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.
LECTURE IV.
PART I.—IN THE TIME OF CHARLES I.
At the beginning of the 17th century the decay of our fisheries, and the
consequent loss of sailors, on whose services the country depended for
the protection of our shores, coupled with the warning which the
Spaniards had given us, had caused a sense of national danger, which was
realised by many besides ministers of the Crown. During his imprisonment
of 13 years in the Tower of London, poor Sir Walter Raleigh wrote a
pamphlet, which he presented to James I., in which he complained bitterly
of our shame in allowing the Dutch and the French to get the command of
our home fisheries. He says that
“While the English were sending their ships into the North Seas to
catch whales, the Dutch were catching the herrings and codfish in our
own seas; that in 1603 the Dutch fishermen sold £1,759,000 worth of
herrings, and employed 2,000 busses and 50,000 men.”
Among other pamphlets written to rouse the nation and the government to
take active measures for curing this evil, a powerful appeal appeared
from an anonymous writer, entitled “England’s way to win wealth and to
employ ships and manners. By Tobias, Gentleman, Fisherman and Mariner,”
dated 1614. Speaking of the Dutch fishermen, he says—
“Also to Yarmouth do they daily (i.e. during the season), come into
the haven up to the Key, all the most part of the great fleet of
Hollanders, that go in sword-pinks, Holland toads, crab skuits,
walnut shells, and great and small yeurs, 100 and 200 sail at a time
together, and all the herrings they do bring they sell for ready
money to Yarmouth men; and also the Frenchmen of Picardy and Normandy
some hundred sail of them at a time, do come hither, and all the
herrings they catch they do sell to the Yarmouth herring-mongers for
ready gold.”
The writer gives the following account of the fisheries carried on by the
Yarmouth merchants in their own boats.
“To this town belong some 20 Iceland Barks, which they do send for
cod and ling, and some 150 sail of North Sea boats. They make a
shift to live; but if they had the use of busses and also barrel fish
they would excel all England and Holland; for they be the only
fishermen for the North Seas, and also the best for the handling of
fish that are in this land.”
He also gives an account of the trade as carried on at Lowestoft at this
time, which you will be surprised to hear spoken of as a “decayed town.”
“To the north of Swold Haven (Southwold), three leagues are Kirkley
and Layestof, decayed towns. They have 6 or 7 North Sea boats; but
they of Layestof make benefit yearly of buying herrings of the
Hollanders; for likewise these Hollanders are hosted with the
Layestof men, as they are with the Yarmouthians.”
The government of Elizabeth had adopted various measures (with one of
which you are already well acquainted) for encouraging the employment of
English ships and sailors in the fishing trade, and the general commerce
of the country. But the English could not successfully compete with the
Dutch fishermen even off our own shores. Charles took stronger measures
to get these fisheries into the hands of Englishmen. He determined to
issue a prohibition against the subjects of foreign countries fishing in
what he claimed to be British seas, without a license from the English
government. In order to be able to enforce such an offensive measure he
took steps for providing a more powerful navy than the country had ever
before possessed. Unfortunately he had already quarreled with his
Parliament, and he had to obtain the money required by demands authorised
only by his Royal Prerogative. However popular the measure would have
been, if it had been carried out by constitutional means, the imposition
upon the whole country, without the consent of Parliament, of the tax
called “ship money,” was the fatal proceeding which brought on the Civil
War. He succeeded however at first, and at once issued his prohibition
which the Dutch refused to submit to, and in 1536, Hume tells us—
“A formidable fleet of 60 sail, the greatest that England had ever
known, was equipped under the Earl of Northumberland who had orders
to attack the Herring busses of the Dutch which fished in what was
called the British seas.”
The effect of this attack upon the Dutch and French fishing in what was
called the British seas was felt by Yarmouth and Lowestoft immediately.
No more could their merchants rely upon their foreign visitors for their
supply of herrings. If they were to retain their trade in herrings they
must now catch them themselves or have their supplies limited to the
produce of the English fishermen from southern ports.
LOWESTOFT IN THE CIVIL WAR.
Both towns had submitted, with the other maritime towns of Norfolk and
Suffolk to the demands for ship money with which this fleet had been
provided, but when the demand for more ships and more money was made in
the following years, the loyalty of both towns must have been sorely
tried.
The events which followed upon the King’s renewal of his demand for
ship-money throughout the kingdom, form the saddest chapters in the
history of our country. We have only to notice those in which our two
towns were concerned.
The Long Parliament met in 1640, and in 1642 Yarmouth declared herself
for “the King and Parliament,” which meant that she was prepared to side
with the Parliament against the King. Lowestoft took a different course.
Although probably, like most other towns, and even families, at this
terrible and critical period, our old townspeople were divided on the
grave questions at issue, it appears that several of the leading persons
in the town were so much inclined to the King’s side, that instead of at
once joining the East Anglian Association with the rest of the towns and
parishes, and most of the landed gentry in the county, they entered into
communication with some of the Cavalier party and offered Lowestoft as a
rendezvous for the King’s friends. Such a course was perhaps only a
natural sequel to the steps taken a few years before in applying to the
King to exempt the town from contributing to the expenses of the county
members, on the ground of being Ancient Demesne of the Crown. In the
return of Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston and Sir Philip Parker, the Roundhead
members for Suffolk, in the Long Parliament, Lowestoft had no part.
