Brewing in Lowestoft 1560-1760

The Town of Lowestoft c. 1720

This map was created by Ivan Bunn (former archival assistant at the North Suffolk Record Office, Lowestoft) and the writer, working in collaboration and using manorial documentation as the primary source. See end of text for numbered locations, which are also referred to in the narrative.  

Brewing in Lowestoft (1560-1760)

In common with many other English towns during the late Medieval and Early Modern periods, Lowestoft had an important brewing industry, producing ale and (later) beer in considerable quantities. This served for consumption at home and in the many inns and alehouses, for provisioning the local fishing fleet, and for meeting the needs of vessels engaged in coastal trade – particularly those craft involved in the coal traffic between Newcastle and London. The Manor Roll of 1618 shows that 600 of the parish’s total area of 1486 acres were devoted to agriculture. (1) By 1750, using statistics available in a surviving volume of parish tithe data, it had risen to 800 or more.(2) Of this arable area, 700 acres were devoted to producing grain and, given the fact that Lowestoft’s soil was mainly light glacial drift, it is reasonable to suppose that barley would have been the main variety grown rather than wheat (or oats). It is also reasonable to speculate that the 200 acres put under the plough between 1618 and 1750 may well have been chiefly (if not wholly) devoted to the production of barley, as the town’s malting and brewing activities expanded to meet the needs of an increasing population and the growth of fishing activity and maritime trade generally.

            Various components of the town’s surviving documentary sources make reference to malting and brewing, and it is obvious that the activities were spread over a wide cross-section of the local community. At a time when mixed economic activity was the norm for people, and when men usually had more than one skill (a primary occupation, supplemented by other craft or trade abilities), it is sometimes difficult to identify a person’s main interest. This is particularly true of brewing, simply because the activity operated at all levels of society. Women often brewed for family needs in the home or ran alehouses as a secondary occupation to their husbands’ trades; merchants and substantial craftsmen produced beer for themselves and their workforces; and some of the larger inns brewed on site to meet the needs of their customers – with any surplus probably being sold to other outlets. In addition to all of this output, there were a number of specialist brewers (sometimes, but not always, owning inns) who produced alcoholic beverages as their main occupation – and it is their operation which will feature prominently in this article.

            The brewing of beer remains a major industrial activity today. Yet, taken as a proportion of national economic output, it has nothing like the scale and importance of two or three hundred years ago. Put simply, the consumption of beer in the pre-industrial period was enormous compared with what is drunk today. It has been estimated that, during the seventeenth century, 50% of the national income was spent on food and drink and that 33% of that proportion went solely on beer – which represents about 16% of the overall amount.(3) This large per capita intake was probably due in part to the amount of salt in people’s diet (being the main preservative of foodstuffs of all kinds), but it should also be remembered that tea and coffee were not as widely available as they are now – especially for the lower orders of society. Furthermore, water supplies (mainly from wells) were usually tainted by the waste-matter and filth widely deposited in urban areas, so it was safer to drink alcoholic beverages in which the water used had been boiled as part of the brewing process and where the action of fermentation helped to kill certain bacteria. Finally, the alcohol itself had antiseptic qualities, particularly in the higher-strength beers.

            It is against this background of high consumption of both ale and beer that Lowestoft’s identifiable, specialist brewing industry can now be considered.(4) Parish register entries will be the first main source cited, with regard to specific references to brewing (and malting) as an occupation. (5) Supplementary material will be added, using probate records and property-transferinformation deriving mainly from surviving, late 19th century, compulsory-purchase documentation. Unless otherwise stated, the word brewer is the basic identifying term used. 

Brewers

1562: John Jeckson (own burial entry of 19 April). Referred to as a beer brewer.

1573: Matthew Smyth (child’s baptism entry of 12 May).

1580: Richard Drawer (his Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 15 April makes reference to a brewhouse). No occupation is given in his burial entry of 21 April the same year.

1583: John Waryner (own burial entry of 26 November).

1592: Hugh Bond (own burial entry of 27 July). Also referred to as a baker.

1595: Robert Ireland (Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 8 April).(6) Referred to as a beer brewer.                 No occupation is given in his own burial entry of 19 April the same year. His will mentions brewing equipment, as does that of his widow, Margaret (Suffolk Archdeaconry Court, 17 June 1597).

1597: Thomas Durrant (child’s baptism entry of 13 November).

1600: Thomas Durrant (child’s burial entry of 4 August).

1601: Wyllyam Hanslie (own burial entry of 27 October).

1601: John Daines (Norwich Consistory Court inventory of 7 September).(7) Referred to as a baker in his own burial entry of 6 August the same year, with the surname spelled as Daynes.

1602: Raffe Dixson (own burial entry of 25 January).

1603: William Woodshed (Norwich Consistory Court will of 13 June). No occupation is given in his own burial entry of 18 June the same year and the surname is spelled as Woodshead. The will of William Davye, merchant (Suffolk Archdeaconry Court, 18 September 1592), reveals that Woodshed was occupying premises owned by him to carry out his brewing operation.

1603: Richard Blewett (own burial entry of 30 July).

1603: Thomas Durrant (own burial entry of 20 August). All three deaths in 1603 resulted from a serious summer plague epidemic, which killed nearly 20% of the town’s population of 1,500 people.

1612: John Browne (wife’s burial entry of 26 November). Referred to as a baker in manorial documentation of 1607. As with both of the earlier dual-occupation references, yeast would have been the common factor in the two trades.

1612: Nicholas Blake (Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 11 February). Referred to as beer brewer. No occupation is given in his own burial entry of 20 February 1613 and the surname is spelled as Blague.

1628: John French (own burial entry of 27 July).

1635: Thomas Merryman (own burial entry of 6 August).

1635: Phillipp Bitson (own burial entry of 19 September). Both deaths in 1635 occurred during an outbreak of plague in the summer months – less lethal than that of 1603, but still a severe blow to the local population (perhaps as much as 15% mortality) which hadn’t really recovered from the earlier epidemic. Estimates based on parish register data give a total of around 1,200 people.

1638: John Daines (own burial entry of 12 November). His Suffolk Archdeaconry Court nuncupative will of 7 November does not refer to any occupation and renders the surname as Daynes.(8)

1640: Francis Ewen (own burial entry of 18 February). His Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will, of 12 February, refers to him as a beer brewer and spells the surname as Ewing. Reference is made to brewing premises and equipment.

