Transcribed from the 1897 (Lowestoft) edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org. Many thanks to Ivan Bunn for helping me with the
transcription.
[Picture: Decorative graphic]
GILLINGWATER’S
HISTORY OF LOWESTOFT.
A reprint: with a chapter
of more recent events by
A. E. MURTON.
* * * * *
LOWESTOFT.
* * * * *
mdcccxcvii.
SECTION I.
OF THE ISLAND OF LOTHINGLAND.
THIS island (lately become a peninsula) is situated in the most eastern
part of Great Britain and in the northern corner of the County of
Suffolk. It is bounded by the German Ocean on the east, by the river
Yare on the north, by the Waveney on the west, and by the beautiful and
spacious water, the lake Lothing on the south; thus encircled by water on
every side it is generally called the Island of Lothingland, and would
strictly be so, did not a very narrow neck of land (near Lowestoft)
intervene, and make it a peninsula. Its length, from north to south, is
about ten miles; its breadth from east to west, about six miles; and
contains sixteen parishes, viz.: Lowestoft, Corton, Gunton, Olton, Ashby,
Lound, Fritton, Flixton, Hopton, Somerley, Blundeston, Gorleston, Belton,
Burgh, Bradwell, and Herringfleet, of which Lowestoft is the principal,
and is the only market town in the island. During the Saxon Heptarchy,
this island was part of the kingdom of the East Angles. In respect to
the civil government of the county, it is reckoned but a half hundred,
the other half being the district of Mutford. They are generally called
the half-hundreds of Mutford and Lothingland, but were incorporated as
one hundred by an Act of Parliament in 1764, for the better relief of the
poor, and for building an house of industry for their use.
In the ecclesiastical division of the county, this hundred was one of the
rural deaneries under the archdeacon of Suffolk. Bishop Kennet, in his
parochial antiquities, informs us that this office in the church was very
ancient, for in one of the laws ascribed to Edward the Confessor, it is
provided, that of eight pounds penalty for breach of the king’s peace,
the king shall have an hundred shillings, the earl of the county fifty,
and the dean of the bishop in whose deanery the peace was broken, the
other ten; which words can be applied only to the office of rural deans,
according to the respective districts which they had in parts of every
diocese. At first their office was merely to inspect the manners and
behaviour of the inferior clergy and people, but by degrees they became
possessed of a power to judge and determine in smaller matters, and the
rest they were to report to their ecclesiastical superiors. Some time
before the Reformation, by the great power of the archdeacons and their
officials, the jurisdiction of rural deans declined almost to nothing;
and at that period no steps being taken for the restoration of this part
of the government of the Church, their name and office unhappily ceased
together, notwithstanding attempts have since been made to revive this
ancient and useful institution, which in some places have been
successful.
Rural Deans of the deanery of Lothingland, Anno 1325, Jeffrey de Boudon,
priest, upon the resignation of William de Weston: 1326, John de
Wynneferthyng; 1328, John de Thrillo; 1339, Edmund de Bokenham; 1376,
Roger de Belton. {1}
It has been conjectured by some, that the island took its name from the
lake Lothing, but, I apprehend, without any foundation; it seeming more
probable that both the island and lake derived their names from
Lothbrock, a noble Dane, whose descendants, in order to perpetuate his
memory, gave to this part of the kingdom of the East Angles—frequently
the seat of war in their descents on the British coast—the name of
Luddingland, Lovingland, Luthingland, or as it is now called Lothingland.
This Lothbroth was of royal race, and had two sons, named Ingwar and
Hubba. It happened once, as he was alone in a boat hawking for birds
near the island on the coast of Denmark, that he was driven by a sudden
tempest across the German Ocean and was carried into the mouth of the
Yare up as far as Reedham. The inhabitants of the country having
discovered the stranger they brought him to Edmund, king of the East
Angles, whose palace was at Caister, about ten miles from thence. The
king was astonished at the man’s figure and fortune, and received him
with a countenance and behaviour so engaging that Lothbroch relinquished
every desire of returning to his own country again, and was so delighted
also with the diversions of the courtiers, particularly that of hunting
that he oftentimes accompanied Berno the king’s huntsman, in that
amusement, in order to become more expert in it; and in a short time made
such great proficiency therein, and so far excited the envy of his master
that having seduced him into a wood under the pretence of hunting, he
privately murdered him. While Lothbroch was missing, a vigilant
greyhound which he had kept, guarded his body; but being at last
stimulated with hunger he sometimes visited the royal palace, which being
observed by the servants, it excited their curiosity to follow him on his
return, and they presently discovered the murdered body of Lothbroch.
Berno being suspected, was apprehended and found guilty of the crime, and
was sentenced, by the order of the king’s court, to be put alone into
Lothbroch’s boat, and without a compass or any other instrument was
committed to the mercy of the wind and waves which fortunately carried
him to Denmark. The boat being there known he was suspected of having
been accessary to the death of Lothbroch; and being examined upon the
rack concerning it, he affirmed that the murder was committed by Edmund,
king of the East Angles.
The Danes having resolved to revenge the death of Lothbroch upon King
Edmund and his subjects, levied an army of 20,000 men, made Ingwar and
Hubba (the sons of Lothbroch) commanders in chief of the expedition; and
having made every necessary preparation for the voyage, and taken Berno
with them as a leader, who knew the country, they immediately embarked
and set sail for East England in the year 865, in the tenth year of King
Edmund’s reign; but meeting with contrary winds they were driven ashore
at Berwick upon Tweed, in Scotland, where having committed the most
violent outrages, and in some measure gratified their revenge for the
murder of Lothbroch, they soon after returned home. But in the following
year the relentless Danes re-visited our coasts, when after burning and
destroying all they could meet with, and also having greatly harassed and
had frequent skirmishes with King Edmund’s army, they returned to their
own country. The year after, the Danes again renewed their descents on
the British coast, and so far succeeded in their enterprises against King
Edmund, that they reduced him to the utmost distress; for surrounding him
in a certain place in the Island, where he was so inclosed with marshes
and rivers, that it was almost impossible for him to escape, he was left
to this dreadful alternative, either to surrender to his enemies or fight
his way through them. Having resolved upon the latter, he sought out a
place most convenient for his design, and having at last discovered a
ford (which was called Berneford, from Berno,) and now called Barnby, he
passed it, and falling furiously upon his enemies, he routed them with a
great slaughter, and compelled them to return immediately to Denmark. {3}
In the succeeding year, the Danes returned again to England, and having
committed the most horrid ravages in divers part of it, they came to Ely,
where Hubba being left to guard their spoil, Ingwar, with his army
entered East England, when, after committing many barbarous cruelties at
Thetford, he sent a message to King Edmund, who was then at Eglesdune
(now Hoxne, in Suffolk), proposing to him that if he would renounce
christianity, pay adoration to his idols, and become his vassal and
servant, he would then divide not only his treasure but also his kingdom
with him. No sooner did the king receive this message than he marched
with his whole army against the Danes and engaging them at a place not
far from Thetford, the contending armies fought with great obstinacy from
morning till evening, and great numbers were slain on both sides, when
the Danes retreated from the field of battle. But the pious king was so
exceedingly affected at the fate of so many martyrs who had shed their
blood in this battle in defence of the christian faith as well as for the
unhappy end for such a numerous body of Pagans that he returned with the
shattered remains of his army to Eglesdune with a resolution excited by
religious considerations never to engage any more in battle with the
Pagans, but if it was necessary to appease their rancour by yielding
himself up as a sacrifice for his people and for his christian faith.