We have unfortunately no local records of the measures taken by our old
townspeople, or by their cavalier visitors for converting the little town
into a royalist stronghold; but it appears that in the early part of the
year 1643, while Cromwell was at Cambridge, busy in establishing there
the Head quarters of the East Anglian Association, he received
information of “a great confederacy among the malignants of a town called
Lowestoft, being a place of great consequence.” It is said that the
information was given him by a man who brought fish to Cambridge;
doubtless a Yarmouth man. Cromwell, with his usual energy, started off
at once to nip this “malignant” movement in the bud.
We have a full account of what took place from a letter written at the
time by Mr. J. Cory, a Norwich man. Cromwell started with 5 troops of
horse, which he increased at Norwich, with 80 volunteer dragoons, under
Captain Fountain and Captain Rich, and arranged with the Yarmouth people
to meet him at Lowestoft with an additional force of foot volunteers and
5 pieces of ordnance. With this formidable force he appeared at
Lowestoft on the March. He found
“That the town had blocked themselves up, all except where they had
placed their ordnance, which were three pieces, before which a chain
was drawn to keep off the horse. The Colonel surrounded the town and
demanded that they should give up the strangers, the town, and their
army, promising them their favour, if so; if not, none. They yielded
to deliver their strangers, but not the rest. Where upon our Norwich
dragoons crept under the chain before mentioned, and came within
pistol shot of the ordnance, preparing to fire upon their cannoneer,
who fled. So they gained the two pieces of ordnance and broke the
chain, and they and the horses entered the town without resistance;
when presently eighteen strangers yielded themselves—Sir T. Barker,
Sir John Pettus, of Norfolk, Mr. Knivett, of Ashwell Thorpe, Mr.
Richard Catelyn’s son, some say his father too was there in the
morning. Sir F. Cory, my unfortunate cousin, who I wish could have
been better persuaded, Mr. Brooke, the sometime minister of Yarmouth,
and some others escaped over the river. There was good stores of
pistols and other arms; I bear above 50 cases of pistols. The
Colonel stayed there Tuesday and Wednesday night. On Friday night
the Colonel brought in hither (Norwich), his prisoners taken at
Lowestoft and Mr. Trott of Beccles. On Saturday night, with one
troop, he sent all the prisoners to Cambridge. Sir John Wentworth
(of Somerleyton), has come off with the payment of £1000.” {85}
We have a short account of these proceedings from the other side, from no
less a personage than the Vicar himself, Mr. Jacob Rous, who had
evidently taken an active part in the movement. He has left in the
Parish Register, this note, dated 1646.
“Reader, whoever thou art, that shall have occasion to use this
booke, know that by this means for these two following years it comes
to be soe imperfect as thou find’st it. On the 14th March, 1643,
Colonel Cromwell, with a brigade of horse and certain foote, which he
had from Yarmouth, came to this towne and from thence carried away
prisoners. Sir Thomas Barker and his brother, Sir John Pettis, Mr.
Knivett, of Ashwell Thorpe, Mr. Catlin, Captain Hammond, Mr. Thomas
Cory, with others to Cambridge, and with them, myself, Mr. Thomas
Allen, Mr. Simon Canham and Thomas Canham, of this towne, so that for
some time following, there was in this town neither minister nor
clerke, but the inhabitants weare enforced to procure now one and
then another to baptize their children, by which means there was no
register kept, only those few hearafter mentioned wear by myselfe
baptised in those intervalls when I enjoied my freedom.”
We have in these extracts, I believe, the only original records of this
exciting episode in the history of our old town. What became of the
“army,” which Cromwell had been led to suppose he would find at Lowestoft
we are not informed. The accounts give the impression that the
inhabitants of Lowestoft had taken very little part in the movement, and
that the preparations were the work of the influential “strangers,” with
the concurrence of the Vicar, the Parish Clerk, and a few other leading
men. Mr. Mighells, one of the leading merchants of the time, had the
credit of saving the little town from the fate in which the gallant
cavaliers would have involved it, by appearing on the scene and
dissuading resistance to Cromwell’s entrance. After a stay of two nights
at the Swan, and the capture of the “strangers” and the few “malignants”
among the townspeople, Cromwell returned to Cambridge with his troop and
left the little town in peace, without considering it necessary to leave
any force to insure its future allegiance to the Parliamentary cause.