1650: Henry Ward the elder. Known to be primarily a brewer, though his Prerogative Court of Canterbury will of 6 July describes him as a merchant.(9) Reference is made to brewing premises and equipment. His burial entry of 1 January 1652 simply refers to Henry Ward sen. [senior; the elder]. 

1653: William Arnold (Prerogative Court of Canterbury will of 7 August). The document contains a reference to brewing premises. The previous year, on 6 March, at the annual, manorial leet court, he had been fined 3d for throwing dead pigs into the common watering-place (a communal pond) on the western perimeter of the town. He was ordered to remove and bury them. His own burial is not recorded in the parish registers.  

1673: Edward Daynes (Suffolk County Council compulsory-purchase documents). Described as a beer brewer when involved in the buying of a house at the northern end of Lowestoft High Street (west side).(10) His Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 27 January 1690 gives him the same title (though the surname is spelled as Daines) and includes a reference to brewing premises. Burial not recorded in the parish registers.  

1677: Thomas Pacy (referred to in the Norwich Consistory Court will of Richard Church, 16 August). Described merely as antient in his burial entry of 12 November 1680 and as a yeoman in his Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 9 November the same year. He may well have been involved in agriculture as well as brewing. Equally, the term yeoman may have been used to indicate social status above tradesman/artisan level.

1686: Thomas Utting (Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 3 September). Described as a beer brewer. His burial entry of 5 January 1687 records him as Mr. Thomas Utting (an abbreviated form of master, which at the time implied a degree of social standing in the local community). 

1687: John Daynes (Suffolk County Council compulsory-purchase documents). Described as a beer brewer when involved in the purchase of a house at the northern end of Lowestoft High Street (west side) – a different dwelling from that acquired by Edward Daynes. Burial not recorded in the parish registers.

1695: William Amy (referred to in another person’s Prerogative Court of Canterbury will). 

1695: Matthew Arnold (referred to in another person’s Prerogative Court of Canterbury will). His burial entry of 2 January 1710 describes him as a good honest man.(11)

1695: John Durrant Snr. [senior; the elder] His Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 7 December describes him as a merchant, but there is specific mention of brewing premises and equipment. His burial entry of 31 March 1696 does not record an occupation.

1703: Henry Ward. Described as a gentleman in his Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 1 December, but specific reference is made to brewing premises and equipment. His burial entry of 6 September 1704 refers to him as Mr. [Master]. A sense of personal social elevation is evident in the description of his status used in the will. 

1715: John Durrant (Norwich Consistory Court will of 12 October and accompanying inventory of 18 November). Both documents mention brewing premises and equipment. His burial entry of 18 October records him as Mr. [Master].

1721: Coe Arnold. Both his Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 18 March and his burial entry of 29 March describe him as a beer brewer. The parish register also accords him the title of Mr. [Master]. The will refers to brewing premises and equipment.

1729: Thomas Catlin. Both his Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 13 May and his burial entry of 1 August make reference to his occupation, with the former source spelling his surname as Cattling.

1742: John Durrant (wife’s burial entry of 26 February). His own burial entry of 20 May 1750 refers to him as a beer brewer.

1742: Matthew Arnold (daughter’s burial entry of 30 December). He had been admitted to his father Coe’s brewing premises on 16 January 1723, following the death of his parents (Rev. John Tanner’s court baron extracts).(12) His own burial entry of 19 February 1742 describes him as a merchant. 

1748: David Williams (own burial entry of 1 November 1748). Referred to as a beer brewer. Williams died during a serious smallpox epidemic, but not of the disease itself (which is identified in the register book by the initials s.p. placed against the victims’ names).

1749: John Peach (own burial entry of 12 February 1749). Referred to as a beer brewer. Peach died during the same smallpox outbreak as David Williams, but (again) not of that particular disease. The town’s population at this time numbered about 2,000 people.

Maltsters

1673: Matthew Ottmer (Suffolk Archdeaconry Court will of 12 March 1673). His burial entry of 1 April the same year refers to him as husband of Mary.

1721: Thomas Delf (own burial entry of 15 December). Age given as 50 years. He its described as a yeoman in his Norwich Consistory Court will of 13 December 1721 (see the remarks concerning Thomas Pacy – 1677). There is a settlement order recording him, his wife and family moving into the town from from the adjoining parish of Oulton in 1709.(13)

1728: Charles Dringanary (own burial entry of 27 December).

1754: John Cornish (own burial entry of 3 May). A settlement order of 1721 records him moving from Kessingland to Lowestoft, with his wife Margaret.

            Two features of the data above are worthy of comment. The last forty years of the 16th century have seven documented references to brewing as sole or main operation, the whole of the 17th produces twenty-three (fifteen in the first half, eight in the second), and the first six decades of the 18th adds up to eight. This does not reflect a reduction in Lowestoft’s beer production, but a growing specialism in commercial brewing and concentration of the industry in the hands of fewer people. This specialism may also be reflected in the few specific references to maltsters which are recorded, with the suggestion that the roasting of barley to produce the raw material for making ale and beer was itself becoming a separate trade or occupation from the late 17th century onwards. Prior to that, the process was probably carried out by the brewers themselves. As the town recovered from the demographic and economic decline which defined much of the first half of the 17th century, increased beer production was required to meet the needs of the growing local population onshore and of the crew members of the fishing and trading vessels which were so vital to the local economy. 

            A small insight into the scale of the enterprise may be found in a petition presented to Parliament in the year 1670. Leading townsmen were seeking exemption from the duty of 2s 6d payable on each barrel of strong beer (probably c. 5% alcohol) used on board ship and stated that there were twenty-five vessels engaged in cod and herring fishing, with an annual consumption of nine tuns each.(14) The tun, in this case, represents an Imperial measure of 252 gallons volume. This means that, with crew numbers working out at eight to ten men per craft, each individual was consuming an average of 1800-2200 pints a year – exclusive of what he might drink onshore when not working.

            Although concentration of the large-scale, commercial brewing enterprise into fewer hands from the late seventeenth century onwards is detectable, what may be described as domestic brewing (for household and/or workforce needs) remained a notable feature throughout the whole period covered. Surviving probate material is the key source, with testators’ inventories of goods and chattels being especially useful. Seven relevant documents have survived from the late 16th century, showing that two merchants, a cordwainer and a cordwainer’s widow all had brewhouses and brewing equipment, while a merchant, a goldsmith and a merchant’s widow had equipment only. Eight documents represent the 17th century, with one merchant having both brewhouse and equipment, and two merchants, a retired naval commander (rank of admiral), two mariners, a cordwainer and a husbandman having equipment or storage-vessels. For the first three decades of the eighteenth century, fifteen documents give the following picture: brewing equipment owned by two merchants, one merchant-apothecary, one grocer, one customs officer, four mariners, one fisherman, one mason, one cordwainer, one husbandman and two widows (husbands’ occupations unknown).(15) This may seem to suggest increased domestic brewing at a time of expanding commercial production, but it has rather more to do with the overall survival rate of relevant documents: fifteen for the period 1580-95, twenty-one for the years 1601-42, eighteen for 1656-99, and forty-six for 1701-1730.

