion of entries no description appears, and although many of these entries refer to the families of persons previously described, a great many names appear throughout our period without any occupation being assigned to them.

I will first give you the number of different persons mentioned as belonging to these different trades and occupations. You will not be surprised to learn that the most numerous class were the “mariners,” as they were called in the earlier years; and afterwards “sailor,” and then “seamen.” Only one person appears as a “fisher.” This class numbered 77. The next largest class you will be surprised to hear were the tailors, of whom there were thirty-nine. Then came labourers 39, butchers 20, smiths 13, carpenters, joiners, and sawyers 12, masons 12, weavers 12, shoe makers, cordwainers, and cobblers 11, shipwrights 10, coopers 10, millers 11, brewers 6, bakers 4, tanners 4, knackers 2, ropemakers 4, drapers 2, chimney sweeper 1, glovers 3, tinkers 2, carters 2, husbandmen 2, gunners 1, neatherds 2, shearers 2, hokemaker 1, currier 1, glazier 1, dyer 1, hostler 1, fisher 1, fletcher 1, innkeeper 1, hatter 1, ploughwright 1, wheelwright 1 and 2 towers. There was a pewterer and a goldsmith, and we have 12 persons entered as “gentleman” or “gent,” and nine persons are described as “merchant.” Four persons are named as “minister” only two of whom were ministers of the parish. One person only is described as schoolmaster—Mr. Stephen Phillip, of Annott’s School, and one person as a “good school dame.” One person is described as a “surgeon,” and one as a “proctor.” Lastly there are 30 names of “servants” who apparently died in their masters’ houses in the town. Many of these were females, apparently domestic servants. The male servants were probably employed in services connected with their masters’ occupation.

Now, if we look a little closely into these lists, and combine the information they furnish with what we can glean from other sources, we can bring the old town very much to life again, and in some matters should be able to tell them a good deal more about themselves than they knew.

The Vicars.

To commence with the Church; we find that the “minister” of the parish, during the first 16 years of our period, was Mr. Nayshe. He was not the Vicar. The Vicar was Mr. Thomas Downing, who was also the Rector of Besthorpe, near Attleborough, in Norfolk. He was allowed to hold the Vicarage of Lowestoft (as stated in the register) to make up for the small income of Besthorpe—a most scandalous arrangement surely—a populous town deprived of its proper clergyman for the sake of improving the income of the rector of a small country parish far away in another county. The arrangement, however, was made in the Roman Catholic days of Queen Mary; three years before Queen Elisabeth had re-established the Protestant religion in the country. The Bishop of Norwich, who allowed it (he did not nuke the appointment himself), was the notorious John Hopton, described as a most sanguinary persecutor of the Protestants. Witness the burning of three men at Beccles as recorded on the tablet on the Meeting House in the road leading from the Station to the Market Place; and of many others in the Norwich Diocese. It was probably a happy thing for Lowestoft that Bishop Hopton did not make this appointment. It was said that when Elizabeth came to the throne Bishop Hopton died from terror of her taking vengeance on him for his cruelty to her co-religionists. What Mr. Nayshe’s views were, we know not, but he appears to have been a good Protestant during the 13 years of his ministry under Elizabeth. He must have been the first minister of the parish for many hundred years who was a married man. He lost his first wife soon after coming here, and then married, apparently, a Lowestoft lady. He was succeeded in 1574, by Mr. William Bentley, who was duly appointed vicar by the new Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Parkhurst. He also married twice; his second wife being the widow of Mr. John Arnold. He held the living to the last day of our period, when he apparently fell a victim to the terrible epidemic of that year. The entry of his burial appears in the register in large letters—“Mr. Willyam Bentlye, Pastor,” one of the 55 of our old townspeople who were buried in the month of August in this year.

There are two other persons described as “ministers.” They could hardly be Protestant Nonconformists in these early days. The first dissenting chapel in Lowestoft was not built till quite a hundred years after (1695). These “ministers” out of office were not improbably clergymen who were too much attached to the old religion to accept appointments under the new regime.I think we may pay Mr. Philip, Mr. Allen’s successor as Registrar, the compliment of mentioning him next. He was not only Parish Clerk and Registrar, but he was also “Mr. Annott his schoolmaster” for 18 years during our period. He was appointed by Mr. Annott himself, and held the office under the deed of endowment after his death. His salary was £16 a year—not a high one for a man required to teach Latin and grammar to 40 boys, and to receive no other payment beyond twenty pence for each new boy. From the entry in the register of the burial of an old lady described as a “good school dame,” we may infer that there was at least one dame’s school in the town besides Mr. Philip’s high-class academy.

