Lowestoft in olden times

by Francis Davy Longe

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.