            Attention must now be turned to the location of the identifiable, larger, specialist breweries. Four of these manifest themselves through family association and were probably in operation for much of the period under review. A similar number of businesses seem to have been more ephemeral in nature, but were nevertheless part of the town’s brewing capacity at the time they were functioning, and there is clear evidence that some of the larger inns were also brewing on site to supply their customers. It is not possible to speculate on the number of small alehouses (as they are invariably referred to in manorial documentation of the time), but on the evidence of surviving leet court material  there were a considerable number of them – functioning mainly, it would seem, as a secondary occupation to a man’s main trade.(16)

            In turning now to a consideration of Lowestoft’s mainline brewers (for want of a better term), earlier street names will be used to establish location, with later ones appended for the purpose of updating. The town’s medieval core is still recognisable within the large amount of urban outgrowth which has taken place in the last 160 years or so (Lowestoft is Suffolk’s second largest community, with a population considerably in excess of that of Bury St. Edmunds). Loosely speaking, it is what is referred to today as the High Street, situated to the north of the main shopping area in London Road North. Its ancient street-plan is still largely intact, in spite of modern road improvements and realignments, and up to about twenty-five timber-framed houses survive (wholly or in part) from the Late Medieval-Early Modern periods – a number of them with later, 18th or 19th century facades.(17)

            Alphabetical order of surname will be adopted as a convenient means of presenting information concerning the four families and therefore the Arnolds will be dealt with first. Their brewery, consisting of brewhouse, millhouse (for the grinding of malt), stables and other buildings, was situated in the side-lane area to the west of the High Street, on the southern side of Tyler’s Lane (now Compass Street) at its junction with West Lane (now Jubilee Way).(18) The property had come to them on 3 January 1649, when William Arnold purchased it from the executors of Francis Ewen, whose wife’s first husband, Matthew (a mariner), had been a member of the wider Arnold family. Ewen had acquired it in 1615 and was named in a bishop’s visitation of 1633 for barrelling beer on a Sunday (he was fined 1s 4d). At the end of the 16th century, and the beginning of the 17th, the premises appears to have been in the possession of the Everard family, who were husbandmen (small farmers) – thereby suggesting a direct link between agriculture and an allied industry. The site is now occupied by a terrace of town houses (a continuation of the Compass Street ones), while another part of it lies under the remaining piece of White Horse Street - a later name for West Lane - running parallel with Jubilee Way (map, no. 1). The brewery passed to William Arnold’s son, William, on 12 February 1676, following the older man’s decease, and was promptly sold to a younger brother, Matthew – father of Coe Arnold, named in the paragraph following.      

            A further connection with the Arnolds’ production of beer is to be seen in the occupation of a malthouse which was situated at the northern extremity of the town, below the cliff, on land to the south of what is now Lighthouse Score (an unnamed footway at the time).(19) The Manor Roll of 1618 makes reference to it, but it was not in Arnold family hands at that time. Coe Arnold (great-nephew of William Snr.) acquired it on 5 March 1715 from Robert Utber, but following his death in March 1721 and its transfer to his son, John, the use had apparently changed. The Rev. John Tanner’s listing of copyhold properties (c. 1720) describes it as an office of fish houses, lately a malting office, with a large yard.(20) It would seem, therefore, that John Arnold or his father had converted the building to the task of curing herrings – either because they had an interest in fishing or were leasing the premises to someone else who did. Coe Arnold had probably been renting the building before he bought it, because at the leet court of 13 March 1714 he was fined 3d for not clearing out a watercourse leading from his malthouse to the Denes.(21) Prior to his occupancy, it seems to have been rented by a man named John Peach.

            At the time that one particular branch of this long established, local family-group was involved in large-scale beer production, it was also operating an inn called The Bell. This hostelry stood on the southern corner of Bell Lane (now known as Crown Street East and Crown Street West) at the junction with the High Street and is now two separate units, Nos. 148 and 149 (map, no. 2). The name Crown Street derives from The Crown hotel, which stands on the northern corner of the junction and which probably gave its name to the roadway after The Bell had eventually ceased to function as an inn and undergone subdivision (map, no. 3). William Arnold had acquired the premises on 4 August 1652 and it remained in his and his son’s hands until 1 November 1721, when it passed into the hands of the Frary family, blacksmiths in the town. It remains a very interesting building, with a late 16th century single-framed roof consisting of oak common rafters, secured by a ridge-piece, and with a late medieval cellar under the northernmost bay. This has a brick-built well within it at the eastern end – not to provide water for use in the house, but to store what collects in the cellar by natural processes and then to pump it out into the street above.

            The Daines (or Daynes) family seems to have carried out its brewing activities at the northern end of the High Street, on its western side – at least from the later 17th century onwards, if not earlier. This was an area of freehold property (sometimes found referred to as The Westlands) which consequently has far less documentary evidence to draw upon.(22) It is sheer coincidence that a road-widening scheme in this part of town, during the 1890s, should have led to deeds etc. connected with properties acquired by compulsory purchase surviving in local authority archives (see end-note 10). What is now 176 High Street may offer a clue regarding brewing activity. For long the most northerly part of an imposing, late Victorian residential terrace (comprising Nos. 160-176), it was once a dwelling-house belonging to the Wilde family and then to Francis and Phama Knights – a merchant and his wife, both of whom have references to a brewhouse and brewing equipment made in their respective Prerogative Court of Canterbury wills of 30 January 1656 and 20 August 1656 (map. no. 4). These facilities could easily have been rented out to another operator (such as John Daines, or Daynes, who had died in 1638). It is also interesting to note that a malthouse was located to the rear of the Knights’ house, and that Matthew Ottmer (the maltster previously referred to in the occupational list above) lived in a dwelling once situated to the north of their plot from 1667-73.

