Lowestoft Religious Affiliation, 1560-1790

When Elizabeth I acceded to the English throne in November 1558, she had a number of problems facing her – not the least of which was the matter of what the country’s official brand of the Christian Faith was to be and what form it was to take. On the death of her father Henry VIII in January 1547, her younger half-brother Edward VI – with the support of like-minded members of his Council – had dispensed with Catholicism (though not the Roman variety, his father having set himself up as Head of the English Church in 1534) and introduced Protestantism, which only lasted for six-and-a-half years before he died prematurely in July 1552. This brought Henry VIII’s first legitimate child to the throne: Mary, daughter of Catherine of Aragon, aged forty-two years, who promptly returned the country to Roman Catholicism under the authority of the Pope. Her time on the throne was some five-and-a-half years, which then opened the door for half-sister Elizabeth at the age of twenty-five.

Leaving aside the problems and upheavals caused by the liturgical changes of the previous twenty-four years (which were many and varied in nature), Elizabeth set about establishing her own form of the Protestant faith – adopted in principle by her late mother Ann Boleyn (but never openly practised), who had been executed for treason in May 1536 when Elizabeth was only three-and-a-half years old. As Head of the Church of England, Elizabeth was determined to make her own brand of Protestantism the national one, being keenly aware of the wide differences in both belief and practice which had developed in England since the Reformation of the 1530s. From adherence to Roman Catholicism (with the Pope, in Rome, as Head of the Church) to some of the more extreme forms of Protestantism beginning to infiltrate from the near-Continent of Western Europe under the influence of the teachings of John Calvin of Geneva.

What Elizabeth aimed at achieving was a combination of a conventional set of Christ-centred beliefs combined with a form of public worship that was neither elaborate nor top-heavy with ritual, but which also avoided the stripping-away of all things seen as unnecessary (or even ungodly) for worship by the more extreme followers of the Protestant faith. Things such as statues of saints, wall-paintings, the carved woodwork of screens and benches, stained glass and even music itself. And, so, she set about creating what may be termed a “middle of the road” type of service for churches throughout the land, in which visual elements of the old Roman Catholic order remained (such as decorative work within churches and the wearing of vestments by clergy), but which radically altered procedure by dispensing with the rituals of priest-centred Mass and establishing Holy Communion as the central service. Which, in turn, entailed the congregation taking both elements (bread and wine) regularly and not merely observing the priest doing so at the high altar.

The compromise was broadly accepted by the majority of the population, as the new order was established and made to work, but there was a minority element which preferred the old Roman Catholic ways and another which identified with a more radical, simplified form of Protestantism which, by the end of the 16th century, had become widely known as Puritanism. Lowestoft can be shown as being representative of the country as a whole, since it can show all three strands of worship and belief as being present within the bounds of its own parish. Though adherence to the Roman Catholic faith was very small indeed. 

The Established Church (Anglicanism)

In his late eighteenth century history of the town, Edmund Gillingwater claimed that Lowestoft was “as much distinguished in religious concerns for inviolable attachment to the establishment of the Church of England, as in civil affairs, for its unshaken loyalty to the sovereign” (p. 335). The sentiment is phrased in a rather high-flown manner, typical of the time, and while perhaps being true in general terms it does not take account of the Dissenting element in the town’s population, which was certainly a noticeable feature by the middle of the seventeenth century. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand – though having a small vestigial presence – seems to have had hardly any impact at all on the religious life of the community. It is true that the Island of Lothingland had a reputation among the Elizabethan authorities as being potentially dangerous, full of subversive supporters of Rome, but official worries focused very largely on the ten or twelve gentlemen and landowners named in the 1584 Defence Plat document – drawn up to prepare for possible Spanish invasion from the occupied Netherlands. For further information on this, see Lothingland Invasion Scare (1584) in these pages. 

The majority of Lothingland’s population was neither recusant nor disloyal. In Lowestoft’s case, the only prominent Roman Catholic family was the Jettors and they moved out of town not long after the accession of Elizabeth I and went to live in neighbouring Flixton. Robert Jettor (merchant) was convicted of recusancy (refusal to attend Church) on 8 May 1560 and either he, or his son Robert, became the most highly fined of all the recorded Suffolk recusants on 29 October 1586 when a penalty of £1,500 was imposed. This being recorded in M.M.C. Calthrop (ed.) The First Recusant Roll, 1592-93 - Catholic Record Society, vol. xviii, p. 314. It was a huge sum of money and would have effectively ruined the family financially. And it wasn’t just a matter of adhering to Roman Catholicism being seen as the sole issue. Refusal to attend Church, with the monarch being Head of the Institution, was seen politically as disloyalty to the Crown – with all that might be implied by such behaviour. Some Puritans also refused to attend Church, but they never attracted the same degree of suspicion as Roman Catholics who were tainted by association with the Papacy and its desire to see England return to “Mother Church”.

