It was when Yarmouth was in the height of her prosperity, and the herring trade becoming more and more valuable owing to the superstitious importance attached to the rules as to fasting, that she was destined to suffer a ruinous collapse from which she did not recover for several centuries, and which deprived her for ever of the position of eminence as a naval town which she had held during the first half of the 14th century. The main cause of her fall was the loss within the space of a few months of more than half her population from the terrible epidemic known as the Black Plague. Great as was the destruction of life from this fell disease in other towns and parishes in the country, there could have been no town where the destruction of life was greater and the consequent impoverishment more felt. Probably no town in England was more favourably conditioned for the work of the destroyer. A large population of poor fishermen and sailors were crowded together in small hovels, closely packed within the walls, in double rows, separated by narrow alleys of six feet or less in breadth. This arrangement had evidently been adopted by the first occupants of the storm-swept sandbank for convenience and warmth. But it was an arrangement terribly conducive to the rapid spread of any infectious disease which had once gained a footing in the town.
In that year (1349), according to the account given a hundred and fifty years afterwards by the town’s people themselves in a petition to Henry VII., more than half the population, including many of its leading merchants fell victims to the disease.
“In the 31st (sic) year of the reign of King Edward the 3rd by a great visitation of Almighty God there was so great death of people within the same towne that there was buried in the parish church and church yard of the said towne in one year 7052 men, by reason whereof the most part of the dwelling places and the inhabitations of the said towne stode desolate, and fell into utter ruin and decay, which at this day are gardens and void grounds as evidently appeareth.” [33]
Whatever may have been the exact population of Yarmouth at the time of this terrible visitation (it could not have been more than 10 or 12,000) it must have been a very different town after 1350 to what it was in the first half of the century, and although the merchants might retain their hold upon the herring trade, the loss of so large a part of the fishing population must have made them much more dependant upon their visitors for the supply of fish in the autumn season than before.
Yarmouth Harbour Blocked Up.
But the loss of fishermen was not the only affliction from which Yarmouth was to suffer. The continuance of her trade and even of her very existence was in peril from the blocking up of her harbour. During the whole period during which the town was itself growing, from the time of the Conquest to that of which we are now treating, the sandbank on which it was built was being gradually extended southwards, enclosing the river, and carrying its mouth further and further South, until at the beginning of the 14th century the mouth of the Yarmouth Harbour was opposite the Gunton Denes and within a mile of Lowestoft. In a few more years the mouth of the Yare would have been at Lowestoft, and Lowestoft would have occupied a more favourable position for the trade of the Yare than Yarmouth itself. Lowestoft had already taken advantage of the opportunities which the nearness of the Harbour mouth gave her of getting a share in the herring trade. The sea opposite her shore then called “Kirkley Road” offered the same resting place for wind-bound ships as it does now, and as the mouth of the Haven was always in the condition of being more or less blocked with sand, it only needed a little enterprise on the part of Lowestoft people to get fishing boats bound for Yarmouth to discharge their herrings on the Gunton denes, rather than incur the certain loss of time in waiting for the tide to carry them up to Yarmouth quay, and the danger of being wrecked at the harbour mouth.
In the early part of the century, when Yarmouth was in her most flourishing condition, she had both men and money, and she had undertaken the first of her numerous efforts to remedy this chronic trouble by cutting out a new mouth for her harbour. This mouth, which was on the north side of Corton, was kept open for some 26 years.
Although during this time the herring trade carried on by Yarmouth, with its harbour and Free Fair, was out of all proportion to that of the seaside villages in its neighbourhood, it is evident that Lowestoft and Winterton, and perhaps some of the other villages, had taken part in the international trade of the autumn season, besides catching herrings in their own boats.
The rules as to fasting during Lent, as well as on Fridays and Saturdays in every week during the year, which were strictly enforced at this time by a powerful Church, had rendered the east coast herring trade a matter of national importance. The ability to purchase red herrings for lenten fare was a necessity for the salvation, not only of the lives, but of the souls of the people. Even our soldiers when engaged in war had to observe the rules as to fasting. In 1358 we hear of 50 lasts of herring being shipped at Portsmouth for the use of the army in France. In 1429 Sir John Fastolf was serving in the Duke of Bedford’s army at the siege of Orleans. Sir John was himself of an old Yarmouth family. Several members of his family were on the lists of bailiffs for the previous century, and he is said to have had a house in Yarmouth as well as his Castle at Caister near by. His connection with Yarmouth probably enabled him to procure a supply of herrings for the army not altogether without profit to himself. At all events on Ash-Wednesday, 1429, he had charge of a train of 500 wagons of herrings on its way from Paris to Orleans. He was attacked by a large force of French at a village near Orleans. He had recourse to the tactics we have so often heard of lately in our wars in South Africa. He formed his wagons into laager, and from behind these defences the English Archers shot their arrows with such deadly effect, that they drove the enemy off with great slaughter, and Sir John got his herrings safely into camp. This was the Battle of Herrings, one of the most celebrated victories in the French wars.
In order to secure an abundant provision of herrings at a cheap price, the Parliament of 1357 passed the well known Statute of Herrings, which was aimed particularly at securing the conduct of the Free Fair, and of the Yarmouth herring trade, in the interests of the country at large. It is evident from the preamble to this statute that it was aimed directly against the practice of the Yarmouth merchants “forestalling” the Fair by buying their herrings from the ships which anchored in the roads outside the harbour mouth.
In order to prevent the Yarmouth merchants supplying themselves by this means to the disadvantage of the general purchaser at the Fair, the statute enacts that the fishers after having supplied the “London Pykers” (a special exception in favour of London)—
“Shall bring all the remnant of their herring to the said fair to sell there, so that none shall sell herring in any place about the haven of Great Yarmouth by seven “Leues” (Leucæ or Leagues) unless it be herring of their own catching.”
