Part 1

Transcribed from the 1897 (Lowestoft) edition by David Price, email [email protected]. Many thanks to Ivan Bunn for helping me with the transcription.

[Picture: Decorative graphic]

GILLINGWATER’S HISTORY OF LOWESTOFT.

A reprint: with a chapter of more recent events by A. E. MURTON.

* * * * *

LOWESTOFT.

* * * * *

mdcccxcvii.

SECTION I. OF THE ISLAND OF LOTHINGLAND.

THIS island (lately become a peninsula) is situated in the most eastern part of Great Britain and in the northern corner of the County of Suffolk. It is bounded by the German Ocean on the east, by the river Yare on the north, by the Waveney on the west, and by the beautiful and spacious water, the lake Lothing on the south; thus encircled by water on every side it is generally called the Island of Lothingland, and would strictly be so, did not a very narrow neck of land (near Lowestoft) intervene, and make it a peninsula. Its length, from north to south, is about ten miles; its breadth from east to west, about six miles; and contains sixteen parishes, viz.: Lowestoft, Corton, Gunton, Olton, Ashby, Lound, Fritton, Flixton, Hopton, Somerley, Blundeston, Gorleston, Belton, Burgh, Bradwell, and Herringfleet, of which Lowestoft is the principal, and is the only market town in the island. During the Saxon Heptarchy, this island was part of the kingdom of the East Angles. In respect to the civil government of the county, it is reckoned but a half hundred, the other half being the district of Mutford. They are generally called the half-hundreds of Mutford and Lothingland, but were incorporated as one hundred by an Act of Parliament in 1764, for the better relief of the poor, and for building an house of industry for their use.

In the ecclesiastical division of the county, this hundred was one of the rural deaneries under the archdeacon of Suffolk. Bishop Kennet, in his parochial antiquities, informs us that this office in the church was very ancient, for in one of the laws ascribed to Edward the Confessor, it is provided, that of eight pounds penalty for breach of the king’s peace, the king shall have an hundred shillings, the earl of the county fifty, and the dean of the bishop in whose deanery the peace was broken, the other ten; which words can be applied only to the office of rural deans, according to the respective districts which they had in parts of every diocese. At first their office was merely to inspect the manners and behaviour of the inferior clergy and people, but by degrees they became possessed of a power to judge and determine in smaller matters, and the rest they were to report to their ecclesiastical superiors. Some time before the Reformation, by the great power of the archdeacons and their officials, the jurisdiction of rural deans declined almost to nothing; and at that period no steps being taken for the restoration of this part of the government of the Church, their name and office unhappily ceased together, notwithstanding attempts have since been made to revive this ancient and useful institution, which in some places have been successful.

Rural Deans of the deanery of Lothingland, Anno 1325, Jeffrey de Boudon, priest, upon the resignation of William de Weston: 1326, John de Wynneferthyng; 1328, John de Thrillo; 1339, Edmund de Bokenham; 1376, Roger de Belton. {1}

It has been conjectured by some, that the island took its name from the lake Lothing, but, I apprehend, without any foundation; it seeming more probable that both the island and lake derived their names from Lothbrock, a noble Dane, whose descendants, in order to perpetuate his memory, gave to this part of the kingdom of the East Angles—frequently the seat of war in their descents on the British coast—the name of Luddingland, Lovingland, Luthingland, or as it is now called Lothingland.

This Lothbroth was of royal race, and had two sons, named Ingwar and Hubba. It happened once, as he was alone in a boat hawking for birds near the island on the coast of Denmark, that he was driven by a sudden tempest across the German Ocean and was carried into the mouth of the Yare up as far as Reedham. The inhabitants of the country having discovered the stranger they brought him to Edmund, king of the East Angles, whose palace was at Caister, about ten miles from thence. The king was astonished at the man’s figure and fortune, and received him with a countenance and behaviour so engaging that Lothbroch relinquished every desire of returning to his own country again, and was so delighted also with the diversions of the courtiers, particularly that of hunting that he oftentimes accompanied Berno the king’s huntsman, in that amusement, in order to become more expert in it; and in a short time made such great proficiency therein, and so far excited the envy of his master that having seduced him into a wood under the pretence of hunting, he privately murdered him. While Lothbroch was missing, a vigilant greyhound which he had kept, guarded his body; but being at last stimulated with hunger he sometimes visited the royal palace, which being observed by the servants, it excited their curiosity to follow him on his return, and they presently discovered the murdered body of Lothbroch. Berno being suspected, was apprehended and found guilty of the crime, and was sentenced, by the order of the king’s court, to be put alone into Lothbroch’s boat, and without a compass or any other instrument was committed to the mercy of the wind and waves which fortunately carried him to Denmark. The boat being there known he was suspected of having been accessary to the death of Lothbroch; and being examined upon the rack concerning it, he affirmed that the murder was committed by Edmund, king of the East Angles.

