Sorting Out the Sinners in the17th Century

Ecclesiastical Visitation Material (1606, 1629 & 1633)

Before the Diocese of St. Edmundsbury & Ipswich was created in 1914, Norwich Diocese was one of the largest in England – covering most of Norfolk and Suffolk (with small areas of the western margins of both counties coming under the Ely jurisdiction). Suffolk was divided into two Archdeaconaries: that of Sudbury covering the western half of the county and that of Suffolk covering the east. Periodic inspection of these sectors was carried out from time to time, by their respective Archdeacons, to ascertain the state of the individual parish churches and the conduct of their clergy and congregations. Surviving records for Lowestoft are to be found in the Norfolk Record Office – the Norwich Diocese repository – for the years 1606 (ref. VIS/4), 1629 (ref. VIS/6) & 1633 (ref. VIS/6). And the focus of these years seems to have been very much on the behaviour of its citizens  

The first of the inspections certainly bears out what has been said about such reports of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries concentrating on morality rather than religious belief. The Lowestoft details consist entirely of eight cases of adultery or fornication (the former being regarded as the more serious offence), and one of harbouring – this being the act of allowing an immoral person (usually a pregnant woman) to live in one’s house, thereby effectively condoning the offence. Furthermore, remarks which have been made about people of the time not being able to rely on the silence of friends and neighbours, when it came to matters of sexual misdemeanour, are demonstrably confirmed. The various men and women accused of loose-living were mainly exposed by “common fame” (rumour and gossip). From what can be learned about them, using occupational data, the families they came from were mainly in the middle levels of local society, with seafarers and craftsmen featuring prominently. The data collected follows below, using the original wording of the time.

Christopher Copping for livinge incontinently with Anne the wife of John Pe[a]rson as the common fame goeth

And the same Anne, wife of John Pe[a]rson

And John Pe[a]rson for committinge adultery with Anne the wife of Richard Ekill as her   folk often confessed & as the fame goeth

And Anne as above

Thomas Barrett for committinge adultery with Mary Bottwright singlewoman & for begetting her with child as the fame goeth

And Mary Botwright

And Robert Emererde for committing fornication with Margaret Smith whome he begatt with child unlawfully as the rumour fame and report goeth.   

And Margaret Smyth (dead)

Charles Garrett for that by common fame & report etc. he committed adultery with his unknown woman whom he kepte

John Cirkeman [Kirkeman] for committing adultery with Joan the wife of Thomas Roberts as the rumour [&] fame goeth

And Joan Roberts

George Candler for committinge fornication with Anne Emererde whom he beget with childe unlawfully as the fame goeth

And Anne Emererde (dead)

Ann Bottwright she was begotten with Childe unlawfully

John Goddarde for harbourenge [harbouring] the said Anne

All of these cases bear comment of some kind, with the first two showing the breakdown of the Pearson marriage and each of the partners (the husband being a seafarer) apparently finding consolation elsewhere – but with no prospect of being able to escape their married status (divorce not being possible, at this time). Thomas Barrett must have been married at the time of his association with Mary Bottwright for it to be termedadultery, since if he had been single (as she was) the offence would have been termed fornication – which (although a moral and social sin) was regarded as a less serious offence. Which indeed it was, because no marriage vows had been broken. The two cases citing fornication specifically (with a child being born, as a result) both refer to the female party being dead – which could possibly have been the result of giving birth.

The parish registers are perhaps able to cast some light on both cases. First of all, the burial of Margaret Smyth (widow) on 18 January 1606 might well refer to the woman referred to in the Visitation, since widowhood would have given her the single status required for her to have been cited in the matter of fornication. There is no reference to a any child, however – so, perhaps she had died while pregnant. Her liaison with Robert Emererde would seem to have placed him as a relative (perhaps brother) of the other deceased woman, Anne Emererde, who has a good deal more revealed about her in the registers. Allowing for the flexibility of surname forms with their variant spelling, she was almost certainly the Agnes (the Christian name forms being interchangeable) Evered or Everytt, who was buried on 9 October 1605 – the same day on which her baby daughter Susan was baptised, with an accompanying upper-case B attached to the entry to establish bastardy. A further family connection (sisters, most likely) is probably to be seen in the persons of Mary and Ann Bottwright – the latter of whom is to be found in the parish registers (as Mary Botrick) with details relating to a son named Wyllyam, who was baptised on 16 June 1605 and buried four months later on 20 October. Both entries carry the upper case B to denote bastardy.

With word of mouth cited as the source of information in seven of the eight cases of immorality, it is interesting to note (in the case of John Person and Anne Ekill) that members of the latter’s family were also included in the sources of information. However, the local “grapevine” wasn’t sufficiently informed as to be able to name the woman kept by Charles Garrett, and her “unknown” status (as it was described) suggests that she was probably an outsider who had come into the town and formed an association with one of its inhabitants. Ann Bottwright’s pregnancy, though noted, does not reveal the father – but John Goddarde is named for taking her under his roof and giving her a lodging. This may have been an act of genuine kindness shown to someone in need, but it is also possible that he may have been the father. The term “harbouring” has always carried overtones of someone who has transgressed being sheltered from the outcome of his or her actions.