The number of persons entered in the register as merchants and gentlemen, and the number keeping servants, both male and female, is evidence of there being a good proportionate number of “bettermost folk” residing in our town. Although probably of a less importance to the town than the merchants and tradesmen, the fact of its being frequented by a considerable number of persons of independent means and of a social position to justify their being entered with the title of “Mr.” or with the description of “gentleman,” is very noticeable, and would seem to imply that even in these ancient days Lowestoft had acquired some reputation as a health resort, or as a pleasant retreat for gentlemen of no occupation. We find 14 or more names of persons of this class entered in the register—Fenn, Ruston, Karwell, Bramton, Bright, Paine, Kene, Rowse, Fooks (“gentleman soldier”) Brigge Beaching (“a gentleman from Sussex”) Mason Scrasse (“a gentleman soldier from Sussex”) Bentlye, Walker. I am inclined to think that some of these were lodgers. The persons mentioned as merchants bore the names of Mighells, Green, Grudgefield, French, Annot, Wilde, Cooke, Burgess, and Coldam. We know, however, that several other persons whose names appear without any description were engaged in business as merchants, and occupied high positions in the town at this period.

The Fish Trade.

From other information it appears that several of these merchants, if not all, were engaged in the fish trade and were owners of fish houses, at the bottom of the cliff, still represented by buildings occupying the same sites.

At a meeting of the inhabitants in the year 1596, called to consider a proposal to take some of the rents of the Town Lands to defray the expense incurred in litigation with Yarmouth about the herring fishery, it was stated that out of 200 persons who reaped advantages from this fishery, many were unable to contribute towards the above expense, and that if the fishery was not supported, the town would inevitably be ruined. It appeared that before this meeting, the inhabitants (probably the merchants referred to above), had already subscribed £120. This statement is at once evidence of the importance of the herring trade to Lowestoft at this period, and at the same time limits the number of merchants, fishermen, and other persons employed in it, to 200. Assuming this number mainly represented heads of families, we should have some 900 persons or about half the population of the town dependent on the herring fishery. Some of these merchants doubtless owned ships, but it appears from other information that the number of fishing boats then belonging to Lowestoft must have been very few, probably 20 at the outside. We find it stated, some 100 years after, in a petition to Charles II., that the number of Lowestoft ships engaged in all the several voyages in the year was 25. Previous to Elizabeth’s reign, Lowestoft used to send several ships to Iceland in the spring to catch ling and codfish. You have already heard that as many as 14 ships were employed in the time of Henry VIII. in this fishery. The dissolution of monasteries and the neglect of the rules as to fasting, introduced by Protestantism, appears to have affected the trade in salted codfish very seriously, and we find it stated that in 1566 the number of Lowestoft Boats going to Iceland was reduced from 14 to 1.

Piracy at Lowestoft.

The decay in the fishing trade, as regards the employment of English ships and sailors, was not confined to Lowestoft. It was felt in every English port in the West as well as on the East Coast. Protestantism in the main meant progress and commercial activity, but it did not mean this with our fishermen. If eating fish on Fridays and Saturdays was still inculcated as a duty by Elizabeth’s Government and Elizabeth’s Church, the mass of the people were too strongly Protestant to pay much respect to a rule which was an essential feature in the old religion, if their antipathy to Papism did not even cause an antipathy to fish eating at any time, particularly salt cod. At all events, there was such a diminution in the demand for salt fish as to throw a large number of sailors previously engaged in fishing voyages out of employment, and to leave this occupation almost entirely in the hands of the French and Dutch. The English sailors, at least a great many, found employment of a more exciting and remunerative character, as privateers—in other words, buccaneers, pirates, or sea robbers. Our Protestant sailors in Elizabeth’s time considered themselves as doing God’s work in robbing and scuttling any merchant ship belonging either to France or Spain which they could come across on the high seas; nor were they always very particular as to either the nature or the religion of their victims.