            Specific, later Daines/Daynes connections are to be found in two particular inns once located in this part of town: The Dolphin (174 High Street) and The King’s Arms (later The Black Boy – No. 166). John Daynes (grandson of the man referred to in the previous paragraph) held the former from 1699-1733 (map, no. 5) – while his uncle, Edward Daynes, or Daines, was in occupation of the latter (map, no. 6) at the time he made his will in January 1690 (it is not known whether this was as owner or lessee). Edward Daynes had also purchased a dwelling-house some years before, on 24 December 1673 (site of 159 High Street), for which no transfer details from to him to the next occupier can be found. A further reference in his will connects him with The New White Horse premises on the south side of Tyler’s Lane (now Compass Street) where it met the High Street – almost certainly as an occupant paying rent, because the property was owned by Robert and Susan Woollage.(23) This particular inn was demolished in 1703 to provide an overspill market-space (map, no. 7) – because of house-building encroachment onto the main trading-area further to the south – and relocated to the west (map, no. 8), close to the Arnold family’s brewery. The site is now occupied by housing association, terraced dwellings (Nos. 2-10 Compass Street). Edward and John Daynes could have been brewing at any of the premises with which they were associated.

            There is no uncertainty as to the whereabouts of the Durrant family’s brewery – at least, from the mid 17th century onwards.  It was located on the eastern side of the High Street, opposite what is now the Triangle Market area, occupying the site of 84 High Street (map, no. 9). It came into the family’s occupation during the 1650s and was not originally used for brewing, being a domestic dwelling site. The list of copyhold tenements in the town, compiled in c. 1720 by the Rev. John Tanner to accompany his extracted details of transfer, describes the property (in the occupation of John Durrant) as a messuage with brewhouse, stables and decayed fish-houses – the last-named having once been used for the curing of red herrings).(24) Prior to this, the house fronting the street had operated for a time as a public house called The George (in honour of the Prince of Denmark, husband of the future Queen Anne).         

In addition to this complex, the family also had a malthouse further up the High Street (map, no. 10), north of Rant Score, to the rear of what is now 69 High Street (occupying land taken up by Richardson’s Family Entertainment Centre and Bowl). Tanner’s listing describes it as one piece of land, whereon a malthouse is built, together with a brakehouse, stable and appurtenances (in the occupation of Martin Durrant, brother of John) – the brakehouse being indicative of mixed economic activity, because it was a place where rotted hemp and flax stems were crushed between rollers as part of the process to produce fibre for linen-weaving. Our spelling today of the brake element in the word would, of course, be break. 

            The malthouse plot had also been been acquired during the 1650s and, as with the brewery, had not been originally used for the purpose noted in 1720. It had once formed part of what was the biggest of all the Lowestoft inn complexes – The Angel (map, no. 11). This had occupied a large plot of land immediately north of Rant Score (currently occupied by the row of shops numbered 64-69 High Street), which stretched from the High Street itself down to the bottom of the cliff at Whaplond Way (now Whapload Road). During the middle of the 17th century, members of the Kettleborough family (who held it) sold it off into five smaller units, which included the Durrants’ malthouse site. Later subdivisions of these plots eventually resulted in the six High Street shops of today, together with the various other uses made of the lower sections of the cliff.

            Progressive urban changes also made their mark on the Ward family’s brewing enterprise. The brewery itself was situated at the meeting-point of the High Street and Beccles Way (now St. Peter’s Street) at the tip of what is currently the Triangle Market’s open area (map, no. 12). The 1618 Manor Roll shows the plot as being occupied by Robert Scarth [Scarfe] at the time and makes specific mention of a brewhouse. It also reveals that the property had previously been held by the Drawer family (see 1580: Richard Drawer, above). Henry Ward acquired it on 15 May 1627 from Robert Scarfe’s son (also Robert) and it remained in the family’s occupation well into the 18th century. John Tanner describes it as one messuage, with a brewhouse, stable, barns and other buildings adjoining (in the occupation of Mr. James Ward, Henry’s great-grandson). The brewery was not the only connection between the Wards and Robert Scarfe, Across the other side of the High Street, a little further to the north, at what is now No. 88, stood a dwelling-house with malting facility to the rear. Henry Ward acquired this property from the Scarfes on the same day as the brewery and, like the latter premises, it had previously been in the possession of Richard Drawer (map, no. 13). John Tanner refers to it as one messuage with decayed malthouse and yard (in the occupation of Thomas Ward, great-grandson of Henry), so it had obviously fallen into misuse and disrepair. Appropriately enough, its presence is still perpetuated in the name Maltster’s Score, the passageway and track lying immediately to the south of it and leading down to Whapload Road, via Spurgeon Score.

            It is possible that the malthouse became redundant because of a similar facility established by the Wards closer to their brewery. Immediately to the north, on the space once occupied by the  former Triangle Market canopies, stood an inn called The Spread Eagle with barns and other buildings (ref. 1618 Manor Roll) – a property once held by Nicholas Blake (see 1612 above). The messuage as a whole became subdivided into two moieties in the mid 17th century by transfers of 21 January 1646 and 27 April 1653, which placed the respective properties in the hands of James Ward (son of Henry) and his wife, Frances. Further subdivision followed, but the overall area remained in possession of the Wards (map, no. 14). By 1720, John Tanner was able to describe one part of it as a malting office with stables and yards thereto belonging (in the occupation of Mr. Francis Ward, grandson of James and Frances). The most northerly section had by then become the Independent Meeting House, built in 1695 on land given by Henry Ward (the family being leading Nonconformists in the town). It stood immediately next to what is now 127 High Street, but nothing permanent has occupied the ground-space for many years. The family had also at one time (1641-61) held The Old White Horse inn on the corner of Fair Lane (now Dove Street) and West Lane/Back Lane (now Jubilee Way), but not as innkeepers. The premises were leased to its operators (map, no. 15).