The army belonging to Ingwar was much diminished from the loss he
sustained in this battle; but receiving information of Edmund’s retreat
he instantly proceeded to Thetford, where, being joined by Hubba with
10,000 men, the brothers united their forces and pursued the unhappy king
to Eglesdune, where, taking him prisoner he was martyred in the year 871,
in the 29th year of his reign; and with him expired the kingdom of the
East Angles.
After the death of Edmund, the Danes settled themselves in Lothingland,
to which tract of land they are supposed to have given that name, in
remembrance of their ancestor Lothbroch.
The following tradition respecting the death of King Edmund, is current
in the parish of Hoxne to this day; namely, that the King, after he had
relinquished every intention of opposing the Danes any farther, in
consequence of the horrid carnage which the numerous contests between
them had occasioned, fled to this village for safety, but finding himself
closely pursued by his enemies, was obliged for security, to conceal
himself under a bridge in that parish, now called Gold Bridge, so named
from the gilt spurs which the king happened to have on whilst there
concealed. A newly-married couple that were returning home in the
evening, saw, by moonlight, the king’s spurs glitter in the water, and
immediately discovered him to the Danes, who instantly put him to death.
The king, in the warmth of resentment, pronounced a curse upon every
couple that should afterwards pass over this bridge to be married. A
superstitious regard is paid to this sentence even to this day; as not
one will pass over the bridge in their way to the parish church on that
occasion. It is now about a thousand years since the event happened, and
is a remarkable instance of the length of time which traditions in
parishes are sometimes continued.
The Danes, when they got the king into their possession, endeavoured to
prevail with him to renounce the christian faith; which he refusing to
do, they first scourged him with whips, and afterwards bound him to a
stake and shot him to death with arrows. He was first buried in an
obscure wooden chapel at Eglesdune (now Hoxne), but being afterwards
esteemed a martyr, and canonized by the Church, his bones were removed to
Bury St. Edmund’s, where a magnificent abbey was erected to his memory.
It appears from that ancient survey of the landed property of this
kingdom, the Book of Domesday, that the fee of this hundred was
originally in the crown, for that record informs us that Earl Guert {4a}
held Gorleston, (and probably the whole island), in the reign of Edward
the Confessor; and describing the extent and property of this manor in
the time of Edward, and comparing them with the survey made in the reign
of William the Conqueror, it says it contained five carucates of land;
that there were then twenty villains, now only twelve; five bornars, then
five servants, now only four; then two carucates in demesne, now but one;
then cattle for five carucates of land, now only three; then two
workhouses, now none; ten acres of meadow land, three salt pans, wood for
five hogs, always three hundred sheep, and twenty-four fishermen at
Yarmouth.
Both history and tradition informs us that some centuries since, there
were numerous and violent disputes between the lords of this island and
the men of Great Yarmouth, respecting the privileges of that burgh; and
whereas it was alleged that those privileges had been greatly infringed
by the said lords of the island.
King John in the ninth year of his reign, granted the burgesses of
Yarmouth a charter, whereby it was created a free burgh, the burgesses
were thereby invested with many valuable commercial privileges, and
empowered to hold it in fee farm {4b} paying to the king and fisheries an
annual rent of £55 for ever; for payment whereof they had nothing but the
customs arising out of the port, not being allowed to receive any custom
of goods bought or sold in the market in Lothingland at any time of the
year.
Soon after the granting of this charter, the burgh of Great Yarmouth
became most flourishing, and made a more respectable figure in trade and
commerce than before; and whilst Yarmouth and Lothingland were both
holden in the king’s hands, no disputes about customs arose betwixt them,
nor do any records now extant mention any suits about them, payable at
this or that place, but as the charter had invested the men of Yarmouth
with the sole property of their land, as well as their merchandise, they
sought to monopolize the trade to themselves, and to hinder the king’s
tenants of Lothingland from enjoying any part with them. {4c}
The granting these privileges to the burgh of Yarmouth, was effectually
emancipating the inhabitants; no sooner, therefore, had this charter
passed, than the men of Lothingland, and particularly the inhabitants of
Little Yarmouth and Gorleston (much more considerable places than now)
began to be alarmed at the acquisitions of their neighbours, and dreaded
their future power. In consequence of this grant several infringements
were made, and many disputes arose; however, they did not arise to any
considerable degree, till about the twelfth year of Henry III., when
Roger Fitz-Osbert {4d} who was then the king’s bailiff or warden of
Lothingland, endeavoured to draw the trade of herrings and other goods to
his own side of the river Yare, and took certain customs in the port of
Yarmouth, contrary to the liberties which the burgesses claimed by their
charter.
Complaints against these proceedings of the bailiff of Lothingland were
exhibited by the burgesses of Yarmouth, and king Henry, willing to
terminate the dispute, as being a party concerned, and being also
desirous of being informed what customs really belonged to Yarmouth, and
what to his manor of Lothingland, sent Martin de Patteshall, an itinerant
justice, to determine it, who took an inquisition at Yarmouth upon the
oaths of forty-eight persons belonging to the counties of Norfolk and
Suffolk, upon which a verdict was found, that all wares ought to be
unladen and sold at Great Yarmouth, and that all the haven belonged to
the burgesses of Yarmouth; but that small merchandise and provisions of
all kinds might be unladen on the Yarmouth or Lothingland side of the
river, at the option of the owners or importers thereof. This affair
being thus decided, the respective parties continued for some time on
more amicable terms, but it was of short duration, for upon king Henry’s
exchanging the manor of Lothingland, and the rent of the fee-farm of
Yarmouth, in 1228, with John de Baliol, for certain lands in Cheshire, it
opened a new source of contention; for although the men of Yarmouth had
seemingly the advantage in the late decision yet, as a license was given
to unlade ships with provisions on either side, and as fish—which was the
chief merchandise then carried on—was evidently included in that
permission, they soon found, that in reality, they had gained no other
advantage than an expensive suit and an ambiguous decree. John de Baliol
seems to have been as well apprized of this as of their inability to
dispute it with him, for in 1244 he brought a writ against the burgesses
for depriving him of his customary tolls in Little Yarmouth, which
alarmed them so much, that, two years after, we find them soliciting the
king for a new exclusive charter, that all merchandises and wares, as
well fish as other commodities, should be sold at Yarmouth only by the
hands of the importers thereof.
Whatever were King Henry’s motives for thus confining the trade, and
injuring the property which John de Baliol undoubtedly had in it, I know
not, but he granted the burgesses their request, and gave them a new
charter agreeable to their desires; notwithstanding which, I find the
bailiff of Lothingland took the usual customs the very next year, and
also continued to do so whilst the manor remained in the hands of the
Baliols, and consequently fresh disputes about the customs were
continually arising.
In 1259 John de Baliol died, and was succeeded by his son, John de
Baliol, afterwards king of Scotland, and it appears that the usual
disputes were in agitation during the time he held this manor; but upon
his acquiring the kingdom of Scotland, the burgesses of Yarmouth were
obliged to submit to so powerful an opponent, for we find, he levied the
following customs; for every foreign ship, eighteen pence; and of every
English ship trading to or from the port of Yarmouth, fourpence; of every
cart or horse-load of merchandize passing through his manor a half-penny;
and for every last of herrings imported for a foreign merchant,
fourpence; of every stall, fourpence; and of every window where bread was
placed to sell, fourpence. The last is a remarkable article for a tax;
and I can account for it no other way than by supposing the men of
Yarmouth used to make bread and send it to be sold at Little Yarmouth and
Gorleston for the supply of their herring fleet, in case of necessity.