You will not think that this reference to the piratical practises of our seamen in the early part of Elizabeth’s reign is foreign to our subject—when I tell you that Mr. Froude has given a story of piracy at Lowestoft in 1561, as an illustration of its prevalence. He thus tells the story:

“A Flemish trader has sailed from Antwerp to Cadiz. Something happens to her on the way, and she never reaches her destination. At midnight carts and horses run down to the sea over the sand at Lowestoft. The black hull and spars of a vessel are seen outside the breakers, dimly riding in the gloom, and a boat shoots through the surf, loaded to the gunwale. The bales and tubs are swiftly shot into the carts. The horses drag back their loads, which before daybreak are safe in the cellars of some quiet manor-house. The boat sweeps off, the sails drop from the mysterious vessel’s yards, and she glides away in the darkness to look for a fresh victim”—MSS. Elizth. Vol. XVI.

He gives his authority for this story, and there must have been some foundation for it. I am afraid that some of the mariners whose names appear in our register must have been on board this black ship; but I refrain from offering any conjecture as to which of the quiet manor-houses in our neighbourhood was the depository of the spoil.

Piracy by British seamen was at this time sufficiently common to call for the interference of Parliament. It exercised much the mind of our then Prime Minister Sir William Cecil—who held the same great office under Queen Elizabeth that his descendant, our present Prime Minister, holds under Queen Victoria. From his private memoranda on this matter we may notice the following as directly bearing on our subject. He writes—

“Instead of the Iceland fleet of Englishmen, which used to supply Normandy and Brittany, as well as England, 500 French vessels, with 30 to 40 men in each of them, go annually to Newfoundland, and even the home fisheries have fallen equally into the hands of strangers. The Yarmouth waters (which certainly included the Lowestoft) were occupied by Flemish and Frenchmen. As remedies for this evil he mentions—(1) Merchandise, (2) Fishing, (3) The exercise of Piracy, which was detestable, and could not last.”

Sufficient evidence this of the extent to which our seamen had taken to piracy at this time. However detestable our Prime Minister thought it, he did not, or could not, stop it. It went on more or less throughout Elizabeth’s reign. Our sea-warriors who defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, were most of them the crews of these “pirate” ships, who for once at least, indulged their fighting propensities in the best service of their country.The only remedy at the time that Cecil could think of was an Act of Parliament to compel people to eat fish. In 1562, Mr. Froude tells us, he brought a bill into the House of Commons to make the eating of flesh on Fridays and Saturdays a misdemeanour, punishable by a fine of £3, or three months’ imprisonment, and, as if this was not enough, adding Wednesday as a subsidiary or half-fish day, on which one dish of flesh might be allowed, provided there were served at the same table and the same meal three full competent usual dishes of sea fish of sundry kinds, fresh and salt! The House of Commons, Cecil admitted, was very much against him. He carried his measure only by arguing that, if the Bill was passed, it would be almost inoperative:—labourers and poor householders could not observe it, and the rest by license or without license would do as they would; while to satisfy the Puritans he was obliged to add the ludicrous provision that—

“Because no person should misjudge the intent of the statute which was politicly meant only for the increase of fishermen and mariners, and not for any superstition in the choice of meats, whoever should preach or teach that eating of fish or forbearing of flesh was for the saving of the soul of man, or for the service of God, should be punished as the spreader of false news.”

The Act was passed, but it does not seem that it had more effect than was expected in either improving the fishing trade or in stopping piracy. [66]

That it was not, however, altogether a dead letter, and that “Cecil’s Fast,” as it was called, was observed by many of the less strongly protestant of the Queen’s subjects, appears from the following curious old poem which was evidently written soon after the passing of the act. It shews to what a large extent fish had entered into the dietary of a Suffolk farmer in Catholic times, and which the writer recommends to be continued in accordance with the Law.It was written by Thomas Tusser, the “Suffolk Blomfield” of the 16th. century. After being a chorister in St. Paul’s Cathedral, and employed in some office at Court, he retired into the country and took a farm at Cattiwade on the Stour. His occupation provided him with material for his muse, but did not improve his fortune.

A plot set down for farmer’s quiet,
As time requires, to frame his diet:
With sometimes fish, and sometimes fast,
That household store may longer last.

Let Lent, well kept, offend not thee,
For March and April breeders be.
Spend herring first, save salt fish last,
For salt fish is good, when Lent is past.

When Easter comes, who knows not than, [67a]
That veal and bacon, is the man, [67b]
And Martinmas beef doth bear good tack,
When country folks do dainties lack.

When macrell ceaseth from the seas,
John Baptist brings grass-beef and pease,
Frosh herring plenty, Michell [67c] brings,
With fatted crones, and such old things.

All Saints do lay for Pork and souse, [67d]
For sprats and spurlings for their house.
At Christmas play and make good cheer,
For Christmas comes but once a year.

