Lowestoft Manorial Rules, Regulations and Fees (16th & 17th Century)

A number of rules and fees payable (applying to both residents and outsiders) surviving from the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods is to be found in documentation relating to the town, with Robert Reeve’s handwritten, unpublished ‘A History of Lowestoft and Lothingland’, vol. 4 (c. 1810) – Suffolk Archives (Ipswich), 193/3/4 – being a main source of information. A practising local solicitor, he was also Steward of the Manor during the late 18th and early 19th century and therefore well placed to be familiar with various aspects of its day-to-day running. And he would also have been in possession of surviving manorial records of different kinds to assist him in his role of administering the entity and making sure that its procedures were followed as required. 

Relationship of Lord of the Manor with his Copyhold Tenants

In the year 1580, Henry Jerningham/Jernigan of Wingfield, Suffolk (Lord of the Manor) – succeeding his father in 1572 – initiated an enquiry into the procedures existing between himself as Lord and his Copyhold Tenants. The latter occupying 80-85% of the town’s housing stock and ancillary buildings. Copyhold was a form of tenure whereby occupants held their respective properties with considerable  autonomy and flexibility as to use and disposal, but with certain obligations to the Lord of the Manor: namely, the payment of an entry fine (as it was known) on acceding to a property and of an annual ground-rent known as lord’s rent.

This went back to the first half of the 14th century, when the town moved onto its cliff-side site from an earlier location in the north-eastern sector of what has long been the Normanston Cemetery. Far-distant lords of the manor at the time (members of the de Dreux family, Earls of Richmond and Dukes of Brittany) had allowed development of an area of coastal heath by initial sale to the chief tenants of the manor, but with annual ground-rents imposed on subsequent creation of individual house-plots and a fee imposed on any new entrant in future changes of occupancy. The whole of this process being handled by whoever had acted as Steward (supervisor) of the Manor, at the time.

Two parts of the new place of settlement were Freehold in nature (constituting 15-20% of the town’s built-up relocation: the area to the west of the High Street and to the north of Mariners Street, and that to the south of St. Peter’s Street and south-west of the High Street facing onto the original Market Place. This was due to much of the agricultural land in the parish having been sold off, down the years, by successive lords of the manor – with the first freehold part of town referred to having once part of the North Field and the second one part of the much larger South Field. Both of which (along with the West South Field (Normanston Park area) provided the spaces devoted to agriculture and the town’s ability to feed its population.

Henry Jerningham/Jernigan presented six matters to his Copyhold Tenantry, which may be summarised as follows in standard English of our own time.

1. That copyhold tenants should attend all Court Baron sessions [held every four to

six weeks, handling property transactions and matters of complaint] dealing with the business designated for that particular session – as was customary practice in all manorial courts.

2. That the entry fines payable on admission to copyhold properties should be determined by the lord of the manor and not set at a fixed rate.

3. That no copyholder should be allowed to cut down any standing timber on his/her property without licence [permission] from the lord.

4. That no copyholder should allow his/her tenement to fall into disrepair.

5. That no copyholder was able to grant or demise [transfer] his/her property without licence – except for a period of one year only.

6. That no copyholder should be allowed to divide his property with ditches, hedges or palings [pickets] without licence.

Tenants response (probably made by the Steward of the Manor, on their behalf, in written form).

1. The customs of English manors were not all the same, but were diverse in nature. In Lowestoft’s case, transfer of property could be made out of Court Baron sessions in the presence of one of the manor’s Chief Tenants [people who held one or other of the twenty-eight Late Medieval freehold plots dispersed around the parish] and one copyholder other than those involved in the transaction. Chief Tenants also acted as collectors of the annual lord’s rent payments made on copyhold properties, whereas   

copyholders themselves only functioned as witnesses to property transactions in and out of Court Baron.

[The Steward usually presided over Court Baron sessions and recorded the business covered in the minute book of the time. Chief Tenants probably acted as surrogates when he was not available, but any out-of-court transactions would (or should) have been entered in the minute book.]

2. Manorial entry fines on copyhold properties were fixed – and had been for “time out of mind” – at either one year’s or two years’ rent [no explanation of this given] and were therefore not able to be decided by the Lord.

3. Tenants had had the right, “for time out of mind”, to fell timber without manorial licence – which they could therefore do, with it being established custom of the manor.

4. They had also, for a similar period of time, been able to allow property to fall into disrepair without charge or censure – and could therefore do this also, as custom of the manor.

5. They had been able, for “time out of mind”, to grant or demise their properties for more than one year and are not therefore prevented from doing so.

6. They had, for a similar period of time, been able to divide their properties with ditches, hedges or palings without licence – which they could therefore do as custom of the manor.

There were divers [different/various] manors with custom such as this – which should therefore be allowed to continue. 

• All of the information above is to be found in Robert Reeve’s cited work, vol. 4, pp. 