The story of this incident has naturally been considerably improved. In
a petition to the judges, drawn up some 20 years afterwards, the
proceedings of Cromwell and his soldiers were represented as “taking and
plundering the town, imprisoning many of their principal inhabitants, and
causing others to fly beyond the sea.” The plundering seems to have been
confined to the quartering of the soldiers for two nights without
payment. Tradition only tells of one case, illustrative of any other
plundering, viz.: that of the blacksmith, Frarey, who Mr. Suckling tells
us—“was completely stripped of all his goods and obliged to keep his
horse in the parlour of his house to prevent it being carried off by the
soldiers.” The “stripping of all his goods by the soldiers” consisted
probably in their using his iron and tools to shoe their horses, without
payment. Why, if bent on further plunder they did not take the trouble
of looking into his parlour, the story does not explain. The “many of
the principal inhabitants taken prisoners” were the four persons
mentioned by Mr. Rouse. The others who “had to fly beyond the sea” were
apparently a few of our sea warriors who had served in the King’s navy,
and who took advantage of the civil war to start a career of privateering
from a Dutch port. We shall hear of their proceedings shortly.
HOSTILITIES BETWEEN YARMOUTH AND LOWESTOFT.
In 1642 the Yarmouth men had the luck to capture a ship sent over by the
Queen with arms and ammunition for the King’s army. After confiscating
this ship in their Admiralty Court, with the approval of the Parliament,
they fitted it out as a man of war, and in 1644 sent it out as a
privateer on the side of the Parliament. They commenced hostilities by
capturing a “pink” lying in the harbour, of which ‘Captain Allen’ was
part owner. This was Mr. Thomas Allen of Lowestoft, who was then one of
Cromwell’s prisoners at Cambridge, afterwards Admiral Allen and Sir
Thomas Allen of Somerleyton. He had gone over to Yarmouth the day before
Cromwell’s visit to change dollars, and it appears that he was captured
by some Yarmouth men and handed over to Cromwell. He was released after
about two years detention, and in 1645 we find him engaged in active
warfare for the King against Yarmouth. The Yarmouth men confined their
claim against the pink to Captain Allen’s share, which they sold to Mr.
James Wylde, another Lowestoft man, but not a ‘malignant,’ for £35. We
are told by Mr. Swinden that
“The Inhabitants of Yarmouth had already suffered very much by losses
at sea, their ships, vessels, and goods being frequently taken and
carried away by “rovers and pirates” at sea, and others in hostility
against the Parliament, whereby the town was greatly impoverished.”
Out of the 23 Yarmouth ships sent to catch cod in Iceland in 1644, 20
were sunk by the “pirates.” To protect their fishermen, Yarmouth, in
1645, obtained three men of war from the Parliament. These ships
captured several of the pirate ships, among the crew of which they found
several Lowestoft men. These captures brought a letter from Ostend
signed by Captain Allen and 11 other Englishmen, including two or three
more Lowestoft names, threatening Yarmouth with reprisals if these men
were not liberated. The hostilities carried on by these “Ostend pirates”
against the Yarmouth fishing boats could not have much advanced the cause
of the King. We do not, however, hear of any lives being taken in the
encounters, but the loss inflicted upon the Yarmouth and other fishermen
must have been very severe, if the following statement in Captain Allen’s
letter was anything more than bluster.
“Have we given you thousands of prisoners which we might have
indungeoned, nay hanged, but that rebellious ignorance impleaded
their escape. Now we can if you compel us make a hundred suffer for
one.”
REMOVAL OF MEMORIAL BRASSES FROM THE CHURCH.
In 1644 our church suffered some illusage from the Protestant fervour of
the Parliament. The story, as told by the Vicar, Mr. Jacob Rouse, is as
follows—
“In the same year after, on the 22nd of June, there came one Jessope
with a commission from the Earl of Manchester to take away from
gravestones all inscriptions on which he found “orate pro anima;” A
wretched commissioner not able to read or find out that which his
commission informed him to remove, hee took up in our church so much
brasses as he sould to Mr. Josiah Wild for five shillings, which was
afterwards contrary to my knowledge, run into the litle bell that
hangs in the town house. Thear wearr taken up in the middle ally,
twelve peeces, belonging to the twelve severall generations of the
Jettors; in the chancell, one belonging to Bishop Scroope; the words
were “Richardus Scroope Episcopus Dromorocensis et hujus ecclesiæ
vicarius, hic jacet, qui obiit 10 may anno 1364.” There was also by
this Jessop taken up in the vicar’s chancell, one the north side of
the church, a fair peece of brasse with this inscription “Hic jacet
Johannes Goodknapp hujus ecclesiæ vicarius qui obiit 4 Decembris anno
dni 1442.”
The vicar’s spelling is bad for this time, and his account is curiously
inaccurate. Bishop Scroope’s Christian name was Thomas, not Richard, and
he died in 1491, not 1364. The Jettors were an old Lowestoft family, and
we have seen their names in the Subsidy Rolls for 1524, in which John
Jettor, senr., of that date, appears as possessed of £10 worth of
“movabyll goods.” The existence of brasses in the Parish Church
commemorating 12 generations of this family before 1644 was very
improbable. No such name as John Goodknapp appears in the list of vicars
in the Diocesan Register.
It appears that the “litle bell,” which was cast from the brasses taken
from the church, was in use as the chapel bell in Gillingwater’s time at
the end of the last century. It was re-cast when the chapel was
converted into the Town Hall; in the tower of which it still hangs, and
sounds the hours for the Town Clock.