The type of Anglicanism adhered to by most of the Lowestoft townspeople, if the practice of certain of the ministers has any significance, was a middle-of-the-road observance free from either High Church excess or Calvinistic fundamentalism. William Bentley, for instance, who was vicar from 1574 to 1603 – having succeeded William Nashe (appointed in 1561 and father of the Elizabethan satirist, Thomas Nashe, who was born in the town during November 1567) – seems to have had no great feeling for liturgical ritual because he was noted in the 1597 Bishop’s Visitation as not wearing the surplice (a loose-fitting, below-knee length, white garment) at divine service, thereby infringing a ruling on the vestments to be worn. On the other hand, both the preamble and the peroration of his will (the latter being a most unusual addition) contain a wonderful expression of his own personal faith in God, showing his acceptance of the saving grace extended to all men and his belief in the Holy Trinity. There are no Puritan overtones at all. Bentley died towards the end of the serious plague outbreak of 1603, with his will being written on 20 August by Stephen Phillipp, Master of Annot’s Free Grammar School and Parish Clerk, and his burial being recorded five days later.

Nothing is known in either a doctrinal or liturgical sense about his two successors, John Gleson and Robert Hawes, but the man who followed them, James Rous (minister from 1639 to 1654), was another person of the middle way. The most significant event of his incumbency was being taken away to Cambridge by Oliver Cromwell, in March 1644 (the year being updated from Julian calendar to its Gregorian successor), when the latter visited Lowestoft to deal with certain Royalist sympathisers who had gathered in town –  an episode that has been described elsewhere in these pages. On his release some months later, he returned home and continued his ministry. About a year after he had been arrested, Rous experienced the arrival of a Puritan “visitor”, Francis Jessop from Beccles, with a commission from the Earl of Manchester to remove “superstitious” inscriptions from inside St. Margaret’s Church. Most of the memorial brasses were ripped from their matrices and sold to a local merchant, Josiah Wilde, who had them melted down and cast into a bell for the Town Chamber. Rous did not approve, as an account of the incident (which he wrote into a space at the end of the first register book) makes clear. Again, this incident has been covered in another article in LO&N’s History pages.

Not a great deal is known about the next three clergymen (Henry Youell, Joseph Hudson and Edward Carleton), whose ministries covered the years 1654-1698, but their successor, William Whiston, was a man destined to become famous on succeeding Isaac Newton as Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University. Some evidence of this bent is present on the inside cover of the Tithe Accounts book (Norfolk Record Office - PD 589/80), where certain of his geometrical drawings and calculations can be seen. During his four-year incumbency at Lowestoft, he held morning and evening prayers every day in the Town Chapel, preached twice on Sundays in St. Margaret’s Church and held catechistic lectures in the evenings during the summer months. These latter (held in the Town Chapel) were attended by Dissenters as well as Anglicans and were, in the opinion of Whiston himself, more effective than his sermons. His ministry seems to have been both imaginative and vigorous (he once refused to sign a licence for a new ale-house, saying that if he were presented with a paper to pull one down he would certainly sign it) and there is no evidence of the unorthodoxy in matters of belief which was to become a feature of his time at Cambridge. It was here that he embraced what became known as Unitarianism, which did not acknowledge the divinity of Christ and rejected the doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

He was succeeded by a Scottish non-juror – this being the term used of clergy who had refused to swear an oath of loyalty to William and Mary during 1688-89, on their accession to the throne following the expulsion of James II. James Smith came to the town in 1702 and, while he may not have been happy about a Dutch Protestant acceding to the English throne, he was no High Churchman either. His time in Lowestoft was comparatively short (he died in July 1708), but he enjoyed the confidence of the townspeople sufficiently to have a public collection made on his behalf in June 1705 to compensate for loss of income caused by meagre fishing tithes (whereby the Lowestoft vicar was entitled, annually, to one half of a single share held in a fishing vessel where a profit had been made). When he died, John Blaque, the parish clerk, wrote this tribute next to his burial entry in the register: “That good and faithful minister of this town, Mr. James Smith, aged 60 years, my extraordinary good master”. 