47-150 . He records this as being taken from a parchment copy kept in the Maids’ Chamber – i.e. the upper room of the south porch of St. Margaret’s Church. It would appear from this that the room was once used to store documents relating to various aspects of the town’s history. The name used to describe it derived from a local myth that it had once been the home of two spinster sisters, Bess and Kate, who had endowed the local community with public wells known as Basket Wells (the first element supposedly being a variation of Bess and Kate) located not far from the Church – next to a public drying-ground, for clothing and linen, known as The Bleach.  These wells were lined with wicker panels – hence, their name.

Ancient Rights and Privileges Within the Manor of Lowestoft

Taken from a surviving Manor Roll [Survey] of June  1610 – Suffolk Archives (Ipswich), 194/A10/72, p. 55. Regnal years of monarchs indicated.

1. Lord of the Manor had jurisdiction of right of anchorage and passage in Kirkley Roads (1 January 1387 – 10 Richard II). [This being the Late Medieval term for the inshore reaches of the sea between the outlying sandbanks and the beach itself. Later to become known as Lowestoft Roads. Kirkley was probably used as the earlier name because, until the Lowestoft township moved onto the cliff during the first half of the 14th century, Kirkley was closer to the ocean.

2. The said roads were defined as lying opposite the town of Lowesoft, at a distance of two lucas from Great Yarmouth, and were said to have been part of the manor from time immemorial. The Lord of the Manor was entitled to wreck of the sea within this area – a decree regarding this being made at an inquisition [enquiry] held at Lowestoft

during 5 Richard II (1381-2) and resulting from trade disputes with Great Yarmouth at the time. [Word luca was the Latin form of “league” – a flexible unit of measurement, being one, two or three miles in length. The last of these seems to have been the case here, as Yarmouth is about six miles distance or so, by sea, from Lowestoft.]

3. Lord of the Manor was entitled to wreck of the sea on The Holmes [i.e. the Holm Sandbank] – inquisition of 10 Richard II (1386-7). [Wreck of the sea referred to items of cargo salvaged from vessels which had foundered inshore, to maritime equipment of various kinds, and to any parts of a stricken craft which could be re-used.

4. Lord of the Manor was entitled to wreck of the sea within the manor’s bounds, as confirmed by Court Rolls of 10, 18, 20 & 21 Henry VIII (1518-19, 1526-7, 1528-9 & 1529-30).

5. Lord of the Manor was entitled to groundage within the Manor’s bounds, as stated in a Court Roll of 22 Henry VIII (1530-1) – the term groundage referring to a payment made for the privilege of beaching a ship for whatever necessary reason. The term also applied in ports which had wharves at which to load and land cargoes.

6. Lord of the Manor was entitled to all abandoned goods found within the Manor’s bounds, as referred to in Court Rolls of 17 & 19 Henry VIII (1525-6 & 1527-8).

7. Sir Henry [Edward] Jerningham [Jernegan] & Lady Mary Jerningham [Jernegan] were granted the right to enter into possession of the goods and cattle of any felon, fugitive, condemned criminal and suicide within the Manor’s bounds. Also granted wreck of the sea, with all other rights, privileges and franchises of the Manor and the Hundred [Half-hundred of Lothingland]. This, all stated in a Court Roll of 2 Henry VIII (1510-11).

Though it is not referred to here, Lowestoft  – as a former royal manor during its time 

of existence – was also entitled to freedom from a toll known as portage. This was  a 

fee payable to the carrier, at the point of reception, on the overland transportation of goods. Any place forming what was referred to as ancient demesne of the Crown was exempt from payment – demesne being that part of a manor held wholly by the lord. 

Lord’s Rights Appertaining to Lothingland Manor (Taken from 1610 Manor Roll).

Renewed at Lowestoft during 12 Edward I (1283-4). 

Right of market, with tolls etc. [Said market located in Gorleston, one-time hub of the 

Manor] – freedom of trade during fishing-time as far as the port of Great Yarmouth [exemption during the Autumn herring season from Yarmouth’s tolls] – right of imprisoning criminals – right of impounding “waifs and strays” [penning escaped animals and livestock] – right to claim wreck of the sea – right of free warren [legal ability to hunt a wide range of game, smaller than deer] – exemption from portage [toll payment made to the carrier on goods conveyed overland at the point of reception, by its borough or manorial authorities; not applicable to Royal manors, or those which had once been so – like Lowestoft – with these latter usually described as ancient demesne of the Crown] – freedom to construct and operate beacons at fishing-time [autumn herring season, with such onshore beacons acting as navigational aids to negotiate the outlying sandbanks].

Lowestoft Manorial Services and Charges (Reeve, vol. 4, p. 203, in his own handwriting.)

At a Gen[eral] Court of Anct.[ Ancient] demesne Leet 1672 is this entry.

Duties due to the Lord of the Mannor of Lowestoft as the same is entered in an old Co[u]rt booke of Mr. Randalls wrighting ending anno 1631 [John Randall was Steward of the Manor, 1616-53; Thomas Plumstead served 1668-79.]

