Lowestoft in olden times

by Francis Davy Longe

Taking the Subsidy returns for 1327 from the same group of parishes, whose condition at the time of Domesday we have already noticed, we find that Yarmouth heads the list with a contribution of £18. 8. 1. Beccles follows, with a contribution of £12. 4. 9. Gorleston, with Little Yarmouth, comes next with a payment of £10. 0. 4. Then Kessingland follows with a payment of £4. 2. No other parish in the Hundred pays as much as £2. 10. Mutford, Belton, Carlton, and Corton pay £2. and upwards. Gisleham and Rushmere together pay £2. 10., and Pakefield and Kirkley are bracketed for £2. 1. Blundeston pays £1. 18., Somerleyton £1. 17., Bradwell £1. 14., and Oulton and Flixton together £1. 15. Then comes Lowestoft, with the humble contribution of £1. 9., gathered from 29 of its inhabitants. Lound, Fritton, Hopton, Gunton, Herringfleet, Burgh, and Ashby complete the lists with sums rising from 16s. to £1. 8. We can but infer from these returns that Lowestoft had not yet made any substantial advance upon the position she occupied in the Domesday survey. The small contribution which she is called upon to make, compared with Carlton Colville and Kessingland, proves conclusively that at the beginning of Edward III.’s reign she had not developed any trade in herrings or any other merchandise. Thirty years after (as we have already seen) the little town was of sufficient importance to be honoured by the issue of a Royal ordinance authorising her people to buy and land herrings in Kirkley Road. We can thus fix the date of the origin of Lowestoft as a town, in the modern sense of the word, within a year or two. If the Subsidy Rolls for the rest of this and the succeeding reigns were not defective, we should probably find that the assessment of Lowestoft rose rapidly during the latter half of the 14th century, and continued to rise throughout the next century, and at least the first half of the 16th century, so that at the time of the second Roll she had reached nearly, if not quite her full growth as a town of ancient times.

In the Roll for 1525 we find Lowestoft occupying an entirely different position with respect to her agricultural neighbours. Instead of appearing as a poor village of less taxable capacity than Somerleyton and Blundeston we find her contributing a larger amount to the subsidy for this year than all the rest of the Lothingland parishes together, even including Gorleston and Southtown. The contribution from Lowestoft is £29, just 20 times what it was in 1327. This sum was collected from 140 of her inhabitants; but there is abundant evidence from other returns that the number of persons entered as contributories in these rolls did not represent the whole number of taxable people in the town and parish upon which the subsidy was charged. The sum claimed by the Sheriff had to be collected and paid in by the parish constables, who were themselves among the larger contributors, but it was left to them, with the concurrence of the people themselves, to arrange by whom and in what proportions each person should contribute to each subsidy. Taken year by year, the burden of these subsidies was probably fairly distributed. The richer inhabitants probably contributed to every subsidy, but the power of excusal could be freely exercised by the constables in the case of the poorer townspeople. This subsidy roll not only gives us the names and payments of each contributor, but the assessment of his property on which he was charged. The total assessment amounted to about £760, of which £710 was on “movabyll goods,” and £50 on “wages and profits.” Among the higher assessments are:—John Hodden £100, Robert Bach £50, John Goddard £48, J. Jettor, jun. £48, Thomas Woods £40, William French £40, Robert Chevyr (one of the parish constables) £20. The other assessment range from £1 to £19. Sir John Browne—the Vicar—was assessed at £7. There is no assessment under £1. The number assessed at the lowest rate is 59:—23 are assessed at £2.

The name at the head of the list is John Jettor, jun. He had evidently been previously assessed at £100 or more. He was only assessed on £48 for this subsidy, “the consideration for his decay being that he had lost a ship on the sea, pryce £50.” As these assessments purported to represent the value of the “movabyll goods” i.e. all the personal property possessed by the contributors, and as the ship which John Jettor, junior, lost was valued at £50, a larger sum than the rest of his “movabyll goods” were valued at, we can form some idea of the amount of personal property possessed by the richest merchants of the town at this period.

We have another entry of a similar kind. John Robinson is only assessed at 40s. to this subsidy, because he had lost a ship valued at £28 “captured by the Scots.” We can only infer from this that this ship represented almost the whole of his property. We know from another record that at this time our merchants possessed 14 barks or doggers which used to go to Iceland to catch cod fish and ling, besides smaller boats employed in fishing near home. John Jettor’s ship was probably one of these barks, and John Robinson’s—a small fishing boat.