The manor of Lothingland and fee-farm of Yarmouth being in the hands of
the Baliols, by virtue of the above-mentioned exchange, were now in the
actual possession of John de Baliol, king of Scots; but upon this king’s
renouncing his homage to King Edward 1st, all his English estates became
forfeited, and by his resignation afterwards of his person, his dignity,
his kingdom, and all his private states, the said manor of Lothingland,
and the fee-farm of Yarmouth, once more reverted to the crown. This was
accounted by the burgesses of Yarmouth as a most happy deliverance, they
thereby getting rid of a troublesome and powerful neighbour, who not only
vigorously supported the rights of his manor, but interfered also with
their trade, and was willing to become a partner in their gains; for the
Baliols, both father and son, had for many years, by their bailiffs,
greatly infringed on the liberties of Yarmouth, by taking customs in that
port, contrary to its charters, to the great injury of the burgesses
which they were under the necessity of submitting to as being unable to
contend with such powerful adversaries. But after the above forfeiture
the burgesses of Yarmouth adjudging it to be a seasonable opportunity for
having their grievances redressed, made application to King Edward 1st in
the 34th year of his reign, to have the charter granted by his
predecessor Henry 3rd more clearly explained, and to be expressed in such
manner as should leave no room for farther disputes.
The king in order to compromise the difference between the respective
parties, requested the assistance of his council; and notwithstanding the
opposition from Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, yet it appearing upon
enquiry that as the manor of Lothingland and fee-farm of Yarmouth were
now in the hands of the said King Edward, and that certain privileges had
been granted to the burgesses of Great Yarmouth by the charter of Henry
3rd, therefore his said Majesty, in the year above-mentioned, complied
with the request of the burgesses, and both explained and ratified the
said charter of King Henry. {6}
The manor of Lothingland continued in the crown but a short time; for
king Edward 1st in his 34th year, anno 1306, gave it, with all Baliol’s
English estates, to John de Britainy, Earl of Richmond, his sister’s son.
{7a}
The burgesses of Yarmouth, however well pleased they might at first
appear with the loss of their old neighbours, quickly found that they had
acquired nothing by the exchange, for John de Britainy was no less
determined upon a vigorous defence of the rights of his manor than his
predecessors; and as he was a much more powerful opponent, so, in the
end, he was a much more troublesome one. Previous, however, to the
settlement of the manor of Lothingland upon this nobleman, the burgesses
of Yarmouth had obtained from king Edward a charter confirming that of
his father, and commanding that all fish and other merchandize brought up
the river should be sold at Yarmouth only, and that no person whatever
should purchase any goods as they were carrying up the stream. Thus, in
spite of the absurdity and injustice of making all commercial
transactions centre in themselves, under the pretence of their being a
free burgh by charter, the men of Yarmouth effectually hindered those of
Little Yarmouth and Gorleston from sharing in the trade, which their
situation rendered them as equally capable of carrying on to advantage as
their neighbours. Such was the state of affairs between the contending
parties, when the grant of the manor of Lothingland was given to the Earl
of Richmond. Though it appears he took no cognizance of their disputes
till the 2nd of Henry 3rd, anno 1328, yet he could not remain so long
ignorant of them; though it is probable the distance of his residence
(Richmond Castle, in Yorkshire) from this place and the small account a
nobleman of his large possessions must naturally make, of so trifling an
addition to them, might render him unwilling to engage in an expensive
suit, which at best, could procure him very insignificant advantages.
However, after repeated application from the inhabitants of Gorleston and
Little Yarmouth, and the rest of the tenants of Lothingland, {7b} about
the 8th and 19th of Edward 2nd, the Earl, about the year above mentioned,
exhibited a petition to king Edward 3rd.; in which he alleged, that half
the haven of Yarmouth belonged to him in right of his manor; and that he
ought to have as his ancestors, who held this manor before him,
undoubtedly had, the arriving, discharging, and laden of ships, goods and
merchandizes, and a free buying and selling for his tenants of Little
Yarmouth and Gorleston, as had been the case till king Henry 3rd by his
charter to the burgesses, granted that these things should belong solely
to Great Yarmouth, and the aforesaid free buying and selling should be
done there only; and as the burgesses of Yarmouth claimed all their
restrictive power from this charter, the earl wisely considered, that
without removing the cause, the effect must still subsist; therefore, in
the same petition he attacked the charter itself, and represented to the
king, that it had not been rightly granted king Henry not being timely
apprized of the destructive tendency such a grant must necessarily have
upon the fishing trade, how contrary its dictates were to the common
rights of mankind, and, particularly, how injurious to the crown itself,
as the original proprietor of the manor of Lothingland. So severe an
attack upon the Yarmouth palladium, roused the burgesses from their
wonted security, and they were summoned to appear personally before the
king and his Council, to make their defence against the Earl and to
produce their charters, records, and reasons to the contrary. The
burgesses accordingly appeared, and urged in their behalf, that the
claims demanded by the Earl were erroneous and ill-grounded: and
exhibited several grants given them by preceding kings, as the charter of
king John, that of Henry 3rd, the confirmation of the same by Edward 1st,
and the decisions in favour of the burgh, in the 8th and 19th of Edward
2nd, in the Exchequer and other courts, all tending to confirm the rights
they claimed, and to invalidate the earl’s assertions; in which they had
ever been victorious.
The burgesses of Yarmouth founded the merits of their cause on the
charter which had incorporated them. The men of Lothingland, on ancient
customs before those charters existed; alledging that the Manor was part
of the ancient demesne of the crown, and that the customs and privileges
claimed by the Earl of Richmond and his tenants, are the same as were
demanded in the times of Canute and Harold, and the succeeding kings of
England, being owners of the said Manor, and by many other pleadings,
they asserted their lawful right to those privileges, both by
prescription and long-continued possession; but, after hearing the
controversy, the cause was determined in favour of Yarmouth, and the
burgesses triumphed once more over their rival neighbours.
The ill success of this application did not deter the Earl from making
another, which had the same great end in view, the wresting from the
burgesses their great Charter of Incorporation; but, after many pleadings
and decisions, before the king and council, the parliament and the
judges, the Earl had no better success than before; for in the end it
only served to strengthen the designs of the men of Yarmouth, by the
entire overthrow of the adverse party; the affair being at length finally
determined in favour of the burgesses, 5th Edward 3rd, anno 1332.
The men of Lothingland, who had, probably, formed the highest
expectations of success, from the great power and credit of their patron,
the Earl of Richmond now saw themselves left entirely to the mercy of the
elated burgesses, who, on all occasions, exerted their power over them
with a malevolence considerably inflamed by the late dissensions; they
had also the mortification to see that power fixed upon the strongest and
most unalterable basis, by an extensive charter, confirming all their
former rights, and adding many valuable liberties to those they already
enjoyed.
Thus ended this litigious and destructive controversy, in which the
inhabitants of Lothingland had been engaged for more than one hundred
years. The motives which actuated each party were strictly the same; the
one strove for the continuance of those liberties which Henry’s charter
had deprived them of; the other, to retain the rights they had acquired,
so beneficial to themselves, at the expense of their neighbours. It is
not to be doubted, that this was considered by the men of Yarmouth as an
object of the highest importance. A grant which gave a restrictive
trading power to one place, in prejudice to another, must, of course,
draw within its gates all those who wished to advance their interest, or
enlarge their property.