After James Smith came John Tanner, aged twenty-three or four, and in his first post. He remained in Lowestoft and was (and is) the longest-serving of all the recorded Lowestoft parish priests, his incumbency (1708-59) being distinguished by sound common sense, the avoidance of extremes of behaviour, honest belief in Christian principles and concern for the well-being of all his parishioners. Much could be written about this man, both in terms of his ministry and his contribution to the recorded history of his adopted town. In January 1712, he married into a branch of a long-established local family, the Mighells, and seems by association to have become interested in Lowestoft’s past – perhaps also possessing something of the qualities and tendencies of his older brother, Thomas, Chancellor of Norwich Diocese (its chief legal officer) and later Bishop of St. Asaph. This man was one of the 18th century’s greatest antiquarians, whose vast collection of manuscripts, documents and books became one of the foundation-blocks of the Bodleian Library. John Tanner himself seems to have been cast in the same mould and his exemplary work in the keeping of parish records and the transcription of manorial transfers of property have enabled this writer carry out much of his Lowestoft-related research which would not otherwise have been possible.

John Tanner was laid to rest on 26 December 1759, his wife Mary having predeceased him by fifteen years and the marriage having produced no children. He was succeeded by John Arrow on 11 November 1760, a man aged twenty-seven, who had previously served as a Royal Navy Chaplain and who remained at St. Margaret's until his death on 22 June 1789. As with his predecessor (though not on the same scale), John Arrow made valuable  contributions to the care of his parish and to aspects of its history – the latter, most notably in his Memorandum Book (Norfolk Record Office - PD 589/92), a compendium of information relating to the town. He also organised an accurate head-count of the population in August 1775, which gave a number of 2,231 people and of 445 houses (seven of them unoccupied).

In March 1777, and by way of reply to the Bishop of Norwich as to the present state of Lowestoft, John Arrow replied thus: “The Parish is of irregular Figure [shape] in some parts two miles, in other one mile and an half from North to South and from East to West. Contains about 445 houses and 2200 Inhabitants. The chief [foremost] Inhabitants are Merchants. The other Inhabitants are employed in the Fisheries of Herring and Mackeril. They had formerly a trade for Cod in the North Sea but want of Success has obliged them to give it up. A Porcelaine Manufacture is established in this Parish and flourishes.”  

Nonconformity (Independency/Congregationalism)

The first official reference to any kind of Nonconformity in Lowestoft is to be found in Bishop Redman’s Diocesan Visitation of 1597, when a local woman, Joan Rivett, was revealed as having been excommunicated two years previously for non-attendance at church and for belonging to the Brownists – named after Robert Browne of Norwich, a Puritan preacher and graduate of Cambridge University (1572), who had previously had preaching experience in both Islington and Cambridge itself. In 1581, he moved to Norwich and became the first Establishment official (he was not ordained) to leave the National Church and set up his own independent one. This resulted in his arrest, which was then followed by a two-year period of exile in Holland – after which he returned to England, first serving as Headmaster of St. Olave’s Grammar School in Southwark (1586-9) and then of Stamford in Lincolnshire (1589-91). He was ordained priest in 1591, serving in Peterborough Diocese until 1631. Born at some point during the 1550s, he lived until 1633 – dying in Northampton Gaol, where he had been incarcerated for striking a parish constable.

Just how Joan Rivett came to be influenced by this man in her religious inclination is not known. Nor can it really even be guessed at – his time in Norwich being so limited that it seems unlikely to have originated from that. Though there is at least just a chance that it could have done, since the Rivetts (as lesser merchants in Lowestoft) might have well have been involved in the fish-trade and thereby had a connection of some kind with Norwich’s important Friday fish-market. Or perhaps there might have been a cross-North Sea fishing and trading connection with the port of Middleburg, where Browne’s short-lived Community had been in existence for a while. Whatever the case, she may well have had other co-religionists locally, but her name was the only one cited. And so, it is possible, even likely, that a small body of Independent worshippers was present in town from quite early on during the first half of the seventeenth century, because in the 1650s signs of organised Nonconformist observance become apparent.

It would appear that the favourable religious climate of the time, during the Protectorate, had allowed the Lowestoft congregation to come into the open. On 1 February 1654, the Council of State examined the misdemeanours of Thomas Brecket (al. Brethett) who, in company with other people, had disturbed “several well affected” in their religious observances on Sunday, 22 January (Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1653-4, vol. LXVI, no. 76(12), pp. 381-2). Brethett, a cordwainer by trade, was one of the four parish constables (he was also to serve as parish clerk for a time during the 1660s) and he seems to have been attempting to prevent Nonconformist worship from taking place in the Town Chapel. On 2 March 1654, the Council of State ordered the Suffolk JPs to allow a certain Mr. Alberry (presumably, a preacher of some kind) and “the rest of the honest people of Lowestoft” to have the freedom to use the chapel in town for their services and to be shielded from molestation (Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1654, vol. LXVII, no. 5, p. 3). It is to be conjectured that the Independent congregation may possibly have enjoyed this privilege until Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660.