This prohibition against “forestalling” the Fair, although aimed directly against the Yarmouth merchants themselves, evidently applied equally to all persons coming from Lowestoft, or any other place, to buy herrings from ships in Kirkley Road. It was not, however, the intention of Parliament at this time to give any monopoly to Yarmouth; and within two years after the passing of this statute, we find that an ordinance was issued expressly exempting Lowestoft and Winterton from this prohibition.
This ordinance enacted that—
“If the fishers be in free will to sell their herrings in the said road after they be anchored there, it shall be lawful for the merchants of Lowestoft and Winterton to buy herrings of the fishers, as free as the London pycards, to serve their carts and horses that come thither from other countries, and to hang there.”
This would appear to be the earliest record in which Lowestoft appears, since Domesday, which furnishes any evidence of her having risen from the humble status she occupied at that time.
Although this notice of Lowestoft does not imply that Lowestoft in 1359 was a larger place than Winterton then was, it shows very clearly that a trade in herrings, at all events during the Autumnal season, had been established here, and that it was considered of sufficient importance to deserve a special ordinance permitting its continuance, notwithstanding the statute of Herrings. It also tells us what the system of trade at Lowestoft was at this time. Lowestoft men went out to the foreign and other fishing boats when anchored in the roads, and bought and landed herrings on the Denes. Here they were sold to the “peddlers” or travelling fish merchants, who, having loaded their pack horses and their carts, started off homewards, to sell their fish as fresh as possible in distant inland towns.
The last words of the proviso “and to hang there” clearly authorised the Lowestoft merchants not only to buy fish for resale, but to supply themselves with herrings for hanging in their own fish houses.
Part II.—Rise of Lowestoft, and Parliamentary War with Yarmouth.
The free trade policy of the Statute of Herrings had not the desired effect of reducing the price of herrings, and the condition of Yarmouth was getting worst. Her haven was again becoming unnavigable, and merchants were leaving the town. On the cliff, a mile south of the mouth of the harbour, the little town of Lowestoft was growing up, and beginning to take an important share in the trade on which Yarmouth depended for her existence. It was under these circumstances that Yarmouth petitioned the King to giant her a charter which could protect her trade against the competition of Lowestoft, and mitigate the evil caused by the blocking up of the mouth of her harbour.
Edward III. had every reason to befriend Yarmouth, and to prevent the ruin of an important naval town. So in 1371 he issued a Commission to enquire how far the charter demanded by Yarmouth would be advantageous or disadvantageous to the country. The Commission reported in favour of the grant, and in 1373 the charter was granted which was to put the towns of Yarmouth and Lowestoft at loggerheads for some 300 years, and involve them in bouts of costly litigation.
The effect of the charter was to give Yarmouth two strings to her bow against Lowestoft.
(1) It annexed to Yarmouth the “place in the high seas called Kirkley Road” i.e. the whole of the roads along the coast from Pakefield to the mouth of Yarmouth harbour, wherever that might happen to be, and gave the Yarmouth Bailiffs the right of taking the same tolls from ships discharging cargo in any part of these roads, which they were empowered to take from ships inside the harbour.
(2) It prohibited the buying and selling of herrings during the time of the Autumnal fair at any place on sea or land, within “7 leucæ” of the town of Great Yarmouth, except at the town itself, and gave the Bailiffs authority to seize any ship &c. from which any herrings were sold in contravention of the charter.
As it was stated in the report of the Commission, on which this charter was granted, that Lowestoft was 5 “leucæ” from Yarmouth, it is clear that it was intended to include Lowestoft in the prohibition. It is also clear than the word “leuca” was used to denote a distance of nearly two miles. There was no legally established measure of distance at this time. Our statute mile was not established until 200 years afterwards, in Queen Elizabeth’s reign.
That the Yarmouth merchants had some reason to desire the protection of their trade against the competition of Lowestoft, is shown by a statement in a letter of complaint written from Yarmouth to the Barons of the Cinque Ports some years afterwards, in which they are blamed for not enforcing the observance of the charter by their own fishermen, and requiring them to take their fish to Yarmouth, “for if they can deliver at Lowestoft, they will bring very few or none to us.” [39]
Such being the intention of the Charter you will not be surprised to learn that it met with strenuous opposition from Lowestoft.
Lowestoft Men Prosecuted by the Yarmouth Bailiffs for Contravention of this Charter.
When the foreign and west country fishing boats appeared in the Roads in the autumn, and the Lowestoft men went out, as usual, with their boats to buy herring from the ships at anchor off the denes, officers appeared from Yarmouth armed with authority from the Bailiffs, to enforce the new law, and to seize any ships selling or discharging herrings in contravention of their charter. They found a large number of Lowestoft men purchasing herrings from ships within the prohibited area, but instead of attempting to seize the ships, which was their proper remedy under the charter, they took the more prudent course of prosecuting the buyers, and some 25 Lowestoft men were summoned before the Yarmouth Bailiffs. They met the indictment brought against them by an appeal, and it was removed by writ of certiorari to the King’s court in Westminster Hall. The indictment states, after reciting the charter,—
“That on Friday next after the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist (18th October) John Botild of Lowestoft bought of John Trampt of Ostend, an alien, in the said place called Kirkley Road, which is within the 7 leuks, twenty-five lasts of new herring (value 50 pounds.) and the said alien took his boat, (value 20 shilling) out of the ship, and in the night elongated himself (i.e. ran away) to his own proper house, and hauled the boat ashore, so that the said bailiffs could not touch the said herring, nor the boat, nor the ship, to arrest them, because the aforesaid alien had by the advice of the said John Botild elongated himself, nor could they thence by any means answer it as a forteiture to the Lord the King.”