The well-being of any commercial town must depend upon the conveniency of
its situation for traffic, but, in this case, their opponents were
equally fortunate as themselves; the same stream flowing equally between
them, and the same conveyance which brought emolument to the one, would
have carried opulence to the other. To the final determination of this
controversy in their favour, the town of Yarmouth is chiefly indebted for
the prosperity it now enjoys; whilst its rivals, Gorleston and Little
Yarmouth, are sunk into obscure villages, and particularly the latter, of
which hardly anything more than the name remains. In the following year,
the earl of Richmond, who had gone over into France, to settle some
matters relative to the estate which he there held as earl of Britainy,
died in that kingdom, without issue, and was succeeded to his manors and
estates by John de Dreux, son of Arthur, earl of Britainy; and he dying
in 1342, they were granted by Edward III. to John, duke of Britainy, and
earl of Montford in France; who was advanced to this dignity on account
of his adherence to the interest of king Edward in that kingdom, for
which cause the king of France had seized upon his possessions. {8}
After the above decision, which established the burgesses of Great
Yarmouth, in the peaceable possession of all their ancient privileges,
the animosities and disturbances, which had agitated the contending
parties for a century past, appear to have subsided; and they maintained
a more friendly intercourse with each other, without any material
interruption, until the reign of Queen Elizabeth; but, in the 12th year
of the reign of that princess, new dissensions arose, which were combated
with a considerable degree of violence and animosity, between the
burgesses of Great Yarmouth, and Sir Henry Jerningham and his tenants,
the men of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, concerning divers liberties
claimed by Great Yarmouth, respecting the free fair holden at the said
town; and also concerning a parcel of waste ground, lying on the south
side of the haven’s mouth, near the town of Gorleston; which, some time
ago, when the course of the haven extended to the south of Corton, was
situate between the neck of the haven and the main sea; and because the
said haven had at this time a shorter neck or passage to the sea,
obtained by the town of Great Yarmouth, at an immense expense, and was
brought further to the north, consequently the above-mentioned waste
ground must lie to the south of the haven’s mouth, as then situated; and
as Sir Henry Jerningham was owner, not only of the town of Gorleston, but
also of the greater part of Lothingland in which Gorleston is situated,
the claim of the burgesses of Yarmouth must materially affect the
property of Sir Henry. In order therefore, to restore peace and
tranquility to the several parties, the matter in dispute was referred to
the arbitration of Sir Christopher Heydon, and Sir William Butts,
knights, by virtue of a commission from the Star-Chamber, who finally
determined the difference in such a fair and equitable manner, as met
with the approbation of both parties.
But, notwithstanding this affair was so amicably adjusted, fresh disputes
arose, shortly after, between the town of Great Yarmouth and some
neighbouring towns, respecting a fair that was held at Gorleston; and as
Queen Elizabeth, at that time, happened to be at Norwich, her majesty
deputed several lords of her retinue to proceed to Yarmouth, and survey
the premises; which orders being accordingly executed, they made a report
thereof to the Queen; and the following letter from the Privy Council,
was sent to the Sheriff and Justices of the county of Suffolk, respecting
the same.
A copy of the letter sent from the Lords of the Queen’s Majesty’s Privy
Council, to the Sheriff, and also the Justices of Suffolk, in August,
1578, after that the Lord Treasurer, the Lord of Leicester, and others of
the Council, had viewed and seen the town; (all these noblemen were
elegantly entertained at the priory, at the town’s expense) the Queen
being at Norwich, on her tour at the time. {9a}
After our hearty commendations—Whereas the town of Great Yarmouth is
situated upon the frontiers of the sea, in the county of Norfolk,
near the county of Suffolk; and great care has been taken by the
ancestors of our Sovereign Lady, the Queen’s Majesty, for the
maintenance and preservation of the said town, and divers liberties
and privileges have been granted, by the progenitors of her majesty,
to that intent and purpose; amongst which there is one privilege,
granted unto the burgesses of the town of Great Yarmouth, that no
fair or market should be kept or holden at any place or places within
seven leuks {9b} of the said town, either of fish in general, or
herrings in particular, or any other kind of merchandizes, but only
at the town of Great Yarmouth: which said grants and liberties are
thought very necessary to be continued and protected, for that the
Yarmouth men do expend great costs and charges upon the haven
belonging to the said town. We understanding, nevertheless, that
divers and sundry persons heretofore have sought, and do daily seek,
to keep and hold a fair, for buying, selling, and delivering
herrings, and other fish, and divers other merchandizes, at the town
of Gorleston, in the county of Suffolk, which is within the mouth of
the said haven of Yarmouth. We have therefore, thought good to
charge and require, you that you give due information unto the
inhabitants of the said town of Gorleston, and to all other persons
repairing thither, that they suffer no such fair or market, or any
buying, selling or delivering of herrings, or any other fish or
merchandise, at the said town, or at any other place within the said
haven of Great Yarmouth, but only at the said town, or in the road of
the said town, at any time or times, from the beginning of the
herring fair or fishing, now, next ensuing, until the end of the said
herring fair or fishing, as they tender Her Majesty’s pleasure, and
will answer the contrary at their perils. And if you shall receive
information of any person or persons, either seller or buyer, that
shall be obstinate, or act contrary to this Her Majesty’s command,
you shall bind the said persons to appear before us, to answer their
contempt in that behalf. And, finally, we desire you to use all the
good means you can, to see the design of this our letter put in due
execution. And so we bid you heartily farewell.
Your loving friends, &c.
From Thetford, the 27th August, 1578.
In consequence of this letter the men of Gorleston, Lowestoft, and other
towns upon the coast, in the county of Suffolk, presented a petition to
Her Majesty’s Privy Council, praying to have this letter recalled.
Whereupon the burgesses of Yarmouth sent up immediately to the Privy
Council, William Harebrowne and Thomas Damett, with their charters and
decrees, to answer the complaints presented by the above-mentioned towns;
and succeeded so far in their application as to obtain the following
decree, which was issued forth by the Lords of the Privy Council, and
which finally determined the dispute. {10}
A Decree, made by the Lords and others of the Queen’s Majesty’s Privy
Council, upon a matter in controversy between the town of Great
Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, and the towns of Little Yarmouth
and Gorleston, and other towns, in Suffolk, after divers hearings of
both parties; and put in writing and subscribed the four and
twentieth day of February, in the one and twentieth year of the reign
of our Sovereign Lady, the Queen’s Majesty, Elizabeth, and in the
year of our Lord one thousand, five hundred and eighty.
Whereas, upon complaint exhibited before us by Henry Gunvyle, of
Gorleston, and John Hoo, of Gunton, gent.; William Frenche, of
Lowestoft, and John Fox, of Aldborough, merchants; as well in their
own names, as also in the names of the inhabitants of the said towns,
and of other coast towns of Suffolk, against the bailiffs, burgesses,
and commonalty of the town of Great Yarmouth, in the county of
Norfolk; the substance of which complaint and controversy consisteth
in this: Whether, by the liberties belonging to the said town of
Great Yarmouth, all kinds of merchandize, and also herrings and all
other fish, being brought into the haven of Great Yarmouth, should,
be unladen and discharged at the said town of Great Yarmouth, or
elsewhere (saving only to Gorleston and Little Yarmouth, their own
proper merchandize, and fish, brought in their own bottoms, and none
other; but excepting such ships belonging to these towns as are laden
with wool, leather, wool-skins, and other merchandize, whereof great
custom ought to be paid, and to be discharged in the port where the
Queen’s Majesty’s trone {11} and seal called the Coquet do remain).