            Other than those relating to the four identifiable long-term brewing families, there are also a handful of other references to producing malt and beer which manifest themselves in the Lowestoft documentation. They all relate to inns that were once part of what would now be termed the town’s hospitality trade. During the latter part of the 16th century, William French (merchant) was brewing at The Crown inn (a premises located at 150 High Street, but currently unoccupied). The building was much enlarged during the late 18th century, but an earlier cross-wing to the rear of the main block survives from Tudor times. French’s Prerogative Court of Canterbury will of 3 November 1593 (burial record, 6 November) makes reference to a copper (for boiling the water), vats(for fermenting the brew) and other vessels. A number of his successors at the hostelry (one of the town’s premier establishments) would also have carried out the operation, but the court baron records mainly refer to property-owners (as they would be termed today) and not necessarily to people leasing or renting buildings, and it is therefore difficult to establish who was doing what at any particular time.(25)

            One man who was certainly brewing at The Crown a century or so after William French was William Wells. His origins are not known, but in November 1676 he had married Deborah Leake (baptised 7 March 1638), a merchant’s widow and the daughter of James Wilde, one of Lowestoft’s wealthiest and most influential men. He began his detectable business enterprises on 7 September 1681 with acquisition of The King’s Head (map, no. 16), a medium-sized inn on the east side of the High Street (now the site of No. 53) almost directly opposite to The Crown. Just a few months later, on 1 February 1682, he took up occupation of The Crown itself, having purchased it from Roger Castle (gentleman) of Raveningham in Norfolk. He then arranged a series of three mortgages on this property (totalling £732) to finance other business ventures.(26) One of these was the purchase of a malt-house (27 September 1685) immediately to the south of Swan Score (now Mariner’s Score), to the rear of The Swan inn (now 41-42 High Street) – another of the town’s premier hostelries (map, no. 17). The malting facility had obviously been part of The Swan’s messuage originally, but had been sold off as a separate property on 12 December 1627 following a change in ownership. 

            Its acquisition gave Wells an assured supply of the raw material needed for his brewing operations. And it wasn’t the last of his ventures into the world of brewing and inn-keeping. On 25 September 1700, he purchased The Cock, a small establishment at the extreme southern end of the High Street, on its eastern side (map, no. 18). This particular section of the town’s main roadway later became known as Old Nelson Street and the inn stood at the bottom of the hill on space now taken up by a District Council pay-and-display car park. William Wells’s wife, Deborah, died early in 1705 and was buried on 5 February. There is no burial entry in the registers for her husband, but the sole surviving child of the marriage, Anne Clarke (wife of Gregory Clarke, rector of Blundeston), acceded to her father’s properties on 27 September 1710.(27) She had all of them vested jointly in the names of her husband and herself at the same time. Sixteen months later, on 23 January 1712, Gregory Clarke extended a mortgage loan of £155 to the new occupants of The Crown, Thomas and Margery Andike.

            It would appear that the family connection with brewing enterprise died with William Wells. The Norwich Gazette weekly newspaper of 12 May 1711 advertised the sale of all his equipment, to be carried out by auction at the brewery itself at one o’ clock in the afternoon. The following items were specifically referred to in the following manner: a large Copper that will boil off about sixteen barrels [36 gallons to the barrel = 576 gallons], with a Mash fat [vat] and all other utensils belonging to the said office, of a suitable bigness, and also a large Malt mill and a bag of good Hops. Thus is the total brewing process described in the sale-specification. A mill to grind the malt-grains into meal; a copper in which to boil the water or liquor, prior to its being added to the ground malt in the mash-vat to produce the wort; other utensils of a suitable bigness, which would have included the gyle vat in which the wort was fermented; and the hops which were included at the boiling, infusion stage to flavour and preserve the beer.  

            One interesting feature of Wells’s malthouse on Swan Score is that John Tanner’s manor court extracts declare it to have been a fish-house earlier in its existence (a reversal of use to that noted earlier regarding the premises acquired by Coe Arnold in 1715). There is no reason why this should not have been the case – but, with at least some of the fish-houses being built largely of timber, there would had to have been a masonry section at ground level (or even below) to house the furnace producing the heat required to roast the barley. No evidence of changed function is evident concerning the presence of another malthouse to the rear of a High Street building – this time further to the south, on the western side. It was situated at the back of what is now the site of No. 143 – once the location of The Cock inn (a different establishment from that mentioned two paragraphs above). This had been called The Pye (i.e. Magpie) at an earlier stage of its existence, but by the time that John Tanner produced his listing of copyhold properties in c. 1720 it was no longer in operation (map, no. 19). His description of the messuage is of several [separate] tenements with a malting house and yard, so it is obvious that the building had been subdivided into domestic dwellings. The malthouse had been in the occupation of Charles Boyce since 1703. He was a substantial yeoman farmer living in the neighbouring parish of Gunton, who also farmed extensively in Lowestoft and was probably producing malt, from the barley he grew, to supply local breweries.(28)

            Further evidence of the direct link between agriculture and malting (and, in this particular case, brewing as well) may be seen in the activities of Samuel Munds (merchant), son-in-law of Edward Daines. He was buried on 3 April 1710, aged sixty-seven years, and has the title Mr. given to him in his register entry, but no occupation is referred to.(29) He was from a maritime family and at one time (during the 1680s) commanded a vessel known as the Black Lyon. The craft was involved in the coastal coal trade (and possibly other carriage as well) and was part-owned by Samuel Pacy, Lowestoft’s richest merchant of the second half of the 17th century. At some point, Munds came ashore and became involved in activities so diverse that it required nine appraisers to value his worldly goods, which had a total value of £258 8s 3d (Norwich Consistory Court inventory, INV 70/201). He lived in a house at the northern extremity of the High Street, which stood next to the present-day No. 2 and which was demolished (along with other houses) to create a large marine residence of c. 1830-40. This latter (No. 1) was itself demolished, during the late 1950s, and nothing now occupies the ground-space.

            Samuel Munds’s net-store (in which fishing-gear and other maritime equipment was kept) stood below his dwelling, at the bottom of the cliff (No. 333 Whapload Road). It, too, is no longer in existence, having been destroyed by fire during the 1980s. As well as having fishing interests (including a herring boat called the Mayflower), Munds was also involved in maritime trade, farming and brewing. He owned The Three Mariners inn (map, no. 20), which was located on freehold land on the northern side of Swan Lane (now Mariners Street) – a typical mid-late 16th century building standing front-on to the highway, with cross-wing to the rear, which was demolished during the 1960s and replaced by a row of three dwellings (Nos. 49, 50 & 51 Mariners Street).(30) It occupied a site close to an entry-way – the latter still being in existence as a rear-access to properties fronting the High Street (the site of  Nos. 160-176, as previously referred to). The probate inventory mentioned in the previous paragraph itemises the following appurtenances and equipment associated with brewing, which seem to have been part of a messuage immediately west of the inn itself: brewhouse, tunhouse [for racking off, or barrelling, beer], malt mill, copper, mash vat, guile vat and barrels.(31) Again, as with the sale details of William Wells’s brewery three paragraphs above, the whole brewing operation is revealed in the listing of the brewhouse’s contents.