The defence of the Lowestoft men was that the prohibited area only extended as far as a place called “Stampard” (the Stanford channel?) construing the term “leuca”, as equivalent to “mile,” (which was the construction afterwards put upon it); and that the ships from which they bought herrings were lying beyond this distance. The trial of the appeal came on before the King at Westminster Hall in the Spring term of 1374, but was adjourned for further hearing; a proceeding caused probably by the congested state of business in the Law Courts, an inconvenience to suitors not unknown even at the present time. What the end of the case was we are not informed, but it evidently went against Lowestoft. Meanwhile the Lowestoft people had appealed to another power. In 1376 they presented a petition to Parliament for the repeal of the obnoxious charter.
First Revocation of Edward’s Charter to Yarmouth.
Their petition was supported by another from the Commons of the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Lincoln, Northampton, Bedford, Bucks, Leicester and other counties. Such was the importance to the country of our growing town at the end of 14th century!!
Parliament made very short work of the business, and the King was compelled to withdraw his charter. This he did in the following somewhat ungracious terms—
“Edward by the grace of God, King of England &c. Know ye that we, the liberties and privileges of the Burgesses and good men of the town of Great Yarmouth lately so by us given and granted, at the suit and voluntary clamour of certain people alleging that those privileges and liberties have been and are contrary to the profit of the republic, and to us and our people prejudicial and hurtful, in our Parliament holden at Westminister, &c. have revoked and totally made void.”
It is a curious coincidence which adds much to the interest of our story, that this petition from our old townspeople was one of the several hundred introduced in this Parliament, which is known in history as the “Good Parliament” owing to the number of popular measures which were passed by it. The popular Prince of Wales, Edward the Black Prince, was still living, and the Commons had his support against the Crown party led by his uncle, John of Gaunt.
In the following year (1377) the old King dies, and Richard II., then a boy of 11, becomes our ruler. Yarmouth lost no time in taking advantage of the opportunity which the succession of a new government offered for re-opening the question. She succeeded in getting another Commission of enquiry which apparently confined its labours to hearing the Yarmouth case. Without hearing Lowestoft, they reported that Yarmouth was a “walled town capable of resisting the King’s enemies,” but that Lowestoft was, “not inclosed and was incapable of defence.” They accordingly advised that Edward’s charter should be regranted.
The following Parliament (1378) was not held at Westminster as usual. The popular Prince of Wales was dead; and John of Gaunt and the Crown party were having their own way. It appears that he had got into bad relations with the citizens of London owing to the killing of a knight at Westminster by his retainers, and he thought it safer under the circumstances that the Commons should not be invited to meet there; so he got the King to summon his Parliament to meet at Gloucester. At such a distance the Commons of the Eastern Counties were not likely to attend in their full numbers; nor were those who did sit in this Parliament allowed to take the influential part in its proceedings which they had taken in the previous parliament. From these or other causes the Crown party had their own way, and Yarmouth got its charter regranted and confirmed.
Proclamation of the Charter at Lowestoft.
The task was then imposed upon the under sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk of proclaiming the obnoxious law at Lowestoft. How it was received appears from the sheriffs account of the riot which took place on the occasion, for which May day seems to have been selected, on account doubtless of it’s being a holiday, when his majesty’s liege subjects of Lowestoft would be able all to attend and listen to the royal proclamation.
“On which day the aforesaid under sheriff at Lowestoft attended to proclaim the aforesaid liberties and he openly shewed the letters patent of the Lord the King on that account, when there came Martin Terry, Stephen Shelford. Henry Freeborn, and Emma his wife, John Spencer, and Alice his wife, &c. &c. with a great company of men and women of the town aforesaid of whose names they are ignorant by the abetment and procurement of William Hannell, John Blower, Thomas de Wade, Richard Skinner, William Large &c., and violently resisted and hindered him, some saying to the sheriff they would not suffer him to depart, others forcing his letters from him and saying (among other language used on the occasion which is unfortunately or perhaps fortunately obliterated)—that if he dared any more to come for any execution of the Lord the King he should not escape. So that for fear of death he durst not execute the writ aforesaid, and they drove him then and there with a multitude of rioters, with hue and cry out of the town, casting stones at the head of his men and servants to the pernicious example and contempt of the Lord the King and against his peace.”
What does loyal Lowestoft think of this behaviour of their old town’s people, in almost the first scene in which they appear in the stage of history!! It is evident from this story that there were two classes represented in this riot, a large number of people men and women, who took an active part in it, and several leading persons, the merchants probably of the period, who “procured and abetted” them.
The treatment which the king’s proclamation and the under-sheriff met with at Lowestoft, was duly inquired into by the sheriff, but we are not informed of the punishment enforced upon the rioters. The Lowestoft people, however, lost no time in making another appeal for the assistance of the Commons. On this occasion they were supported by the Commons of the county of Norfolk, as well as by those of Suffolk.
The Charter Revoked a Second Time.
Another commission of enquiry was appointed in 1380 under the presidency of the Chief Justice Tresilian, who sat with his colleagues, representing Lowestoft and Yarmouth, one day at Norwich and on the second at Lowestoft, and heard evidence on behalf of each town. This Commission reported in favour of Lowestoft, and in the following year the Parliament, sitting at Westminster, repealed the grant, and the young king was compelled to follow the course taken by his grandfather, and declared his charter to be “revoked and utterly made void” (1381).
Yarmouth however had too much confidence in her claim on the Crown to give up the struggle, and the next year she again petitions the King to restore her charter.
The Charter Regranted a Third Time.
The young King now 17 years old, was so anxious to learn the merits of the important contest, that he himself paid a visit to Yarmouth in 1382. We do not hear that he came to Lowestoft, or that he ascertained the precise position of “the place called Kirkley Road.” He was probably shown the town walls, and the devastation caused by the plague, (which the Yarmouth people seem to have attributed to the repeal of their charter). He and his courtiers were feasted by the Bailiffs and Burgesses, with the same judicious munificence, with which 200 years afterwards they treated Leicester and the other noblemen of Elizabeth’s court, when she was staying at Norwich, and was invited to visit Yarmouth, under very similar circumstances. Richard was much impressed with what he saw and was told at Yarmouth, particularly that “a great part of the people had left the town on account of their charter having been repealed,” and in 1384 he took upon himself to issue an ordinance re-granting the charter until the next sitting of Parliament.