Which liberty is challenged by the said town of Great Yarmouth: and,
for support thereof, there have been shewed forth sundry charters,
judgments, and decrees, all affirming the said liberties to belong to
Great Yarmouth; and not by any allegations for the other parties,
justly disproved.
And, forasmuch, as upon the deliberate hearing of the allegations of
both parties, concerning the said controversy, there hath not been
shewn before us any sufficient matter to make void the said
liberties, challenged by the said town of Great Yarmouth, by virtue
of their charters: We do therefore order and decree that the said
town of Great Yarmouth, and the bailiffs, burgesses, and commonalty
thereof, shall stand possessed of, and quietly hold and enjoy, the
said liberties, by them claimed according to their said charters; and
that no delivering, buying, or selling of herrings, or any other
fish, or any merchandizes, coming into the said haven be made, kept,
or holden, but only at the said town of Great Yarmouth, or where the
bailiffs, burgesses, and commonalty of the said town will appoint the
same to be done, and not elsewhere: excepting only to the said towns
of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, and the inhabitants thereof,
liberty to land and receive, at the said towns, all such herrings,
and other fish, and merchandizes, as shall be their own, and taken
and brought into that haven in their own boats and vessels, without
any colouring, fraud, or covyn (saving those ships belonging to the
said towns of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, as are laden with wool,
leather, wool-skins, and other things, whereof great customs ought to
be paid, which shall be discharged in the port of Great Yarmouth, and
at the same place where the Queen’s Majesty’s trone and seal, called
the Coquet) do remain, and not elsewhere.
And, for the better publication and observation of this our order and
decree, we do not only will and require the said complainants to
publish the tenor thereof, in the said coast towns, but, also, have
ordered, that the justices of assizes of the said county, shall be by
us required to give in charge to the Justices of the Peace there, to
have good regard, that the same may be performed, and put in the
execution, without any manner of disturbance; and, that if any person
or persons shall wilfully disobey this order, that then the next
justice of the peace of the said county, shall take sufficient bond
of the said party to appear before us, and to answer his contempt in
that behalf. And this our order and decree shall stand and remain in
full force, until such time as the said complainants, or any other
persons, in behalf of the said towns, shall justly shew, and prove
before us, such good matter as may move us to revoke this our present
or derand decree.
Given at Westminster, the day and year above written,
(Signed,)
LORD BURLEIGH, LORD LINCOLN, LORD SUSSEX, LORD WARWICK,
LORD LEICESTER, LORD HUNSDON, SIR FRANCIS KNOLLY’S,
SIR JAMES CROFTE, SIR CHRISTOPHER HATTON, SIR FRANCIS
WALSINGHAM, SIR WALTER MILDMAY; T. WILSON, Secretary.
Afterwards in the year 1616 we find the bailiffs of Great Yarmouth
petitioning for leave to extend their jurisdiction, or power, on the west
side of the haven; but it does not appear, that they ever acquired any
authority there till the 20th of Charles II., when Southtown was
incorporated with Great Yarmouth; for about that time Sir Robert Paston,
being desirous of adjusting the differences which had for so many years
subsisted between the town of Great Yarmouth and Little Yarmouth (or
Southtown) and Gorleston, brought a bill into the House of Commons in the
year 1664, for incorporating the former with Southtown, which was
accordingly effected.
And, again, in the 36th of Charles II. a new charter was granted to Great
Yarmouth, wherein the said incorporation was confirmed, and other grants
and privileges subjoined; and was afterwards confirmed again by another
charter, granted in the reign of Queen Anne, and remains incorporated to
this day.
It appears from what has been premised, that this island, as part of the
ancient demesne of the crown, was held in the time of Edward the
Confessor, by Earl Guert; in the time of William the Conqueror, by Earl
Warren; {12a} and in the time of Henry III., by Roger Fitz-Osbert {12b}
afterwards it descended to the Baliols; but, upon John de Baliol’s
renouncing his homage to Edward I. and thereby forfeiting all his English
estates, it again reverted to the crown, and king Edward I. in the 34th
year of his reign gave the island to his nephew John de Britainy, earl of
Richmond, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth the greatest part of the island
belonged to Sir Henry Jerningham {12c} In the reign of Charles II. the
part contiguous to Gorleston was in the hands of Sir Robert Paston,
knight.
History informs us, that the island of Lothingland has experienced a
variety of vicissitudes from the irruptions of the sea; and that the
coast which is washed by the German Ocean, was, in former ages, very
different in its appearance from which it is at present. A large arm of
the sea, at the time when the Romans were in Britain, extended itself, on
the north side of the island, several miles westward of the ground
whereon Yarmouth is now situated; and the mouth of the Yare, or, rather,
arm of the sea, at that time, was very large, and discharged itself into
the ocean by two channels, (being separated by the sand-bank on which
Yarmouth was afterwards built) the one near Caister, and the other near
Gorleston. It is highly probable that before the Christian era, this
extraordinary effect of the secret operations of the ocean, had not
commenced; and that previous to that period, the Yare discharged itself
into the sea by one channel only.
The reason why this sand-bank was not formed before that time, is one of
those secrets of Providence which, to us, continues unexplored.
The north-east winds appear to have been the apparent cause of forming
the sand-bank at the mouth of that river; and is an inconvenience to
which it is subject, even at this present time.
The original name of the bank was, the Cerdick Sand; from Cerdick, a
warlike Saxon, who, about the year 495, landed here; and who, after
having routed the opposing Britons, and greatly harassed the Iceni with a
very grievous war, sailed to the western parts of Britain, where he
founded the kingdom of the West Saxons.
The mouth of the former of these channels being entirely choaked up by
the north-east winds, the whole stream fell, afterwards, into the latter;
and this last-mentioned channel having its entrance so frequently blocked
up by the sand-banks formed by these winds, that its course was greatly
altered, and extended a considerable distance to the south of Gorleston,
before it was able to discharge itself into the sea. These obstructions
still continuing, the mouth of the haven kept proceeding still further to
the south, till, at last, it reached even to the south of Corton, before
it was able to force its passage into the ocean.
The mouth of the haven, from these obstructions, being carried thus far
to the south, and having such numerous sands and shallows formed therein,
especially between the 10th and 20th of Edward III, that its navigation
became extremely dangerous, and but few ships of burthen could enter
there with safety; and, consequently, was so detrimental to Yarmouth,
that it greatly affected the trade, which for many years had subsisted
there, as well as the commerce of the adjacent country.