            It would appear that Samuel Munds was preparing to divest himself of his brewing activities before he died – perhaps because of increasing age and ill-health. A notice in the Norwich Gazette of 4 February 1710 declared the coming sale of a convenient Dwelling House, with a brewing office, barns and stables, as also a Public house thereto adjoining, in the town of Lowestoft, to be sold by Mr. Samuel Munds of Lowestoft. Five months later, on 1 July 1710, the following notice appeared: A Brewing Office with all utensils, as also the sign of the Three Mariners, with Barn, stable and other outhouses, late Mr. Samuel Munds deceased to be sold by his Executrix Mrs. Jane Munds of Lowestoft in Suffolk. The dwelling-house is not mentioned in the second advertisement and may therefore have been disposed of separately. It would seem that the remaining premises were acquired by the Barker family, merchants of the town, because on 7 November 1724 the newspaper announced letting of the inn and appurtenances at Christmas, following the departure of Edward Morgan, the lessee – with application to be made to Mr. John Barker, who was Munds’s son-in-law.(32) A tenant was not immediately forthcoming, because on 14 August 1725 the following notice was published: The Three Mariners in Lowestoft in Suffolk, being an antient and well-accustomed Inn, consisting of several [separate] large low rooms and chambers over the same, with convenient inclosure of Pasture ground, stable, yard and Ten Pin Ground[skittles] thereto belonging. Inquire of Mr. John Barker jun [junior; the younger] of Lowestoft merchant or of Mr. Robert Barker his son, a brewer there. It is clear from this that the Barkers were continuing with the brewing function themselves and preparing to lease the inn premises to other operators. 

            The final piece from the Norwich Gazette, which can be used to fit in with the overall subject of this article, is to be found in the edition of 8 February 1728. Notice was given as follows: To be let at Lowestoft in the County of Suffolk, at Michaelmas next, a Dwelling House, Brewhouse, Barns and stables with about 29 acres of land, now in the occupation of Mr. John Peach, at £50 per annum. Inquire of Mr. Samuel Church of Lowestoft.(33) Church was a local merchant, who was involved in small-scale farming himself, but he was obviously leasing a sizeable proportion of his land to Peach in order for the latter to conduct his own arable activity. Unfortunately, no location for either buildings or land is given, but practically the whole of the parish’s cultivated land was freehold and therefore not subject to having changes of occupant recorded in the manor court books. And it is very likely that Peach was renting a freehold dwelling – possibly in the area known as Westlands, which lay to the west of the High Street and north of Swan Lane and which has featured noticeably already with regard to the Daynes family and to Samuel Munds. He was probably also a short-term tenant of the malthouse previously referred to in connection with Coe Arnold (map, no. 21), because at the leet court session of 25 February 1710 he was fined 3d for not maintaining the ditch and footpath next to his malthouse above the denes. The newspaper notice of February 1728 possibly means that Peach was changing premises, because he remained in operation as a brewer for another twenty years (see 1749 above).

            John Peach (an incomer from neighbouring Oulton) appears in the Lowestoft tithe records from 1708 until 1725.(34) No earlier reference exists for him (e.g. a settlement order) than that of the former year, which shows him to have been growing 8½ acres of turnips and 8 acres of hay and rearing 10 young cattle and a pig. In fact, his recorded activity is all to do with growing fodder crops (including clover) and keeping livestock. However, it needs to be understood that the great tithes of grain were in local, private ownership, not in the possession of the parish living, and therefore corn does not feature in the tithe accounts records – just the so-called small tithes of field crops (other than grain), livestock, milk, poultry and a small share of fishing boats’ profits if any were made. And that was how the incumbent’s remuneration was made up. It was not until 1749 that the vicar of Lowestoft became a rector – John Tanner having mortgaged himself to the hilt to purchase the corn tithes when they came on the market in 1719. It took him thirty years to clear his debt and its interest (paid for by the corn-tithe income), after which he enjoyed the fruits of his investment for the last nine or ten years of his life.(35)

            One striking feature detectable in the tithe accounts, once the corn tithes began to be recorded (a payment of 2s per acre, as with most other common field-crops), is that 700 acres in the parish were devoted to growing grain – much of it undoubtedly barley. It is noticeable that during the first three decades of the 18th century, among the more substantial farmers operating, were a number of brewers. Coe Arnold, Matthew Arnold, John Daines, John Durrant, Samuel Munds, John Peach, James Ward and William Wells are all referred to. Munds even paid tithe on the production of hops in 1699 and 1700, but does not seem to have grown them thereafter. Innkeepers also involved themselves on a lesser to middling scale, with Thomas Andike, Anthony Barlow, John Day, John Ellis, Edward Grimston, Edward Morgan and Peter Parker all being named. Only Andike and Morgan are able to be unequivocally attached to specific, named premises at a particular time (The Crown and The Three Mariners, respectively), but their presence and that of their peers in the tithe records is no doubt reflective of not only the importance of agriculture to a local, pre-industrial community, but also of its closeness of association with the production and sale of beer.(36)

            Large quantities of the drink are still consumed today, of course, but not (as was stated much earlier in this article) to the extent per capita as was the case 300-400 years ago. Such was the concern           shown by local authorities nationally, concerning the quality of the product, that among the manorial officers elected each year for the good conduct of the community were ale-tasters(or ale-founders). In Lowestoft’s case, the former term was used and two men were elected to serve each year at the annual leet court. Four under-constables were also chosen to uphold law and order, two searchers and sealers of leather to monitor the quality of that particular important product, and two swine-reeves to control the wanderings of these potentially destructive creatures and make sure that their snouts were ringed. By the middle of the 17th century, the animals had obviously become less of a problem in and around the town and the office was replaced by fen reeves (again, two men chosen), whose duty it was to ensure that fences and barriers of all kinds were kept in good repair throughout the parish.

            One thing that is immediately obvious from a study of the Lowestoft leet court’s workings throughout the 17th century, and the earlier decades of the 18th, is that the holding of manorial office was equitably spread across the middling and upper levels of local society and was done in such a way so as not to become too onerous.(37) But whereas the searchers and sealers of leather were always tanners or men associated with the leather trades (e.g. cordwainers or knackers), whose specialist knowledge was vital to judge whether or not the product was up to standard, the ale-tasters were never brewers. They were always elected from among the substantial craftsmen, the more important farmers, the retailers and the merchants. In ensuring that good quality in production of the town’s beer and ale was maintained, the manorial authorities were not going to lodge the duty of assessment in the hands of the producers. Or, to put it another way, the poachers were not placed in charge of hatching and rearing the pheasants!