Although both Yarmouth and Lowestoft must have suffered with the rest of
the country from the restrictions on social and commercial intercourse
during these sad times, the fishing business seems to have improved
rather than otherwise, owing to a diminution in the number of foreign
competitors, and an increase in the exportation of fish.
There appears to have been a considerable increase in the number of ships
sent from both towns to the cod fishery off Iceland, and to the herring
fishery in the North Sea. During the years 1641 and 1649, the Yarmouth
cod fishing reached its greatest height. The ships destroyed by the
“pirates” in 1644 were soon replaced, and the accounts shew that no less
than 33 barks were sent to the Iceland fishery in 1648, besides 182 boats
employed in the herring fishery. According to Gillingwater, as many as
30 ships were employed by Lowestoft in the same fisheries at this one.
If this was the case, the Lowestoft fishermen must have made a great
advance since the days of Elizabeth, when we were told by Mr. Mighells
that their ships going to Iceland had been reduced to one.
Gillingwater gives a full account of the cod fishery, as carried on by
the Lowestoft fishermen, and tells us that in his time—
“There was a trench still visible upon the Denes, a little to the
north of Lowestoft, in which stood the blubber coppers where they
used to boil the livers of the fish when they returned home from the
voyage.”
THE GREAT FIRE OF 1644.
It was in 1644, the year after Cromwell’s visit, that Lowestoft suffered
the greatest calamity with which the town was ever afflicted, before or
since. On the 10th March in that year, we are told, by Mr. Rous,—
“There happened in this towne a most violent and dreadful fire which
consumed and burnt down soe many houses above and beneath the cliffe,
as could not be rebuilt according to the judgement of knowing
artificers who viewed it for above ten thousand pounds.”
It appears from the account of a survey of the losses incurred by the
different owners, that the totals comprised £4,145 10. on dwelling
houses, on fish-houses £3,085 0. 0. and on goods £3,066 12. 4. {90a}
The number of houses burnt was stated afterwards to have been 140. {90b}
According to a survey made in 1642 the yearly value of the houses and
tenements in the Parish was put at £412 6. 8., and the value of land at
£447 11. 8., making a total of £859 18. 4. As the valuation of the
houses and fish-houses burnt was £7,000, a sum which at as low a rate as
5 per cent would represent an annual value of £350, the property burnt
would appear to have been much the larger part in value of all the houses
and tenements in the town.
Considering how simple the construction of even the better class of
houses was at this time, the value put upon the dwelling houses burnt,
would seem to imply that they included many of the best houses on the
cliff, where the owners of the fish-houses at the bottom resided: though
the fire does not seem to have reached the house, which still exists at
the top of Wilde’s Score.
The losses of the owners on fish-houses ranged from £25 to £450. Mr.
Josiah Wilde’s loss was £400 on fish-houses. Doubtless this included the
large fish-house at the bottom of Wilde’s Score. Many of these
fish-houses had probably been built in the early times of the Edwards and
the Henrys. In a statement made some 20 years afterwards these
fish-houses, then restored, are referred to as “monuments” proving the
antiquity of the trades of the town.
In 1649 another valuation was made, in pursuance of an order of the
Parliament. According to this valuation the value of property in the
parish had been much reduced since 1641. The yearly value of all the
lands and tenements in the parish was put then at £655. Doubtless this
reduction was mainly due to the loss of property caused by the fire. But
assuming that the value of the house property at this period was very
small; and the annual value of land still less, it is impossible to
reconcile these statements of the yearly value of the whole parish, with
the valuation of the property destroyed by the fire. The explanation of
the discrepancy would seem to be that the valuation of their property by
our old townspeople to furnish a basis for taxation, was on a very
different principle to that on which it was valued for the purpose of
supporting a claim for exemption. Probably houses had no marketable or
ascertainable value either for sale or letting at this time, and the
estimate of either their capital or annual value would be of a very
speculative character.
VALUE OF MOVEABLE GOODS.
The value of the “goods” lost by the fire is put at £3,066. This amount
of property was owned by some 60 out of the three or four hundred
householders which the town contained. The loss of Mr. Josiah Wilde was
put at £280; the loss of Mr. Robert Bits at £370. As the small sum of £2
is given as the value of the goods lost by some of the smaller sufferers,
we must regard the valuation of goods destroyed as sufficiently
trustworthy to give an idea of the value of the stock in trade and
furniture possessed by the merchants and tradesmen of the town at this
period. A comparison of this valuation with the £790 returned as the
value of the “movabyll goods” possessed by our townspeople in 1524, shews
how largely the wealth of our merchants had increased since that time,
notwithstanding the decay of their fisheries, and the other adverse
circumstances against which they had been struggling, and how great had
been the increase in the furniture and other commodities of life, which
was noticed by Holinshed as commencing in Elizabeth’s time.
But even so the inhabitants generally must have been very poor and badly
housed compared with the present day.