Whereupon, the bailiffs, burgesses, and commonalty of Great Yarmouth,
presented a petition to king Edward III, in the 20th year of his reign,
for liberty to cut a new mouth to the haven, nearer to Yarmouth than it
was at that time; which petition being granted, a new communication with
the ocean was accordingly opened, and confined with piers, opposite to
the parish of Corton. This great undertaking was accomplished at an
immense expense, and was confined to this place for the space of
twenty-six years; (46th of Edward III), when it began again to be so much
choked up with sand, that no vessels of any considerable burden could
enter, but were obliged to unload their cargoes in an adjoining place,
called Kirkley Road, which was near the mouth of the said haven. The
king, being informed of the great difficulties which the town of Great
Yarmouth laboured under, from the dangerous state of its haven, and how
utterly unable they were thereby rendered of paying the fee-farm rent due
to his majesty, from the great quantity of merchandise that was obliged
to be unladen in the adjoining place called Kirkley Road, and which, by
that means, escaped paying the usual customs to Yarmouth, his majesty, in
consideration of these misfortunes, was pleased to grant a charter for
uniting the said Road of Kirkley unto the port and haven of Yarmouth;
{13a} upon condition, that the said burgesses of Great Yarmouth would pay
to the king and his successors, an additional rent of 100s. yearly: and
also granted unto the said burgesses full power to demand and receive the
same duties in the said Kirkley road, as in the port and haven of
Yarmouth, for ever. {13b}
It is very evident, to an attentive observer, that the whole of the flat
country, which lies between Caister and Burgh, extending about four
miles, and forms a considerable part of the water called Braydon, was
once covered by the German Ocean; and that the mouth of the Yare, at that
time, was an estuary, or arm of the sea, and extended, with considerable
magnitude, for many miles up the country. Tradition, the faithful
preserver of many a fact which history has overlooked or forgotten,
confidently and invariably asserts it; and the present appearance of the
ancient bed of the river, from Yarmouth to Harleston, in Norfolk, tends
to confirm it. Probably the points of land whereon Beccles, Bungay, and
Homersfield are situated, and which protruded themselves into the ancient
river, might serve as convenient situations for placing beacons and other
signals, announcing the approach of an enemy, at the time when the
Romans, Saxons, and Danes invaded and gained possession of the island;
and might, from thence give birth to the origin of those towns. The case
may be the same in respect to other places situated on points of land on
the borders both of the Yare and the Waveney. What is here suggested may
receive farther confirmation from an inspection of the above ancient map
of Garienis Oestium, or mouth of the Yare, as given in the Ives’s
Garianonum, {14a} which represents this part of the country as it
appeared in the year one thousand; and which, also, affords considerable
assistance in forming a just conception of the ancient boundaries of
these rivers, at the time when the Romans and other foreign invaders were
in possession of this island.
The mouth of the Waveney on the south of the island, was also at this
time very large, and discharged itself into the ocean between Lowestoft
and Kirkley. {14b} The conflux of waters arising from the communication
which these two rivers had with the sea, the one at Yarmouth and the
other at Lowestoft, was so great, when they formed a junction as to
render the Waveney navigable some miles beyond Harleston in Norfolk.
{14c}
After that the sea had considerably receded from the river between
Lowestoft and Kirkley, yet it still preserved a small communication with
it; and therefore, whenever a violent storm arose from the north-west, at
the time when the waters were increased by the spring tides, it would
flow into the river with great violence, and threaten the adjacent
country with an inundation. To guard against these irruptions of the
ocean, and prevent the damages that would otherwise ensue, a break-water
was erected between Lowestoft and Kirkley, as a security for the low
grounds and marshes which laid contiguous to the river.
For it appears, that on the 6th February, 1652, a verdict was given by
the jury, on a commission of sewers, of the number of acres of low
grounds in the several towns in Norfolk and Suffolk, which were subject
to inundations from the sea-breach between Lowestoft and Kirkley; wherein
it was found that in the parishes of Ellingham and Kirby only, there were
482 acres, and one rood of low ground subject to those inundations, the
annual value whereof was £87 18s. 10d., and which paid to the charge of
the said breach £7 4s. 9d.; and it was also found, by the said commission
of sewers, that, in the manor of Earsham there were 418 acres of low
grounds liable to inundation from the said sea-breach, valued at £330 and
paid £13 10s. 6d. towards repairing the same. {14d}
And at a commission of sewers, held at the Swan Tavern, at Lowestoft, the
21st February, 1660, before Sir Thomas Meadows, Knight; Henry Bacon, John
Duke, John Garnies, William Cooke, William Cooke, the younger; John
Playters, Francis Brewster, William Gooch, John Baispoole, Esquires;
Robert London, Thomas London, Philip Hayward, Christopher Reeve, Glover
Denny, Gisleham Wollhouse, Henry Jenkenson and Anthony Jenkenson,
gentlemen, commissioners; the two following questions were proposed,
viz.:
1st. Whether the work at the sea-breach between Lowestoft and
Kirkley should stand in its present state until an engineer shall
come or not?
2nd. Whether the fortifications (or fence of the sea-breach) shall
be made at Mutford Bridge, or at the sea?
When it was resolved by the Court and ordered, “That the work and
fortifications shall be proceeded upon forthwith without delay; and that
the said work and fortification shall be made and done at the sea-shore,
where the bank or wall formerly was made, or thereabouts.”
It was further ordered by the Court, “That the sum of six hundred pounds
should forthwith be raised, for a defence and fortification to be made
against the sea-breach at Lowestoft.”
And whereas it appeared to the Court, “That the causeway at Mutford
Bridge was decayed and broken down, in consequence of the sea-breach at
Lowestoft, and made unpassable for foot-passengers, and very dangerous to
others; it was therefore ordered, That the same should be repaired
immediately out of the first money to be raised, but not to exceed the
sum of ten pounds.” It was also ordered, “That Henry Bacon, Esquire,
should treat with Sir Cornelius Vermewden, or any other engineer at
London, to come down to Lowestoft, and view the work and fortification to
be made there against the sea-breach, and to take his opinion concerning
the same. That Gisleham Wollhouse, of Olton, gent., be treasurer, and
Thomas Verdon, of the same place, gent., be surveyor.”
Warrants were also issued to the sheriffs of both counties, to warn a
jury, to take a view of all such breaches and other decays, within the
limits of the said commission, and to make presentiments of the same;
and, accordingly, amongst many other matters, they presented the
sea-breach near Lowestoft, and that it was necessary that a defence
against the sea should be made there, otherwise it would be injurious to
the owners of the lands betwixt the said sea-breach and Ditchingham Dam.
Also, they found the grounds liable to be taxed to the sea-breach, as far
as the former jurors found them, viz.: to Yarmouth on the Suffolk side,
and to Braydon on the Norfolk side. They also found the grounds
hereinafter mentioned, as liable to be taxed to the said sea-breach,
although omitted in the former levy, viz.:
Acres.
Lands within the Town of Lowestoft 60
Low grounds in Carlton Colville, lying between East Heath 20
and the common drain leading from Kirkley Bridge and
against Lowestoft
Several doles in Kirkley, and other low grounds lying 30
against the common, betwixt Lowestoft bounds and inclosed
meadows towards Kirkley Bridge
Several inclosed pieces, betwixt divers common doles and 2
Kirkley Bridge, whereof one piece is glebe, belonging
unto William Bacon, clerk
Two other pieces, in the tenure of Henry Church 2
One other piece of glebe, lying next Kirkley Bridge, 1
belonging to the said William Bacon, clerk
It was further ordered by the Court,
That against the next sessions of sewers, to be holden at the Swan
Tavern, Lowestoft, the 21st June next, a levy be prepared, to be sent
to the several towns chargeable to the sea-breach at Lowestoft, at
double the proportion which was formerly charged, viz. from the said
sea-breach to Beccles Bridge and Gillingham Dam, in the whole level,
chargeable at two shillings in the pound; and from the said Bridge
and Dam to Ditchingham Dam, sixteen pence in the pound; and those
towns which were not charged upon the former levy, to be added to
this.
Also, that the clerk of this commission do issue out warrants to the
several petty constables within the towns charged towards the
sea-breach at Lowestoft, to collect and pay their several sums to Mr.