The Charter Revoked a Third Time.
In 1385 the Parliament met at Westminster. The Commons were still staunch in their support of Lowestoft, and the King was again compelled to revoke his ordinance, and to declare that all the charters given to Yarmouth by his grandfather and himself were utterly void.
A New Charter Granted by Richard.
The next year, however, from causes of which we are not informed, we find that a great change took place in the conditions of the contest. In the Parliament of 1386 we find the Commons themselves supporting the cause of Yarmouth, and petitioning the crown to regrant their charter, notwithstanding the persistency with which they had opposed it in previous years. The King of course acceded at once to this petition, and a new charter was granted to Yarmouth, embracing all the provisions of the charter of Edward, and welding more tightly the fetters which were intended to crush the trade of Lowestoft.
This charter has never been revoked and in 1826 it was cited by the Town Clerk of Yarmouth before the committee of the House of Commons, when the Bill for making a harbour at Lowestoft was under consideration.
This game of see-saw between Crown and Parliament with reference to the Yarmouth Charter, was an episode in the struggle which was going on between these Powers during the whole of the 14th century and which forms an important chapter in our constitutional history. The result of the contest as regards the fortunes of the two towns would seem to have been a complete triumph for Yarmouth; involving restrictions on the trade of Lowestoft, which were intended to deprive it of any share in the herring trade, beyond the produce of their own fishing boats. This however was by no means the actual result. The obnoxious charter proved to be perfectly harmless to Lowestoft, if not entirely useless to Yarmouth. It was beyond the power of Yarmouth to enforce it effectually. The statue of Herrings, forbidding the “forestalling” of the Free Fair by buying herrings from ships at sea, applied to the Yarmouth merchants as well as to Lowestoft men. The anomalous right given to the Yarmouth Bailiffs of exacting harbour dues from ships anchored in the sea, at a distance of several miles from their harbour mouth, must have been incapable of enforcement, without a fleet of armed bailiffs. It would appear that Yarmouth made little or no attempt to enforce the provisions of the charter against Lowestoft merchants buying herrings within the 7 leucæ, and contented themselves with claiming harbour dues from the ships which discharged their herrings there. In this claim they had for some years the assistance of the Lowestoft merchants themselves, who undertook to farm the tolls of the town. They paid as much as £26 a year for these tolls in the years 1393–4–6. This blackmail was, however, soon reduced, and in a few years the task of collecting the tolls was left in the hands of the Yarmouth Bailiffs themselves.
In 1400 we find Yarmouth giving up altogether the attempt to enforce their charter, and entering into an agreement with Lowestoft, which gave express sanction to their purchasing herrings from ships lying off their shore. This agreement was entitled “An accord or composition between Yarmouth and Lowestoft that the latter might buy herrings in Kirkley Road upon conditions therein specified.” The Lowestoft merchants were allowed to buy fish from all ships that were not “hosted” to Yarmouth merchants i.e., from ships whose owners had not entered into engagements with Yarmouth merchants to sell their fish to them, or through them, as their agents (an arrangement, very necessary for foreigners in those days); and the Lowestoft merchants might buy also from these ships herrings which the Yarmouth “hosts” did not require for themselves, upon payment of half a mark per last to the hosts, in addition to the price of the fish. This “Composition” was formally sanctioned by the King in Council, and was issued by “Letters patent” in the 2nd. year of Henry IV. As we do not hear of any further litigation between Lowestoft and Yarmouth for 200 years, we may take it that the first contest between the two towns was closed by this agreement, whether this long truce was due to it, or to other causes.
Swinden in his history of Yarmouth ends here his story of “The Contest about Kirkley Road.” He promised another chapter in which he would have had to deal with the renewal of the contest by Yarmouth in the 16th and again in the 17th centuries. This chapter was not written. He probably found a difficulty in treating the later episodes of the story, which must have been a very sore subject between the two towns even when he was writing.
Our interest in it is now purely archæological. The story though somewhat tedious cannot be dispensed with in a history of Lowestoft, any more than the ghost’s story in Hamlet. It is the story of the growth of Lowestoft from a small village into a fishing town of some importance to the country. Her trade was probably growing rapidly during the whole period that the contest lasted. But from the beginning of the 15th century her merchants were free to take their full share in the herring trade, and in any other trade, which the position of the town would enable them to develope; though without a harbour, her merchants, whether as fishing adventurers, or as general merchants, must have had a very limited range for their enterprises.
Part III.—Evidence Furnished by the Lay Subsidies of the Growth of Lowestoft.
Unfortunately the records of the contest between Yarmouth and Lowestoft furnish us with no information as to the actual wealth and population of Lowestoft at this period, and we have no local records to help us in forming an estimate of either. But we are not altogether at a loss for information on these important questions. Among the decayed and fragmentary relics of the old Lay Subsidy Rolls in the Record office, we have a complete detailed return for the 1st of Edward III., and another for the 15th of Henry VIII. If these Rolls do not furnish direct information as to the actual wealth and population of the town, a comparison between them furnishes good evidence of its relative status at these two periods.
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.
Old Chapels.
There appear to have been two chapels in the town at this time, which the people could attend while the parish church was closed—a very little one, the chapel of the “Good Cross” at the south end of the town, and a larger one in the centre of the town, which was replaced after the Reformation by a Protestant chapel. This chapel, after having been restored and enlarged in the 17th century, was in use until St. Peter’s Chapel was built, when it was given over to secular uses, and has been since appropriated by our Corporation as their Council Chamber.