Though some then do as do they would,
Let thrifty do, as do they should.
For causes good so many ways,
Keep emberings [67e] well, and fasting days

What law commands we ought t’obey,
For Friday, Saturn, and Wednesday.
The land doth will, the sea doth wish,
Spare sometimes flesh and feed of fish.
Where fish is scant, and fruit of trees,
Supply that want by butter and cheese.

The Register Continued.

To return to our register, the 200 persons said to be dependent on the herring fishery, in 1595, must have included a great many of the persons entered in our list as mariners. They would embrace all classes from the skipper to the cook—sea captains like the Allens and Ashbys, and Utbers of the next century, and fighting Jack Tars, who had helped to man the ships under Howard and Drake, when they drove the Spaniards past Lowestoft in their flight to the north. Many of them would be long-shoremen, gaining a livelihood by fishing near shore, as now, and occasionally finding very profitable employment in connection with the wrecks, which were far more frequent then than now.

Other Trades Connected with the Fisheries.

Besides the merchants and mariners directly engaged in the fisheries, there were several other trades supported more or less by the shipping business. There are as many as ten different names of shipwrights in the register; showing that ship and boat building was carried on at this time in the shipyards under the cliff, notwithstanding the proximity of Yarmouth. The six brewers probably depended largely for the sale of their beer upon the fishing boats and other ships visiting our roads. It appears that there was an enormous quantity of beer taken on board of our fishing boats in these times; so much that we cannot help suspecting that it was used as an inducement to attract men on board. Beer was of course very cheap, not more than a farthing and halfpenny a quart. From an estimate given by some shipowners in 1670 of the quantity of beer required for a fishing boat, it appears that each man was supposed to drink a gallon of beer a day (putting the number of the men at 10). The coopers also were evidently very closely connected with the fishing business. On a later occasion, some hundred years after our period, when Lowestoft had had another bout with Yarmouth about the herring fishery, and the town had a heavy lawyers bill to pay, they decided to defray the expense by a tax on herrings, and a supplementary tax on the brewers and coopers of the town. The butchers, of whom the large number of 20 names appear in the register during our period, probably did a good deal of business in supplying meat to ships. Meat was also very cheap at this time, and was probably eaten far more generally, and in greater quantities, than now. The number of bakers mentioned, 4, is very small, but the 11 millers, though not implying that there were 11 windmills (although probably there were nearly as many—they would be much smaller than our present windmills) implied a large consumption of flour. Lowestoft people doubtless baked at home. The hokemaker, doubtless had a good trade in supplying hooks for sea fishing, as well as for catching fish in the “fresh water.” The tower was a man skilled in “hanging” herrings in the curing-house.

Other Trades.

Besides these trades connected with our fishing and shipping business, there are several others, which show that Lowestoft was much resorted to as a shopping town by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. In these trades we must observe the enormous number of tailors—no less than 39. Lowestoft tailors probably met the requirements of the inhabitants of all the Lothingland parishes, and other parishes near. Doubtless they had got a reputation for a better cut than the tailors of either Yarmouth or Beccles; or was a trade in ready-made clothes carried on here? These men, were of course, all journeymen tailors. The materials were probably supplied by some of the merchants mentioned, from Norwich or elsewhere. The persons mentioned as shoemakers, cordwainers, and cobblers (11) are comparatively few. These names represented the same trade with different pretensions. The presence of a tanner and currier implies that their was a sufficient demand for leather to maintain these two wholesale trades. The tanners may have also found employment in tanning fishing nets—as at the present day. No less than 12 weavers are mentioned; they were probably introduced from Norwich, which was at this time the principal seat of the woollen and linen manufacture in the kingdom. The clothes of some at least of our townspeople were not only made up by Lowestoft tailors, but of Lowestoft cloth and Lowestoft homespun. Other trades are mentioned connected with the supply of wearing apparel, viz.: drapers, glovers, hatters, and dyers.The building and mechanical trades are represented by the carpenters, joiners, and sawyers, the masons (bricklayers were not distinguished from masons as yet), the smiths, the plough-wrights, and the wheelwrights. These tradesmen probably all found employment among the farmers and squires in the neighbourhood as well as in the town—as also the “knackers” (or harness makers)—the tinkers—and the thatchers (“thacsters” as it was spelt). The houses both in town and country and nearly all our churches were thatched at this time, and reeds were abundant on the side of Lake Lothing.