Gisleham Wollhouse, treasurer, at the White Lion, at Beccles, the 4th
day of July next.
The proportion of the several towns charged to the sea-breach at
Lowestoft, being the second levy at two shillings in the pound to Beccles
Bridge, and sixteen pence in the pound from thence to Bungay Bridge and
Ditchingham Dam. {16}
£ s. d.
Gorleston 26 17 0
South Town 16 4 10
Bradwell 17 11 8
Burgh Castle 16 10 8
Belton 16 8 0
Fritton 16 19 9
Herringfleet 9 6 10
Somerley Town 8 18 10
Blundeston 2 1 4
Flixton 7 19 6
Oulton 16 8 9
Carlton Colville 6 15 9
Lowestoft 2 0 0
Barnaby 10 18 2
North Cove 12 17 0
Worlingham 6 19 4
Beccles 46 8 4
Barsham 6 13 9
Shipmeadow 3 6 8
Mettingham 14 10 9
Kirkley 0 9 9
Broom 5 18 2
Ellingham 8 15 11
Gelston 5 17 8
Aldeby 39 15 2
Burgh 58 18 2
Whitacre All Saints 17 19 10
Haddiscoe 52 19 10
Thorp next Haddiscoe 28 0 8
Ranningham 7 9 4
Thurlton 14 14 7
Loddon 10 11 6
Toft Monks 21 8 9
Langlie 13 1 0
Total £551 17 3
Still to charge—
Ditchingham 4 6 6
Gillingham 15 19 11
Bungay 0 18 0
£573 1 8
There were several other sessions of sewers held under this commission at
Lowestoft, Beccles and Loddon, before the business was finally settled.
(After the isthmus was formed, the breakwater became useless.)
But as all communications between the sea and the river has ceased for
upwards of sixty years, consequently, the apprehensions which the
adjoining country were exposed to, have long subsided. The last
irruption of the sea which happened at this place was on the 14th
December, 1717, occasioned by a violent storm of wind and high tide, when
the sea forced its way over the beach, which separated it from the river,
with such irresistible violence as to carry away Mutford Bridge, at a
mile-and-a-half distance from the sea-shore; and all the fish which were
in the eastern part of the river were destroyed by the salt water. {17a}
Lothingland, most probably, ceased to be an island and became a peninsula
about the year 1712; for at that time there was only a small
communication with the sea at the part between Lowestoft and Kirkley,
which now forms the isthmus. {17b} Soon after that period the sea
entirely withdrew itself, and the eastern point of the river, through a
deficiency of water, gradually receded to the west. The tract of land
between the ocean and the river, which forms this isthmus, is about a
quarter of a mile in breadth, and is able to resist the most sudden and
violent attacks of the boisterous ocean.
I shall conclude these remarks on the island of Lothingland, with
subjoining a few observations on the place of the greatest antiquity
therein, viz. the ancient Garianonum of the Romans, now called Burgh
Castle.
In the celebrated Notitia Imperii, {17c} or Survey of the Roman Empire,
it appears that the troops who garrisoned this station, were a body of
cavalry, called the Stablesian Horse. {17d} They were stationed at this
place under the command of a prœpositus, who was particularly styled
Gariennonensis, signifying the commander at the mouth of Garienis, or
river now called the Yare. In ascertaining the number of troops which
formed this garrison, we must have recourse to conjecture. A camp so
considerable, Garianonum so strongly fortified, and of such great
importance must necessarily require a large body of men to defend it.
The Roman troops in Britain amounted to about fourteen thousand horse;
and seventy-two thousand foot; and these being distributed into near one
hundred and forty fortresses, the mean proportion of men to each, is
about one hundred horse and four hundred and eighty or five hundred foot:
but some stations could not accommodate so many, and others required
more, and, also some consisted of horse only, and some wholly of
infantry; consequently it is impossible to assert—positively the exact
number of troops which composed this garrison.
Sir Henry Spelman, in his Iceni, and also Bishop Gibson, in his Camden,
and from them, some writers of inferior note, have placed the Garianonum
at Caistor; but Camden himself has fixed its situation at Burgh Castle;
and Ives, in his account of this station, has confirmed the opinion of
the latter with the greatest appearance of truth.
Upon a stream, whose largeness and rapidity must have rendered it
formidable to passing armies; upon a shore, peculiarly exposed to the
depredations of lawless pirates; and upon the boundary of a country
possessed by a brave and hardy people, Garianonum must have been a
station of the utmost importance to the Romans; it gave them weight and
consequence in the eyes of the Britons, who were destitute of every idea
respecting mural fortifications; it established their influence, extended
their territories, and afforded them a secure retreat, and an impregnable
defence against the warlike Iceni, who, animated with the spirit of our
immortal Boadicea, frequently rose in arms against the invaders of their
native soil. In each of these views did the politic Romans consider
their new-erected camp; in every respect it answered their designs, and
in every particular corresponded with their wishes. From hence they
commanded the estuary of the Yare, the German Ocean, and the interior
country; and from hence they derived a power and consequence sufficient
to awe and intimidate the Britons, and to prevent their making any
military attempt against them.
Being destitute of express records, and unable to penetrate the clouds
which ignorance and inattention have fabled over our Anglo-Roman
antiquities, it is from the tenor of general history alone that we are
enabled to fix a time for the building of this fortress: without such a
consultation our utmost researches would fail us, and we should have only
the miserable alternative of either guessing at the period or passing it
by unnoticed.
That portion of Anglo-Roman history which more immediately respects
Garianonum is short and limited; it commences with the reign of Claudius,
and it extends no further.
This emperor, who assumed the purple at fifty years old, had neither the
spirit, courage, nor perseverance of his great predecessor; yet,
ambitious of following the steps of Julius, he formed the design of
completing what Cæsar had begun, and of reducing Britain to a Roman
province. In pursuance of this plan, he arrived here about the year of
Christ, 45, having previously sent Aulus Plautius with troops sufficient
to effect his intention. After the emperor had continued here six months
he returned to Rome, and triumphed for conquests never obtained and for
victories never won. {18}
After the emperor’s departure, Plautius remained here near four years,
and carried on the Britannic war with spirit and success.
Next in command was the proprætor, Publius Ostorius Scapula, an
experienced officer, in whom conduct and courage were equally united. To
him the Romans were indebted for the subjection of the Iceni, to him they
were obliged for the retention of their conquests, and to him we owe the
foundation of Garianonum.
No part of the policy of this General claims our attention so much as the
erecting this fortress: it was the most effectual method of curbing the
high spirit of liberty inherent in the native Britons, of dissolving
their alliances, breaking their power, and dividing their resources; and
without these mural encampments, neither conquest nor security could have
attended the Roman banner in Britain. From this period, therefore, we
date the rise of Garianonum, built by the command and by the soldiers of
Ostorius, and garrisoned by a cohort of veteran troops lately returned
victorious from a battle with the Iceni.
Round our now well-cultivated fields, then cold, bleak, and woody, the
Romans diverted themselves with the pleasures of the chase; and cross our
now green and fertile meadows, they navigated their vessels and caught
their fish.
Upon a rising hill, near the confluence of the rivers Yare and Waveney,
and overlooking a large extent of Marshes which once formed the estuary
it commanded, stands Burgh Castle, the ancient Garianonum of the Romans.