Thomas Brethett’s interruption of Sunday worship occurred during what appears to have been an interregnum, or vacancy, in the Lowestoft incumbency – leaving the town without a minister. James Rous last signed the parish register after a baptism entry for 17 August 1651 and the first reference to his successor, Henry Youell, appears on 24 April 1655, when the latter’s son George was baptised. Local Nonconformists were probably taking advantage of the absence of an incumbent to use the town’s chapel-of-ease as a venue for their services – and Brethett, as a loyal Anglican, was determined to stop this. The Independents’ presence in town certainly calls into question Edmund Gillingwater’s statement concerning the “inviolable attachment” shown to the Established Church, which was quoted above. It would also seem to contradict the long-accepted description of Lowestoft as “a Royalist town”, which is sometimes encountered in later descriptions of the place at this particular time. 

The title probably has more to do with the town’s long-running commercial rivalry with Great Yarmouth than to politics. The latter was definitely a place of strong Parliamentary leanings and it seems that the idea formed in people’s minds that Lowestoft must therefore have been Royalist – a notion reinforced by the town’s successful lobbying of the House of Lords in the immediate Restoration period to rid itself of Yarmouth’s claim to precedence in the herring trade. Cromwell’s visit in March 1644 also helped to foster the myth, but most of the people arrested that day were not townsmen. The “stand” made at the top of Rant Score against an overwhelming force of cavalry was a token of resistance only, in spite of cannon being dragged up from the battery on Ness Point and placed to traverse the High Street and market-place. A local merchant, Thomas Mighells, acted as intermediary between the opposing parties and matters were resolved without bloodshed. Many people in Lowestoft probably had no compelling loyalty either way in their country’s great division and it is interesting to note that the father of two of the four Lowestoft men taken away to Cambridge that day seems to have had leanings towards the Puritan side. When William Canham (gentleman) made his will in May 1647, he left the sum of £5 to his fourth son, Simon – to be given to him “when he shall have made his peace with the Parliament of England and return home to Lowestoft”.

It has been said that towns were places in which religious dissidents could find concealment, but that is not true of communities the size of Lowestoft. There was simply not a sufficiently large population, nor a big enough area of building, to hide anyone. The local Nonconformists would have been well known in Lowestoft and, having had their time of freedom and independence during The Protectorate, they would have found their religious activities much more restricted after The Restoration. In fact, three of them appear in the Beccles quarter sessions records because of their unorthodoxy (Suffolk Archives, Ipswich - Acc. 11/M1). On 5 October 1663, John Smith (tanner), one of the parish constables, was summoned to appear at the next session to give evidence against Samuel Pacy, Thomas Porter and William Rising (all merchants) and against Edward Barker of Wrentham (Dissenting Minister). Three months later, on 11 January 1664, Pacy and the others were indicted for attending conventicles and were summoned to appear at the next summer assizes (it has not been established whether they appeared or not). Pacy had been one of the two main instigators of the accusation of witchcraft brought against two local women, Rose Cullender and Amy Denny, in March 1662(3) – a charge which cost them their lives. He was a well-educated man by the standards of the time (as was his co-accuser, John Soan, a yeoman), but his learning and literacy did not liberate him from rank superstition – a characteristic he shared with many other people of his era.

Eight years after Samuel Pacy and his associates were indicted for attending illegal religious gatherings, the changing climate of opinion saw the house of William Rising licensed as a place of Independent worship in June 1672 (State Papers Domestic, 1672, pp. 199, 202 & 222). The dwelling stood on the east side of the High Street (the site today of No. 67) and, prior to this, local Dissenters had used a barn belonging to the Pacy family, situated in Blue Anchor Lane (Duke’s Head Street) and backing onto the market-place. Twenty-three years after this concession, in 1695, a chapel was built on the west side of the High Street close to the market-place. The plot was donated by James Ward (merchant) and an inn called The Spreadeagle had once stood on it. Ownership of the chapel was originally vested in three trustees, which included Samuel Pacy Jnr., self-styled gentleman and oldest son of the man referred to above (the other two were Sir Robert Rich of Roos Hall, Beccles, and Thomas Neale of Bramfield), and by 1716 the number had increased to five. Its exact location, using reference-points of today, was immediately to the south of No. 127 High Street, occupying part of the space where the Triangle Market’s Eastern Sails canopies once stood. 

The building’s dimensions were thirty-eight feet by twenty-eight and a drawing done by Richard Powles in 1782 shows it to have been a two-storey, three-bay construction, with a shuttered window on either side of a central door, three unshuttered windows on the first storey, and triangular-pediment Dutch gables at either end. Edmund Gillingwater (p. 357) describes it as galleried inside, with the pulpit facing the entry-way, which is a typical Nonconformist layout, making the preaching-place the focal point and thereby placing the emphasis in worship on God’s word (as seen, locally, in the magnificent Walpole Old Chapel, near Halesworth). Gillingwater also says that, until it was built, the congregation was dependent for its existence on the Independent community in Great Yarmouth, being wont to visit their chapel in order to receive communion (p. 356). This is something of an exaggeration, but there were certainly well established Nonconformist links between the two places.  