Putting 1,500 acres (nearly the whole acreage of the Parish) as the
quantity of land valued in 1642 at £447. 11. 8. we have an annual value
at that time of about 6 shillings an acre. The quantity of land in the
Parish now rated as agricultural land is about 760 acres, and the
rateable value £994 or about 28 shillings per acre; not 5 times its value
in 1642.
Putting 400 as the number of houses having an aggregate value in 1642 of
£412 we should have an average annual value of about £1 per house. The
number of houses now in the parish (of course apart from Kirkley), is
4,867 and the rateable value £77,680, giving an average value of about
£16 per house, or 16 times that of 1642. This very great increase of
value represents in the main the difference in the character of the
dwellings in which our ancestors lived, and of those required by an
advanced civilization. Writing in 1790 Gillingwater gives the following
description of the town at that time:—
“Lowestoft is about a mile in length, and consists chiefly of one
principal street, running in a gradual descent from north to south,
which is intersected by several smaller streets or lanes from the
west. It is well paved, particularly High street, and consists of
about 445 houses, exclusive of fish-houses, which are chiefly built
of brick. Several of the houses have been lately rebuilt in the
modern style, and make a handsome appearance. _It is probable that
the town consists of much the same number of houses now as it had
many years ago_; _there being very few houses erected upon new
foundations_, _but only rebuilt upon the old ones_. _Lowestoft
contains about 2,231 inhabitants_.” {92}
PART II.—IN THE TIME OF CHARLES II.
THIRD AND LAST CONTEST WITH YARMOUTH ABOUT THEIR CHARTER.—CONCLUSION.
It was while our merchants were suffering from their losses caused by the
great fire, that the Yarmouth people made a third effort to enforce the
privileges of their ancient charters now confirmed and strengthened by
the charter of James I. It appears that for some years before 1659, they
had sent boats into the roads off Lowestoft to exact harbour dues from
fishing boats, but in this year they took a much stronger measure. They
had in their harbour a large ship, probably the Queen’s ship which we
have before heard of as used for war-like purposes. They fitted out this
ship as a “man of war” and sent her to ride in the roads off Lowestoft.
The ship was formally “commissioned” by the Yarmouth bailiffs under the
command of Thomas Allen, a namesake of the Lowestoft champion, to prevent
the Western fishermen and other strangers selling their fish to the
Lowestoft merchants in the roads; with power to seize their ships, etc.
The “man of war” was sufficiently formidable to terrorise the strangers,
but not the Lowestoft men, who having well armed themselves for the
encounter, went out in their boats to attack it. According to the
statement of the Yarmouth bailiffs—
“The chief men of the said town came upon the said Thomas Allen and
his company in the road of the said town, violently and riotously in
boats, and with force of arms, etc., drave him and them out of the
road, threatening them otherwise to fire their vessel. Whereby the
said Thomas Allen with his vessel and company was forced to come away
without doing anything.” {93}
In consequence of this vigorous action on the part of the Lowestoft men
the ship was sent again sufficiently armed to resist any second attack,
and
“With a flag on the maintop-roast head, having 25 men on board, armed
with swords, half-pikes, muskets, and a great store of stones, the
ship sails into the roads of Corton, Lowestoft and Kirkley, during
the chiefest part of the season, daily chasing the fishermen so that
none durst deliver any herrings.” {94a}
According to a statement in a petition of the inhabitants of Lowestoft to
the House of Lords, {94b} the effect of these very high-handed
proceedings on the part of the Yarmouth bailiffs was that the Lowestoft
merchants were deprived of “at least a thousand lasts of herrings,” which
they would otherwise have purchased from their visitors during the
season. This was probably an exaggeration, but it was evident that
unless this assertion of their privileges by the Yarmouth bailiffs was at
once resisted, the herring-trade of Lowestoft would be annihilated at a
time when its merchants had been rebuilding and enlarging their
fish-houses with a view to an increase of their fish-curing trade. It
was stated that at this time they had capacity in their fish-houses for
“hanging” 700 lasts of herrings. This number of lasts were “hung” in the
Lowestoft curing houses in 1674, {94c} a larger number than could be hung
at one time in our present curing houses. But the number of herrings
cured in the town would only be part of the quantity passing through the
merchant’s hands—then and now.
LOWESTOFT APPEALS TO THE KING AGAINST YARMOUTH.
Impoverished as the merchants were by their losses from the fire, and the
expense of rebuilding their houses and fish-houses, they bravely
determined to resist the pretensions of Yarmouth by another appeal to the
governing powers of the country, and at once took steps to gain the
support and co-operation of other towns interested in the herring trade.
Meanwhile events had been taking place of much more importance to the
country than the quarrel between Lowestoft and Yarmouth. The Cromwellian
rule had come to an end, and a King again sat on the throne of England.
Yarmouth had lost the claim to the favour of the crown which her
ancestors had enjoyed in the days of the Edwards. She must secure the
favour of the new King by other means. Before his landing, the Burgesses
had met and determined that it was “a convenient season” to send an
address to their King with the offer of a little pecuniary assistance.