In the construction of this camp the Romans pursued their usual method of
security in building, and practised their favourite military
architecture. It formed an irregular parallelogram, the parallel sides
of which were equally right lines, and equally long, but the corners were
rounded. Those camps, which were one-third longer than they were broad,
were esteemed the most beautiful, but here the proportion is as two to
one.
The principal wall of this station, in which is placed the Porta
Prætoria, is that to the east, 14 feet high, 214 yards long, and 9 feet
broad; the north and southern walls are just the same height and breadth,
and just half the length; the western side has no remains of any wall,
nor can we determine, with certainty, whether it ever had any; the sea
might possibly be considered as a sufficient barrier on that side, and
the steepness of the hill, as a collateral security.
Four massive round towers defend the eastern wall; the northern has one;
and another, now thrown down, stood opposite on the southern. These
towers were added after building the walls, and served not only to
ornament and strengthen them, but as _turres exploratorii_, each having
on the top a round hole two feet deep, and as many in diameter, evidently
designed both for the erection of standards and signals, and for the
admission of light temporary watch-towers, under the care and for the use
of the spectators. The south-west corner of the station forms the
pretorium, raised by the earth taken out of a vallum which surrounds and
secures it, and which is sunk eight feet lower than the common surface of
the area.
Near this was placed the south tower, which, being undermined a few years
since by the force of the water running down the vallum after some very
heavy rains, is fallen on one side near its former situation, but remains
perfectly entire. The north tower having met with a similar accident is
reclined from the wall at the top about six feet, has drawn a part of it,
and caused a breach near it. The whole area of the station contains four
acres and two roods, and, including the walls, five acres, two roods and
twenty perches.
The mortar made use of by the Romans in this work was composed of lime
and sand, unrefined by the sieve, and incorporated with common gravel and
small pebbles. It was used two different ways; one cold, in the common
manner now in use; the other, rendered fluid by fire and applied boiling
hot. From the artful mixture of both in the same building, and from the
coarse materials of the composition, this cement is extremely hard and
durable, very difficult to break, and for several days indissoluble in
water. The Romans, raising the wall to a convenient height with the
former sort, at the end of every day’s work poured the latter upon it,
which immediately filled up the interstices, and when cold, proved a most
powerful adhesive. The Roman bricks made use of at Burgh are of a fine
red colour and very close texture; they are about one foot and a half
long, one foot broad, and an inch and a half thick. It does not,
however, appear that the Romans had any exact standard for the size of
their bricks: in different stations their dimensions are considerably
varied. We ought, however, to observe that either in the choice of their
materials, or in their method of preparing them, they far excel those of
later days, being much harder and less porous than ours, and for
durableness more resembling stone, for which they were undoubtedly
substituted.
In the area of this camp, and in many of the fields around it, vast
numbers of Roman coins have been, and are still, found; but none of them
rise higher than the reign of Domitian, {19} and the generality of them
are much later. Few are found of any other metal than copper, and they
are seldom curious, either for design or execution.
The fields adjoining to the eastern wall of Garianonum was the place
allotted for depositing the ashes of the dead, and for the performance of
the funeral rites. Here great numbers of Roman urns have been found, and
innumerable pieces of them are everywhere spread over it: but neither the
workmanship nor the materials of these urns have anything to recommend
them: they are made of a coarse blue clay, brought from the neighbouring
village of Bradwell, ill-formed, brittle, and porous. One of these urns,
when the pieces were united, contained more than a peck and a half of
corn, and had a large thick stone operculum on the top of it; within was
a considerable number of bones and ashes, several fair pieces of
Constantine and the head of a Roman spear. Here also was found a
cockleare, or Roman spoon: it was of silver, and had a long handle very
sharp at the point, that being used to pick fish out of the shell, as the
bowl, or other end, served to take up liquids and small meat. Rings,
keys, buckles, sibulæ, and various other reliquiæ of the Romans, are
continually ploughed up in the fields adjoining to the station.
The intestine feuds of Italy called the Romans from their Britannic
conquests between the years 418 and 427. They gathered all the treasures
which could be found in Britain, some part of which they hid, perhaps in
hopes of returning again in better days, and of recovering their effects
from whence they had deposited them; or it might proceed from an
ambitious design of informing posterity, that the Romans were once
masters of this place. {20a} The Britons, forsaken by their Roman
guards, and exposed to the ravages of their merciless northern
neighbours, frequently hid their money when threatened with fresh
invasions; and if death or exile was the fate of the owners the secret
was lost, and the treasure remained till an accidental plough or pick-axe
once more brought it to light. Thus both Romans and Britons may have
contributed to the great number of ancient coins discovered in the
eastern parts of this county.
A Roman spur, which belonged to the Stablesain Horse, was found some
years ago, in the area of this station; and is now in the possession of
Mr. John Jex, Lowestoft. {20b} Sigebert, one of the heptarchial kings,
and fifth monarch of the East Angles, ascended the East Anglian throne in
the year 636. The Christian faith had made some faint progress in his
dominions during the reign of his father, Redwald. To reinstate some of
his subjects in their belief, and to convert others, was the great object
of Sigebert’s ambition: and to assist him in this design, he brought over
from France a priest of Burgundy, named Felix, whom he procured to be
consecrated bishop of the East Angles, and fixed the episcopal see at
Dunwich. {20c}
Whilst Felix, under the patronage of the king, was spreading the gospel
among the East Angles, Furseus, an Irish Monk, came over to his
assistance; and collecting a company of religious persons, under the
monastic rule, placed them at Burgh Castle, then called Cnobersburgh.
{21a}
Sigebert may be considered as the founder of this early monastery; but
being afterwards slain in a battle with Penda, king of Mercia, the walls
of the Roman camp afforded to Furseus and his monks a comfortable asylum;
and like the Roman soldiers, they lived in tents or huts within the area.
At this early period, regular edifices for the service of religion were
unknown: churches were erected with hurdles, and covered with straw; and
such buildings were fully sufficient for the devotion of a people, who in
compliment to their next prince, might return to Paganism. The death of
Sigebert deprived Furseus of a great and zealous patron; and to avoid the
troubles which succeeded it, he left his monastery at Burgh, and retired
into France.
The monks, however, appeared to have been endued with more constancy and
resolution; for by the favours granted to this religious society, by some
of the latter kings of the East Angles, we find they remained there for
several years: but how long they continued at Burgh, or when they left
it, is uncertain.
It appears that in the reign of Edward I. the prior of Bromeholme held
the manor of Burgh, of our lord the king, in capite; and the prior and
monks of Bromeholme continued lords of this manor till the dissolution of
their house, 26 Henry VIII.; when, with their revenues, it again reverted
to the crown, who possessed it till Queen Mary sold it to William
Roberts, town-clerk of Yarmouth.
Roger de Burgh gave the advowason of this church to the priory of St.
Olave, at Herringfleet for perpetual alms; and King Henry III, confirmed
the donation to them. The prior presented to the rectory, and had a
reserved pension of four marks out of it, which is still paid to the
owner of St. Olave’s. After the dissolution of the priory the patronage
of the church came to the crown. {21b}
The church is a small building, consisting of a nave, chancel, and round
tower, and is dedicated to St. Peter. It is a rectory, anciently valued
at ten marks; in the king’s books at £6 13s. 4d.; and being of the sworn
value of £44 6s. 1d., is discharged of first-fruits and tenths. The
parsonage house adjoins to the north-west corner of the churchyard, and
has thirty-nine acres of glebe belonging to it.
The present rector is the Rev. John Bellward, to whom the author here
acknowledges himself much indebted for his kindness to him many years
since.