• For groundage of a stranger 4s    of a denizen but 2s 

[Beaching a vessel would have been mainly a matter of contingency, most likely for repairs of some kind. The word stranger refers to foreign shipping; denizen indicates that belonging to someone of foreign origins who had become accepted as an English citizen. No charge was made for craft belonging to the town.]

• For drying nets of a stranger 2s 8d    of an Englishman stranger 1s 4d

[Servicing and drying drift-nets on the North Denes would have taken place during the Autumn herring voyage. Stranger again refers to foreign fishermen – mainly Dutch – while Englishman stranger indicates fishermen largely from Kent and Sussex.]

• For grindage of a colie [sic] Cart 4d      of a Currie  2d

[Grindage was a fee payable to the lord of the manor for grinding corn into flour or meal, going back to earlier times when windmills would have been owned by the lords  – remaining as a source of income when most mills had become private enterprise. A colly was a large two-wheeled cart (as opposed to a four-wheeled wagon); a curry a smaller, two-wheeled version.

• For wantage for ev’ie [every] wanterne ½d

[Wantage was a word meaning “shortage” or “lack of” and wanterne an archaic term for “lantern”. The former could also be used to express need, and a fee of one halfpenny/ha’penny was obviously charged for anyone requiring illumination during the hours of darkness – probably when carrying out work of some kind or having to go somewhere by foot. The parish constable was probably likely supplier, in these circumstances, of a lantern itself or of a flaming torch. And that is as much as can be said in this particular matter.]

• For poundage of a stranger 4d     of a Townsman 1d

[Poundage was the fee paid for the release of stray animals and livestock, rounded up and put in the town’s pound – which was located on Goose Green, near the present-day junction of Factory Street with Thurston Road. Townspeople paid one penny for release; those from outside the parish fourpence.]

• For the Market show 1d

[This refers to the one penny fee paid for having a stall on the weekly Wednesday market.]

Lowestoffe                At a Gen Crt [General Court] of Anct. [Ancient] demesne with the 

                                    return of the Leete etc. 1675 is the following entry.

                        Weights & measures deliv[ere]d to the now officer

                        Videlt to Sym: Mewse [Latin videlicet = namely]

11 new brasse weights

1 pint

4 Troy weights & 1 bagg

1 Flaggon or Quart

Symon [Simon] Mewse was member of a long-established local family of (mainly) butchers. He was some kind of manorial officer responsible for seeing fair practice in the sale of foodstuffs and ale/beer – as well as other commodities – as and when need arose. 

• The set of eleven Avoirdupois brass weights probably consisted of ¼ ounce, ½ ounce, ¾ ounce, 1 ounce, 2 ounce, 4 ounce, 8 ounce, 12 ounce, one pound [16 ounces], two pounds, 4 pounds, 7 pounds and one stone [14 pounds]. Conversion to Metric measure can be made.

• The pint measure was probably a pewter tankard holding the required 16 fluid ounces. Used especially for ensuring fair measure of ale and beer.

• The four Troy weights (in storage bag) would have been mainly used for weighing precious metals (gold and silver), including coinage. They consisted of the grain (originally based on the weight of a single grain of wheat or barley), the pennyweight

(24 grains), the ounce (20 pennyweights) and the pound (12 ounces). Conversion to Imperial and Metric measure can be made.

• The quart measure (two pints) would have been a pewter jug or tankard of thirty-two fluid ounce capacity). Its main use would, again, have been to check fair measure of ale and beer. These alcoholic beverages were sold by both pint and quart measure.

Note: the annual Leet Court was held on the first Saturday in Lent and dealt mainly with general misdemeanour and infringement of manorial rules (imposing fines for the same on offenders) and with the election of officers for the following year – these latter being parish constable, ale-founder, searcher and sealer of leather, hog-reeve (later to become fen-reeve, when straying pigs became less of a problem) and afferator.

Four constables were chosen (each serving a three-month period of duty) and two each of the other three posts. The two ale-tasters were charged with seeing that ale and beer was served in legal measure, in the town’s inns and public houses, and that there was no watering-down of the drink (brewers and innkeepers were never chosen to act). The two searchers and sealers of leather ensured that what was produced in the town’s three tanneries (or was brought in from outside) was up to the required standard – and were always shoemakers by trade. Both fen reeves were mainly charged with ensuring that the parish’s fences and hedges were kept in good order, while the afferator pair fixed the level of fines paid for breach of manorial rules.

Chancery Bill of 22 Elizabeth I (1579-80)

Groundage of a stranger [foreign] ship  16d

Groundage of an English ship [from outside the manor]  8d

Groundage of a small boat  4d 

Other manorial fees charged (source and time-period not recorded)

Passage across the Denes: carts from outside the manor  4d

                                                  horses and foot passage from outside the manor  ½d 

  CREDIT: David Butcher