The Danes having resolved to revenge the death of Lothbroch upon King Edmund and his subjects, levied an army of 20,000 men, made Ingwar and Hubba (the sons of Lothbroch) commanders in chief of the expedition; and having made every necessary preparation for the voyage, and taken Berno with them as a leader, who knew the country, they immediately embarked and set sail for East England in the year 865, in the tenth year of King Edmund’s reign; but meeting with contrary winds they were driven ashore at Berwick upon Tweed, in Scotland, where having committed the most violent outrages, and in some measure gratified their revenge for the murder of Lothbroch, they soon after returned home. But in the following year the relentless Danes re-visited our coasts, when after burning and destroying all they could meet with, and also having greatly harassed and had frequent skirmishes with King Edmund’s army, they returned to their own country. The year after, the Danes again renewed their descents on the British coast, and so far succeeded in their enterprises against King Edmund, that they reduced him to the utmost distress; for surrounding him in a certain place in the Island, where he was so inclosed with marshes and rivers, that it was almost impossible for him to escape, he was left to this dreadful alternative, either to surrender to his enemies or fight his way through them. Having resolved upon the latter, he sought out a place most convenient for his design, and having at last discovered a ford (which was called Berneford, from Berno,) and now called Barnby, he passed it, and falling furiously upon his enemies, he routed them with a great slaughter, and compelled them to return immediately to Denmark. {3} In the succeeding year, the Danes returned again to England, and having committed the most horrid ravages in divers part of it, they came to Ely, where Hubba being left to guard their spoil, Ingwar, with his army entered East England, when, after committing many barbarous cruelties at Thetford, he sent a message to King Edmund, who was then at Eglesdune (now Hoxne, in Suffolk), proposing to him that if he would renounce christianity, pay adoration to his idols, and become his vassal and servant, he would then divide not only his treasure but also his kingdom with him. No sooner did the king receive this message than he marched with his whole army against the Danes and engaging them at a place not far from Thetford, the contending armies fought with great obstinacy from morning till evening, and great numbers were slain on both sides, when the Danes retreated from the field of battle. But the pious king was so exceedingly affected at the fate of so many martyrs who had shed their blood in this battle in defence of the christian faith as well as for the unhappy end for such a numerous body of Pagans that he returned with the shattered remains of his army to Eglesdune with a resolution excited by religious considerations never to engage any more in battle with the Pagans, but if it was necessary to appease their rancour by yielding himself up as a sacrifice for his people and for his christian faith. The army belonging to Ingwar was much diminished from the loss he sustained in this battle; but receiving information of Edmund’s retreat he instantly proceeded to Thetford, where, being joined by Hubba with 10,000 men, the brothers united their forces and pursued the unhappy king to Eglesdune, where, taking him prisoner he was martyred in the year 871, in the 29th year of his reign; and with him expired the kingdom of the East Angles.

After the death of Edmund, the Danes settled themselves in Lothingland, to which tract of land they are supposed to have given that name, in remembrance of their ancestor Lothbroch.