Another thing to be borne in mind regarding the background to the matter of sexual misconduct, at this particular time, is that three years prior to the 1606 Visitation the town had undergone a socio-economic body blow in the form of a major outbreak of bubonic plague which had killed over 300 people (c. 20% of the population). The shock of this is hard to imagine, but it would have had a drastic effect upon the community in all kinds of ways both physical and psychological. The 1603 epidemic was followed by another, less serious one a generation later in 1635, but this also carried off 170 of the inhabitants (c. 14% of an already depleted population of about 1,200). With fishing and maritime trade also undergoing a period of decline, for a combination of reasons, the first half of the 17th century was a very difficult time for Lowestoft. No claim is made that the personal misconduct noted in the 1606 Visitation was the direct result of the 1603 plague outbreak, but the time at which it was carried out was certainly an exceptional one (for all the wrong reasons) in the town’s history.

One thing which does not accompany the recorded cases of immorality is the punishment  meted out for the sins committed, but it was probably the standard one of the time whereby the offending couples were each obliged to wear the penitents’ white sheet (wrapped round them in the manner of a shroud) and stand at the entry door of the parish church or chapel on a Sunday morning until everyone had entered. They would then have followed and, at some point during the service (perhaps when the parish clerk read out the notices), would have admitted to their wrongdoing and been absolved by the minister. The humiliation and embarrassment caused by their being made such a public spectacle would have been the main means of corrective treatment and failure to submit to the process (or, in some cases, to err again in sexual matters) could result in excommunication from the Church. Being cast out from membership carried a heavy burden in an age of Christian belief, with the final penalty being burial in the churchyard without any form of service to accompany it.

The next enquiry for which there is surviving documentation came in 1629. Three offences are recorded, with all of them relating to male members of the community. William Meus [Mewse] and Thomas Durie (butchers by trade) were both noted as “keeping open shoppe upon the Saboth day” – Sunday trading being frowned upon by the authorities, but quite commonplace throughout much of England at the time. The offence committed by Philipper Bidson [Philip Bitson] and Thomas Kipping was “playeng at skalebones upon the Saboth day” – probably in one of the town’s ale-houses and possibly as a form of gambling. The game referred to was also known as “knuckle-bones” or “jack-stones” (more recently, as “five-stones”), with the “skale” element deriving from the medieval word skail, meaning “to scatter”. Bidson/Bitson was a brewer (revealed in parish records), but Kipping’s occupation is not known. Finally, William Manfrey (a husbandman) was cited for “excessive drinking during service tyme” – obviously preferring what the ale-house had to offer on a Sunday morning rather than attending morning worship in either St. Margaret’s Church or the Town Chapel. Again, no punishments are mentioned for five offences referred to.

The third and last Visitation occurred in 1633 and was mainly concerned with Sabbath-breaking connected to local fishing activity. Eight individuals (all of them men) are named as “ferrying white herrings upon the Saboth day”. Thomas Burgis, Peter Peterson (seafarer), Francis Knights (merchant), John Sanderson (tailor), Robert West, Richard Brethett (tanner), Thomas Annison and Joseph Cobbe were the offending parties, with the four occupations given deriving from parish register or probate sources. The ferry boats would have been those used for conveying goods of varying nature to and from the shoreline – the Denes serving as a large open-air wharf before the harbour was constructed during 1827-30. The vessels were also used for inshore fishing of different kinds, especially during the autumn herring season which would have been the particular time of year that these offences had occurred. 

The term white herrings, at the time, was usually applied to what were also known as pickled herrings – fish which had been gutted and dry-salted or brined in vats, before being packed in casks for use in a variety of culinary ways (especially for making pies). Lowestoft’s main way of curing fish was to produce red herrings, which were left ungutted, dry-salted for two or three days and then smoked for up to a month or more. These were not only consumed locally and in many other parts of England, but also exported abroad – particularly to Baltic and Mediterranean ports. Therefore, it would seem that the traffic referred to in the 1633 Visitation was an outward one of pickled herrings being conveyed to trading vessels (English and/or Foreign) anchored up close inshore. The seafarer and merchant engaged in this traffic are to be expected, but the tailor and tanner involved may come as more of a surprise. However, their activity probably serves to illustrate the mixed nature of the Lowestoft economy’s structure, which (like much of England, at the time) functioned with its menfolk having a main occupation backed up by secondary interests of one kind or another.  

As well as the shipping out of white herrings, there was also the purchase of fresh herrings on Sunday taking place (again during the autumn period, with October being the month of maximum activity). Two men were cited for this: John Bunn and John Edgelyn (the latter of whom may have been a member of a family of tinkers in the town). The wording of the charge against the former as “scouting about and buying of herrings on the Saboth day” has something of a colloquial ring about it, with even an element of humour attached. There is a sense conveyed of both men covering the ground (probably down on the Denes) in their search for fish to purchase and either process in some way for their own use or sell on to someone else.

