The mouth of the Waveney on the south of the island, was also at this time very large, and discharged itself into the ocean between Lowestoft and Kirkley. [14b] The conflux of waters arising from the communication which these two rivers had with the sea, the one at Yarmouth and the other at Lowestoft, was so great, when they formed a junction as to render the Waveney navigable some miles beyond Harleston in Norfolk. [14c]
After that the sea had considerably receded from the river between Lowestoft and Kirkley, yet it still preserved a small communication with it; and therefore, whenever a violent storm arose from the north-west, at the time when the waters were increased by the spring tides, it would flow into the river with great violence, and threaten the adjacent country with an inundation. To guard against these irruptions of the ocean, and prevent the damages that would otherwise ensue, a break-water was erected between Lowestoft and Kirkley, as a security for the low grounds and marshes which laid contiguous to the river.
For it appears, that on the 6th February, 1652, a verdict was given by the jury, on a commission of sewers, of the number of acres of low grounds in the several towns in Norfolk and Suffolk, which were subject to inundations from the sea-breach between Lowestoft and Kirkley; wherein it was found that in the parishes of Ellingham and Kirby only, there were 482 acres, and one rood of low ground subject to those inundations, the annual value whereof was £87 18s. 10d., and which paid to the charge of the said breach £7 4s. 9d.; and it was also found, by the said commission of sewers, that, in the manor of Earsham there were 418 acres of low grounds liable to inundation from the said sea-breach, valued at £330 and paid £13 10s. 6d. towards repairing the same. [14d]
And at a commission of sewers, held at the Swan Tavern, at Lowestoft, the 21st February, 1660, before Sir Thomas Meadows, Knight; Henry Bacon, John Duke, John Garnies, William Cooke, William Cooke, the younger; John Playters, Francis Brewster, William Gooch, John Baispoole, Esquires; Robert London, Thomas London, Philip Hayward, Christopher Reeve, Glover Denny, Gisleham Wollhouse, Henry Jenkenson and Anthony Jenkenson, gentlemen, commissioners; the two following questions were proposed, viz.:
1st. Whether the work at the sea-breach between Lowestoft and Kirkley should stand in its present state until an engineer shall come or not?
2nd. Whether the fortifications (or fence of the sea-breach) shall be made at Mutford Bridge, or at the sea?
When it was resolved by the Court and ordered, “That the work and fortifications shall be proceeded upon forthwith without delay; and that the said work and fortification shall be made and done at the sea-shore, where the bank or wall formerly was made, or thereabouts.”
It was further ordered by the Court, “That the sum of six hundred pounds should forthwith be raised, for a defence and fortification to be made against the sea-breach at Lowestoft.”
And whereas it appeared to the Court, “That the causeway at Mutford Bridge was decayed and broken down, in consequence of the sea-breach at Lowestoft, and made unpassable for foot-passengers, and very dangerous to others; it was therefore ordered, That the same should be repaired immediately out of the first money to be raised, but not to exceed the sum of ten pounds.” It was also ordered, “That Henry Bacon, Esquire, should treat with Sir Cornelius Vermewden, or any other engineer at London, to come down to Lowestoft, and view the work and fortification to be made there against the sea-breach, and to take his opinion concerning the same. That Gisleham Wollhouse, of Olton, gent., be treasurer, and Thomas Verdon, of the same place, gent., be surveyor.”
Warrants were also issued to the sheriffs of both counties, to warn a jury, to take a view of all such breaches and other decays, within the limits of the said commission, and to make presentiments of the same; and, accordingly, amongst many other matters, they presented the sea-breach near Lowestoft, and that it was necessary that a defence against the sea should be made there, otherwise it would be injurious to the owners of the lands betwixt the said sea-breach and Ditchingham Dam. Also, they found the grounds liable to be taxed to the sea-breach, as far as the former jurors found them, viz.: to Yarmouth on the Suffolk side, and to Braydon on the Norfolk side. They also found the grounds hereinafter mentioned, as liable to be taxed to the said sea-breach, although omitted in the former levy, viz.:
| Acres. | |
| Lands within the Town of Lowestoft | 60 |
| Low grounds in Carlton Colville, lying between East Heath and the common drain leading from Kirkley Bridge and against Lowestoft | 20 |
| Several doles in Kirkley, and other low grounds lying against the common, betwixt Lowestoft bounds and inclosed meadows towards Kirkley Bridge | 30 |
| Several inclosed pieces, betwixt divers common doles and Kirkley Bridge, whereof one piece is glebe, belonging unto William Bacon, clerk | 2 |
| Two other pieces, in the tenure of Henry Church | 2 |
| One other piece of glebe, lying next Kirkley Bridge, belonging to the said William Bacon, clerk | 1 |