Three of the ministers who served in Lowestoft during the later part of the seventeenth century and the earlier part of the eighteenth were of sufficient importance to be included in The Dictionary of National Biography. Most famous of all was Thomas Emlyn, later to become the country’s first Unitarian minister, who led the Lowestoft congregation for an eighteen-month period in 1689-90 and who enjoyed a cordial relationship with the vicar of the time, Joseph Hudson, even going so far as to attend divine service in the parish church with fellow Nonconformists. Such tolerance and understanding were unusual for the time and suggest good relationships in Lowestoft between both Christian congregations. Thomas Emlyn was succeeded as pastor by his friend William Manning, of Peasenhall, who became responsible for the Lowestoft Dissenters on a part-time basis, until about 1698, when another full-time appointment was made. This was the Rev. Samuel Baxter, who had a daughter buried in St. Margaret’s churchyard in January 1699, another small piece of evidence to suggest some degree of affinity between Anglicans and Nonconformists – though it is also worth saying that the latter had no burial-ground of their own. 

Neither Baxter nor his successor, Henry Ward, was as notable as their predecessors, but Samuel Say, the man who followed Ward, most certainly was. He was one of the longer-serving Independent ministers, functioning as pastor from 1707 until 1725. His most enduring achievement was to keep a series of observations on the weather during his time at Lowestoft, and the document is among the many manuscripts in possession of the Bodleian Library (Western Manuscripts, 35448). After he had left, a Mr. Whittick led the congregation for a period of eight years, before being succeeded by Thomas Scott. He stayed for five years, before his delicate health succumbed to the effects of the biting easterly winds and he left to seek a more congenial climate in Ipswich (Gillingwater, p. 366). The man who followed him, James Alderson, was the longest-serving of all the Dissenting ministers, remaining in post from 1738 until his death in 1760. He was, if Edmund Gillingwater (p. 367) is to be believed, held in great esteem by his congregation.

It is not possible to calculate accurately the size of the Independent community in Lowestoft, but Gillingwater describes the number of Dissenters as having been “very considerable” in about the year 1735 – which would, again, seem to call into question his description of the town as being so staunchly Anglican.  Between September 1709 and March 1712, no less than sixteen families are positively identified as Nonconformist in their children’s baptism entries in the parish registers, which means about ninety people if the adults and all their children living at the time are added together. The figure must have been higher than this, because there would have been other Dissenting families not identified in the registration process, as well as similarly practising relatives of some of those that were. There is no explanation why such identification took place for a period of two and a half years, but it may have been that John Tanner was simply trying to familiarise himself with aspects of his parish’s religious structure during the early years of his incumbency.

In the sixteen identifiable Nonconformist families cited above, no less than eight of the husbands were mariners or fishermen (Thomas Brame, John Goddle, Thomas Granger, James Kingsborough, Samuel Kitredge, John Landifield, Thomas Landifield and Thomas Salter), four were merchants (Samuel Church, William Rising, Francis Ward and James Ward), one was a tailor (George Middlemis), one a butcher (Thomas Mewse), and two were of unknown occupation (Francis Manfrey and John Smith). A further Dissenting family is detectable in the earlier part of 1709, where the husband (another John Smith) was a grocer. Conditions conducive to the development of Nonconformity in rural areas have been written about. A study of the growth of Dissent in maritime parishes would probably be equally revealing, with independence of belief almost certainly being the result (at least, in part) of the liberating effect of life at sea and the contact made with continental influences.

As has been intimated earlier, the relationship between both ministers and members of the two religious communities in the parish seems to have been generally harmonious from the late seventeenth century onwards. Given the number of known Nonconformist families during the early decades of the 18th century, the proportion of Dissenters in the town’s population was probably 10% or 12% (170-200 adults and children) and may even have been higher than this. Terriers of the Town Charitable Lands in 1729 and 1735 (preserved in the Lowestoft Town Book (Norfolk Record Office - PD 589/112, pp. 62 & 71) refer to about 25% of the community’s families being Dissenters – which may be too high. The families identified as Nonconformist in the baptism entries between 1709 and 1712 had been having their children christened by the Anglican rite prior to that time, but without their religious leanings alluded to in the entries. After 1711, most of them no longer feature in the parish registers and were therefore, presumably, having their children christened elsewhere – probably in the Independent Chapel in town.