The following tradition respecting the death of King Edmund, is current in the parish of Hoxne to this day; namely, that the King, after he had relinquished every intention of opposing the Danes any farther, in consequence of the horrid carnage which the numerous contests between them had occasioned, fled to this village for safety, but finding himself closely pursued by his enemies, was obliged for security, to conceal himself under a bridge in that parish, now called Gold Bridge, so named from the gilt spurs which the king happened to have on whilst there concealed. A newly-married couple that were returning home in the evening, saw, by moonlight, the king’s spurs glitter in the water, and immediately discovered him to the Danes, who instantly put him to death. The king, in the warmth of resentment, pronounced a curse upon every couple that should afterwards pass over this bridge to be married. A superstitious regard is paid to this sentence even to this day; as not one will pass over the bridge in their way to the parish church on that occasion. It is now about a thousand years since the event happened, and is a remarkable instance of the length of time which traditions in parishes are sometimes continued.

The Danes, when they got the king into their possession, endeavoured to prevail with him to renounce the christian faith; which he refusing to do, they first scourged him with whips, and afterwards bound him to a stake and shot him to death with arrows. He was first buried in an obscure wooden chapel at Eglesdune (now Hoxne), but being afterwards esteemed a martyr, and canonized by the Church, his bones were removed to Bury St. Edmund’s, where a magnificent abbey was erected to his memory.

It appears from that ancient survey of the landed property of this kingdom, the Book of Domesday, that the fee of this hundred was originally in the crown, for that record informs us that Earl Guert {4a} held Gorleston, (and probably the whole island), in the reign of Edward the Confessor; and describing the extent and property of this manor in the time of Edward, and comparing them with the survey made in the reign of William the Conqueror, it says it contained five carucates of land; that there were then twenty villains, now only twelve; five bornars, then five servants, now only four; then two carucates in demesne, now but one; then cattle for five carucates of land, now only three; then two workhouses, now none; ten acres of meadow land, three salt pans, wood for five hogs, always three hundred sheep, and twenty-four fishermen at Yarmouth.

Both history and tradition informs us that some centuries since, there were numerous and violent disputes between the lords of this island and the men of Great Yarmouth, respecting the privileges of that burgh; and whereas it was alleged that those privileges had been greatly infringed by the said lords of the island.

King John in the ninth year of his reign, granted the burgesses of Yarmouth a charter, whereby it was created a free burgh, the burgesses were thereby invested with many valuable commercial privileges, and empowered to hold it in fee farm {4b} paying to the king and fisheries an annual rent of £55 for ever; for payment whereof they had nothing but the customs arising out of the port, not being allowed to receive any custom of goods bought or sold in the market in Lothingland at any time of the year.

Soon after the granting of this charter, the burgh of Great Yarmouth became most flourishing, and made a more respectable figure in trade and commerce than before; and whilst Yarmouth and Lothingland were both holden in the king’s hands, no disputes about customs arose betwixt them, nor do any records now extant mention any suits about them, payable at this or that place, but as the charter had invested the men of Yarmouth with the sole property of their land, as well as their merchandise, they sought to monopolize the trade to themselves, and to hinder the king’s tenants of Lothingland from enjoying any part with them. {4c}

The granting these privileges to the burgh of Yarmouth, was effectually emancipating the inhabitants; no sooner, therefore, had this charter passed, than the men of Lothingland, and particularly the inhabitants of Little Yarmouth and Gorleston (much more considerable places than now) began to be alarmed at the acquisitions of their neighbours, and dreaded their future power. In consequence of this grant several infringements were made, and many disputes arose; however, they did not arise to any considerable degree, till about the twelfth year of Henry III., when Roger Fitz-Osbert {4d} who was then the king’s bailiff or warden of Lothingland, endeavoured to draw the trade of herrings and other goods to his own side of the river Yare, and took certain customs in the port of Yarmouth, contrary to the liberties which the burgesses claimed by their charter.