In August, 1660, they submitted a most loyal address to their “dread
sovereign” congratulating him upon his being restored to his rights and
possessions, etc., and acknowledging in all humility their obligation to
pay the old fee-farm rent (which they had already paid to Cromwell by
composition), and tendering him £266 13. 4. in cash for arrears. In the
following December they sent him a further present of £500. {95}
The Lowestoft people had no reason to doubt the good will of Charles, and
they commenced their suit by a petition to the King himself complaining
of the conduct of the Yarmouth bailiffs, and supporting it by numerous
petitions to the House of Lords, the Judges, the Fishmonger’s Company,
and many great men of the day. This Petition to the King was very
favourably received, as appears from the following reply from His
Majesty, dated 17th October, 1660, at the court of Whitehall,
“The situation of the town of Lowestoft being very well known unto
His Majesty, who is much dissatisfied with the proceedings of the
town of Yarmouth, mentioned in the petition of the said town of
Lowestoft, he is graciously pleased to refer the consideration of the
said petition to the Right Honourable the Lords of His Majesty’s most
Honourable the Privy Council, to give such orders for the relief and
satisfaction of the said petitioners as they in their great wisdom
shall think meet.”
_Signed_ ROBERT MASON.
The Lowestoft people were so pleased with the King’s expression of
sympathy with their cause, that they submitted a second petition to him
asking him to preside in person at the hearing of the case, and “to put
an end to all differences according to the rights and justice of their
cause.”
The King did attend the hearing of the case, but he did not gratify the
expectations of our old townspeople by deciding it in their favour at
once.
The case was heard by the Privy Council on several days before the King,
the Duke of York, and many great officers of state and noblemen. As when
the case was brought before the Star Chamber in Elizabeth’s time, the
Privy Council attempted to get the matter settled by referring it to the
law authorities. But these learned persons found themselves equally
unable to settle the dispute on legal grounds, and it was accordingly
referred to the House of Lords. After the suit had been for upwards of
two years under discussion by these various authorities, the House of
Lords gave their decision, which was simply a repetition of the decision
of the judges in Elizabeth’s time, but it was supplemented by an order to
the Sheriffs of Norfolk and Suffolk, to measure the distance of seven
miles from the “Crane Key” at Yarmouth, along the shore towards
Lowestoft, and to place there a new post to mark the limits, “within
which the Bailiffs and Corporation of Yarmouth are to enjoy their full
privileges and immunities, as the said statute of the 31st, Edward III.,
and their charter do afford them, and no further.”
PROCEEDINGS AT YARMOUTH ABOUT THE MEASUREMENT OF THE SEVEN MILES.
The 27th of May 1662, was agreed upon by the Sheriffs for making the
measurement in pursuance of the order of the House of Lords, and at 9
o’clock in the morning of the appointed day, a number of Suffolk
gentlemen, including seven Justices of the Peace, living near Lowestoft,
and accompanied by the Under Sheriff of Suffolk, appeared at Yarmouth.
Neither the Sheriff of Norfolk, Sir Richard Bacon, nor the Under Sheriff,
Mr. Roger Smith, of Norwich, had arrived; but at 11 o’clock Mr. Roger
Smith put in an appearance, and excused the absence of the High Sheriff
on the ground that he was at his house about 30 miles away, and not in
health.
A long altercation then took place between the Suffolk gentlemen and the
Under Sheriff of Norfolk. Mr. Roger Smith took the bold course of
denying that the House of Lords had “the power to take away another man’s
rights,” and professed to be quite unable to satisfy himself at what
point the measurement should commence, etc. At length having firmly
maintained his position till dinner, he left the Suffolk gentlemen and
dined with the Bailiffs.
Having waited till Mr. Smith had finished his dinner, the Suffolk
gentlemen again requested him to join in the measurement, but now he was
not only obdurate but returned “unhandsome answers.” Accordingly at the
request of the Lowestoft men, the Suffolk Justices and the Under Sheriff
engaged two surveyors and undertook to make the measurement without him.
They commenced at the “Crane Key” about 4 o’clock in the afternoon
“pursued by multitudes with much insolence and disturbance.” They rode
along the shore under the cliff watching the surveyors laying their chain
and completed their task about half an hour before sunset. Having marked
the place for the new post, a few yards nearer Yarmouth than that of the
“ancient” post, (that put up in Elizabeth’s time) they went on to
Lowestoft and stayed there for the night.
The following day was spent in great rejoicing at Lowestoft. The High
Sheriff of Suffolk had now joined the party, and they were entertained by
the town at the Swan Hotel.
A post was soon afterwards set up at the spot fixed upon, but the
Yarmouth men acting on the advice of Mr. Roger Smith, refused to
recognise it, and the Lowestoft men had again to appeal to the Lords to
enforce their order. In the following April the House of Lords issued
their warrant to their Sergeant-at-Arms to take into custody Roger Smith,
the Under Sheriff of Norfolk and ordered that the measurement should be
executed again by the two sheriffs. This was done, without further
interruption, on the 10th June following, and another post fixed.