Other Structural Relics.
We have a few other structural relics still surviving in very much their original condition, which belong to this period—probably to the early part of the 15th century. These are the old vaulted cellars, which are to be seen under houses near the Town Hall. There is nothing in these structures to fix precisely the time when they were built; but they have all the character of the 14th and 15th centuries. The bricks of which the groins are made are small and roughly moulded, and would appear to belong to an early date after the revival of brick-making—a trade which seems to have been beyond the capabilities of our ancestors from the time the Romans left the country to the beginning of the 14th century. The bricks in these cellars are similar to those which are to be seen in the Yarmouth walls, which we know were placed there in 1336, and which we are informed by old records cost 20s. a last—the cost of two bricks being equal to that of one red herring at the time. There are vaulted cellars under old houses in Norwich very similar to those at Lowestoft. A large cellar of this kind is to be seen in good preservation under the house known as “The Old Bridewell,” it having been used until comparatively recent times as an underground prison. This house was built by William Applegard, the first Mayor of Norwich, in 1404. The Lowestoft cellars were evidently the basements of separate houses; although near each other they are entirely disconnected. They are much smaller, and the groins less strongly constructed than those in the Mayor’s house at Norwich. The houses above them would also have been much smaller. The doorways into these cellars are arched, and not very long ago an ancient house was in existence above one of these cellars. This house had an arched doorway, which with the vaulted cellars underneath—so like the crypts of old churches, induced the belief that these houses had a monastic or ecclesiastic origin. The doorways in the Mayors house at Norwich were of the same form. Such features were common in houses of this period, and in no way imply any monastic origin. We cannot infer from the three specimens of these cellars that survive, that there were many houses of this character in our old town, nor from what we know of the wealth of our merchants at this time, can we suppose that there were many who could indulge in expensively-constructed cellars, however convenient they might be for storing their “movabyll goods.”
We know well that Lowestoft in these old days was not what we see now, but it is as difficult to substitute any clear idea of what she was, as for a grown up man to picture himself when running about in a short frock. In order to form a tolerably correct idea of what our old town was at the beginning of the 15th century, we must dismiss altogether from our mind’s eye the large populous town with which we are acquainted, and picture to ourselves a village of small cottages with thatched roofs being gradually improved by the erection of houses of a better class. At the early part of Henry VIII.’s reign Lowestoft appears to have been a small town on the cliff, containing some 20 or 30 merchants—in a very small way of business—the richer men among them owning one or two ships; most of them having fish-houses at the bottom of the cliffs, and doing a good deal of business during the autumn season in buying fish from the foreign and west-country fishermen in the Roads, and selling it to fish merchants coming from inland towns. They would also be doing a little business with their visitors in light merchandise, which could be brought in the fishing boats, or taken away after the season was over. Profit would also be made during the season in victualling the visitors’ ships. A few handicraft tradesmen and shopkeepers and a number of working men and sailors would complete the adult population. In fact the town would be very much what it was some 60 years afterwards in Elizabeth’s time, which will be the subject of our next lecture.
LECTURE III.
Lowestoft in Elizabeth’s
Time.
Part I.—The Parish Register.
Part II.—Lowestoft and Yarmouth at the end of the XVI Century.
Part I.—The Parish Register.
Much light has been thrown on the character of Lowestoft some 300 years ago by the copies of the parish register, published in the “Parish Magazine,” which, I doubt not, many of you have been in the habit of studying. The existing parish register dates back to 1561. The first volume of the book, so to speak, which would tell us who were living or dying in Lowestoft in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Mary, was unfortunately burnt in the fire which destroyed the old vicarage house in 1606. The register was kept from 1561 to 1583 by Mr. Benjamin Allen, the parish clerk. From this year to the end of our period it was kept by Mr. Stephen Philip, the first master of Mr. Annott’s school, of whom we shall speak again soon. Mr. Allen was probably one of the few persons in Lowestoft at the time who could write—at least, well enough to undertake such an important and responsible task. I cannot say much for his spelling, but variety rather than uniformity in spelling was as yet a fashion of the day. He belonged apparently to one of the upper, or as they would have said, one of the “bettermost” families in the town, which produced one of our naval heroes of the following century.
But Queen Elizabeth’s reign was long long ago. We know from books the principal events of her reign, as we do of some period in Roman or Grecian History. But we know little of the people, although we are of the same flesh and blood, and indebted to them for much that we now enjoy. Elizabeth’s reign covered the first 42 years of our Parish Registers; and the materials for this lecture will belong almost entirely to this period.
As a stepping stone however and introduction to our subject, I propose to read to you a few lines from an account of a tour in these parts taken by a young lady about 200 years ago; a hundred years later than Elizabeth’s time. This lady was Miss Celia Fiennes, a daughter of Lord Saye and Sele. She appears to have been quite a “new woman” of the 17th century, and, I think I may safely say, the first lady who ever travelled through England as a tourist. She rode on horseback. She did not ride a bicycle for two reasons—first, because they were not made then; and secondly, because if they had been, there was no road on which they could have run a yard. This absence of roads is an important point to bear in mind, for it had much to do with the difference in the habits and character of these old people and of ourselves. Miss Fiennes rode along the roads and lanes, such as they were, accompanied by two male servants, and stayed at inns and country houses. In her tour through Suffolk and Norfolk she came from Ipswich, through Saxmundham, to Beccles, and this is a little of what she tells us about her journey:—
“Thence to Saxmunday, eight miles more. This is a pretty big market town. The wayes are pretty deep, mostly lanes, very little commons. I passed by several gentlemen’s seats. So to Bathford (she meant Blythburgh), eight miles, where is the remains of the walls of an abbey, and there is still a very fine church, &c. Thence I paused by some woods and little villages of a few scattered houses, and generally the people here are able to give so bad a direction that passengers are at a loss what way to take. They know scarce three miles from their home, and meete them where you will, and enquire how far to such a place, they tell you so farre, which is the distance from their own homes to that place. To Beckle is eight miles more, which, in all, was 36 miles from Ipswich, but exceeding long miles. They do own they are 41 measured miles. This is a little market town, but it is the third biggest town in Suffolk—Ipswich, Berrye, and this. There are no good buildings in the town, being old timber and plaster work, except Sir R. Rich’s, and one or two more. There is a bigg market Kross and a market kept. At the town’s end one posses over the river Waveney, on a wooden bridge railed with timber, and so you enter into Norfolk. Its a low, flat ground all here about, so that at the least rains they are overflowed by the river, and lie under water, as they did when I was there; so that the road lay under water, which is very unsafe for strangers to pass, by reason of the holes and quick-sands and loose bottom.”