The Established Church provided the burial-ground for everyone, however, so Anglicans and Nonconformists alike were laid to rest in its soil and were thus unified in death. Further evidence of the co-operation which existed between both denominations may be seen in a letter written by the Revd. John Tanner, which is affixed to the inside of the front cover of the parish’s third register book (Norfolk Record Office - PD 589/4). It is dated 28 July 1750 and is addressed to Mrs. Rose Burwood, who wished to have her husband, David (a fisherman), buried early on a Sunday evening. Tanner did not insist on the coffin being brought into St. Margaret’s Church before the completion of the afternoon service’s sermon (which was the custom). Instead, he agreed to begin his service later than that at the chapel and to wait for the funeral party’s arrival after he had finished preaching: arrangements which were calculated to give Mrs. Burwood ample time to complete all her final preparations.

The apparent lack of friction between the two main religious communities in Lowestoft is perhaps not surprising in view of their close ties with each other. Both Anglicans and Nonconformists were often members of the same family groups, being closely related in some instances and more distantly in others. There were Nonconformist families which had a pattern of marriage within the denomination, but the feature was not universal and others belonging to the fellowship married into Anglican families. Then there was the community of interest experienced in making a day-to-day living: merchants were involved in maritime trade, in curing fish, in various kinds of farming, and in malting and brewing beer; mariners and fishermen went to sea together, making an often dangerous livelihood upon the waves, bound by that close and particuliar camaraderie which only the oceans seem able to produce. Thus, although there were doctrinal and liturgical matters to separate both sets of believers, other (perhaps more compelling) factors served to bring them together.

When it came to the matter of holding manorial and parochial office, there was certainly no question of Nonconformists being debarred. They served as constables, ale-tasters, fen reeves and the like, and they also performed the duty of churchwarden – though whether they were the Vicar’s choice or that of the congregation is not revealed. It may seem ironic that men who did not subscribe to the practice of the Established Church should act as its elected officers, but the duties of a churchwarden were wide-ranging and incorporated all kinds of parish business beyond the merely ecclesiastical. Among the townsmen of Nonconformist persuasion who served as churchwardens were the following people: William Rising Snr. (1661 and 1678), Henry Ward Snr. (1661), Richard Church (1668), Samuel Pacy Snr. (1675), Samuel Pacy Jnr. (1684 & 1685), William Rising Jnr. (1698) and James Ward (1706, 1710, 1721 & 1722). 

It is interesting to note how, in the second half of the seventeenth century, a group of leading Dissenters all lived in the same part of town. This is not to suggest that there was any kind of “Nonconformist quarter”, the physical extent of the town being no more than about sixty acres, but there may well have been an element of neighbourly influence in fostering and strengthening religious beliefs that were opposed to the official way of thinking. William Rising, Thomas Porter and Samuel Pacy (the three men indicted at the 1664 Beccles quarter sessions for attending conventicles) lived within one hundred yards of each other on the east side of the High Street: house-plots now numbered as 67, 77-79 and 81-83. On the west side, and lying opposite to the house owned by Pacy lived Thomas Neale (husbandman), while immediately south of him were Christopher Philby (fisherman) and Henry Ward (merchant) – this particular area now occupied by Nos. 127 & 128 High Street and the Triangle Market’s space. The total distance between Rising’s house and that of Ward was no more than 150 yards. The former residence (as previously mentioned) was the one licensed for Independent worship in 1672, while it was on part of the Ward family’s land that the Dissenters’ Chapel was built in 1695.

Evidence has been found of support for radical religious ideas in major regional centres (Norwich and Ipswich among them) from the Reformation period onwards, and in smaller communities as well. Furthermore, comment has been made on how commercial activity and links with the Continent fostered strong Protestant feelings in England, with certain major East Anglian towns (Colchester, Ipswich and Bury St. Edmunds) identified as centres of reform. Lowestoft, with its cross-North Sea trading links (especially with Holland and the Baltic), was at the forefront of traffic in both merchandise and ideas, and it should therefore come as no surprise that Nonconformity had taken hold before the  16th century had ended. And, in addition to the intellectual exchange facilitated by maritime trade, consideration also has to be given to the possible effect of the presence in town, during the 1570s, of twelve Dutch refugee families which had sought refuge from the persecution of Protestants being exercised by the Spanish occupiers of their home country. 

Nonconformity (Society of Friends)

In addition to the people who attended the Independent Chapel in town, there were also members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) among the local population. They were a much smaller fraternity than the other Nonconformists, but it is known that among their number were members of the Sowell family (mariners and fishermen). And the Terriers of Charitable Lands referred to six paragraphs above state that two or three families belonged to the Fraternity. It is possible that meetings were held locally in private houses, and there may even have been a chapel of some kind in neighbouring Pakefield, where it is known that a community of Friends existed. There was certainly a meeting-house at Worlingham, near Beccles, some seven or eight miles distance from Lowestoft. Ann Landifield (née Utting), a mariner’s widow, was laid to rest in the burial-ground there in August 1722. Her interment is recorded in the Revd. John Tanner’s day-book (Norfolk Record Office - PD 589/3), but it was not transferred into the parish register of the time.