Mr. Roger Smith having been detained in custody for about a fortnight
petitioned to be released on the ground that as long as he was in prison
the King’s taxes could not be collected. He was brought to the Bar of
the House of Lords and ordered to make instant submission upon his knees
at the bar of that house, before their lordships, in the words
following.—
“I do humbly beg your Lordships’ pardon, and express very hearty
sorrow for not executing your Lordships’ order, and for any unadvised
words uttered by me, which might have any reflection on your
Lordships’ judgement and order concerning the matter in difference
between the towns of Lowestoft and Yarmouth.”
It was further ordered that he should make the same humble submission
before the people on the “Crane Key” at Yarmouth. On these conditions he
was released. Doubtless both acts of penance were duly performed.
Although the ghost of the old charter was not finally laid by the result
of the contest, it was the last time that the expensive process of an
appeal to the Crown, or to Parliament, was resorted to for settling the
disputes which it gave rise to between the two towns. The expenses of
this protracted suit, defrayed by Lowestoft, amounted to £600, not a very
large sum compared with modern experiences.
In order to prevent the question being again raised by Yarmouth as to the
distance to which their privileges extended, when Charles II. gave the
town a new charter in 1684, a special proviso was inserted in it—
“That the word leuca mentioned in divers former charters signifies an
English mile and no more, as declared by the House of Lords in the
15th year of our reign.” {99}
Thus the town was compelled to accept a construction of the provisions of
their old charter which excluded Lowestoft from the area of their
application.
“CORTON POLE.”
The spot where the 7 miles, measured from the Crane Quay at Yarmouth, was
found to terminate, was in Gunton Denes about 150 yards this side of the
Corton boundary. The post set up in 1663 was washed down a few years
afterwards. It had been placed too near the sea, which at that period
was advancing on the land at this part of the coast; and in 1676 another
post was fixed, a few yards further inland, in the presence of a number
of leading men representing the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. This
post has been also replaced more than once since, but it is still
represented by the post known as the “Corton Pole.” The present post,
and one or two of its predecessors, have been used by the Corton Coast
Guard for practising their life saving apparatus, and its interesting
connection with the history of our old town is not generally known. Old
men however still remember this post being known as a boundary mark
beyond which Lowestoft people might not land fish. As Gillingwater does
not mention any further replacing of the post before he wrote his
history, it may be inferred that the post set up in 1676 was standing in
his time. From what I have learnt as to the replacing of the posts in
later years by the Coast Guard, it would appear that the present post is
nearly in the same position as the posts of 1676, and 1596.
EFFECT OF THE SUCCESSFUL TERMINATION OF THE SUIT.
The success of our old townspeople in their contest with Yarmouth appears
to have had the effect of reviving their energies, and encouraged them to
take active measures for improving their hold on the herring trade, and
increasing the number of ships employed by themselves in the fishery.
But at this time the trade appears to have been again in a depressed
state owing to the Dutch war. According to a statement in their petition
to Parliament in 1670, one half of the fishing adventurers of the town
had given up the business and their fishermen were lamentably
impoverished.
Our old town was however now in good favour with the government. Several
of its seamen were doing good service in the Kings’ navy against the
Dutch, and they had a good friend in Parliament in the old royalist Sir
John Pettus, who had been one of the “strangers” captured by Cromwell in
Lowestoft some 30 years before. They employed him to present petitions
to Parliament on behalf of their own and the fishermen of other Suffolk
towns.
One of these proposals was that “fishing beer” should be exempted from
the excise duty. In connection with this proposal a return was made of
the number of fishing boats employed by Lowestoft and the neighbouring
Suffolk fishing villages. From this return it appears that at this time
Lowestoft sent out 25 boats, Pakefield and Kirkley 14, Southwold 11,
Aldborough 5, Corton 2, and Dunwich 1.
The consumption of beer by the crews of these 58 boats was estimated at 9
tuns per boat, amounting altogether to 522 tuns. It is probable that in
these days a liberal supply of beer, which was very cheap, compensated
for a deficiency in good food. Since the invention of tea, coffee and
cocoa, beer is happily no longer necessary on board a fishing boat and
has long since ceased to form part of the provisions carried by Lowestoft
boats.
In 1679 we find our old townspeople taking steps for advancing the
general mercantile trade of town, by petitioning the Treasury to allow
their merchants to export corn, and import coal. {101} This was not
granted, nor can we see how, without a harbour, the ambitious project of
engaging in such trades could be entertained. Leave was however given
for the exportation of butter, cheese, and fish and for the importation
of all materials requisite for building and furnishing ships.
It was stated in this Petition that the town had then increased its
shipping to the number of 60 vessels—a rapid advance on the 25 ships
possessed 9 years before. As we are told by Gillingwater that the number
of boats employed at Lowestoft in the herring fishery during the years
1722–1781, averaged about 33, there could have been no further advance in
the fishing business until quite recent years. It is evident that our
old townspeople had been bestirring themselves, and were making good use
of the opportunity which the absence of Dutch busses from this side of
the North Sea now offered.