If the houses in Beccles, and the roads across the marshes were as she describes them in the reign of William and Mary, we may be quite sure that they were no better in the time of her great grandmother. We will imagine a traveller of this still more ancient time arriving at Beccles on his way to Norwich, and who finding the road across the marshes to Gillingham quite impassable from the floods, determined to make a detour and pay a visit to Lowestoft.
In travelling from Beccles to Lowestoft, our ancient visitor would have no dangerous marsh roads to travel on. He would ride along on the high ground which skirted the fenlands on the north, on a road or trackway which had been used for hundreds of years before, probably by Britons, Romans, and Saxons, and which was the connecting link between Lothingland and Suffolk; the road that still leads over the narrow ridge or neck between Lake Lothing and Oulton Broad through Oulton to Burgh Castle and Gorleston.
When our ancient visitor arrived at this spot, he would find a narrow raised “causey,” as he would call it, (or as we still more erroneously call it “causeway”) and a bridge, [57] the first bridge built over the little gap which used to be known as the “mud ford,” and from which the bridge took its name. Taking a survey from this point, he would see on his left Oulton Fen, as it was then called, a watery wilderness of reeds and bogs, much valued by the sportsman and poachers of the period for fish and wildfowl, and undisturbed by wherries or any craft beyond the fisherman’s punt. On the right would be Lake Lothing—the “fresh water,” as the Lowestoft people then called it, a long, river-like piece of water, with deep margins of reeds and rushes, and as full of fish as Oulton Fen, with which it was connected. Turning off the main road, into the road leading to Lowestoft, he would soon come to Normanston—very much then, I expect, what it is now. The gentleman living in it then was apparently Mr. Mason, Churchwarden in 1575. Several persons appear in the register as servants of Mr. Mason buried during our period. Further on he would see the farm by the church, much the same as now, except in the character of the buildings, and then the church—very much, indeed, the same, except that it was then in very bad repair. It probably had not been restored since it was built some 100 years or more before. In 1592, in the latter part of our period, the inhabitants undertook the task of repairing it, at the expense of some £200. The churchyard would be much the same—quite full of graves—but with few headstones. Close to the churchyard our ancient visitor would see the old vicarage, which was burned down in 1606. It was occupied during the first part of our period by Mr. Nayshe, the minister of the parish, and afterwards by Mr. Bentley, the Vicar of whom I shall tell you more soon. Close to the Vicarage our visitor would see Annott’s School house, in which Mr. Philip—“Mr. Annott, his schoolmaster,” as he was always to be called according to the deed of endowment, was then living, of whom also more soon. This house has also long since disappeared. He would then reach the town, passing from Church Road into what was then Swan Lane (now Mariners’ Street). Arriving at the High Street he would dismount at the Swan Inn, on the opposite side, next Swan Score (now Mariners’ Score), and now represented by two houses, Mr. Abel’s and Mr. Shipley’s.
The Swan Inn was a very interesting old house. It had been built on the foundations of a much older house, which had one of those cellars with groined roofs already noticed, which still remains. When this old house was converted into an inn, an opening was made from the cellar into the street for beer barrels to be let down, with brick steps, still remaining.
The Trades of the Town.
Having given his horse into the care of the ostler, our visitor would enter the Swan and order dinner, unless he had dined at Beccles before starting. People dined at 10 and 11 o’clock in the morning in those days. After dining he would probably question his host about the town, its size, character and principal residents—its trade, population, &c. He would have liked much to be furnished with a guide to Lowestoft, but there was no Mr. Arthur Stebbings or Mr. Huke in those days to supply him with anything of the sort. We, however, with the register before us, are able to gather a great deal of the information which our ancient visitor wanted. If we cannot make out a complete Directory, we can make out a fairly complete list of the trades and occupations of the inhabitants during our period, and of the names of many of the persons belonging to each.
We find some 45 different trades or occupations mentioned as being carried on in the town. The number of different persons and families mentioned as belonging to them would, generally speaking, vary in proportion to the number actually engaged in each trade during the period. I would observe, however, that it was not the duty of Mr. Allen and his successors to add the trade or occupation of persons whose names he entered, but they seem to have made a common practice of doing so, though in an imperfect and unsystematic manner. In by far the larger proportion of entries no description appears, and although many of these entries refer to the families of persons previously described, a great many names appear throughout our period without any occupation being assigned to them.