The presence in our town at this time of two such trades as the goldsmith and the pewterer is very noticeable. The goldsmith was at this time the prince of tradesmen, soon to develop into the banker of after times. His presence certainly implied the existence of several persons in the town or immediate neighbourhood of sufficient means to be the purchasers of gold and silver ornaments, while the presence of the pewterer implied that our town was up to date in the matter of table furniture, and that pewter plates and goblets had been substituted in many of our houses for the wooden trenchers and horn drinking cups of older times. [70]

The fletcher—or maker of bows and arrows—represented a trade soon to become obsolete, except for supplying bows and arrows for the sport of archery, which was very much in fashion at this time and took the place of cricket and football matches of our day. Pistols and arquebuses were already in use as firearms for military purposes, and fowling-pieces were beginning to be used by sportsmen, who could afford to buy them. We have evidence of their having already reached Lowestoft in the entry of a burial of a person who “met his death with a gun.” Bows and arrows, were, however, not altogether discarded for military purposes. In 1569. Elizabeth sent an order to Yarmouth to provide 50 bows and 50 sheaves of arrows, amongst other preparations to be made against the coming war with Spain, or France, or both together, with which England was threatened all through Elizabeth’s reign; and in the reports to the Government of the piratical proceedings of our sea hawks (which we have spoken of before) we hear of a case where they attacked their quarry, not only “by shooting of cannon at them, but by firing at them flights of innumerable arrows.” Bows and arrows were probably still to be found in the houses of farmers and peasants in Lothingland, to be used for sporting as well as fighting purposes. The Queen herself was very fond of hunting, and often shot small deer with the long bow, as well as with the arblast or crossbow.

The person described as a Proctor must have been a local lawyer, affiliated to Doctors’ Commons, and endowed with some special authority in the matter of wills. Only one person’s name appears in our period described as a surgeon. He died in 1585, one of those terrible years when Lowestoft was visited by the plague or some infectious disease, to which he apparently fell a victim. We only notice the name of one chymney-sweeper. There may have been more. But as we shall see further on, chimneys were only now coming into fashion and were as yet only to be found in the newer or best houses.

This sketch, imperfect as it is, of the trades and occupations of the inhabitants of our town, will, I think, leave no doubt in your minds that Lowestoft was at this time a very respectable little town—well represented by residents of every grade in the social scale—and frequented by the inhabitants of Lothingland, and the adjoining parishes in the south, for shopping and business purposes. Indeed, that the neighbourhood was more dependent on Lowestoft for shopping purposes than now, we can understand, when we bear in mind the absence or extreme badness of the roads, which rendered communication with any town beyond Beccles difficult and expensive. Yarmouth was not far off; but Yarmouth although richer and more populous, could not afford counter attractions to Lowestoft as a shopping town, at all events for the residents on the Suffolk side of the water.

Lowestoft as a Market Town.

Lowestoft had been a market town for more than a hundred years, but it does not appear that the market was ever much of a success. There was no large population like that of Yarmouth requiring a large supply of provisions and vegetables in addition to the produce of the townspeople’s own gardens and the neighbouring farms. Nor could a place with only half the environment of an ordinary inland town be a convenient centre for the sale of general agricultural produce, particularly with another large market at Beccles.

Population.

While furnishing information as to the character of the town, the register supplies us with trustworthy evidence of its size and population in Elizabeth’s time. A comparison of the numbers of marriages, christenings, and burials for the two periods of 21 years comprising our period, shows no evidence of increase during Elizabeth’s reign, while a comparison of the entries in this period with the corresponding entries for the 21 years, 1754–1774, shows that there was no material increase in the population after a lapse of some 200 years.

We know from actual survey that in 1775 the population was 2,235, and the number houses 445. This population, compared with the number of burials shown above, gives a death-rate of 21 per 1,000. The mortality in Elizabeth’s time was probably much higher. Putting it at 26 per 1,000, the average number of burials stated above would represent a population of about 1,800. I think we may regard this number as a safe estimate of the population of our town during Elizabeth’s time, and that the number of houses would be about 360. In 1801 the population was 2,332, and I am inclined to think that there was very little difference in the size and character of our town in the 16th century compared with what it was at the beginning of the present century.

Dutch Refugees.