With such evidence of a revival of life and energy in our old Town, and
the promise of further growth and commercial development in the future,
(a promise since so happily realised), we may close our sketch of
Lowestoft in olden times.
It has given us glimpses of our old townspeople during four centuries of
a chequered career during which they established and maintained their
position with very little help from natural advantages or local
circumstances. Without a harbour they were unable to make any material
advance in either wealth or population. But small as the old town was it
was able to contribute largely to the manning of the fleets which fought
for England against the Dutch and other powers during the latter part of
the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century, and to claim as her own
sons many of the brave seamen who added to the glory of the national flag
during those wars. A short notice of these Lowestoft heroes will be a
fitting conclusion to our sketch. A full account of their exploits is to
be found in Gillingwater.
You are already acquainted with Mr. Thomas Allen, one of Cromwell’s
prisoners in 1643. He belonged to an old Lowestoft family. In the navy
of Charles II. he held many high commands, and as an Admiral, took a
prominent part in some of the fierce conflicts of the First Dutch War.
In 1669 he retired from active service and was created a Baronet. Having
acquired a handsome fortune, by opportunities not given to our sea
warriors of the present day, he bought the Somerleyton Estate and resided
in the old Hall for several years.
Admiral Utber and his son, Captain Utber, were also Lowestoft men who
served with Admiral Allen in the Dutch Wars, and performed many
distinguished services.
Sir John Ashby was another gallant seaman belonging to an old Lowestoft
family. He was much distinguished for his services both as Captain and
Admiral in the wars against France, in the time of William III. He was
in command as Admiral of the Blue at the celebrated battle of La Hogue.
Another Lowestoft man, Sir Andrew Leake, was distinguished for his
services in the war against France and Spain, in the early part of the
reign of Queen Ann. He took part in the Capture of Gibraltar in 1704,
and afterwards in the great battle off Malaga in the same year, in which
he lost his life. (He must not be confused with his namesake, Sir John
Leake, the hero of the siege.)
Another distinguished seaman was Admiral Mighells. He belonged to a
well-known Lowestoft family, which had held a leading position in the
town for more than a hundred years. The name has been mentioned more
than once in these lectures. He was distinguished for his services in
the war against Spain in 1719.
The last of our naval heroes, whose early career associated him with
those already mentioned, was Captain Thomas Arnold. He earned great
distinction in an action against the Spanish Fleet when serving under
Admiral George Byng in 1718. He belonged to a family which had held a
high position in the town for more than century, and which still holds
the same position amongst us. The prestige of this family has been since
enhanced by the celebrity of others of its members—the great educational
Reformer, Dr. Arnold, Head Master of Rugby School, and his son, Matthew
Arnold, one of the most distinguished of the poets and essayists of the
Victorian Era.
FOOTNOTES.
{3} “Ramsay’s Physical Geology and Geography of Great Britain,” and
“Woodward’s Geology of England and Wales.”
{10} Camden’s Britannia, p. 381. “For it is possible that the steepness
of the hill, and a morass below next the river might be thought a
sufficent security on that side.” Sir H. Spelman in his Icenia, speaks
of Burgh “as a place surrounded with morass and narrow passes.”
{13} Exhibited at this Lecture.
{14} This is a corrected _Erratum_.—Was “at Lothu Wistoft (Lowestoft)
and a beruita (or subordinate manor) in Gernemutha (Yarmouth)” and
corrected to: read “at Gernemutha (Yarmouth) and a beruita (or
subordinate manor) in Lothu Wistoft (Lowestoft).”
{17} Two lasts and two barrels. The value of salt herrings at this time
was probably about 30s. a last, or £4 10s. of our present money. In 1295
fresh herrings sold at Yarmouth for 37s. a last. Swinden p. 922.
Several salt works, (salinæ) are mentioned in Domesday at Caister and
other places. The art of curing herrings by hanging and smoking them was
apparently not practised until some two centuries after the conquest.
{21} Turner’s History of the Anglo Saxons.
{31} See Swinden p. 924.
{32} Swinden p. 94.
{33} Swinden, p. 300. Palmer, p. 43.
{39} Swinden p. 221.
{57} Built before 1553 by one “Katharine Mayde” Suckling’s Suffolk, Vol.
II. pt. 5. p. 37.
{66} Froude, Vol. 8, p. 434.
{67a} Then.
{67b} The right thing.
{67c} Michaelmas.
{67d} Pigs ears, &c.
{67e} Ember-days.
{70} See below, p. 74.
{72} Not including the plague year, 1603, when the enormous number of
deaths would give very misleading evidence of population.
{77} Palmer’s Perlustration of Great Yarmouth vol. III. 252.
{80} Swinden, p. 708.
{85} Carlyle’s Letters of Oliver Cromwell 109.
{90a} Gillingwater p. 31.
{90b} p. 78.
{92} Gill. p. 27
{93} Gill. 87.
{94a} Gill p. 86.
{94b} Gill. p. 100.
{94c} Gill. 1st Edition, p. 243
{95} Swinden, p. 475.
{99} Swinden, p. 334.
{101} Gill., p. 50.