I will first give you the number of different persons mentioned as belonging to these different trades and occupations. You will not be surprised to learn that the most numerous class were the “mariners,” as they were called in the earlier years; and afterwards “sailor,” and then “seamen.” Only one person appears as a “fisher.” This class numbered 77. The next largest class you will be surprised to hear were the tailors, of whom there were thirty-nine. Then came labourers 39, butchers 20, smiths 13, carpenters, joiners, and sawyers 12, masons 12, weavers 12, shoe makers, cordwainers, and cobblers 11, shipwrights 10, coopers 10, millers 11, brewers 6, bakers 4, tanners 4, knackers 2, ropemakers 4, drapers 2, chimney sweeper 1, glovers 3, tinkers 2, carters 2, husbandmen 2, gunners 1, neatherds 2, shearers 2, hokemaker 1, currier 1, glazier 1, dyer 1, hostler 1, fisher 1, fletcher 1, innkeeper 1, hatter 1, ploughwright 1, wheelwright 1 and 2 towers. There was a pewterer and a goldsmith, and we have 12 persons entered as “gentleman” or “gent,” and nine persons are described as “merchant.” Four persons are named as “minister” only two of whom were ministers of the parish. One person only is described as schoolmaster—Mr. Stephen Phillip, of Annott’s School, and one person as a “good school dame.” One person is described as a “surgeon,” and one as a “proctor.” Lastly there are 30 names of “servants” who apparently died in their masters’ houses in the town. Many of these were females, apparently domestic servants. The male servants were probably employed in services connected with their masters’ occupation.
Now, if we look a little closely into these lists, and combine the information they furnish with what we can glean from other sources, we can bring the old town very much to life again, and in some matters should be able to tell them a good deal more about themselves than they knew.
The Vicars.
To commence with the Church; we find that the “minister” of the parish, during the first 16 years of our period, was Mr. Nayshe. He was not the Vicar. The Vicar was Mr. Thomas Downing, who was also the Rector of Besthorpe, near Attleborough, in Norfolk. He was allowed to hold the Vicarage of Lowestoft (as stated in the register) to make up for the small income of Besthorpe—a most scandalous arrangement surely—a populous town deprived of its proper clergyman for the sake of improving the income of the rector of a small country parish far away in another county. The arrangement, however, was made in the Roman Catholic days of Queen Mary; three years before Queen Elisabeth had re-established the Protestant religion in the country. The Bishop of Norwich, who allowed it (he did not nuke the appointment himself), was the notorious John Hopton, described as a most sanguinary persecutor of the Protestants. Witness the burning of three men at Beccles as recorded on the tablet on the Meeting House in the road leading from the Station to the Market Place; and of many others in the Norwich Diocese. It was probably a happy thing for Lowestoft that Bishop Hopton did not make this appointment. It was said that when Elizabeth came to the throne Bishop Hopton died from terror of her taking vengeance on him for his cruelty to her co-religionists. What Mr. Nayshe’s views were, we know not, but he appears to have been a good Protestant during the 13 years of his ministry under Elizabeth. He must have been the first minister of the parish for many hundred years who was a married man. He lost his first wife soon after coming here, and then married, apparently, a Lowestoft lady. He was succeeded in 1574, by Mr. William Bentley, who was duly appointed vicar by the new Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Parkhurst. He also married twice; his second wife being the widow of Mr. John Arnold. He held the living to the last day of our period, when he apparently fell a victim to the terrible epidemic of that year. The entry of his burial appears in the register in large letters—“Mr. Willyam Bentlye, Pastor,” one of the 55 of our old townspeople who were buried in the month of August in this year.
There are two other persons described as “ministers.” They could hardly be Protestant Nonconformists in these early days. The first dissenting chapel in Lowestoft was not built till quite a hundred years after (1695). These “ministers” out of office were not improbably clergymen who were too much attached to the old religion to accept appointments under the new regime.
I think we may pay Mr. Philip, Mr. Allen’s successor as Registrar, the compliment of mentioning him next. He was not only Parish Clerk and Registrar, but he was also “Mr. Annott his schoolmaster” for 18 years during our period. He was appointed by Mr. Annott himself, and held the office under the deed of endowment after his death. His salary was £16 a year—not a high one for a man required to teach Latin and grammar to 40 boys, and to receive no other payment beyond twenty pence for each new boy. From the entry in the register of the burial of an old lady described as a “good school dame,” we may infer that there was at least one dame’s school in the town besides Mr. Philip’s high-class academy.
The number of persons entered in the register as merchants and gentlemen, and the number keeping servants, both male and female, is evidence of there being a good proportionate number of “bettermost folk” residing in our town. Although probably of a less importance to the town than the merchants and tradesmen, the fact of its being frequented by a considerable number of persons of independent means and of a social position to justify their being entered with the title of “Mr.” or with the description of “gentleman,” is very noticeable, and would seem to imply that even in these ancient days Lowestoft had acquired some reputation as a health resort, or as a pleasant retreat for gentlemen of no occupation. We find 14 or more names of persons of this class entered in the register—Fenn, Ruston, Karwell, Bramton, Bright, Paine, Kene, Rowse, Fooks (“gentleman soldier”) Brigge Beaching (“a gentleman from Sussex”) Mason Scrasse (“a gentleman soldier from Sussex”) Bentlye, Walker. I am inclined to think that some of these were lodgers. The persons mentioned as merchants bore the names of Mighells, Green, Grudgefield, French, Annot, Wilde, Cooke, Burgess, and Coldam. We know, however, that several other persons whose names appear without any description were engaged in business as merchants, and occupied high positions in the town at this period.
The Fish Trade.
From other information it appears that several of these merchants, if not all, were engaged in the fish trade and were owners of fish houses, at the bottom of the cliff, still represented by buildings occupying the same sites.
At a meeting of the inhabitants in the year 1596, called to consider a proposal to take some of the rents of the Town Lands to defray the expense incurred in litigation with Yarmouth about the herring fishery, it was stated that out of 200 persons who reaped advantages from this fishery, many were unable to contribute towards the above expense, and that if the fishery was not supported, the town would inevitably be ruined. It appeared that before this meeting, the inhabitants (probably the merchants referred to above), had already subscribed £120. This statement is at once evidence of the importance of the herring trade to Lowestoft at this period, and at the same time limits the number of merchants, fishermen, and other persons employed in it, to 200. Assuming this number mainly represented heads of families, we should have some 900 persons or about half the population of the town dependent on the herring fishery. Some of these merchants doubtless owned ships, but it appears from other information that the number of fishing boats then belonging to Lowestoft must have been very few, probably 20 at the outside. We find it stated, some 100 years after, in a petition to Charles II., that the number of Lowestoft ships engaged in all the several voyages in the year was 25. Previous to Elizabeth’s reign, Lowestoft used to send several ships to Iceland in the spring to catch ling and codfish. You have already heard that as many as 14 ships were employed in the time of Henry VIII. in this fishery. The dissolution of monasteries and the neglect of the rules as to fasting, introduced by Protestantism, appears to have affected the trade in salted codfish very seriously, and we find it stated that in 1566 the number of Lowestoft Boats going to Iceland was reduced from 14 to 1.