We cannot pass from this part of our subject without noticing an interesting episode in the history of the town which belongs to this period. About the year 1571 the resident population of Lowestoft was temporarily enlarged by the hospitable reception of a number of “Dutch Folk,” as they are called in the register. These were refugees from the Low Countries, who sought shelter in this country, at the invitation of Elizabeth, from the ruthless persecution of the Duke of Alva. Thousands of these Protestant refugees were admitted into English towns—some 4,000 into Norwich. Swinden gives us a copy of a letter of Elizabeth written in 1568 to Yarmouth, asking them to admit 30 Dutch families to the privileges of their town. Whether a similar letter was written to Lowestoft we know not, but it is evident from the register that quite as large a number as this must have found asylum here, and made it their home for some three or four years. Marriages, christenings, and burials of “Dutch Folk” appear frequently in the register during these years, and the fact that among the burials for one year (1573) no less than 10 Dutch names appear, shews that there were a considerable number then living here. Among the names are some that seem to belong to families of rank. They left about the year 1574, when Alva had been recalled; and when the terror of his executions had been replaced by a patriotic eagerness to take part in the war which was soon to result in the Freedom of the Netherlands.The following account of the home comforts enjoyed by the less wealthy of our ancestors in the early part of the 16th century, as compared with the incipient luxury of the Elizabethan age, is given us by the author of the “Chronicles of Holinshed,” who lived during this period.

“Neither do I speak this in reproach of any man, God is my judge; but to show that I do rejoice rather to see how God has blessed us with His good gifts, and to behold how that in a time wherein all things are grown to most excessive prices we do yet find the means to obtain and achieve such furniture as has been heretofore impossible. There are old men yet dwelling in the village where I remain which have noted three things to be marvellously altered in England within their sound remembrance. One is the multitude of chimnies lately erected; whereas in their young days there were not above two or three, if so many, in most uplandish towns of the realm (the religious houses and manor places of their lords always excepted and peradventure of some great personage), but each made his fire against a reredos in the hall where he dined and dressed his meat. The second is, the great amendment of lodging, for, said they, our fathers and we ourselves have lain full oft upon straw pallets covered only with a sheet, under coverlets made of dogswaine or hop harlots (I use their own terms) and a good round log under their heads instead of a bolster. If it were so, that the father or good man of the house, had a mattress or flock bed, and thereto a sack of chaff to rest his head upon, he thought himself to be as well lodged as the lord of the town, so well were they contented. Pillows said they, were thought meet only for women in child bed. As for servants, if they had any sheet above them it was well, for seldom had they any under their bodies to keep them from the pricking straws that ran oft through the canvass, and rased their hardened hides. The third thing they tell of, is the exchange of treene platters (so called I suppose from tree or wood) into pewter, and wooden spoons into silver or tin. For so common were all sorts of treene vessels in old times, that a man should hardly find four pieces of pewter (of which one peradventure a salt) in a good farmer’s house.”

Chapter XVI. “In times past men were contented to dwell in houses built of sallow, willow &c., so that the use of the oak was in a manner dedicated wholly unto churches, religious houses, princes’ palaces, navigation, &c., but now sallow &c., is rejected, and nothing but oak any where regarded and yet see the change, for when our houses were builded of willow then had we oaken men, but now that our houses are come to be made of oak, our men are not only become willow, but a great many altogether of straw, which is a great alteration. Now have we many chimnies and yet our tenderlings complain of rheums, catarrhs and poses; then had we none but reredosses and our heads did never ache. For as the smoke in those days was supposed to be a sufficient hardning of the timber of the house, so it was reputed a far better medicine to keep the good man and his family from the quack or pose, wherewith then very few were acquainted.”Chapter XVIII. “Our pewterers in time past employed the use of pewter only upon dishes and pots, and a few other trifles for service, whereas now there are grown into such exquisite cunning that they can in manner imitate by infusion any form or fashion of cup made by the goldsmiths’ craft. In some places beyond the sea a garnish of good flat pewter (I say flat, because dishes and platters in my time began to be made deep and like basins, and indeed were convenient both for sauce and keeping the meat warm) is almost esteemed so precious as the like number of vessels that are made of fine silver.”

The remains of ancient houses or other buildings which have survived the process of rebuilding in our town are very few, but there is one house at least, representing the houses of Elizabeth’s time which retains very much of its original character. This is the house known as the “South Flint House,” at the top of Wilde’s score which bears the initials W. M. and the date 1586 over the front door. The front of this house is built of square flints, much more expensive work than the alternate layers of cobbles and bricks with which the other walls were made. The ground floor appears to have originally consisted of one large room, with a fireplace and chimney in the centre, corresponding with that described by Holinshed as the hall where the “good-man” dined and dressed his meat (except that the fire was not against a “reredos” at the side wall). The two rooms above this are evidently much the same as they were at first, having each a stone fireplace with W. M. The house has been enlarged since with the addition of a wing.