One sole, isolated incident concerning this local fraternity is recorded in Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Charles II, January-November 1671, p. 419. It reads, thus: Aug. 7. [Received.] Yarmouth. Richard Bower to Williamson. Last Sunday [30 July] there was a Quaker’s meeting at Paikefield in Suffolk, about seven miles hence. The Chief Constable, with some assistance, went to disperse them. He took the names of as many as he knew; the rest, eleven in number, refused to give them, on which he put a guard on them and went to Sir Thomas Meddowes [Medowe] for a warrant to bring them before him. At his return he showed them the warrant, and required them to go with him. They refused, for for the warrant required him to bring them before the Justice [JP], and therefore they would not go. The constable got a cart, but they not being free to go in themselves, the Constable with his assistants were forced to put them in. The first that were put in were so cross that that they would lie at their length so that they could not stow half of them, whereupon the carter laid them one upon another; but this not being for their ease, they then sat up. Being brought to the Justice’s door, they could not persuade them to come out of the cart, on which the Carter cast off the belly band [girth], lifted up the tibbs [shafts] of the cart, and so threw them out all together, which so cooled their courage that, coming before Sir Thomas, they all gave their names and were dismissed for the present. [Ibid. No. 27.]

This incident is not without a certain degree of comic content in the descriptions of the loading and unloading of the cartful of Quakers, but it serves to show the attitude of officialdom towards a Nonconformist sect, begun by George Fox during the 1640s. Greater hostility was shown towards it (even during the rule of Parliament in the 1650s) than towards other forms of Dissent, due mainly to its free interpretation of Scripture, what were seen as its radical social attitudes, its refusal to swear legal oaths in court, and its treatment of women as social and spiritual equals. Richard Bower, who reported on the Pakefield matter was a Yarmouth official of some kind, who contacted Sir Joseph Williamson (MP for Thetford and leader also of a secret service agency which monitored under-currents of possibly subversive religious movements) from time to time – though usually on matters of a maritime nature.

Sir Thomas Medowe lived in the Fuller’s Hill area of Great Yarmouth and was MP for the town. The Chief Constable referred to was likely to have been the Parish Constable for Pakefield, who obviously felt that the number of people illegally assembled represented a sufficient threat to good order to first seek assistance from a Member of Parliament, rather than the Justice of the Peace for either of Lothingland or Mutford half-hundreds – in the latter of which Pakefield was located. And the nearest Suffolk MP (for the Dunwich constituency) was Sir John Pettus, who lived at Chediston, near Halesworth. The inference to be drawn, here, is that the Constable had recognised an unstated number of local people known to him, but had no knowledge of eleven more. He then made his way to Yarmouth to obtain an order from Sir Thomas Medowe that these people be brought before a JP. On his return to Pakefield, they were then taken in a two-wheeled tip-up tumbril to a local Justice of the Peace, but refused to leave the cart. This was then upended, to eject them – after which, they began to cooperate in their having been apprehended. Going so far as to allow themselves to be taken to Yarmouth, to come before Sir Thomas Medowe and give him their names. After which they were allowed to go their separate ways. No mention is made of gender in the matter, but the likelihood seems to be that this particular Quaker company consisted of men only.

Nonconformity (Methodism)

Edmund Gillingwater, in his book An Historical Account of the Ancient Town of Lowestoft (1790), pp. 373-4, gives an account of the beginnings of the Methodist denomination in the town, stating that “This society made its first appearance in the year 1761; and was introduced by that great leader of the sect the Rev. John Wesley, and has continued under his direction to the present time, although he is not resident here, but only visits the society occasionally.” He then goes on to say, “In the year 1776, their number being increased to about fifty, they purchased a piece of land on the north side of Frary Lane [now Wesleyan Chapel Lane], and soon after erected a meeting-house there, which was opened November 19th, 1776, by the above Mr. Wesley, who came to Lowestoft on purpose upon the occasion.” He then finishes his account with, “In 1789 the number of Methodists in Lowestoft, properly so called continued much the same, at least it was not increased.”

Further information is given in four footnotes that accompany the text. First of all, an extract from the manorial records of property-transfer informs the reader that Thomas Tripp (cooper), Samuel Farrer [Farrow] the elder (twine-spinner), Samuel Farrer the younger (twine-spinner), Philip Ward (twine-spinner), Edward Freeman (baker), William Newson of Hopton (farmer) and John Newson of Hopton (farmer) were admitted as trustees of the land purchased, on the surrender of Coe Arnold. There then follows a description of the Chapel as “a plain building, built with brick; it is about 36 feet in length, and 24 in breadth, is decently pewed, and has a small gallery.” The expense of erecting the building amounted to £300 – a sum which almost certainly included the purchase of the land.

