Gillingwater's History of Lowestoft / a reprint: with a chapter of more recent events

by Edmund Gillingwater

ROBERT INGLOSSE, Esquyer,
which died in Anno 1365.

Therefore, it is evident, that the old church at Lowestoft was standing in the year 1230, when the grant of Henry I was confirmed by the charter of Henry III; and as it is equally evident, from the above inscription, that the present church was erected before the year 1365, it makes it clearly manifest that the present building was erected some time in the interval between the years 1230 and 1365; and consequently, that the present church of Lowestoft has been built 500 years.

After the church came into the possession of the priory of St. Bartholomew, it was found to be so old and mean a building, and in such a ruinous state, that it was necessary to take it entirely down and rebuild it, and which was accordingly done in its present noble and elegant style. The nave, the south aisle, and the chancel were the first parts that were taken down; but the north aisle was not re-built till some time after. This is evident, from the difference which may be observed in the form of the windows belonging to these aisles; the former being more acute than the latter, which points out a more ancient construction.

An ingenious writer has said that the very obtusely-pointed arches of the windows of our churches, shew, at first sight, that they are of no very great antiquity; for the very sharply-pointed arch, which succeeded the circular one about the year 1200, expanded itself by degrees, and grew more and more obtuse till, towards the reign of Henry VII. it approached the segment of a great circle. This observation tends to confirm what has been previously advanced, namely, that the present church at Lowestoft was wholly re-built at the same time, but that the north aisle was built some time after the other parts of the building. The walls belonging to the south part of this beautiful structure are at this time much inclined from the perpendicular; owing, probably, to the absurd and injurious practice of open graves, both within and without the building, too near the foundations a practice which too much prevails in other places.

[The south wall was rebuilt in 1871.]

The present church was erected chiefly through the munificence and liberality of the priory of St. Bartholomew of London; and, it is also probable that it was indebted to the same society afterwards for keeping it in repair, for when all supplies from those resources were entirely withdrawn, in consequence of the dissolution of the monasteries, in the reign of Henry VIII., the churches that were dependent on those foundations soon fell into decay, as the parishes to which they belonged were unable to support the expense of repairing them. Sometimes the Lords of the Manors belonging to parishes whose churches have been rebuilt, have been liberal benefactors on these occasions, especially about the time when the re-building of Lowestoft church was undertaken. John de la Pole, Lord of Wingfield Castle, was one of the principal benefactors, when that noble tower belonging to the church at Redenhall, in Norfolk was erected; and as the town of Lowestoft and the island of Lothingland were part of the estate of the De la Poles, in the reigns of Henry IV. and V., it might be supposed that this family contributed also to the rebuilding of Lowestoft Church; but not anything appears to confirm this supposition. No leopard’s faces (the badge of the De la Poles) are visible in any part of the building, as they are in many places in the tower at Redenhall. The building of this tower was begun about the year 1460, and finished in 1520; but the church at Lowestoft was not re-built till between the years 1230 and 1395; it is therefore probable that the De la Poles were not the proprietors of the town of Lowestoft and the island of Lothingland till after the rebuilding of Lowestoft church. This was the case at Corton and Kessingland, near Lowestoft, after the dissolution of Leystone abbey, and the abbey of the Minorisses, in London; and the church at Lowestoft would have experienced the same misfortune, after the suppression of the priory of St. Bartholomew, had not the town at that time prevented the lands which had been given many years before, for the sole use of this church, being alienated with the impropriation of this parish, and the other endowments of the priory, in the grant which was made to Sir Richard Rich, in the 36th of Henry VIII.

Probably Corton and Kessingland were not altogether in the same predicament as Lowestoft. For as the abbeys to which they belonged were in possession of their impropriations only, their churches were repaired out of the common revenues of those abbeys; whereas the priory of St. Bartholomew had not only the impropriation of Lowestoft, but was also, probably in possession of the lands which had been given for the sole use of the church; which lands were recovered again after the dissolution of the monasteries, for their original purposes. For it appears that the church lands belonging to this parish were never under the absolute power of the priory as the impropriation was, although it might have great influence concerning them; this is evident, by the feoffment of the said lands in the reign of Henry VII A.D. 1503, which shews that the right was not in the priory of St. Bartholomew; and consequently, might be the reason of their being recovered again by the parish soon after the dissolution.

But notwithstanding the recovery of the church lands, it appears that the town was much distressed after the dissolution of the monasteries, in keeping the church in decent repair. For in the year 1592 the church was in such a ruinous state that it cost upwards of £200 to repair it; out of which sum £68 18s. 8d. was collected of the inhabitants; £100 were borrowed of Mr. Bartlemewe, of Yarmouth, and the remainder was raised (including a provision for discharging the debt) from premiums by granting leases of the town lands under their full value; the situation of the inhabitants at this time obliging them to have recourse to these methods for repairing the church. It also appears that there had been paid by the churchwardens, towards repairing the church, of hayning-money collected in the roads, the sum of £63 18s. 3d. when the lands were unable to discharge the expenses of the repairs and other necessary expenses of the town, exclusive of money collected of the inhabitants. The church has also cost the parish several considerable sums since that time for repairs; so that, had not the town been assisted in repairing this building by the rents and profits of the church lands, that venerable pile had many years since fallen into decay, and mouldered into irreparable ruin.

The ruinous state of the church at this time arose, probably, from the profits of the lands given for keeping it in repair, being applied to other purposes. From the decree of the Court of Chancery, in 1616, respecting the town lands, it appears, that that decree was grounded on a complaint of the inhabitants that the rents and profits of those lands had been alienated to purposes not intended by the donors. That the lands called French’s, given for the use of the poor of this town were worth £20 a year, but that the poor received little more than 13d. a week from them. That the lands given for the use of the church were worth £40 a year, but that £10 a year only had been applied to that purpose; and that the overplus of all these lands had been expended in law-suits and divers other business of the town; contrary to the designs of the donors. It was also further complained, that the churchwardens had let the said lands at rents considerably below their value, in order to obtain fines and incomes, which amounted to £210 and upwards. And as the burthen of repairing the church, in consequence of these alienations, fell, in great measure, upon the inhabitants it occasioned an application to the Court of Chancery for redress. Nevertheless, if the distressed condition of the town at this time is considered, as being obliged to raise £120 in 1591, to defend their rights to Annott’s school; to raise £120 in 1597, to defend their rights against Yarmouth, respecting the herring fishery; to raise £200 in 1592 lo repair the church; also £114 in 1616 to discharge the expenses of the above suit in chancery; may easily account for some measures having been pursued which were not altogether justifiable, but were adopted through absolute necessity.

That part of the town lands which was given for the use of the church, and is chiefly appropriated towards keeping it in repair, and furnishing it with decent ornaments, is the gift of some charitable and religious persons, whose names, at this distant period, are wholly unknown; but, whoever they were, they are justly entitled to the grateful acknowledgments of the parish, as having been the means of preserving it from a burthen which at all times would have been inconvenient.