Part II.—Lowestoft and Yarmouth at the End of the 16th Century.

Two hundred years had passed since the termination of the Parliamentary contest about the grant of Edward the III’s. Charter. Lowestoft had not only established her right to exist, but was becoming an old town, and the events of the old contest had become matters of ancient history.The Yarmouth bailiffs were still exercising their right to take tolls from ships loading or unloading in “Kirkley Road;” but the amount received from these tolls during a whole year, as entered in the Town Ledger, was very small, varying from a few pounds in one year to a few shillings in another. It seems that this demand had been confined to vessels trading in general merchandise, apart altogether from the claim to take tolls from fishing boats anchored off Lowestoft.

During these two hundred years Yarmouth had retained and even increased her trade, and had recovered her population, though her progress had been much retarded by the persistent action of the sea in blocking up her harbour.

The very existence of Yarmouth depended on her harbour. Her anomalous privilege of taking tolls from ships anchored in the North Sea could be no substitute for a harbour. This she knew well, and within two years of her obtaining her Charter, on the ground that her harbour was blocked up, she commenced opening another mouth.

Between 1393 and 1565 she had five times strained her resources to meet the expense of making new mouths, all of which had been blocked up; some almost immediately; one had been kept open for several years, but not without a constant expenditure of money and labour. At length in 1565 she undertook for the seventh time the work of making a new mouth. On this occasion, the assistance of a Dutch engineer was obtained, who knew how these things were done in Holland. Under his advice and superintendance a mouth was constructed, fortified by piles and stonework, and involving a much larger outlay than any of the previous works. The relief from taxes, and the reduction of her fee farm rent, which every King had granted from Richard II. to Elizabeth, was supplemented by special grants to assist the town in this undertaking. After some years of persevering effort, the work was completed and the existing Gorleston harbour was made. Ships could now freely enter her harbour and bring their cargos to the “Crane Key.” A revival of her trade followed, and the wealth of her merchants rapidly increased. It was now that those houses were built along the Quay, the remains of many of which still survive to shew the grandeur of their original structure. One of the finest of these old houses is the venerable Star Hotel in which the room, called Nelson’s room, retains its original character:—its richly carved oak pannelling, embossed ceiling, and large stone fireplace. But while her trade in general merchandise and in fish curing had increased, there had been no proportionate revival of her old fishing fleet. When Elizabeth was calling upon her subjects to supply ships to fight against the Spanish Armada, Yarmouth was joined with Lowestoft in a demand for one ship and one pinnace. The ship supplied was the “Grace” of Yarmouth, of 120 tons, and carrying 70 men. The “pinnace” was supplied by Lowestoft at the cost of £100. Such a contribution from Yarmouth was very different to that of the 43 ships and 1075 sailors, with which she supplied Edward the III. at the siege of Calais.

Meanwhile with the assistance of the Dutch and French fishermen the Free Fair at Yarmouth was going on as merrily as ever, and the Barons of the Cinque Ports still paid their annual visit to take part in its management. Even in the Armada year their visit was not withheld, as appears from the following amusing account of the termination of their journey, when coming to Yarmouth in the autumn of that year.

“The next day after we had dined at Layestoff, we took horse, and proceeded on the rest of our journey, and drawing towards Yarmouth Bridge, there attended our coming divers sorts of poor, lame and distressed people, who cried out for some relief, on whom we bestowed some pieces of money, and so riding over the Bridge about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we arrived sooner than our coming was expected. Notwithstanding there gathered and flocked together a great store of people, who very friendly bade us welcome; to whom we gave thanks and passed forward unto the town along the Quay, and there took our lodging, which had been provided for us at one Mr. Dameth’s house, where we were very courteously entertained.” [77]

At this time the Yarmouth bailiffs were possessed of an admiralty jurisdiction, with special powers for taking cognizance of offences committed in “Kirkley Road” or as it was now called “Lestoff Road” (as spelt in the town ledger of the period). At this time moreover (about 1595) the mouth of the harbour was in a better condition than it ever had been, and the Yarmouth fish merchants had no longer any need to transgress the Statute of Herrings themselves by unloading their fish outside the harbour. It was under these circumstances that the Bailiffs determined to attempt a revival of the almost obsolete provisions of their ancient charter which prohibited the buying of Herrings in Kirkley Road.