Complaints against these proceedings of the bailiff of Lothingland were exhibited by the burgesses of Yarmouth, and king Henry, willing to terminate the dispute, as being a party concerned, and being also desirous of being informed what customs really belonged to Yarmouth, and what to his manor of Lothingland, sent Martin de Patteshall, an itinerant justice, to determine it, who took an inquisition at Yarmouth upon the oaths of forty-eight persons belonging to the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, upon which a verdict was found, that all wares ought to be unladen and sold at Great Yarmouth, and that all the haven belonged to the burgesses of Yarmouth; but that small merchandise and provisions of all kinds might be unladen on the Yarmouth or Lothingland side of the river, at the option of the owners or importers thereof. This affair being thus decided, the respective parties continued for some time on more amicable terms, but it was of short duration, for upon king Henry’s exchanging the manor of Lothingland, and the rent of the fee-farm of Yarmouth, in 1228, with John de Baliol, for certain lands in Cheshire, it opened a new source of contention; for although the men of Yarmouth had seemingly the advantage in the late decision yet, as a license was given to unlade ships with provisions on either side, and as fish—which was the chief merchandise then carried on—was evidently included in that permission, they soon found, that in reality, they had gained no other advantage than an expensive suit and an ambiguous decree. John de Baliol seems to have been as well apprized of this as of their inability to dispute it with him, for in 1244 he brought a writ against the burgesses for depriving him of his customary tolls in Little Yarmouth, which alarmed them so much, that, two years after, we find them soliciting the king for a new exclusive charter, that all merchandises and wares, as well fish as other commodities, should be sold at Yarmouth only by the hands of the importers thereof.

Whatever were King Henry’s motives for thus confining the trade, and injuring the property which John de Baliol undoubtedly had in it, I know not, but he granted the burgesses their request, and gave them a new charter agreeable to their desires; notwithstanding which, I find the bailiff of Lothingland took the usual customs the very next year, and also continued to do so whilst the manor remained in the hands of the Baliols, and consequently fresh disputes about the customs were continually arising.

In 1259 John de Baliol died, and was succeeded by his son, John de Baliol, afterwards king of Scotland, and it appears that the usual disputes were in agitation during the time he held this manor; but upon his acquiring the kingdom of Scotland, the burgesses of Yarmouth were obliged to submit to so powerful an opponent, for we find, he levied the following customs; for every foreign ship, eighteen pence; and of every English ship trading to or from the port of Yarmouth, fourpence; of every cart or horse-load of merchandize passing through his manor a half-penny; and for every last of herrings imported for a foreign merchant, fourpence; of every stall, fourpence; and of every window where bread was placed to sell, fourpence. The last is a remarkable article for a tax; and I can account for it no other way than by supposing the men of Yarmouth used to make bread and send it to be sold at Little Yarmouth and Gorleston for the supply of their herring fleet, in case of necessity.

The manor of Lothingland and fee-farm of Yarmouth being in the hands of the Baliols, by virtue of the above-mentioned exchange, were now in the actual possession of John de Baliol, king of Scots; but upon this king’s renouncing his homage to King Edward 1st, all his English estates became forfeited, and by his resignation afterwards of his person, his dignity, his kingdom, and all his private states, the said manor of Lothingland, and the fee-farm of Yarmouth, once more reverted to the crown. This was accounted by the burgesses of Yarmouth as a most happy deliverance, they thereby getting rid of a troublesome and powerful neighbour, who not only vigorously supported the rights of his manor, but interfered also with their trade, and was willing to become a partner in their gains; for the Baliols, both father and son, had for many years, by their bailiffs, greatly infringed on the liberties of Yarmouth, by taking customs in that port, contrary to its charters, to the great injury of the burgesses which they were under the necessity of submitting to as being unable to contend with such powerful adversaries. But after the above forfeiture the burgesses of Yarmouth adjudging it to be a seasonable opportunity for having their grievances redressed, made application to King Edward 1st in the 34th year of his reign, to have the charter granted by his predecessor Henry 3rd more clearly explained, and to be expressed in such manner as should leave no room for farther disputes.

The king in order to compromise the difference between the respective parties, requested the assistance of his council; and notwithstanding the opposition from Little Yarmouth and Gorleston, yet it appearing upon enquiry that as the manor of Lothingland and fee-farm of Yarmouth were now in the hands of the said King Edward, and that certain privileges had been granted to the burgesses of Great Yarmouth by the charter of Henry 3rd, therefore his said Majesty, in the year above-mentioned, complied with the request of the burgesses, and both explained and ratified the said charter of King Henry. {6}

The manor of Lothingland continued in the crown but a short time; for king Edward 1st in his 34th year, anno 1306, gave it, with all Baliol’s English estates, to John de Britainy, Earl of Richmond, his sister’s son. {7a}