The main contributors to the project are named as Thomas Tripp and Samuel Farrer – each of whom gave £50– with Thomas Mallett, William Newson, John Newson, Edward Freeman, Robert Smith, Philip Ward etc. following. It is also stated that John Wesley preached twice on the Sunday that the Chapel opened, using Revelation 20. 10 as his text in the morning and Isaiah 56. 8 & 9 in the afternoon. And (last of all) it is also revealed that, prior to the Chapel being built, the Methodist congregation had met for worship in a house “near the middle of the Old Market-Place” – placing it on the south side of Duke’s Head Street (then, Blue Anchor Lane). In 1862, the original Chapel building was replaced by a much larger structure in the Italianate style, by local architect J.L. Clemence, which remained in use until about 1970 – when it was replaced by Trinity Methodist Church, situated much further to the north along the High Street. Its subsequent demolition saw the site redeveloped for the construction of the Wesley House retirement dwelling complex, run by East Suffolk District Council. 

And that is by no means the end of the story. Because although Gillingwater says that Methodism in Lowestoft was introduced by John Wesley, the statement probably means that it was his influence which began things, not his actual presence. Wesley paid his first visit to Lowestoft on Thursday, 11 October 1764 – an offshoot of a planned stop in Great Yarmouth during time spent in East Anglia. Here is what he had to say in Volume III, No. XII, of his Journal (Internet source: State University of Iowa Libraries): “Wed. 10. I went to Yarmouth, where the earnest congregation was gathered at short warning. Thursday, 11. I was desired to go to Lowestoft, in Suffolk, nine miles south-east of Yarmouth. The use of a large place had been offered, which would contain abundance of people: But when I was come, Mr. Romaine changed his mind; so I preached in the open air. A wilder congregation I have not seen; but the bridle was in their teeth. All attended [listened], and a considerable part seemed to understand something of what was spoken; nor did any behave uncivilly when I had done; and I believe a few did not lose their labour. It was easy in the evening to observe the different spirit of the congregation at Yarmouth. Almost all seemed to feel the power of God, and many were filled with consolation.” 

The last statement Wesley made regarding his Lowestoft experience may be found a little obscure, today, when so much delivery of the spoken word particularly tends to be full of exaggeration. The term “a few” is likely to have been an understatement for “many” and “did not lose their labour” could probably be paraphrased as “benefited from the effort made to attend.” Wesley addressed the throng on the High Street, standing (probably on some means of elevation) at the entrance to what is now Martin’s Score – but which, at the time, was the means of access to extensive property belonging to the MIghells family which lay to the rear of their house now identified as No. 55. The contrast which Wesley makes between the established Methodist congregation in Yarmouth and the crowd he addressed in Lowestoft is quite striking, in its way, but he came to develop a great affection for the town and made no less than sixteen visits to it between 1764 and 1790.

One particularly interesting piece in John Wesley’s account of his first contact with Lowestoft is the reference made to a certain Mr. Romaine offering a venue where a large number of people could be addressed. This almost certainly refers to the town’s Independent Chapel, as Henry Roman (baker) – Wesley’s “Mr. Romaine” – was one of its eight trustees. It looks very much as if this man, by some means or other, had offered the Chapel to Wesley and then withdrew the invitation. There are two possible reasons for this. The first being that fellow-trustees were not happy about the arrangement and declined to support it. And the second that, even with the ground-floor being fitted out with pews and with a seated gallery above, the space was not sufficient to accommodate a large number of people. Exactly how many people attended the delivery of John Wesley’s first evangelical message in the town is not known, but it might have been sufficiently large to have more than filled the Independent Chapel. From the standpoint of Lowestoft’s early Methodist congregation, it would have been the presence of the founder of the movement himself which mattered (his brother Charles and George Whitefield being his two main co-helpers) – not the place where he delivered his address. And there may well have been converts to the movement, made on the day of his appearance.  

Concluding comments

Both of the main Nonconformist denominations continue to exercise a Christian presence and function in the main part of town today, with Trinity Methodist Church standing opposite to The Lighthouse and the United Reformed Church situated at the top of London Road North (east side), opposite its junction with Milton Road East. The Presbyterian Church of England and the Congregational Church of England and Wales united in 1972 under a new name, but the Lowestoft building of today began its life in 1852 as a Congregational place-of-worship replacing the older High Street chapel of 1695 (which gave way to redevelopment of the area in which it stood). Built in a combination of Italianate and Romanesque styles, to a design prepared by Robert Kerr, its facade shows particularly good use of contrasting red and white brick.  

CREDIT: David Butcher