It is clear from these entries that at this time a ship represented a large part of the “movabyll goods” of our richer townspeople. The value of two barks would equal the highest assessment on this roll. When we consider the dangers these ships incurred, not only from the sea, but from the “Scots” and other occasional enemies, we can realise the precarious condition of the property possessed by these “fishing adventurers,” and of the town whose fortunes depended on the success of their enterprises. It may be inferred, however, from this and other evidence that the assessments to the King’s subsidies were very much of a conventional character. They doubtless represented the taxable capacity of the contributors relative to each other, but we may feel quite certain that they did not represent the full value of any persons property. The assessments were practically made by the townspeople themselves, and they would be each and all strongly interested in keeping the aggregate assessment at as low a figure as possible. At the same time, as the returns were subject to the inspection of the Sheriff, as well as the Exchequer Court in London, the range for imposition was limited. The contributions were assessed on the system of a “graduated income tax.” Persons possessed of goods above £20 in value paid 1s. in the £. Those possessing “movabyll goods,” or taxed on “wages and profits” under that amount, paid 6d. in the £. But the working men and fishermen who were assessed at only 20s. for “wages and profits” paid only 4d. No one was assessed at a lower sum than 20s. But 20s. could not represent the annual income of even the lowest paid labourer. According to Mr. Thorold Rogers the wages of the artizan at this time would be 3s. a week, or some £7 a year, and the wages of the agricultural labourer 2s. a week or about £5 a year. Even this would be much more than double the lowest assessment. We can hardly believe that the richer men undertook a much larger share of the burden than their property demanded, and we may reasonably infer that their assessments did not represent the full value of their property. But anyhow our richest merchants of those days must have been very poor men according to our modern ideas.

Lowestoft was of course still a very small town as compared with Yarmouth. As Yarmouth was exempted from all taxes during Henry VIII.’s reign on account of the expenses of her harbour, the Subsidy Rolls do not enable us to compare the wealth of the two towns. It was stated in one of their petitions about this time that a “whole Fifteenth” would amount to £100. Beccles was also at this time a much larger town than Lowestoft. In the Subsidy Roll for the previous year (1523) the town paid £73 13s. 4d., an increased payment, it is stated, of £33 4s. on a previous assessment. Beccles was evidently a rising town at this time, as well as Lowestoft. It was about this time, that the detached tower of Beccles church was begun: its building took 40 years. On the other hand Winterton, joined with Lowestoft in the ordinance of Edward III., was already left far behind. Her contribution to the subsidy for 1524 was only £3 4s.

A Market Held at Lowestoft.

It was in the early part of the 15th Century that Lowestoft first possessed a market. William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, had succeeded John of Brittany in the ownership of the old Royal demesnes in Lothingland. He obtained a grant from Henry IV. to hold a market and two annual fairs in the town. The market was doubtless held in the “Old Market” Place, which still retains its title.

The Parish Church.

It was undoubtedly at some time during this period, that is to say, during the 15th or the first half of the 16th century, that our present parish church was built, but we have neither record or relic to fix the precise date of any part of its structure. To a certain extent the church tells its own tale. The style of architecture of the nave and aisles prove them to have been built during the Perpendicular period; during which period nearly all the most beautiful churches in Norfolk and Suffolk were built. The unfortunate arrangement by which this grand specimen of a Perpendicular church was tacked on to the small tower of an older church, shows very clearly that the reconstruction of the body of the church was undertaken to meet the requirements of an increased population. From what we now know of the state of the town in the 14th century, we can hardly suppose that the re-building and enlargement of the older church took place so early; even supposing that its Perpendicular style would admit of its having been built in the latter part of that century. From the tradition of the existence of an old inscription in the church to “Robert Inglosse, Esq., which died in anno 1365” (an evident misreading), Gillingwater and the Guide Books inform us that the church must have been built before that date—“probably soon after 1230”—a hundred years and more before the Perpendicular style was introduced. The existence however of tombstones, with inscriptions of the 14th century, in the new church, could easily be explained by their having been kept or re-placed in the new building. In order to explain the marvel that such a spacious and beautiful church should have been erected at such an early period, it has been customary to call in aid a purely imaginary factor, and to attribute its building to the munificence of St. Bartholomew’s Priory, to whom Henry I. had given the great tithes of the parish. In the 13th century these tithes were valued at seven marks, or about £14 of our present money. In the 14th, or even in the 16th century, the value of these tithes could hardly have increased to such an amount as would suggest to the most liberal-minded monks that it was their duty to build a church for the parish in return for the income they received from it. Dr. Jessop, in a recent article in the “Nineteenth Century,” has ridiculed the notion of monks building parish churches; and certainly the connection between monasteries and parish church property does not favour the view that they often felt it their duty to apply these funds to the building of any other churches than those attached to their own abbeys and priories. Dr. Jessop’s view is that our parish churches were built by the parishioners themselves. I assume that he would include in the “parishioners” the owners of property in a parish, whether resident or not. Where the founder’s name has not been handed down to posterity this probably was the case, and from what we know of the condition of our old town in the time of Henry VIII., we can have no reason to doubt their ability to incur the expense at that period (great as the expense must have been, even when labourers’ wages where at 4d. or 5d. a day), particularly when we bear in mind the powerful influence of the doctrine of good works in securing legacies for such an object. Nor was the new church built all at once. The aisles do not appear to have been built at the same time, and the chancel appears to have been an after addition, as well as the south porch.