It appears that for some years previously fish merchants from other towns in the Eastern counties had been in the habit of visiting these roads in the autumn season and filling their “Ketches” with herrings from the foreign fishing boats. It was against these men that the Yarmouth bailiffs now directed their attacks.

We hear of their proceedings from “The Complaint of the Ketchmen against Yarmouth” submitted to the Privy Council in 1595, signed by the bailiffs and inhabitants of Ipswich, Southwold, Manningtree, Dunwich, Colchester, and Aldborough.

It appears that the Yarmouth Bailiffs had not only sent their officers into the roads off Lowestoft to require the foreign fishermen to carry their fish into Yarmouth, but that they had taken active measures against the buyers, and had carried off “seven men’s goods which they have brought thither to be sold and have committed the owners thereof to prison and constrained them to buy their goods again.”

Lowestoft merchants were also warned to discontinue the illegal practice of buying fish in Kirkley Road. They at once joined in the petition of the Ketchman to the Privy Council, and a suit against Yarmouth was commenced in the Court of the Star chamber. The managers of the Lowestoft case retained the services of Mr. Counsellor Bacon, then a rising barrister, afterwards the great Lord Bacon. In conjunction with two senior counsel he gave the following very decided opinion in favour of Lowestoft;—

“That by the statutes and charters aforesaid any man may sell or buy herrings in the road called Kirkley Road, without the lawful let or hindrance of the town of Yarmouth; and if any proclamation be made by the said men of Yarmouth, or any other of the subjects of this realm to the contrary, the same, in our opinion, is unlawful, whether it be within or without this time of the Fair.”

Chas. Drew; Ja. Bargrave; Fr. Bacon.

The case was referred by the Star Chamber to the judges for their opinion on the questions of law involved. They at once cut the knot by deciding that the old statutes and charters were still in force, but that the “7 leuks” mentioned in them, could only mean 7 miles; the measure recently established by statute, and the only legal measure which the word “leuca” could then mean. Such a decision would at once settle the appeal in favour of Lowestoft. The Star Chamber however refused to accept this interpretation, and sent the case back to the Judges. The Judges adhered to their construction of the word “leuca,” but advised that question should be referred to Parliament for settlement. The decision of the Judges was convenient, but in holding that the word “leuca” in the old charters meant a “mile” as determined by the recent statute, they clearly ignored the whole purport and intention of the enactment against which Lowestoft had fought in the Parliaments of Edward and Richard. A Bill appears to have been prepared to be introduced into the following Session (1597) for giving Parliamentary sanction to this construction, and ordering that the distance of 7 miles should be measured along the shore from Yarmouth towards Lowestoft, and that a mark should be set up at the end of that distance. This Bill, although set out by Gillingwater, does not appear to have been passed. The result however, of these proceedings was that in pursuance of the advice of the judges, the distance was measured, and a pole set up at the end of the 7 miles on Gunton Denes. Although recognised by Lowestoft men as marking the boundary beyond which they might not land herrings, it was ignored altogether by Yarmouth; as it had not been placed in pursuance of any legal order. The Yarmouth bailiffs however abstained from any further assertion of their claims at this time, and the Lowestoft merchants and the Suffolk Ketchmen continued to carry on their dealings with the fishing boats in the Roads as before.

Why the Act of Parliament, advised by the judges, was not introduced, or, if introduced, was not passed, we are not told. Probably the influence of Yarmouth in the House of Commons was very different at this time from what it was when the “Commons” supported Lowestoft against the Crown in the times of Edward and Richard.

The death of Elizabeth, and the succession of James I., gave Yarmouth an opportunity to procure a new charter from the Crown, which contained provisions for removing the doubts that had been raised as to the whereabouts and extent of Kirkley Road.

It contained a new grant of Kirkley Road, and actually revived the obsolete “leuca,” as a measure of 2 miles, so as to make the new grant include “Lestoff” Road, and the whole stretch of Roads, “from Winterton Ness to Easton Ness, containing in length 14 leuks or thereabouts, and in breadth into the sea 7 leuks from every part of the shore within those places.”

For this charter they undertook to pay the Crown an additional rent of £5 per annum. [80] Having thus repaired their armour they waited for a convenient occasion to renew the contest. But some 50 years or more were to pass, and another war was to be waged, before Yarmouth’s opportunity arrived for testing the strength of her new weapon.