Piracy at Lowestoft.
The decay in the fishing trade, as regards the employment of English ships and sailors, was not confined to Lowestoft. It was felt in every English port in the West as well as on the East Coast. Protestantism in the main meant progress and commercial activity, but it did not mean this with our fishermen. If eating fish on Fridays and Saturdays was still inculcated as a duty by Elizabeth’s Government and Elizabeth’s Church, the mass of the people were too strongly Protestant to pay much respect to a rule which was an essential feature in the old religion, if their antipathy to Papism did not even cause an antipathy to fish eating at any time, particularly salt cod. At all events, there was such a diminution in the demand for salt fish as to throw a large number of sailors previously engaged in fishing voyages out of employment, and to leave this occupation almost entirely in the hands of the French and Dutch. The English sailors, at least a great many, found employment of a more exciting and remunerative character, as privateers—in other words, buccaneers, pirates, or sea robbers. Our Protestant sailors in Elizabeth’s time considered themselves as doing God’s work in robbing and scuttling any merchant ship belonging either to France or Spain which they could come across on the high seas; nor were they always very particular as to either the nature or the religion of their victims.
You will not think that this reference to the piratical practises of our seamen in the early part of Elizabeth’s reign is foreign to our subject—when I tell you that Mr. Froude has given a story of piracy at Lowestoft in 1561, as an illustration of its prevalence. He thus tells the story:
“A Flemish trader has sailed from Antwerp to Cadiz. Something happens to her on the way, and she never reaches her destination. At midnight carts and horses run down to the sea over the sand at Lowestoft. The black hull and spars of a vessel are seen outside the breakers, dimly riding in the gloom, and a boat shoots through the surf, loaded to the gunwale. The bales and tubs are swiftly shot into the carts. The horses drag back their loads, which before daybreak are safe in the cellars of some quiet manor-house. The boat sweeps off, the sails drop from the mysterious vessel’s yards, and she glides away in the darkness to look for a fresh victim”—MSS. Elizth. Vol. XVI.
He gives his authority for this story, and there must have been some foundation for it. I am afraid that some of the mariners whose names appear in our register must have been on board this black ship; but I refrain from offering any conjecture as to which of the quiet manor-houses in our neighbourhood was the depository of the spoil.
Piracy by British seamen was at this time sufficiently common to call for the interference of Parliament. It exercised much the mind of our then Prime Minister Sir William Cecil—who held the same great office under Queen Elizabeth that his descendant, our present Prime Minister, holds under Queen Victoria. From his private memoranda on this matter we may notice the following as directly bearing on our subject. He writes—
“Instead of the Iceland fleet of Englishmen, which used to supply Normandy and Brittany, as well as England, 500 French vessels, with 30 to 40 men in each of them, go annually to Newfoundland, and even the home fisheries have fallen equally into the hands of strangers. The Yarmouth waters (which certainly included the Lowestoft) were occupied by Flemish and Frenchmen. As remedies for this evil he mentions—(1) Merchandise, (2) Fishing, (3) The exercise of Piracy, which was detestable, and could not last.”
Sufficient evidence this of the extent to which our seamen had taken to piracy at this time. However detestable our Prime Minister thought it, he did not, or could not, stop it. It went on more or less throughout Elizabeth’s reign. Our sea-warriors who defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, were most of them the crews of these “pirate” ships, who for once at least, indulged their fighting propensities in the best service of their country.
The only remedy at the time that Cecil could think of was an Act of Parliament to compel people to eat fish. In 1562, Mr. Froude tells us, he brought a bill into the House of Commons to make the eating of flesh on Fridays and Saturdays a misdemeanour, punishable by a fine of £3, or three months’ imprisonment, and, as if this was not enough, adding Wednesday as a subsidiary or half-fish day, on which one dish of flesh might be allowed, provided there were served at the same table and the same meal three full competent usual dishes of sea fish of sundry kinds, fresh and salt! The House of Commons, Cecil admitted, was very much against him. He carried his measure only by arguing that, if the Bill was passed, it would be almost inoperative:—labourers and poor householders could not observe it, and the rest by license or without license would do as they would; while to satisfy the Puritans he was obliged to add the ludicrous provision that—
“Because no person should misjudge the intent of the statute which was politicly meant only for the increase of fishermen and mariners, and not for any superstition in the choice of meats, whoever should preach or teach that eating of fish or forbearing of flesh was for the saving of the soul of man, or for the service of God, should be punished as the spreader of false news.”
The Act was passed, but it does not seem that it had more effect than was expected in either improving the fishing trade or in stopping piracy. [66]
That it was not, however, altogether a dead letter, and that “Cecil’s Fast,” as it was called, was observed by many of the less strongly protestant of the Queen’s subjects, appears from the following curious old poem which was evidently written soon after the passing of the act. It shews to what a large extent fish had entered into the dietary of a Suffolk farmer in Catholic times, and which the writer recommends to be continued in accordance with the Law.
It was written by Thomas Tusser, the “Suffolk Blomfield” of the 16th. century. After being a chorister in St. Paul’s Cathedral, and employed in some office at Court, he retired into the country and took a farm at Cattiwade on the Stour. His occupation provided him with material for his muse, but did not improve his fortune.