CREDIT:David Butcher

            [This article was previously published in the Lowestoft Archaeological & Local history Society Annual Report 45 (January 2015) and Suffolk Review, New Series 65 (Autumn 2015). Also used as Appendix 6 in Revd. E. Doré, De-Coding The Morses (Southwold, 2015).]

End-notes

1. Suffolk Archives, Ipswich, 194/A10/73. 
2. Norfolk Record Office, Norwich, PD 589/80.
3. C.Wilson, England’s Apprenticeship , 1603-1763 (London, 1965), p. 22.
4. Ale did not have hops added as part of the brewing process and was therefore a sweeter drink than beer. The use of the dried flowers of the hop (Humulus lupus), both for flavouring and preservative qualities, is generally said to have been introduced to England from the Low Countries during the late15th-early 16th century - but, as early as 1456, beer brewers are listed as immigrants entering England from the Netherlands - including some coming into Lowestoft. The infusion of mugwort (Artemisia vulgarise) into a brew was another traditional means of achieving a bitter flavour.
5. Norfolk Record Office, PD 589/1, 2 & 3. The surviving Lowestoft registers begin in the year 1561.
6. All the Suffolk Archdeaconry wills and inventories (original documents and register copes) are held  by Suffolk Archives, Ipswich. 
7. All the Norwich Consistory Court wills and inventories are held in the Norfolk Record Office, Norwich.
8. A nuncupative will was one dictated verbally by the testator, usually in a state of poor health and (often) just before he or she died. Most wills in the Pre-industrial Era (including the formally drafted and witnessed ones) resulted from a condition of physical frailty on the part of the people making them.
9. The Prerogative Court of Canterbury wills and inventories are held in the National Archives, Kew. The court originally dealt with the estates of people whose lands and possessions were located in a variety of places beyond the jurisdiction of local ecclesiastical courts. From the late 16th century onwards, to have a will proved in the Canterbury court became a status symbol among the merging middling orders in society (having previously been largely the privilege of the aristocracy and gentry).
10.  This part of the roadway was widened during the 1890s. The documentation relating to compulsory purchase of the properties involved (including title-deeds) was once kept in the Lowestoft Town Hall cellar, but is now lodged with Suffolk Archives, Ipswich.
11.  The Arnold family-group  eventually moved out of Lowestoft during the late 18th century, after a residency of 250 years or more. During the 19th century, Matthew Arnold (poet) and Thomas Arnold (Headmaster of Rugby School) were its two most notable members.
12.  Tanner was Vicar of Lowestoft 1708-59. He was a chief tenant of the manor and (during 1720-25) transcribed all surviving transfers of copyhold property in the built-up area of the town, from the early 17th century onwards. His handbook listing the details is held by Suffolk Archives, Ipswich, as 454/2. Extensive manorial records relating to the town (series 194/A10) are also lodged there.
13.  The Lowestoft Settlement and Apprenticeship Book, 1696-1785: Suffolk Archives, Ipswich, 01/13/1/3. Settlement orders (and the certificates which accompanied them) were issued by the churchwardens of the parish of departure, agreeing to take the holders back if they should become dependent on poor relief in their new place of residence. This was done to prevent excessive movement of the itinerant poor (mainly) and their becoming a burden on other communities.
14.  D. Butcher, Lowestoft 1550-1750 (Woodbridge, 2008), pp. 192 & 222.
15. The terms mariner and fisherman were interchangeable to a certain degree, during the 16th and 17 centuries, in that vessels were often of dual purpose and use, with trading voyages being undertaken after fishing sessions were over. By the end of the 17th century and beginning of the 18th, however, there was a more clearly defined distinction between those craft involved in coastal (and overseas) trade and in fishing - and, consequently, in the men who crewed both types of vessel.
16.  The Lowestoft leet court met once a year, on the first Saturday in Lent. Among the infringements of manorial law noted, especially during the earlier part of the 17th century, was the selling of ale or beer by short measure (usually less than the the statutory pint), adulteration of the drink (by thinning down with water), allowing illegal gambling-games to take place on the premises and selling alcoholic drink during Sunday church service time. It was invariably the small-scale alehouse-keepers who offended rather than the town’s innkeepers.
17.  The old part of Lowestoft is a planned medical town of the first half of the 14th century - the result of relocation from a site c. three-quarters of a mile to the west-south-west, in what is now the vicinity of the Normanston Drive-Rotterdam Road-St. Peter’s Street traffic roundabout (probably in the north-east sector of the Cemetery). The new location was in an exposed position, on the edge of a cliff, occupying land forming part of the manorial waste and used mainly for the rough grazing of livestock. It was adopted for residential use mainly because the town needed to be nearer to the sea at a time of increasing maritime activity.
18.  About 80-85% of the houses and other buildings in Lowestoft during the Early Modern period were held by copyhold tenure, the other 25-20% being freehold. With copyhold property requiring surrender into the hands of the lord of the manor(always an absentee in Lowestoft’s case) each time it changed hands, a detailed record of all transactions was kept in the manor’s records. It was these minute books (Suffolk Archives, Ipswich, 194/A10/5-17) which were transcribed by the Revd. John Tanner as referred to previously in note 12. Both the original court books and the transcriptions enabled detailed topographical reconstruction of the town to be carried out.
19.  The scores at Lowestoft are trackways (mainly, but not wholly, pedestrian) linking the top of the cliff with the land lying at the bottom. They were originally surface-water channels grooved into the face of the cliff, which were eventually walled and paved for ease of movement. The word score itself comes from Old Norse skora, meaning “to cut” or “to incise”.
20.  Suffolk Archives, Ipswich, 454/1. This listing was meant to accompany the extracts giving details of the transfer of copyhold property, referred to in note 12.
21.  The Denes were an extensive area of manorial waste, covered with scrub vegetation and rough grass, which lay at the foot of the cliff. They were the vegetated continuation of the beach and their great width protected the cliff from sea erosion. The name they bore was a variant of dunes. They were used as a source of controlled rough grazing for tenants of the manor and as a wharf-area for all kinds of merchandise before the first harbour-works were constructed (1827-30). The smaller fishing vessels were beached there, above high-water mark, and fishing nets laid out to dry.