Handling herrings on Sundays during the autumn was still a perceived problem over a century later. There is a surviving proclamation made by the Revd. John Tanner on 20 September 1747, in response to complaints received concerning the 1746 fishing season, which is to be found in Lowestoft parochial material lodged in the Norfolk Record Office (ref. no. 589/86). It reads thus: “When I first came to this place, To the Best of my Remembrance, No Body carted Herrings on the Lord’s Day after Nine o’ clock in the Morning, Nor till half an Hour after Four in the afternoon. And I earnestly desire that those Hours may be observed now, That I may not Leave a worse custom in the parish than I found. I must take the Liberty to add, That if these Hours be not observed, and I have any complaint and proof of Any one’s carting after Nine o’ clock in the morning & before Half hour after Four in the afternoon, I shall think myself Obliged to apply to the Magistrate for their being punished”. 

Following the ten references to herrings of one kind or another are seven mentions of mackerel, for which there was a North Sea fishery during the months of May and June in the Winterton Ridge/Smith’s Knoll area, off the coast of North-east Norfolk. William Harding of Pakefield and Peter Gardiner were cited for selling the fish, while Alexander Richardson was noted as buying them and “packing them up”. Given the fact that these are the first three references to mackerel, it is possible (perhaps even likely) that Richardson had purchased them from Harding and Gardiner. The chain of acquaintance then seems to extend to one Richard Gardiner and his son, and also to Peter Peterson (previously referred to regarding herring activity) and John Greene (husbandman), who are identified as “buying of these mackrell” from Alexander Richardson. Standard fines of 16d seem to have been imposed on each of these seventeen offences, but whether or not this applied to the remaining five misdeeds is not clear.

Two of these related to commercial activity, two were connected with non-attendance at Church, and one was a matter of sexual misconduct. The first pair of offences noted were recorded, thus: “John Smith Butcher for keeping his shoppe open & for selling flesh on ye Saboth day” and “Francis Ewen Brewer for tunning [barrelling] beer on ye Saboth day”. This is all clear enough, and so is the matter of Sunday non-attendance, described in the document as “absence from church” – which suggests a protracted length of time rather than just the occasional missed service. Hill Tidman and Thomas Meldrum are the men named and, in the latter’s case, there was possibly a reason for his absence since he was a mariner (described as “sailor” in both probate and parish register material in the year 1638) who might well have been at sea for lengthy periods if engaged in overseas trade. On the other hand, he might have been in and around Lowestoft for most of the time and just not gone to Church.

Most ironic of all was the case of Thomas Hawes, boatwright by trade and the oldest child of Robert Hawes, the vicar of Lowestoft (his birth had pre-dated his father’s appointment in 1610). He was noted, in 1633, as living incontinently with Elizabeth Hales, the twenty-seven year old daughter of Philip Hales, another boatwright and a man who was fined at the leet court of 1619 for being a common brawler and scolder of his neighbours. Perhaps the Visitation indictment caused the couple to get married, because on 27 October a son (Robert) was baptised and duly registered as legitimate offspring. It may be presumed that Hawes senior was pleased to have the grandchild named after him, but even more relieved that his son had legitimised his relationship with Elizabeth Hales. The marriage, perhaps significantly, seems to have taken place outside Lowestoft, because it is not to be found recorded in the parish registers. A further twist in this particular human drama is that Philip Hales might possibly have been Thomas Hawes’s employer, and that his daughter had formed an affection for him thereby. We shall never know. Robert Hawes’s time as Vicar of Lowestoft came to an end in September 1639, with his burial being recorded on the third of the month (his will having been made just seven days earlier on 26 August).

Philip Hales followed twelve months later, being laid to rest on 14 September 1640, with his wife Thomasine having been buried on 8 December the previous year – just five days after making her will. His son-in-law prospered in the boatbuilding and shipbuilding trade, becoming one of the town’s leading craftsmen in the field. Details regarding the transfer of property (as recorded in the manorial court baron minute books) show that Philip Hales purchased a large High Street property from William Mallowes on 13 December 1614 – an area currently occupied by Nos. 105, 106, 107 & 108, immediately to the north of what is now Herring Fishery Score. On 4 September 1633 (probably following on from his daughter’s marriage to Thomas Hawes), he made his new son-in-law a part-owner of the property, either by sale or by gift, before handing over the whole of it to the married couple on 2 February 1635. It was still in the possession of a grandson’s widow during the 1720s, where it is described as four tenements running down to Whapload Way. Whether or not these four houses were present 100 years earlier is not known.

Though not directly relating to the subject matter of this article, in a number of ways, the penultimate and final paragraphs are perhaps able to demonstrate the way in which the cross-referencing of different local sources used (in this case, parish registers, probate material and manorial court records) is able to create a feeling for certain aspects of life at the time and give to the people under discussion some sense of their once having been a living part of Lowestoft almost four centuries ago.      

CREDIT: David Butcher