22.  Transfer of freehold property did not have to be recorded in the manor court minute-books. There were two such areas in the town: the one currently under discussion (present-day 152-176 High Street) and another at the other end of the main roadway, to the south-west of it (114-122 High Street and 1-13 St. Peter’s Street). Being on slightly better-quality land than the rest of the town, it is possible that the manor had sold this off into private hands for agriculture prior to its being used for housing.
23.  The hostelry was later named The Queen’s Head (almost certainly in honour of Queen Anne), which became one of the town’s premier establishments with assembly rooms added to the rear in 1760.
24. The court baron met every four to six weeks in Lowestoft and dealt mainly with property transactions and matters of complaint (tenant against tenant, tenant against lord, and lord against tenant). The court leet (al. leet court) met once a year, as referred to earlier (see note 16) and dealt with misdemeanour and infringement of manorial rules - as well as with the swearing of the homage (to the lord of the manor) and the election of officers for the coming year.
25.  Iy would seem from a scrutiny of The Crown’s transfers that, between the Manor Roll  entry of 1618 and the occupancy of the premises by William Wells in 1682, the inn was probably being rented out. Even Wells himself, though brewing on site, may well have leased the main building to other people. In fact, there is some evidence that he may have been running The KIng’s Head on the opposite side of the High Street, because at the leet court session of 28 February 1682 he was fined 3d for depositing muck in Lion Score (now Crown Score) - a trackway close to this particular inn, situated on the site of present-day site of 53 High Street (North End Post Office).
26.  The mortgaging of real estate was a common means of raising capital (see Butcher, Lowestoft 1550-1750, pp. 145-52). As the process was (technically speaking) the placing of a property into the hands of another person (the mortgagor), the transactions involving copyhold land and buildings had to be recorded in the court baron minute-books. They were always referred to in abbreviated form as cond. sur. (conditional surrender) and usually had the agreed sum of money stated. Repayment and default were also recorded.
27.  There were four children of the marriage in all, two of whom died in infancy. Of the surviving pair, a son James (baptised 21 September 1679) died in a drowning accident at Lowestoft on 25 September 1704, in company with a friend. He was a lieutenant in the Royal Navy and the two young men had gone offshore in a small boat to view the town, when the wind suddenly freshened and overturned the craft. An older half-brother from the mother’s first marriage, Admiral Sir Andrew Leake, had died at the Battle of Malaga just a month earlier on 13 August. He was commander of the Grafton (70 guns) and directed the operations of his vessel while mortally wounded, sitting on the quarter-deck in his elbow chair with his stricken body wrapped in a table-cloth. He was in his late thirties. The effect of losing two sons so closely together on the 66-years-old Deborah Wells can only be guessed at.
28.  The property immediately to the north of The Cock, abutting onto Webb’s Lane (now Wesleyan Chapel Lane) had also once been an inn - called The Lamb. John Tanner’s copyhold listing describes it as “one tenement with other buildings decayed and a large yard”. The plot is now occupied by two shops, numbered as 144 & 145 High Street.
29. His baptism of 8 May 1643 has him recorded as Smelle Monds of James and Elesab, written in an inferior hand. The vicar of the time, James Rous, was temporarily absent from his parish, having been taken to Cambridge (along with other townsmen and outsiders) on 14-15 March, by Oliver Cromwell, for suspected Royalist sympathies and possible involvement in an illicit arms shipment. Cromwell’s visit to the town is well recorded. See The Knyvett Letters, 1620-44 (Norfolk Record Society series, vol. xx - Norwich, 1949) and The Corie Letters, 1664-87 (Norfolk Record Society series, vol. xxvii - Norwich, 1956).
30.  T. Huke’s Directory of Lowestoft and Kirkley (1892) shows that it was still in business and bore the address, 54 Mariner’s Street. However, the name had changed at some point to The Three Mariners.
31.  Coopering was an important local trade., producing casks for brewing and for the shipping of cured herrings.
32.  It would seem that Morgan had moved to other premises, because his burial entry in the parish registers is dated 19 May 1732 and gives his occupation and age as innholder 54 yrs.
33.  Michaelmas was the old quarter-day (29 September) on which leases were customarily renewed and labour hired. The writer is indebted to the late Eric Porter, of Lowestoft, for drawing his attention to material in the Norwich Gazette relating to brewing and innkeeping.
34.  There is one surviving tithe accounts book, covering the period 1698-1787 (Norfolk Record Office PD 589/80) - an earlier one one of 1677-91 having been lost at some stage. The latter is referred to in H.D.W. Lees, The Chronicles of a Suffolk Parish Church (Lowestoft, 1949), pp. 167-8, but was not present in the St. Margaret’s Church safe when the the writer was conducting research into the parish records during the mid-1980s.
35.  Everything that this remarkable clergyman did was for the benefit of the parish and its inhabitants. The corn tithes were purchased not for self-aggrandisement, but for the advantage of his successors. The small tithes had produced an annual income of about £20-£30, spending on seasonal variation of crop-yields and fishing catches. This rose by £70 when the great tithes were added. See Butcher, Lowestoft 1550-1750, pp. 245-7.
36.  Anthony Barlow kept a public house on the south side of Swan Lane (now Mariners Street), one plot in from the High Street. It stood close to the Town Chamber and Town Chapel - the former being an arcaded dual-purpose building fronting the High Street and incorporating a ground-floor corn-trading area with civic meeting-room above (which also housed the town’s free grammar school) and the latter - which stood to the rear - being a chapel-of-ease to St. Margaret’s parish church. The whole area is now occupied by the Lowestoft Town Hall complex. Barlow’s premises may have been called The KIng’s Head (not to be confused with the premises referred to earlier, in connection with William Wells) and he was proprietor there from at least 1691 until his death at the age of seventy-two in November 1719.
37.  Butcher, Lowestoft 1550-1750, pp. 274-7.

Key to map references

1. The Arnold family’s brewery.

2. The Bell inn.

3. The Crown inn.

4. Francis Knights’s house.

5. The Dolphin inn.

6. The King’s Arms inn.

7. Site of the demolished New White Horse.

8. Site of the relocated New White Horse/Queen’s Head.

9. The Durrant family’s brewery.

10. The Durrant family’s malthouse.

11. The Angel inn.

12. The Ward family’s brewery.

13. The Ward family’s malthouse.

14. The Spread Eagle inn.

15. The Old White Horse inn.

16. The King’s Head inn.

17. The Swan inn.

18. The Cock inn.

19. The Cock inn (formerly The Pye).

20. The Three Mariners inn.

21. Indication of the Peach/Arnold malthouse’s site (further to the north).